Order Code RL32893
CRS Report for Congress
.Received through the CRS Web
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Updated July 12, 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 Ëœ 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 Presidentâ€™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, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Summary
The FY2006 Interior, Environment, 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 â€” 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 19, 2005, the House passed H.R. 2361 (329-89) containing $26.16
billion in FY2006 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
On June 29, 2005, the Senate unanimously passed (94-0) H.R. 2361 with
amendments, providing $26.26 billion for Interior appropriations (with scorekeeping
adjustments). Both the House- and Senate-passed bills would provide an increase of
2% over the Presidentâ€™s request for FY2006 of $25.72 billion but a decrease of 3%
below the FY2005 enacted level of $27.02 billion. The Senate-passed funding level
is 0.4% higher than the House-passed level. The FY2006 House-passed bill
contained lower funding as compared to the Senate-passed bill in areas including:
! $-174.0 million for the Environmental Protection Agency;
! $-86.4 million for the National Park Service;
! $-33.2 million for the Bureau of Land Management;
! $-8.9 million for the Smithsonian Institution; and
! $-8.9 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The FY2006 House-passed bill contained higher funding than the Senate-passed
bill in areas including
! $118.6 million for the Forest Service;
! $48.6 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
! $35.1 million for the Indian Health Service;
! $11.5 million for the United States Geological Survey; and
! $5.0 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Congress has been debating a variety of controversial issues during
consideration of FY2006 funding for Interior, Environment, 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, the Abandoned Mine Lands fund, and
human dosing studies.
This report will be updated following conference or other major action.

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Telephone
Area of Expertise
Name
Division
E-mail
a
Interior Budget
Carol Hardy
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Data/Coordinators
Vincent and Susan
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crs.loc.gov
Boren
Art, Humanities, Cultural
Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crs.loc.gov
Affairs and Historic
Preservation
Bureau of Land
Carol Hardy
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Management
Vincent
Conservation Spending
Jeffrey Zinn
RSI
7-7257
jzinn@crs.loc.gov
Category
Environmental Protection
Robert Esworthy
RSI
7-7236
resworthy@crs.loc.gov
Agency
Everglades Restoration
Pervaze Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Fish and Wildlife Service
M. Lynne Corn
RSI
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Status of Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Management of Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Endangered Species Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 13
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Wildlife Refuge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Operation of the National Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
United States Park Police (USPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
National Recreation and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Construction and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Land Acquisition and State Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Recreation Fee Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Enterprise Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
National Mapping Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Water Resources Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Biological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Science Support and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
BIA Reorganization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
BIA School System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Insular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
National Indian Gaming Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
EPA Appropriation Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Key Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Forest Fires and Forest Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Other Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . . . . . 57
Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Diabetes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Facilities Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
National Museum of African American History and Culture . . . . . . . 64
National Zoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Trust Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
NEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
FY2006 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Overview of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
FY2006 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

List of Tables
Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2006 . . . 5
Table 2. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Migratory
Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . 18
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2005-FY2006 . . 28
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2005-FY2006 . . 34
Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 14. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 15. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2002-FY2006 . . . . . . . 53
Table 16. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry, FY2005-FY2006 . . 56
Table 17. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . 58
Table 18. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2005-FY2006 . . . 66
Table 19. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . 68
Table 20. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 21. FY2006 Funding for Other Programs from the LWCF . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 22. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2005-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 23. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On June 29th, 2005, the Senate passed (94-0) H.R. 2361, the FY2006
appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The bill contained
$26.26 billion for FY2006, including scorekeeping adjustments. The Senate
subsequently requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees. The
House had passed H.R. 2361 (329-89) on May 19, 2005, with $26.16 billion in
FY2006 Interior appropriations.
Introduction
The FY2006 Interior, Environment, 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, as well as funds for the Environmental Protection
Agency. 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.1 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
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.2 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 appropriations bill 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
Over four days of debate, beginning on June 24, 2005, the Senate considered
and amended H.R. 2361 before passing the bill unanimously (94-0) on June 29th. As
passed by the Senate, H.R. 2361 would provide appropriations of $26.26 billion for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2006. This total does not include
a $1.5 billion FY2005 emergency appropriation for veteransâ€™ health, but reflects a
$22.0 million reduction in DOI administrative expenses and a $2.0 million
adjustment for Forest Service facility enhancement. The Senate-passed bill would
provide an increase of 2% over the Administrationâ€™s FY2006 budget request of
$25.72 billion and of 0.4% over the House-passed level of $26.16 billion, but a 3%
decrease below the FY2005 enacted level of $27.02 billion. The Senate subsequently
2 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.

CRS-3
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees. As of July 12, 2005,
the House had not agreed to a conference and appointed conferees.
On May 19, 2005, the House had passed H.R. 2361 (329-89) containing $26.16
billion in FY2006 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
The House-passed level would be a 3% decrease from the FY2005 enacted level and
a 0.4% decrease from the Senate-passed total, but a 2% increase over the Presidentâ€™s
request for FY2006.
The FY2006 House-passed bill contained lower funding as compared to the
Senate-passed bill in areas including:
! $-174.0 million for the Environmental Protection Agency;
! $-86.4 million for the National Park Service;
! $-33.2 million for the Bureau of Land Management;
! $-8.9 million for the Smithsonian Institution; and
! $-8.9 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The FY2006 House-passed bill contained higher funding than the Senate-passed
bill in areas including
! $118.6 million for the Forest Service;
! $48.6 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
! $35.1 million for the Indian Health Service;
! $11.5 million for the United States Geological Survey; and
! $5.0 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
The Senate considered about four dozen floor amendments, some of which
addressed major issues and activities of agencies that are discussed in relevant
sections of this report. Amendments generally not discussed in this report include
those that dealt with Interior appropriations more generally or were cross-cutting in
nature. Examples include an amendment to reduce each appropriation in the bill by
1.7% (withdrawn) and another to require limitations, directives, and earmarks in
committee reports to be included also in conference reports to be regarded as having
been approved by Congress (not agreed to). Still other amendments not covered in
this report are those that did not relate directly to Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. Examples include an amendment seeking to facilitate family travel to
Cuba (not agreed to) and an amendment providing emergency supplemental
appropriations for FY2005 for the Veterans Health Administration (agreed to).
During floor debate, the House considered about two dozen amendments before
voting on final passage of the FY2006 appropriations bill. Many of these
amendments are discussed in pertinent sections throughout this report. In some
cases, the inclusion of legislation in the bill was controversial. The presiding officer
sustained points of order against several provisions in the bill on the grounds that
House rules bar legislation on an appropriations bill, thereby striking the provisions
from the bill. These points of order were raised by chairmen of authorizing panels,
namely the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. The inclusion in the bill of appropriations not

CRS-4
previously authorized by law also was controversial in some instances. The
Chairman of the House Resources Committee offered an amendment seeking to
prevent money in the bill from being spent for 10 programs within the Committeeâ€™s
jurisdiction which are not authorized to be appropriated in FY2006, according to the
Chairman.3 The presiding officer sustained a point of order against the amendment
on the grounds that it too constituted legislation, so it was not in order to be
considered.
In earlier action, on June 10, 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee
unanimously reported (28-0) H.R. 2361 (S.Rept. 109-80), providing $26.27 billion
for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. On May 13, 2005, the House
Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2361 (H.Rept. 109-80) with $26.16 billion
in FY2006 Interior appropriations. Both the House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees on Interior had marked up funding bills and held hearings on the
Presidentâ€™s budget request for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
Hearings examined the requests for individual agencies and programs as well as
cross-cutting issues.

For FY2006, the President had sought $25.72 billion, a 5% decrease from the
FY2005 enacted level of $27.02 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%.4
The Presidentâ€™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 â€œBureau of Land Managementâ€ 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 â€œFish and Wildlife Serviceâ€ 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.)
Table 1 below shows the budget authority for Interior and Related Agencies for
FY2004 and FY2005, and the Presidentâ€™s request for FY2006. See Table 23 for a
budgetary history of each agency, bureau, and program for FY2004 and FY2005, the
Presidentâ€™s budget request for FY2006, and the FY2006 House- and Senate-passed
bills.
3 Rep. Richard Pombo, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily ed., 151, (19
May 2005): H3670.
4 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
were transferred to the Interior Subcommittees in the 109th Congress were not affected by
this cut.

CRS-5
Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2006
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
$27.33
$27.02
$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.
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 â€œOffice of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcementâ€ 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 â€œNational Endowment for the Arts
and National Endowment for the Humanitiesâ€ section in this report.)
! BIA Schools and IHS Hospitals, particularly whether to enact
funding cuts proposed in the Presidentâ€™s FY2006 budget. (For more
information, see the â€œBureau of Indian Affairsâ€ and the â€œIndian
Health Serviceâ€ 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
â€œEnvironmental Protection Agencyâ€ 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 â€œCompetitive Sourcing of Government Jobsâ€
section in this report.)

CRS-6
! 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 â€œFish and Wildlife Serviceâ€ 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 â€œOffice of Special Trustee for American
Indiansâ€ section in this report.)
! Intentional Human Dosing Studies, in particular the adequacy of
health safety standards for research subjects and general ethical
questions with respect to EPAâ€™s use of data from such studies,
whether conducted by EPA or others, for determining associated
human health risks of pesticides. (For more information, see the
â€œEnvironmental Protection Agencyâ€ 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 â€œThe Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)â€ 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 â€œNational Park
Serviceâ€ 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
â€œMinerals Management Serviceâ€ 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 â€œEnvironmental Protection Agencyâ€ section in
this report.)
! Wild Horses and Burros, particularly the sale of excess animals
under new authority and the slaughter of some animals. (For more

CRS-7
information, see the â€œBureau of Land Managementâ€ 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 â€œBureau of
Land Managementâ€ and â€œForest Serviceâ€ sections in this report.)
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.
H.R.
2361,
2361,
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
5/4/05
6/7/05
109-80
5/19/05
109-80
6/29/05
5/13/05
(329-89)
6/10/05
(94-0)
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-passed bill included $1.76 billion for the BLM and the
Senate-passed bill contained $1.79 billion. Both levels would constitute a reduction
from the FY2005 enacted level of $1.82 billion. The House-passed level was a slight

CRS-8
reduction ($3.9 million) from the Administrationâ€™s request, while the Senate-passed
level was an increase of $29.3 million over the request. See Table 3 below.
The Administrationâ€™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-passed bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to
report to the House Appropriations Committee on past expenditures under SNPLMA
during FY2003 and FY2004. (For information on this issue, see CRS Issue 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 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
Presidentâ€™s request. The Senate supported $867.0 million, an increase of 4% over
FY2005 and of 2% over the request. This line item includes funds for an array of
BLM land programs, including protection, recreational use, improvement,
development, disposal, and general BLM administration. Both bills would increase
some programs over FY2005, including resource protection and law enforcement,
and management of forests, recreation, wildlife, and oil and gas. Neither the House
nor the Senate supported the Administrationâ€™s request for an 89% increase (to $14.0
million) in the Challenge Cost Share Program; the House instead supported level
funding of $7.4 million and the Senate approved an increase to $10.0 million.
Through this program, BLM and local communities and citizens jointly fund and
carry out conservation programs. The Senate, but not the House, supported the
Administrationâ€™s request of $6.0 million for restoration and conservation projects
under the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, which Congress did not fund in
FY2005. The House- and Senate-passed bills would decrease some other programs
from FY2005, including Alaska minerals, wild horses and burros, and deferred
maintenance.
Energy. Both the House- and Senate-passed bills for FY2006 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. They 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 House Appropriations
Committee directed BLM to report by December 31, 2005, on the steps that may be
needed to proceed with oil shale development. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, in report language, supported accelerating oil shale development.
Wild Horses and Burros. The House agreed to a floor amendment (249-
159) to prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the sale or slaughter of wild
horses and burros (as defined in P.L. 92-195). Proponents of the amendment seek

CRS-9
to prevent BLM from selling, during FY2006, excess wild horses and burros under
new authority enacted in last yearâ€™s appropriations law (P.L. 108-447). According
to BLM, 41 animals that were sold under the new authority were subsequently resold
or traded, and then sent to slaughterhouses by the new owners. Advocates of the
amendment assert that there are alternatives for controlling populations of wild
horses and burros on federal lands, such as through the adoption program.
Opponents of the amendment assert that BLMâ€™s recent efforts to revise the sale
procedure will prevent sold animals from ending up in slaughterhouses. They
contend that the new sale authority is needed because adoptions and other efforts to
reduce herd sizes have been insufficient. Further, they assert that significant funds
used for caring for animals in holding facilities could be redirected to other
government priorities. The report of the Senate Appropriations Committee
encouraged BLM to fund the pilot adoption program of the National Wild Horse
Association in Nevada. (For information on this issue, see CRS Issue Brief IB10076,
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests, coordinated by
Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.)

Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2006,
the House-passed bill included $761.6 million while the Senate-passed bill contained
$766.6 million, both decreases of 8% from the FY2005 enacted level of $831.3
million but increases (1%) over the Presidentâ€™s request. A Senate amendment
seeking to increase fire funding by $10.4 million, while reducing funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities,
was withdrawn. 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 and Senate agreed to $272.9 million for fire
preparedness â€” 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 and Senate agreed to $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 Appropriations Committee expressed continued 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-passed bill contained
$254.5 million, essentially the same as the FY2005 enacted level. The Senate-passed
bill would provide $259.5 million. Included in both bills is an increase of 5% for
hazardous fuels reduction, for an FY2006 level 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 House supported $5.0 million while the Senate approved $10.0
million, essentially the same as the FY2005 appropriation ($9.9 million). In report
language, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed â€œdismayâ€ at the proposal

CRS-10
to eliminate this rural fire assistance (S.Rept. 109-80, p. 12). (For additional
information on wildland fires, see the â€œForest Serviceâ€ 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-passed bill included $11.5 million for
BLM construction, nearly the same as the FY2005 level. The Senate-passed bill
contained $10.0 million. 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 approved
$3.8 million, 66% less than the FY2005 enacted level and 71% less than the
President requested for FY2006. The House did not include funds for specific new
acquisitions, but rather for management of the acquisition program and emergencies.
By contrast, the Senate-passed bill would provide $12.3 million, roughly midway
between the FY2005 level and FY2006 request. The Senate figure included funding
for specified new acquisitions. A Senate amendment had sought to eliminate funds
for BLM land acquisition, and reduce or eliminate acquisition funds for other land
management agencies, while providing additional funds for certain Indian health
programs. The amendment fell on a point of order.
The appropriation for BLM acquisitions fell steadily from $49.9 million in
FY2002 through the FY2005 enacted level. Money for land acquisition is
appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information,
see the â€œLand and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)â€ section in this report.)
Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands. For the O&C Lands, which
include highly productive timber lands, the House and Senate bills would provide the
Administrationâ€™s request of $110.1 million for FY2006, an increase of 2% over the
FY2005 enacted level of $107.5 million. 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-11
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2005-FY2006

($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Bureau of Land Management
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Management of Lands and
$836.8
$850.2
$845.8
$867.0
Resources
Wildland Fire Management
831.3
756.6
761.6
766.6
Central Hazardous Materials Fund
9.9b
â€”d
â€”d
â€”d
Construction
11.3
6.5
11.5
10.0
Land Acquisition
11.2
13.4
3.8
12.3
Oregon and California Grant Lands
107.5
110.1
110.1
110.1
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeitures a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriations
$1,816.9c
$1,759.0
$1,755.1
$1,788.3
a. The figures of â€œ0â€ 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 Presidentâ€™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 DOIâ€™s
Departmental Offices. The House and Senate 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 RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau
of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

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

CRS-12
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 FY2006 House-passed level was $1.31 billion; the Senate-passed level
was $1.32 billion. By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for
the Resources Management account. The Presidentâ€™s FY2006 request was $985.6
million, a 2% increase over the FY2005 level of $962.9 million. The House
approved $1.01 billion, a 4% increase over FY2005. The Senate-passed level was
$993.5 billion, a 3% increase over FY2005. Among the programs included in
Resources Management are the Endangered Species program, the Refuge System,
and Law Enforcement.
The Presidentâ€™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.5 The budget proposed that the first lease sale would be held in
2007. Under the proposal, this and subsequent sales were estimated to generate $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 approved $146.9 million, a 3%
increase over FY2005. The Senate-passed level was $148.9 million, a 4% 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 Presidentâ€™s
request would increase the Landowner Incentive Program from $21.7 million in
FY2005 to $40.0 million in FY2006. The House approved $23.7 million, while the
Senate approved $25.0 million. Stewardship Grants would rise from $6.9 million in
FY2005 to $10.0 million under the Presidentâ€™s request. The House approved $7.4
million; the Senate-passed level was $7.5 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 under the Administrationâ€™s request. The House-passed bill would
provide $84.4 million, while the Senate approved $80.0 million. See Table 4 below.
Under the Presidentâ€™s request, total FY2006 funding for the Endangered Species
program and related programs would increase from the FY2005 level by $17.8
5 The proposed authorization for exploration and development 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 as passed by the House, would open the Refuge to development.
The Senate version contains no similar provision.

CRS-13
million. The House would provide a smaller increase of $10.1 million, and the
Senateâ€™s increase would be $9.1 million.
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2006
Endangered Species and
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Related Programs
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Endangered Species Program
â€” Candidate Conservation
$9,255
$8,252
$8,852
$8,752
â€” Listing
15,960
18,130
18,130
18,130
â€” Consultation
48,129
49,484
49,484
49,484
â€” Recovery
69,870
64,243
70,443
72,541
Subtotal, Endangered Species
143,214
140,109
146,909
148,907
Program
Related Programs
â€” Landowner Incentive
21,694
40,000
23,700
25,000
Program
â€” Private Stewardship
6,903
10,000
7,386
7,500
Grants
â€” Cooperative Endangered
80,462
80,000
84,400
80,000
Species Conservation Funda
Subtotal, Related Programs
109,059
130,000
115,486
112,500
Total Appropriations
$252,273
$270,109
$262,395
$261,407
a. The FY2006 request called for $49.4 million to be derived from LWCF. The House version
derived the portions for species recovery land acquisition and habitat conservation plan land
acquisition ($64.2 million) from LWCF. The Senate called for $45.7 million to be derived from
LWCF, and specified that such amount was to be used for habitat conservation plan land
acquisition.
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 Presidentâ€™s request restructured the
account, dividing it into several new subaccounts. The House approved $394.4
million; the Senate-passed level was $393.9 million. The President proposed $57.6
million for Law Enforcement â€” an increase of $2.0 million from the FY2005 level
($55.6 million). The House-passed level was $57.8 million, and the Senate-passed
level was $57.6 million.
Land Acquisition. For FY2006, the Administration proposed $41.0 million
for Land Acquisition, 11% over FY2005, but 5% less than the FY2004 level of $43.1
million. (See Table 5.) This program is funded from appropriations from the Land

CRS-14
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, and general overhead (â€œCost Allocation Methodologyâ€). In
recent years, less of the funding has been reserved for traditional land acquisition.
The House continued this trend for FY2006, zeroing out funds for traditional
acquisitions, and funding the remainder of the program at $14.9 million. The Senate
approved $25.4 million for refuge acquisition, and a total of $40.8 million for the
entire acquisition program, a slightly smaller increase than the request level. (For
more information, see the â€œLand and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)â€ section in
this report.)
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FWS Land Acquisition
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Passed
Acquisitions â€” Federal
$22,593
$26,029
$0
$25,364
Refuge Lands
Inholdings
1,479
1,750
1,750
1,750
Emergencies & Hardships
986
1,750
1,750
1,750
Exchanges
1,726
1,750
1,724
1,750
Acquisition Management
8,249
7,893
7,893
8,393
Cost Allocation Methodology
1,972
1,820
1,820
1,820
Total Appropriations
$37,005
$40,992
$14,937
$40,827
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- and Senate-passed bills
included, $14.4 million for FY2006; the FY2005 level was $14.2 million. This
FY2006 level, 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 Presidentâ€™s FY2006 budget again proposed to move funding for the

CRS-15
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 $8.3 million for the MSCF (including the proposed transfer
of the NMBCF to this program). The proposal included cuts in programs for great
apes, rhinos, tigers, and African and Asian elephants, in contrast to increases in
programs for marine turtles and neotropical migratory birds. The House provided
modest increases over FY2005 for most of the subprograms, except for a small
decrease in funding for tiger and rhinoceros conservation; it again rejected the
transfer of NMBCF. The Senateâ€™s overall increase was somewhat larger, and it too
rejected the transfer. (See Table 6 below.)
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2006
Multinational Species
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
African elephant
$1,381
$1,000
$1,400
$1,400
Tiger and Rhinos
1,477
1,100
1,400
1,600
Asian elephant
1,381
1,000
1,400
1,400
Great Apes
1,381
900
1,400
1,400
Marine turtles
99
300
300
700
[Neotropical Migratory
[3,944]
[4,000]
[4,000]
[4,000]
Birds]
Total Appropriations
$5,719
$4,300
$5,900
$6,500
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 Presidentâ€™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 stateâ€™s allocation is determined by formula. The President
proposed $74.0 million, an increase from $69.0 million in FY2005. The House-
passed bill would decrease the program to $65.0 million, but the Senate-passed bill
would increase it to $72.0 million. See Table 7 below.

CRS-16
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
State and Tribal
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Wildlife Grants
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Passed
State Grants
$61,040
$65,437
$59,000
$66,000
Tribal Grants
5,917
6,343
6,000
6,000
Administration
1,947
2,092
â€” a
â€” a
Cost allocation
124
128
â€” a
â€” a
methodology
Total Appropriations
$69,028
$74,000
$65,000
$72,000
a. Administrative costs are limited to 3%, after the $6.0 million for tribal grants is deducted from the
total. Neither the House nor the Senate specified how much was to be allocated to
Administration or 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. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze A. 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 park units with more than 84
million acres. The NPS and its 20,000 employees protect, preserve, interpret, and
administer the park systemâ€™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 Administrationâ€™s request for NPS totaled $2.25 billion, $116.4
million (5%) less than the FY2005 enacted level ($2.37 billion). (See Table 8
below.) The FY2006 request had sought increases for the operations line item, but
most other line items would face cuts or level funding. This year, enhanced security

CRS-17
and infrastructure upgrades are planned for certain parks. The House-passed bill
contained $2.23 billion, $136.7 million (6%) less than the FY2005 enacted level and
$20.3 million (1%) below the FY2006 request. The Senate approved $2.32 billion,
or $66.1 million (3%) above the request and $86.4 million (4%) more than the House
allowance.
Issues affecting the NPS but not tied to specific funding accounts also were
addressed. For instance, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting DOI funds
in the bill from being used for concession contracts except those that require that
merchandise sold at NPS units be made in the United States, insular areas, or the
District of Columbia. The House and Senate approved a provision that extends 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. Also, House and Senate Appropriations Committee
report language urges the NPS to complete the management plan for Cedar Creek and
Belle Grove National Historical Park (VA) by September 1, 2007.
Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line-item
is the primary source of funding for the national parks and accounts for more than
two-thirds of the total NPS budget. It supports the activities, programs, and services
essential to the day-to-day operations of the Park System, and covers resource
protection, visitorsâ€™ 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 passed funding of $1.75 billion, or $70.6 million more than the FY2005
enacted and $20.1 million above the FY2006 request. The Senate approved $1.75
billion, an increase of $14.4 million above the request and $5.7 million less than the
House allowance. Park advocacy groups have estimated that, in recent years, the
national parks operate, on average, with two-thirds of needed funding. The condition
of the parks and adequacy of their care and operation continue to be controversial.

CRS-18
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
National Park Service
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Operation of the National Park System
$1,683.6
$1,734.1
$1,754.2
$1,748.5
U.S. Park Police
80.1
80.4
82.4
80.4
National Recreation and Preservation 61.0
36.8
49.0
56.7
Urban Park and Recreation Fund
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Historic Preservation Fund
71.7
66.2
72.7
74.5
Construction a
353.0
307.4
291.2
299.2
Land and Water Conservation Fund b
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
â€” Assistance to States
91.2
1.6
1.6
30.0
â€” NPS Acquisition
55.1
52.9
7.8
56.0
Subtotal, Land Acquisition and State
146.3
54.5
9.4
86.0
Assistance
Total Appropriations
$2,365.7
$2,249.3
$2,229.0
$2,315.3
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 the U.S.
Park Police, a full-service, uniformed law enforcement entity of the NPS 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 Presidentâ€™s request for the USPP in FY2006
was $80.4 million; the enacted level for FY2005 was $80.1 million. The Senate
approved $80.4 million, the same as the request, but $2.0 million below the House
allowance of $82.4 million. An internal review concluded in December 2004
reportedly addressed long-standing fiscal and management problems and redefined
USPP priorities to be: 1) protection of â€œiconic,â€ symbols of democracy park units and
their visitors, 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 and an international park affairs
office, 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

CRS-19
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-
passed bill contained $49.0 million for National Recreation and Preservation, but no
funds for statutory or contractual aid. The Senate-passed bill would provide $8.2
million for statutory or contractual aid, with $56.7 million for the entire line item.
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 Administrationâ€™s requests for heritage area
partnerships have been significantly lower than the previous yearâ€™s appropriation, but
Congress has maintained or increased NHA funding. The House included $15.0
million for Heritage Partnership Programs for FY2006, $10.0 million more than the
request. The Senate approved $13.6 million for NHAs, $8.5 million above the
request but $1.4 million less than the House. DOI officials testified 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-passed bill did
not contain FY2006 funding for Preserve America despite a last-minute
Administration plea to fund this program and reduce NHA funding. The Senate-
passed bill provided that not more than $7.5 million of the allocation to Save
Americaâ€™s Treasures may be used for Preserve America pilot grants. The Senate
Appropriations Committee stated that both Preserve America and Save Americaâ€™s
Treasures would be considered during the upcoming reauthorization of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
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. For FY2006, neither the President, the House, nor the
Senate sought funds for new grants. 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. Â§Â§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-passed bill contained
$291.2 million, $61.8 million less than FY2005 and $16.1 million below the request.
The Senate-passed bill included $299.2 million, $8.2 million below the budget
request and $8.0 million above the House level.

CRS-20
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
Administrationâ€™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 Presidentâ€™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 (H.Rept. 109-80)
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 also has expressed concern about partnership construction projects â€”
those undertaken by friendsâ€™ 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 the NPS for FY2006, the
Administration requested land acquisition and state assistance funds totaling $54.5
million, a $91.9 million (63%) decrease from the FY2005 enacted level ($146.3
million). The House approved $9.4 million â€” $136.9 million less than the FY2005
enacted level and $45.0 million below the request. The Senate-passed bill included
$86.0 million, or $31.5 million more than the request and $76.6 million above the
House allowance, but $60.3 million below FY2005.
The sizable reduction in the House-passed level in large part stemmed from not
providing funds for new LWCF State Assistance Grants, as had been recommended
by the President. However, the House did include $1.6 million, as requested, to
administer existing grants. FY2005 funding for state assistance programs, known as
stateside assistance, was $91.2 million. A House amendment to provide $20 million
for stateside grants was not offered, reportedly because no offset could be found.
State assistance is for recreation-related land acquisition and recreation planning and
development by the states, with the funds allocated by a formula and states
determining their spending priorities. The Senate approved $30.0 million for the
state assistance program, a significant difference with the House which likely will be
addressed in conference. Administration representatives have testified that state

CRS-21
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 â€œLand and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)â€ section in this report.)
The sizeable combined reduction by the House was 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-passed bill provided $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. The Senate approved $56.0 million for NPS land
acquisition and provided specific park unit recommendations, another difference
likely to be addressed in conference. A Senate amendment to cut NPS land
acquisition, and reduce or eliminate acquisition funding for other land management
agencies, fell on a point of order.
Recreation Fee Program. The FY2005 Interior appropriations law
established a new 10-year recreation fee program to replace the recreational fee
demonstration program which had begun in 1996 as a three-year trial but was
extended several times. The new law authorizes the four major federal land agencies
â€” the NPS, BLM, FWS, and FS â€” 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 deposited in an
account that is distributed to other agency sites. The NPS estimated 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. Â§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. HPF also
provides funding for cultural heritage projects for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and
Native Hawaiians.
For FY2006, the House-passed bill provided $72.7 million for the HPF,
including $36.0 million for grants-in-aid to states, $3.2 million for tribal grants, $30.0
million for Save Americaâ€™s Treasures, and $3.5 million for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). This is an increase of $6.5 million over the
FY2006 Administration request ($66.2 million) and of $1.0 million over the FY2005
level ($71.7 million). The Senate-passed bill would provide $74.5 million for the
HPF, an increase of $2.8 million over FY2005 and of $1.8 million above the House-
passed level. The Senate-passed bill would increase Tribal grants to $4.0 million and
the grants-in-aid to states to $38.5 million. It also included $2.0 million for HBCUs.

CRS-22
The House- and Senate-passed bills would provide $30.0 million for Save
Americaâ€™s Treasures, which the President had proposed to cut in half. The House-
passed bill did not specify funding for a proposed â€œPreserve Americaâ€ program.
However, the Senate-passed bill provided that not to exceed $7.5 million of the
funding for Save Americaâ€™s Treasures may be allocated to Preserve America pilot
grants. (See Table 9 below.) Preserve America grants-in-aid, recommended by the
President for FY2006 and previously proposed in FY2005, would supplement Save
Americaâ€™s Treasures in supporting community efforts to develop resource
management strategies and to encourage heritage tourism. Under the Presidentâ€™s
proposal, Preserve America grants would be competitively awarded on a 50/50
matching basis, as one-time seed money grants. The FY2005 appropriations law did
not fund these grants. The Senate Appropriations Committee report stated that the
consideration in this session of a bill to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation
Act will likely include discussion of the Preserve America program and Save
Americaâ€™s Treasures.

The Save Americaâ€™s Treasures program preserves nationally significant
intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures. Due to concerns that the
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 Americaâ€™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 Trustâ€™s
endowment fund for endangered properties. Also, HPF previously included funds
for preserving and restoring historic buildings and structures on 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-passed bill would provide $3.5 million. During Senate floor consideration,
an amendment was agreed to that would provide $2.0 million for HBCUs.
During House debate on FY2006 Interior appropriations, the Chairman of the
House Resources Committee objected to the appropriation for the Historic
Preservation Fund (and other programs) on the grounds that it was not authorized for
FY2006 and that there should be no appropriation without an authorization. His
amendment on this issue was ruled out of order as constituting legislation on an
appropriations bill.

CRS-23
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Historic Preservation
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Grants-in-Aid to States and
Territoriesa
$35,500
$35,500
$36,000
$38,500
Tribal Grants
3,205
3,205
3,205
4,000
Save Americaâ€™s Treasures
29,583
15,000
30,000
30,000b
Preserve America Grants-In-Aid
0
12,500
0
0b
HBCUs
3,451
0
3,500
2,000
National Historic Trust Endowment

0 0 0 0
Grant/Historic Sites Fund
Total Appropriations
$71,739
$66,205
$72,705
$74,500
a. The term â€œGrants-in-Aid to States and Territoriesâ€ is used in conjunction with the budget and refers
to the same program as Grants-in-Aid to State Historic Preservation Offices.
b. The Senate-passed bill provided that part of the Save Americaâ€™s Treasures allocation, not to exceed
$7.5 million, may be used to provide for Preserve America pilot grants.
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 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 nationâ€™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 governmentâ€™s principal civilian mapping agency and a
primary source of data on the quality of the nationâ€™s water resources.

CRS-24
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-
passed bill would provide $974.6 million for the USGS, an increase of $41.1 million
(4%) over the Administrationâ€™s request of $933.5 million, and an increase of $30.0
million (3%) over the FY2005 enacted level of $944.6 million. The Senate-passed
bill would provide $963.1 million for the USGS, which is $11.5 million below the
House-passed bill. See Table 10 below.
The House-passed bill would provide $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. The Senate-passed bill would provide $127.2 million for
the National Mapping Program; $237.2 million for Geologic Hazards, Resource, and
Processes; $214.8 million for Water Resources Investigations; $174.3 million for
Biological Research; $47.1 million for Enterprise Information; $66.3 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 sought 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-passed bill would restore
this funding in its entirety. The Senate-passed bill would provide $29.0 million. 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- and
Senate-passed bills would provide $6.5 million to these institutes for FY2006.
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- and Senate-passed bills
would provide $47.1 million for this subactivity, $0.7 million below the
Administrationâ€™s request of $47.8 million and $2.7 million above the FY2005
enacted level of $44.4 million.

CRS-25
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-
passed bill would provide $133.2 million, which is $0.3 million below the
Administrationâ€™s request of $133.5 million, and $14.5 million above the FY2005
enacted level of $118.8 million. The Senate-passed bill would provide $127.2
million for this program, which is $6.0 million below the House-passed bill.
The House-passed bill reflected 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 Earthâ€™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 â€œcontinues to provide
a unique, cost-effective solution to operational and scientific problems.â€6 In report
language, the House Appropriations Committee commended the Administration and
the USGS for providing a proposal to continue Landsat operations.
The Senate-passed bill, however, would provide a reduction of $6.0 million
from the Administrationâ€™s request for the Landsat 7 program. Although in report
language the Senate Appropriations Committee commended the DOI and others for
working out a plan for the program, it expressed that the plan is no different from
previous recommendations which amounted to a subsidy of current operations. The
Committee stated that it expects the USGS and the DOI to provide more explanation
of this proposal, before the FY2006 Interior bill is conferenced, and before it gives
the Administrationâ€™s request more consideration (S.Rept. 109-80, p. 33-34).
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, the House-passed bill would provide $239.2
million, which is $31.1 million above the Administrationâ€™s request of $208.1 million
for FY2006, and $10.0 million above the FY2005 enacted level of $229.2 million.
The Senate-passed bill would provide $237.2 million, which is $2.0 million below
6 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Budget Justification and Performance
Information: Fiscal Year 2005 (Reston, VA: 2004).

CRS-26
the House-passed bill. This line item covers programs in three activities: Hazard
Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments.
The House-passed bill 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. The Senate-passed bill would add $29.0 million to this
program over the Administrationâ€™s request. 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 Appropriations
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, and
the Senate Committee stated that it would seem â€œirresponsible to decrease or
eliminate funding for what clearly would appear to be an inherently Federal
responsibilityâ€ (S.Rept. 109-80, p. 34).

The Geologic Hazards Assessments program would receive $82.2 million from
the House-passed bill, 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. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended in report language that the USGS continue its research efforts in
Coastal Louisiana in support of restoration activities there.
Water Resources Investigations. For Water Resources Investigations, the
House-passed bill would provide $211.8 million for FY2006, which is $7.6 million
above the Administrationâ€™s request of $204.2 million, and $0.6 million above the
FY2005 enacted level of $211.2 million. The Senate-passed bill would provide
$214.8 million, which is $3.0 million above the House-passed bill. The Hydrologic
Monitoring, Assessments and Research activity would receive $141.5 million for
FY2006 from the House-passed bill, $1.1 million above the Administrationâ€™s request
and nearly $1.0 million below the FY2005 enacted level. The Senate-passed bill
would provide $144.5 million.

As with the Bush Administrationâ€™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- and Senate-passed bills would fund 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-27
a better understanding of the nationâ€™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. The Senate-passed bill would provide increases to several water-
related programs and the Senate Appropriations Committee reported that the USGS
should continue Lake Champlain monitoring and research studies at no less than
current levels.
Biological Research. The Biological Research Program under the USGS
generates and distributes information related to the conservation and management of
the nationâ€™s biological resources. The House-passed bill would provide $174.8
million for this activity, $1.8 million above the Administrationâ€™s request of $172.9
million, and $3.1 million over the FY2005 enacted level of $171.7 million. The
Senate-passed bill would provide $174.3 million, which is $0.5 million below the
House-passed bill. 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 had recommended certain increases,
including $1.4 million for the Great Lakes Science Center for safety needs associated
with its research vessel, and the House concurred. In report language, the Senate
Appropriations Committee expressed concern that no coordinated budgetary and
programmatic plan has been made for the expansion of the National Biological
Information Infrastructure (NBII). The NBII is a program that provides increased
access to data on the nationâ€™s biological resources. The Committee also
recommended that the USGS evaluate a modern diagnostic test for botulism in
wildlife. Botulism is a disease that primarily affects avian species.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for managing and disseminating
scientific information. The House-passed bill would provide, 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. The Senate-passed bill would
provide $66.3 million, which is $6.0 million below the House-passed bill. The
House-passed bill included a $750,000 increase for science on DOI lands, which
would provide funds for earth and biological science activities for DOI bureaus.
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. The
House- and Senate-passed bills would provide $96.2 million for this subactivity, $1.5
million over the Administration request of $94.7 million, and $1.6 million over the
FY2005 enacted level of $94.6 million.

CRS-28
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
U.S. Geological Survey
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Enterprise Information
$44.4
$47.8
$47.1
$47.1
National Mapping Program
118.8
133.5
133.2
127.2
Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes
229.2
208.1
239.2
237.2
Water Resources
Investigations
211.2
204.2
211.7
214.8
Biological Research
171.7
172.9
174.8
174.3
Science Support
65.6
72.3
72.3
66.3
Facilities
94.6
94.7
96.2
96.2
Total Appropriations
$944.6 a
$933.5
$974.6
$963.1
a. The total includes an emergency appropriation of $1.0 million provided in P.L. 108-324 and $8.1
million in P.L. 109-13.
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 Administrationâ€™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.

CRS-29
The House-passed version contained $282.4 million for MMS programs
(including Oil Spill Research). The major differences between the Administrationâ€™s
request and the House bill are in two Royalty Management programs: the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve to Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) conversion and the Compliance and
Asset Management (CAM) initiative. The House considered the $9.8 million in the
budget request to fund these programs unnecessary, because the House included a
provision to allow the RIK program to recover its costs directly. Thus, while the
President requested $51.9 million for CAM, the House provided $42.1 million. The
Senate-passed version included a total of $282.2 million for MMS programs
(including Oil Spill Research). It would fund the CAM initiative at $43.1 million.
The Senate generally would fund MMS programs at or near the requested or House-
passed levels in all other categories. 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
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Minerals Management Service
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management
â€” OCS Lands (OMM)
$148.3
$148.3
$149.5
$149.2
â€” Royalty Management (MRM)
75.4
87.3
77.5
78.5
â€” General Administration
46.9
47.5
48.4
47.5
â€” Gross, Royalty and Offshore
Minerals Management
270.6
283.1
275.4
275.2
â€” Use of Receipts
-103.7
-122.7
-122.7
-122.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
166.9
160.4
152.7
152.5
Management Appropriations
Oil Spill Research
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Total Appropriations
$173.9
$167.4
$159.7
$159.5
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts are being considered during 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
House- and Senate-passed bills for FY2006 continued the moratorium on funding
preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM), as had the
FY2005 appropriations law. Sales in the Eastern GOM have been especially
controversial. There are several blocks that were removed by the Administration from

CRS-30
Eastern GOM sale 181 that could become available for release after 2007, as part of
the Administrationâ€™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 contend that the risks
of development to the environment and local economies are too great. The FY2006
House- and Senate-passed bills would continue leasing moratoria in other areas,
including the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, as had the FY2005 appropriations law.
However, the House- and Senate-passed versions of the FY2006 Interior
Appropriations bill did not include language to prohibit funding for preleasing and
leasing activity in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area. The FY2005 and
FY2004 appropriations laws similarly omitted this language. However, the issue
remains 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. Â§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 statesâ€™ 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. The
amendment to lift the moratoria in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico was offered again on
the House floor (by Representative Istook), but the amendment was not in order
because a point of order was sustained on the grounds that it constituted legislation
on an appropriations bill. A second amendment (by Representative John E. Peterson)
that would have lifted the moratorium on offshore natural gas was defeated (157-
262).
An issue that pertains to debate on FY2006 Interior appropriations involves
MMS oil and gas leases in offshore California. This issue has been controversial.
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Â§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 stateâ€™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,

CRS-31
on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the District
Court decision.7 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
Management Act, a consistency review by MMS and the stateâ€™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].
CRS Report RL31521. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas: Energy Security and
Other Major Issues, by Marc Humphries.
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. Â§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 â€” including both
federal and state share accounts in the AML fund â€” 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
7 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 01-16637.

CRS-32
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 â€” to May 31, 2005 â€” 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. As passed by the Senate, the FY2006 Interior
appropriations bill would provide a further extension of the AML fund to June 30,
2006. This is included in the General Provisions in the bill. The House version of
the bill does not include an extension.

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 nor Senate embraced the
Administrationâ€™s plan. The final appropriation for the fund for FY2005 was $188.2
million. The 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
Administrationâ€™s total FY2006 OSM request of $356.5 million. The request for
additional funds to begin return of unobligated state share balances once again is not
included in the House- or Senate-passed bill for FY2006. With that exception, the
House and Senate are in agreement with the levels requested by the Administration
for OSM, including $188.0 million for the AML fund.
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 and Senate have agreed to the Administrationâ€™s request for
$110.5 million for FY2006. Included in the FY2006 request as well is $10.0 million
for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002-
FY2005. Owing to the Administration proposal to return unobligated state balances,
and as noted above, the Administration requested $356.5 million for OSM, a 20%
increase over the FY2005 level of $296.6 million. However, the total for OSM
approved by the House and Senate was $298.5 million, reflecting House and Senate
agreement with the other components of the Administration request.
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 statesâ€™ 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 and Senate have agreed in their FY2006 bills. Also,
SMCRA includes a provision for a $10.0 million allocation from the AML
collections for the Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). However, no

CRS-33
appropriation was requested for FY2006, and none is included in the House- or
Senate-passed bills.
The House and Senate bills differ only in the Senate proposal to extend the
authorization for fee collection until the end of June 2006. It is not apparent that this
will be controversial in light of other recent short-term extensions of the
authorization to which the House and Senate have agreed without conflict.

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.
BIAâ€™s FY2005 direct appropriations are $2.30 billion. For FY2006, the
Administration proposed $2.19 billion, a decrease of $108.2 million (5%) below
FY2005. The House approved $2.32 billion, an increase of $22.3 million (1%) over
FY2005 and of $130.5 million (6%) over the Administrationâ€™s proposal. The Senate
approved $2.27 billion, which is $26.3 million (1%) less than FY2005, $81.9 million
(4%) more than the FY2006 proposal, and $48.6 million (2%) less than the House
FY2006 amount. For the BIA, its major budget components, and selected BIA
programs (shown in italics), Table 12 below presents figures for FY2005-FY2006
for BIA and the percentages of change for FY2006 from the House-passed to the
Senate-passed levels. 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.

CRS-34
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
Percent
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Change:
Bureau of Indian Affairs
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
House to
Passed
Passed
Senate
Operation of Indian Programs
â€” Tribal Priority
$769,543
$760,149
$778,069
$775,407
-1%
Allocations
â€”â€”Contract Support Costs
134,420
134,609
134,609
134,609
0%
â€” Other Recurring
612,919
602,301
636,337
621,295
-2%
Programs
â€”â€”School Operations
517,647
521,633
544,993
521,633
-4%
â€”â€”Tribally-Controlled
53,141
43,375
43,375
56,375
30%
Colleges
â€” Non-Recurring
75,985
65,325
67,691
70,475
4%
Programs
â€” Central Office
140,021
151,534
151,534
151,534
0%
Operations
â€”â€”Office of Federal
1,280
1,280
1,280
1,280
0%
Acknowledgment
â€”â€”Trust Services
19,071
27,169
27,169
27,169
0%
â€”â€”Information Resources
58,092
58,288
58,288
58,288
0%
Technology
â€” Regional Office
41,362
41,590
41,590
41,590
0%
Operations
â€” Special Programs and
286,261
303,331
317,516
310,831
-2%
Pooled Overhead
â€”â€”Public Safety and
180,063
192,265
200,765
192,265
-4%
Justice
â€”â€”Tribal Vocational
5,177
0
5,177
5,300
2%
Colleges
Subtotal, Operation of
1,926,091
1,924,230
1,992,737
1,971,132
-1%
Indian Programs
Construction
319,129
232,137
284,137
267,137
-6%
â€” Education Construction
263,372
173,875
225,875
198,875
-12%
â€”â€”Replacement School
105,550
43,494
75,494
58,494
-23%
Construction
â€”â€”Education Facilities
142,531
128,381
147,381
138,381
-6%
Improvement and Repair
â€” Law Enforcement
3,833
8,223
8,223
8,223
0%
Facilities Improvement and
Repair
Land and Water Claim
44,150
24,754
34,754
24,754
-29%
Settlements and
Miscellaneous Payments

CRS-35
Percent
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Change:
Bureau of Indian Affairs
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
House to
Passed
Passed
Senate
Indian Guaranteed Loan
6,332
6,348
6,348
6,348
0%
Program
Total Appropriations
$2,295,702 $2,187,469
$2,317,976
$2,269,371
-2%
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 â€œOffice of Special Trusteeâ€ 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 tribesâ€™
and individualsâ€™ trust funds and trust assets. Trust assets include trust lands and the
landsâ€™ 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 â€œOffice of Special Trusteeâ€ section below.) The
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 firmâ€™s recommendations
included both improvements in trust management and reorganization of the DOI
agencies carrying out trust management and improvement.8 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 DOIâ€™s plan.
The current reorganization plan of BIA, AS-IA, and OST â€” which DOI expects
to complete in FY2005 â€” chiefly involves trust management structures and
functions. Under the plan, the BIAâ€™s trust operations at regional and agency levels
remains in those offices but is split off from other BIA services. The OST adds trust
8 The report is available on the DOI website at [http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/
pdf/roadmap.pdf].

CRS-36
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 Secretaryâ€™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 BIAâ€™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 retained this exclusion for FY2006, and the Senate agreed. Congress has
not, however, suspended or stopped the reorganization, and the House and Senate
agreed with the Administrationâ€™s proposed FY2006 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
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 schoolsâ€™ 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 boardsâ€™ start-up administrative costs. The fundâ€™s FY2005
appropriation was $986,000. The Administrationâ€™s FY2006 proposal reduced this
fund to $500,000, and the House and Senate agreed.
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
Administrationâ€™s FY2006 proposal, and the amounts approved by the House and the
Senate for FY2006. The Administration proposed reducing the total FY2006

CRS-37
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 asserted that a majority of school replacement projects
funded in previous years are still under construction and that BIA needed to focus on
completing them. The House disagreed with the Administrationâ€™s assertion and
partly restored the Administrationâ€™s cuts, reducing FY2006 total education
construction by $37.5 million (14%) and replacement-school construction by $30.1
million (28%) from the FY2005 enacted levels. The Senate reduced funding for
these programs, although not to the Administrationâ€™s proposed levels, so that FY2006
total education construction would fall $64.5 million (24%) below FY2005 and
replacement-school construction would fall $47.1 million (45%) below FY2005.
In response to the Administrationâ€™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 and Senate retained this provision.

Because construction appropriations are, in some tribesâ€™ 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 and
the House and Senate agreed.
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.
Departmental Offices
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to four insular areas â€” American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands â€” as well as
three former insular areas â€” 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 request for FY2006 was $392 million; of this total,
$345.5 million (88%) is mandated through statutes. A total of $343 million in
permanent funding would be provided in FY2006 as follows:

CRS-38
! $198 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau)
under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free
Association;9
! $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; and
! $30 million in each year for American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, or the
state of Hawaii, from FY2004 through FY2023, for health,
educational, social, or public safety services, or infrastructure costs,
associated with the residence of â€œqualified nonimmigrantsâ€ from the
RMI, FSM, or Palau.10
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the balance of the OIA budget. Two accounts â€” Assistance to Territories
(AT) and the Compact of Free Association (CFA) â€” 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.
Appropriations for FY2005 total $81.0 million, with AT funded at $75.6 million
and CFA at $5.5 million. The FY2006 request sought to reduce AT funding to $74.3
million, and CFA assistance to $4.9 million, for a total of almost $79.2 million. The
House approved amounts higher than requested for AT ($76.6 million) and CFA
($5.4 million), resulting in total recommended discretionary and mandatory funding
of almost $82 million. The Senate approved a total of $81.6 million, $76.7 million
for AT and $4.9 million for CFA. Little debate has occurred in recent years on
funding for the territories and the OIA. Conferees on the FY2006 appropriations
appear to have few, if any, issues of contention to address regarding the insular areas.
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
agreed to $242.0 million for PILT, while the Senate approved $235.0 million. Both
the House- and Senate-passed bills would increase PILT over the FY2005 level
($226.8 million) and the Administrationâ€™s FY2006 request ($200.0 million). The
Administration had recommended cutting PILT as part of an effort to reduce the
deficit and to provide funding at a level that is more consistent with historical
appropriations levels. The House Appropriations Committee had recommended
9 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.
10 P.L. 108-188, 117 Stat. 2739, 2742.

CRS-39
$230.0 million, but the House agreed to a floor amendment to increase PILT funding
by $12.0 million with an offset in the DOI Departmental Management account. The
amendment was supported on the grounds that local governments need additional
PILT funds to provide vital services, and that additional funds would help close the
gap between authorized and appropriated funding. The amendment was opposed on
the assertion that there were insufficient funds in the bill overall to direct more
money to PILT, and that it would have an adverse impact on management of
important DOI programs and result in the elimination of staff positions. The House
subsequently rejected another amendment that sought to increase PILT funding by
an additional $4.8 million, with an offset in funds for the National Endowment for
the Arts. A Senate amendment seeking to increase PILT funding to $242.0 million,
equal to the House passed level, was withdrawn.

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 Offices 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 Interiorâ€™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. Â§Â§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 â€œBureau of Indian Affairsâ€ 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 Indiansâ€™ funds, known as Individual
Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 245,000 accounts with a current total asset

CRS-40
value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2006 budget
justifications.) The funds include monies received from claims awards, land or water
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.
OSTâ€™s FY2005 appropriation was $228.1 million. The Administration proposed
$303.9 million for FY2006, an increase of $75.9 million (33%). The House and
Senate approved $226.1 million, a decrease of $1.9 million (1%) from FY2005 and
of $77.8 million (26%) from the Administrationâ€™s proposal. Table 13 below presents
figures for FY2005-FY2006 for the OST. Key issues for the OST are its current
reorganization, an historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation
involving tribal and IIM accounts.
Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2006
Office of Special Trustee
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
for American Indians
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Federal Trust Programs
$193,540
$269,397
$191,593
$191,593
â€” Historical Accounting
57,194
135,000
58,000
58,000
Indian Land Consolidation
34,514
34,514
34,514
34,514
Total Appropriations
$228,054
$303,911
$226,107
$226,107
Reorganization. Both OST and BIA began a reorganization in 2003 (see
â€œBureau of Indian Affairsâ€ 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 â€œLitigationâ€ 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 to
be for IIM accounts and $40.0 million for tribal accounts. The House rejected the
Administrationâ€™s proposed $77.8 million increase for historical accounting and
instead capped FY2006 historical accounting funds at $58.0 million (the FY2005 pre-

CRS-41
rescission level). The Senate agreed with the House. The House Appropriations
Committeeâ€™s report recommended using the $77.8 million to restore the
Administrationâ€™s proposed cuts in BIA education and Indian Health Service funding.
The Senate Appropriations Committeeâ€™s report also cited â€œongoing litigation and
uncertaintyâ€ as reasons for not funding the Administrationâ€™s full request for historical
accounting (S.Rept. 109-80, p. 50).
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.11 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 accountsâ€™ 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 plaintiffsâ€™ 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 accountsâ€™ proper balances. The
courtâ€™s decision on historical accounting was delivered on September 25, 2003. The
court rejected both the plaintiffsâ€™ and DOIâ€™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 courtâ€™s
choice for historical accounting would cost $6-12 billion.
In the FY2004 Interior appropriations act, Congress enacted a controversial
provision aimed at the courtâ€™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 departmentâ€™s specific historical accounting obligations or December 31, 2004,
whichever was earlier. Based on this provision, the DOI appealed the courtâ€™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 governmentâ€™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 courtâ€™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
11 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-42
compliance with the new order would cost $12-13 billion,12 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.13
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 Departmentâ€™s â€œJudgment Fund,â€14 but some senior
appropriators consider the Fund insufficient for a $6-$13 billion dollar settlement.15
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 it may take
other actions such as directing a settlement or delineating the departmentâ€™s historical
accounting obligations. In report language for FY2006, the House Appropriations
Committee stated that it rejected 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. No language in the FY2006 appropriations bill was passed in the
House or Senate to delay the court-ordered accounting or otherwise settle the suit.
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. Â§Â§2701 et seq) to oversee Indian tribal regulation
12 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.
13 Spangler, Matt, â€œSenator Says Government Cannot Afford to Settle 9-Year-Old Indian
Trust Case,â€ Inside Energy with Federal Lands (March 14, 2005), p. 10.
14 The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation for paying judgments against,
and settlements by, the U.S. Government.
15 Spangler, Matt, â€œTreasury Fund May Be Short of Cash Needed to Settle Indian royalty
Case,â€ Inside Energy with Federal Lands (March 21, 2005), p. 6.

CRS-43
of tribal bingo and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming
(e.g., casinos and racing).16 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 tribesâ€™ 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 NIGCâ€™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 extended
the $12-million ceiling to FY2007, and the Senate agreed.
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 IGRAâ€™s fee ceiling, arguing that NIGCâ€™s budget should first be
reviewed in the context of extensive tribal and state expenditures on regulation of
Indian gaming, and that changes in NIGCâ€™s fees should be developed in consultation
with tribes. Congress did not agree to the Administrationâ€™s proposed amendment to
IGRA in the FY2005 appropriations law, and neither the House nor the Senate
approved it for FY2006.
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 or the Senate consider one.
For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its
website at [http://www.nigc.gov/].
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
In the 109th Congress, EPA's funding has been moved to the jurisdiction of the
Interior subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations. This is the result
of 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.
EPAâ€™s responsibilities have grown since it was established in 1970, as Congress
has enacted an increasing number of environmental laws, as well as major
amendments to these statutes. The Agencyâ€™s primary responsibilities include the
regulation of air quality, water quality, pesticides, and toxic substances; the
16 Classes were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but overlapping regulatory
responsibilities for each class.

CRS-44
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.
Without adjusting for inflation, the agencyâ€™s appropriation has risen from $1.0
billion when the agency was established in FY1970 to $8.03 billion in FY2005. For
FY2006, the Senate-passed bill would provide $7.88 billion for EPA. The House-
passed bill would provide $7.71 billion, and the Presidentâ€™s FY2006 request included
$7.52 billion. Both the House- and Senate-passed bills contained significant
increases for some activities and programs within each of the accounts, while calling
for sizeable decreases or similar funding in other areas.
The Senate-passed bill would provide an additional $58.0 million above the
$7.88 billion, as â€œrescindedâ€ from past EPA appropriations. In effect, previously
appropriated funds that EPA has not obligated to expired grants, contracts, and
interagency agreements for various program activities would be redirected. The
House-passed bill would provide an additional $100.0 million in unobligated funds
from past appropriations in the same manner. The Senate-passed bill would provide
the â€œrescindedâ€ funds within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account
but did not specify to which activity the $58.0 million was allocated. The $100.0
million in the House-passed bill is to be used to increase support for the clean water
State Revolving Fund (SRF) under the STAG account. (See the discussion under
â€œWater Infrastructureâ€ in this section of the report.)
EPA Appropriation Accounts. Traditionally, EPAâ€™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
and FY2006. Figure 1 displays the portion of the Presidentâ€™s FY2006 requested
allocations for each account.

CRS-45
Table 14. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Environmental Protection Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Science & Technology
â€” Direct Appropriations
$744.1
$760.6
$765.3
$730.8
â€” Transfer in from Superfund
35.8
30.6
30.6
30.6
Subtotal, Science & Technology
779.9
791.2
795.9
761.4
Environmental Programs and Management
2,294.9
2,353.8b
2,389.5b
2,333.4b
Office of Inspector General
â€” Direct Appropriations
37.7
37.0
38.0
37.0
â€” Transfer in from Superfund
12.9
13.5
13.5
13.5
Subtotal, Office of Inspector General
50.6
50.5
51.5
50.5
Buildings and Facilities
41.7
40.2
40.2
40.2
Hazardous Substance Superfund
â€” Direct Appropriations
1,247.5
1,279.3
1,258.3
1,256.2
â€” Transfers out from Superfund
-48.7
-44.1
-44.1
-44.1
Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund
1,198.8
1,235.2
1,214.2
1,212.1
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
69.4
73.0
73.0
73.0
Oil Spill Response
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
Pesticide Registration Fund
19.2
15.0
15.0
15.0
Pesticide Registration Fees
-19.2
-15.0
-15.0
-15.0
State & Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
â€”
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
1,091.2
730.0
850.0 c
1,100.0c
â€” Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
843.2
850.0
850.0
850.0
â€” Categorical and Other Grants
1,640.9
1,380.8
1,527.8
1,503.6
â€” Funds Previously Appropriated to EPA
â€”
â€”
-100.0c
-58.0c
Subtotal, State & Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
3,575.3
2,960.8
3,127.8
3,395.6
Total Appropriations
$8,026.5a
$7,520.6
$7,708.0
$7,882.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on amounts from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
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 included $50.0 million in revenues to be derived from proposed legislative changes to pesticide and toxic chemical
manufacture fees, which have not been enacted. The anticipated revenues are reflected as a deduction in the form of offsetting
receipts. Noting no such legislative proposals, neither the House nor the Senate included the $50 million offsetting revenues.
c. The total for the STAG account included $58.0 million per the Senate, and $100.0 million per the House, rescinded from previously
appropriated funds that were not obligated to expired contracts, grants, and inter-agency agreements.

CRS-46
Figure 1. The Presidentâ€™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 Research Service (CRS) based on
information from the House Appropriations Committee.
Key Funding Issues. Funding for water infrastructure, cleanup of hazardous
waste sites under the Superfund program, and the Brownfields program have been
among the prominent issues of debate. Other areas debated include funding for
EPAâ€™s homeland security activities, â€œcongressional project prioritiesâ€ or earmarks,
EPAâ€™s use and consideration of intentional human dosing studies, and EPAâ€™s
implementation of Clean Air Act provisions. These funding issues are discussed
below. (For more information on these and other issues, see CRS Report RL32856,
Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for FY2006, by Robert Esworthy
and David Bearden.)
Water Infrastructure. Appropriations for water infrastructure projects are
allocated within EPAâ€™s STAG account. The Senate-passed bill would provide $1.1
billion, and the House-passed bill would provide $850.0 million, for the clean water
SRF for FY2006. The FY2006 Presidentâ€™s request was $730.0 million, and Congress
appropriated $1.09 billion for FY2005. As noted earlier, the House total included
$100.0 million in the form of redirected unobligated balances from past EPA
appropriations. Both bills would provide $850.0 million for the drinking water SRF,
the same as the President's FY2006 request. For FY2005, Congress appropriated
$843.2 million for the drinking water SRF. Together, these funds provide seed
monies for state loans to communities for wastewater and drinking water
infrastructure projects.

CRS-47
Reducing funding for 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. 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).
Two amendments to further increase FY2006 funding for the clean water SRF
were offered during the House floor debate. One amendment which would have
increased the clean water SRF by $500 million was ruled out of order. A second
amendment would have increased funding by $100 million but was not adopted (186-
235). An amendment introduced during the Senate debate that would have modified
the formula for distributing SRF funds to the states was withdrawn. Earlier this year,
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 FY2006 request. Although the amendment was not
included in the final FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95), the Senate approved
$1.1 billion for FY2006 for the clean water SRF in passing H.R. 2361.
Congressional Priorities (Earmarks). In past EPA appropriations,
Congress has set aside or designated funds for individual projects, locations, or
institutions (sometimes referred to as earmarked funding17) within the various
accounts. For FY2006, both the House and Senate have reduced funding below
FY2005 appropriations for these types of projects, defined in the committee reports
as â€œcongressional priorities.â€ In addition, the House Appropriations Committee
recommended a different approach for allocating some of this funding.

The House-passed bill included $40.0 million in the Science and Technology
(S&T) account for â€œresearch/congressional priorities,â€ and $40.0 million within the
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account for â€œenvironmental
protection/congressional priorities.â€ Unlike most grant funding, these types of
congressional designations have traditionally been awarded non-competitively.
However, in its report, the House Appropriations Committee stated that it â€œexpectedâ€
EPA to conduct competitive solicitations among projects that had been added by
Congress in past appropriations. The House Appropriations Committee further
described these priorities as â€œprograms of national and regional significanceâ€ that
have been added by Congress in at least three of the last four years (H.Rept. 109-80,
p. 105-106).
The Senate-passed bill included $50.0 million in the S&T account, and $50.0
million in the EPM account for similar â€œcongressional priorities.â€ Unlike the House,
the Senate Appropriations Committee designated the funding for specified projects
or locations within these two accounts in its report. Both FY2006 bills would
provide less than the FY2005 appropriation of $65.7 million in the S&T account and
17 See CRS Report 98-518 Gov, Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriations Bills, by
Sandy Streeter.

CRS-48
$92.3 million in the EPM account, for these â€œcongressional priorityâ€ projects. The
President's FY2006 request did not include funding for these projects.
The Senate- and House-passed bills included an additional $200.0 million for
projects referred to as â€œSTAG infrastructure grants/congressional prioritiesâ€ in the
STAG account for FY2006. These projects include wastewater, drinking water, and
storm water infrastructure projects. Congress designated (earmarked) $309.5 million
within the STAG account for specified projects for FY2005. The President's FY2006
budget did not include funding for these projects. In past years, the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees have proposed designated funding for specific
projects in the reports on their respective bills. However, in reporting its FY2006
bill, the House Appropriations Committee did not allocate the $200.0 million for
FY2006 among specific community projects. Rather the House Committee
commented in its report that the allocation of these funds would be determined later
in conference. The $200.0 million in the Senate-passed bill was designated for
specific projects in the committee report.
Communities compete for loan funds provided through the SRFs which must
be repaid. Funding designated by Congress for specific locations and communities
(earmarked funding) has been awarded noncompetitively as grants that require
matching funds but not repayment. Whether these needs should be met with SRF
loan monies or grant assistance has become an issue of debate.18
EPAâ€™s Homeland Security Activities. FY2006 funding for EPA's
homeland security activities are allocated within five of the eight EPA appropriations
accounts: S&T, EPM, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Building and Facilities, and
STAG. This funding would support various activities, including critical
infrastructure protection, laboratory preparedness, decontamination, protection of
EPA personnel and operations, and communication. The Senate-passed bill would
provide a total of $116.0 million, and the House-passed bill would provide $130.1
million, for EPA's homeland security activities in the five accounts combined. The
FY2006 Presidentâ€™s request included $184.6 million, and Congress appropriated
$106.2 million for FY2005. The Senate reduced support for homeland security
below the FY2006 requested level in all five accounts; the House reductions were
within the S&T and the Superfund accounts. Funding in both bills is above the
FY2005 appropriation for each of the accounts.
Superfund. The Senate- and House-passed bills would provide similar
amounts of $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 account. After transfers to these accounts, the Presidentâ€™s FY2006 request
included $1.24 billion and Congress appropriated $1.20 billion for FY2005.
A prominent issue is the adequacy of funding for the Superfund program to
clean up the nationâ€™s most hazardous waste sites. Some Members have asserted that
more funds are necessary to speed the pace of remediation at contaminated sites,
18 See CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Project Earmarks in EPA
Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications, by Claudia Copeland.

CRS-49
while other Members contend that steady funding allows a pace of cleanup that
protects human health and the environment. An amendment offered during the
House floor debate, but not adopted (76-344), would have provided an additional
$130.0 million for the Superfund account by reducing funding in the S&T account
by the same amount.
Another ongoing issue has been whether the Superfund program should
continue to be funded with general Treasury revenues or a tax on industry should be
reinstated (which originally supported the program). The amounts in both the House-
passed and the Senate-passed bill would be provided from general Treasury revenues
as the Administration proposed. Some Members of Congress advocate reinstating the
Superfund taxes and contend that the use of general Treasury revenues undermines
the â€œpolluter paysâ€ 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 Senate-passed bill would provide a combined $165.0
million, and the House-passed bill $172.1 million, for EPA's Brownfields Program
for FY2006. The FY2005 appropriation was $163.2 million, and the FY2006 budget
request included $210.1 million. This program provides assistance to states and
tribes for the assessment, cleanup and redevelopment of abandoned or underutilized
commercial and industrial sites. Funding for the Brownfields Program is allocated
within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account to cover EPAâ€™s
costs of administering the program, and the STAG account for grants to perform
brownfield assessments, establish revolving loan funds, clean up sites, create job
training programs, and assist states and Indian tribes in establishing or enhancing
their voluntary response (cleanup) programs.
Human Dosing Studies. As reflected in the House and Senate floor debate,
and amendments included in both bills, there is significant interest in Congress
regarding EPAâ€™s policies for use of human dosing studies in regulatory decision
making for pesticides. Some manufacturers, scientists, and Members assert that
human dosing studies provide valuable scientific evidence regarding risks of certain
chemicals that can not be obtained with non-human research. Others recognize the
potential value and validity of such studies but advocate the establishment of strict
safeguards and protocols to protect the health of those subjects participating in such
studies. Some scientists, public interest groups, and Members counter that, given
ethical questions and potential economic motivation, caution and substantial further
evaluation is needed to ensure alternative approaches have been exhausted. Others
suggest that purposefully exposing humans is not worth the potential risk under any
circumstances.
The Senate adopted an amendment directing the EPA to conduct a thorough
review of all third-party intentional dosing studies currently submitted to EPA to
identify or quantify toxic effects. This amendment further directed EPA to report the
results of their review to certain House and Senate committees and to issue a final
rule for applying ethical standards to such studies. Subsequently, the Senate adopted
an amendment that would ban the EPAâ€™s use of FY2006 funds to conduct or consider
intentional human dosing studies for pesticides. The House adopted an identical

CRS-50
amendment banning the use of funds. However, the report accompanying the House-
passed bill (H.Rept. 109-80, p. 87) contained language commending EPAâ€™s efforts
in response to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2004 recommendations
regarding these types of studies,19 and stated that Congress will continue to monitor
these activities. These varying provisions on human dosing will likely be further
addressed during conference.
Clean Air Act Implementation and Research. EPAâ€™s implementation
of, and proposed changes to, several Clean Air Act provisions, as well as efforts to
address climate change, have elevated interest in funding for these programs among
Members of Congress. Prominent air quality issues include the adequacy of new
ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter; how best to reduce
human exposure to mercury; and proposed regulations and legislation regarding the
control of emissions from power plants, vehicles, and other sources. (See CRS Issue
Brief IB10137, Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th Congress, by James E. McCarthy;
and CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th
Congress, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.)
The Senate-passed bill would provide a combined total of $483.1 million within
the S&T and the EPM accounts for FY2006 for air toxics and air quality programs,
climate protection programs, and clean air research. The House-passed bill would
provide a combined total of $510.0 million for these activities. The FY2006 request
included $525.5 million, and Congress appropriated $476.1 million for FY2005.
In addition, an administrative provision in the Senate-passed bill would impact
a pending EPA regulation to reduce emissions of new small engines (less than 50
horsepower).20 This provision would prohibit the use of funds to publish this
regulation until the Agency completed a study of safety issues associated with
compliance, including potential risks of fire and burns to individuals. State standards
for these small engines, currently only in California, would not be impacted by the
provisions in the Senate-passed bill. The small engine issue was not addressed in the
House-passed bill.
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.
19 For more information on EPAâ€™s efforts as well as a direct link to the National Academy
of Sciences Report â€œIntentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes:
Scientific and Ethical Issues,â€ National Academies Press, Washington DC, see
[http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm].
20 Pursuant to Â§428(b) of Division G of P. L. 108-199 and 40 CFR part 90, subparts D and
E. For more information on EPAâ€™s small non-road engines regulations, see
[http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testingregs.htm].

CRS-51
CRS Report RS22064. Environmental Protection Agency: FY2006 Appropriations
Highlights, by David Bearden and Robert Esworthy.
CRS Issue Brief IB10146. Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Susan R. Fletcher and Margaret Isler.
Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The Senate approved an FY2006 funding level for the Forest Service (FS) of
$4.12 billion.21 This is $118.6 million (3%) less than the House-passed bill, $57.8
million (1%) more than the President requested, and $687.8 million (14%) less than
total FY2005 appropriations of $4.81 billion.
The Senate-passed bill included a Title V, the Forest Service Land Facility
Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005. This provision would authorize the FS
to dispose of â€œadministrative sitesâ€ by sale, lease, or exchange at their fair market
value. Receipts (less the cost of conveyance) would be permanently appropriated to
acquire, improve, maintain, or construct new facilities, or to proceed with further
administrative site disposals. A substitute, with minor changes from the reported
version, was agreed to on the Senate floor by unanimous consent.
Several amendments pertaining to FS programs were considered on the House
and Senate floor. Two House amendments altered funding for the National Forest
System; the net effect was a decline of $6.0 million in funding from the level
recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. A House amendment (by
Representative Chabot) would have prohibited funds for designing or building forest
development roads for timber harvesting in the Tongass National Forest (AK). A
point of order, asserting that the amendment was legislation on an appropriations bill,
was raised and sustained, preventing the amendment from being considered. A
similar amendment was agreed to in the House during consideration of the FY2005
Interior appropriations bill, but it was not included by the Senate or in the conference
agreement for FY2005. The Senate also considered an amendment to the FY2006
bill (by Senator Sununu) to prohibit timber road construction in the Tongass, but it
was defeated 39-59.
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.)
21 Figures in the Forest Service section include $40.0 million in transferred appropriations
from the Department of Defense (Â§8098 of P.L. 108-287).

CRS-52
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 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 Senate passed FY2006 funding of $2.54 billion, $48.9 million (2%)
less than the House, $35.9 million (1%) more than requested, and $454.0 million
(15%) less than appropriated for FY2005 (including $524.1 million in emergency and
supplemental appropriations enacted in FY2005). See Table 15 below.
The Senate approved BLM wildfire funding for FY2006 of $766.6 million, more
than the House and the request, and less than the FY2005 appropriation (including
emergency and supplemental funding). The Senate passed $1.78 billion for the FS
for FY2006, including $281.0 million in fuel reduction which the FS proposed to
fund under the National Forest System line item. This is less than the House, more
than the request, and less than FY2005 funding. The lower FY2006 funding for both
agenciesâ€™ wildfire budgets was primarily 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).

CRS-53
Table 15. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2002-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2002
FY2003b
FY2004c
FY2005d
FY2006
National Fire Plan
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Forest Service
â€” Wildfire Suppression
$255.3
$418.0
$597.1
$648.9
$700.5
$700.5
$700.5
â€” Emergency Funding a
266.0
919.0
748.9
425.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
â€” Preparedness
622.6
612.0
671.6
676.5
676.0
691.0
676.0
â€” Other Operations e
446.8
371.5
392.6
416.5
375.6
440.4
401.5
Subtotal, Forest Service
1,590.7
2,320.5
2,410.3
2,167.3
1,752.1
1,831.9
1,778.0
BLM
â€” Wildfire Suppression
127.4
159.3
192.9
218.4
234.2
234.2
234.2
â€” Emergency Funding a
54.0
225.0
198.4
98.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
â€” Preparedness f
280.8
275.4
254.2
258.9
272.9
272.9
272.9
â€” Other Operations f
216.2
215.4
238.1
255.3
249.5
254.5
259.5
Subtotal, BLM
678.4
875.2
883.6
831.3
756.6
761.6
766.6
Total National Fire Plan
â€” Wildfire Suppression
382.7
577.3
790.0
867.3
934.7
934.7
934.7
â€” Emergency Funding a
320.0
1,144.0
947.3
524.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
â€” Preparedness
903.4
887.4
925.8
935.4
948.9
963.9
948.9
â€” Other Operations
663.0
586.9
630.7
671.8
625.1
695.0
661.1
Total Appropriations
$2,269.1
$3,195.6
$3,293.9
$2,998.6
$2,508.7
$2,593.5
$2,544.6
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.

CRS-54
The Senate passed FY2006 wildfire suppression funding of $934.7 million,
equal to the House-passed level and the request, and 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, House, and Senate levels
were 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 Senate approved $948.9 million for fire preparedness for FY2006, equaling
the request, less than the House, and more than the FY2005 appropriation. The
Administrationâ€™s request and Senate increase were entirely for the BLM ($13.9
million, 5%), while the House also increased FS funding (by $14.5 million, 2%).
The Senate passed a total of $661.1 million for FY2006 for other fire operations,
less than the House, more than the request, and less than the FY2005 appropriation.
The Senate restored most of the programs that the Administration proposed to
terminate, and doubled the House-passed level for state and local assistance (to $10.0
million). For the FS, the Senate matched or increased funds from the request, but
proposed less funding than the House for most programs. Fuel reduction funding
(under the Presidentâ€™s Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act of 2003, P.L. 108-148) was approved at $492.2 million, equal to the request, less
than the House, and more than for FY2005. The increase over FY2005 was greater
for the FS (7%) than for the BLM (5%). Also, the House and the Senate again
rejected the Administrationâ€™s 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) â€” programs that provide financial and technical assistance
to states and to private forest owners. The Senate passed total S&PF funding for
FY2006 of $254.6 million â€” $260,000 less than the House, $1.2 million (0.5%)
more than requested, and $87.0 million (25%) less than the $341.6 million
appropriated for FY2005 (including $49.1 million of emergency S&PF
appropriations). However, the Senate shifted funds among forest health
management, cooperative fire assistance, cooperative forestry, and international
programs as compared with the House and the Administration.
For FY2006, the Senate approved $72.6 million for forest health management
(insect and disease control on federal and cooperative [nonfederal] lands), slightly
more than the Administration requested, and substantially less than the House and
the FY2005 level. The Senate and requested levels were more than 50% below the
FY2005 and House-passed levels for cooperative lands and were less than 10% lower
for federal lands. In addition, funds for forest health management are included in the
National Fire Plan, under Other Operations (see above). For FY2006, the Senate
matched the request for these funds, and provided more than 50% below the House-
passed and the FY2005 level.

CRS-55
For S&PF Cooperative Fire Assistance to states and volunteer fire departments,
the Senate approved $32.5 million, less than the House and the FY2005 level but
more than the request. Nearly all the differences are in assistance to states, with
assistance to volunteer fire departments differing by less than 2%. In addition, funds
for cooperative fire assistance are included in the National Fire Plan, under Other
Operations (see above). For FY2006, the Senate passed a funding level of $48.1
million for these programs, slightly less than the House, substantially more than the
request, and equal to FY2005.
For FY2006, for Cooperative Forestry (assistance for forestry activities on state
and private lands), the Senate passed $142.5 million. Forest Legacy (for purchasing
title or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, such as for
residences) was approved at $62.6 million, more than double the House-passed level,
less than the request of $80.0 million, and more than the FY2005 level. The Senate
approved $32.3 million for FY2006 for Forest Stewardship (for states to assist
private landowners), matching the FY2005 level, and less than the House and the
request. The Senate provided Urban and Community Forestry (financial and
technical assistance to localities) with $28.7 million, more than the House and the
request but less than FY2005. The Senate approved resource inventory at the
requested level, and less than the House and FY2005. The Administration again
proposed to terminate the Economic Action Program (EAP; for rural community
assistance, wood recycling, and Pacific Northwest economic assistance); the Senate
approved $14.2 million for FY2006, more than the House-passed level but below
FY2005 funding of $19.0 million.
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations), the
Senate passed $7.0 million, more than was approved by the House, requested by the
Administration, and enacted for FY2005.

CRS-56
Table 16. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
State and Private Forestry
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Forest Health Management
$101.9
$72.3
$103.0
$72.6
â€” Federal Lands a
54.2
50.0
55.0
50.0
â€” Cooperative Lands a
47.6
22.3
48.0
22.6
Cooperative Fire Assistance a
38.8
26.8
41.4
32.5
â€” State Assistance a
32.9
20.9
35.4
26.5
â€” Volunteer Asst. a
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
Cooperative Forestry a
145.4
149.2
103.6
142.5
â€” Forest Stewardship
32.3
37.1
37.4
32.3
â€” Forest Legacy
57.1
80.0
25.0
62.6
â€” Urban & Community Forestry
32.0
27.5
28.2
28.7
â€” Economic Action (Program) a
19.0
0.0
8.0
14.2
â€” Forest Resource Info. & Analysis
5.0
4.7
5.0
4.7
International Programs
6.4
5.0
6.9
7.0
Emergency Appropriations
49.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total State & Private Forestry
$341.6
$253.4
$254.9
$254.6
a. Excludes funding provided under the Wildland Fire Management account.
Infrastructure. The Senate provided total FY2006 funding of $409.8 million
for FS Capital Improvement and Maintenance, $58.5 million (12%) less than the
House-passed level, $29.0 million (8%) more than the request, $105.0 million (20%)
less than regular FY2005 funding of $514.7 million, and $190.2 million (32%) less
than total FY2005 funding, including $85.2 million in emergency and supplemental
funding. The primary difference from the request is the additional $26.0 million for
roads ($9.3 million for construction and $16.7 million for maintenance). The Senate-
passed levels were substantially lower than the House-passed levels for facilities
($6.6 million in construction and $26.5 million in maintenance), trails ($7.7 million
in construction and $4.5 million in maintenance), and road construction ($9.9
million). The Senate also included $9.7 million for infrastructure improvement, to
reduce the agencyâ€™s backlog of deferred maintenance, estimated at $6.5 billion. This
equaled the Administrationâ€™s request, and was $3.3 million (25%) less than the
House-passed level and $4.1 million (30%) less than appropriated for FY2005.
Land Acquisition. The Senate passed $44.9 million for FS Land Acquisition
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund â€” $32.4 million for acquisitions
(including cash equalization payments and critical inholding acquisitions) and $12.5
million for acquisition management. This was nearly triple the House-passed level

CRS-57
of $15.0 million, which included $13.0 million for acquisition management. The
Senate-passed level was $4.9 million (12%) more than the FY2006 request of $40.0
million and $16.1 million (26%) less than the FY2005 appropriations. (See the
â€œLand and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)â€ section in this report.)
Other Accounts. For FY2006, the Senate enacted $280.9 million for FS
research, $4.1 million (1%) less than the House, $4.5 million (2%) less than the
request, and $4.5 million (2%) more than the FY2005 level. Fire research funding
in the National Fire Plan, under Other Operations (see above) was approved at $26.4
million, $3.3 million (11%) less than the House, $9.5 million (56%) more than the
request, and $3.2 million (10%) more than FY2005. National Forest System (NFS)
funding was supported at $1.38 billion, $40.3 million (3%) less than the House, $7.3
million (0.5%) more than requested (excluding the proposed shift of fuel reduction
funding [$281.0 million] from wildfire management to NFS), and $15.3 million (1%)
more than the FY2005 level. (Fuel reduction funding is discussed under the National
Fire Plan, above.) Except for $3.7 million for the Valles Caldera National Preserve,
the Senate-passed levels generally are similar to the Administrationâ€™s request.
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. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National
Forests, by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
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.

CRS-58
The Senate-passed bill contains an IHS appropriation of $3.07 billion for
FY2006, a 3% increase from the FY2005 appropriation of $2.99 billion. The House
passed a 4% increase â€” $3.10 billion â€” for FY2006. 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. For the FY2006 Health Services budget, the House and Administrationâ€™s
levels were the same, but the Senate added $25,000 to increase base funding for the
InMed program at the University of North Dakota. For Facilities, the House added
$55.1 million over the Administrationâ€™s request of $315.7 for a total of $370.8
million, while the Senate added $20.0 million over the request for a total of $335.7
million.
The Senate considered but did not agree to amendments related to IHS. One
amendment sought to transfer money in the bill from federal land acquisition to the
Special Diabetes Program for Indians and the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program
within IHS. A second amendment would have required federal reserve banks to
transfer certain surplus funds to the general fund of the Treasury to be used for Indian
health care services. Both amendments fell on points of order.
Table 17. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2005-FY2006

($ in millions)
Change
Change
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
FY2005-
FY2005-
Indian Health Service
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
FY2006
FY2006
Passed
Passed
House
Senate
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
â€” Hospital and Health
$1,289.4
$1,359.5
$1,359.5
5%
$1,359.5
5%
Clinic Programs
â€” Dental Health
109.0
119.5
119.5
10%
119.5
10%
â€” Mental Health
55.1
59.3
59.3
8%
59.3
8%
â€” Alcohol and Substance
139.1
145.3
145.3
4%
145.3
4%
Abuse
â€” Contract Care
480.3
507.0
507.0
6%
507.0
6%
â€” Catastrophic Health
17.8
18.0
18.0
1%
18.0
1%
Emergency Fund
Subtotal, Clinical Services
2,090.6
2,208.7
2,208.7
6%
2,208.7
6%
Preventive Health Services
â€” Public Health Nursing
45.0
49.7
49.7
10%
49.7
10%
â€” Health Education
12.4
13.8
13.8
11%
13.8
11%
â€” Community Health
51.4
53.7
53.7
4%
53.7
4%
Representatives
â€” Immunization (Alaska)
1.6
1.7
1.7
6%
1.7
6%
Subtotal, Preventive Health
110.4
118.9
118.9
8%
118.9
8%

CRS-59
Change
Change
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
FY2005-
FY2005-
Indian Health Service
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
FY2006
FY2006
Passed
Passed
House
Senate
Other Services
â€” Urban Health Projects
31.8
33.2
33.2
4%
33.2
4%
â€” Indian Health Professions
30.4
31.5
31.5
4%
31.5
4%
â€” Tribal Management
2.3
2.4
2.4
4%
2.4
4%
â€” Direct Operations
61.6
63.1
63.1
2%
63.1
2%
â€” Self-Governance
5.6
5.8
5.8
4%
5.8
4%
â€” Contract Support Costs
263.7
268.7
268.7
2%
268.7
2%
Subtotal, Other Services
395.5
404.7
404.7
2%
404.7
2%
Subtotal, Indian Health
2,596.49
2,732.3
2,732.3
5%
2,732.3
5%
Services
Indian Health Facilities
â€” Maintenance and
49.2
49.9
54.9
12%
50.9
3%
Improvement
â€” Sanitation Facilities
91.8
93.5
93.5
2%
93.5
2%
Construction
â€” Health Care Facilities
88.6
3.3
50.1
-43%
20.3
-77%
Construction
â€” Facilities and
Environmental Health
141.7
151.0
151.0
7%
153.0
8%
Support
â€” Equipment
17.3
18.0
21.3
23%
18.0
4%
Subtotal, Indian Health
388.6
315.7
370.8
-5%
335.7
-14%
Facilities
Total Appropriations
$2,985.07
$3,047.97
$3,103.07
4%
$3,067.97
3%
Medicare/Medicaid
(598.7)
(648.2)
(648.2)
(8%)
(648.2)
(8%)
Reimbursements
Special Diabetes Program for
Indians a
150.0
150.0
150.0
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)

CRS-60
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 Childrenâ€™s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Estimated total reimbursements are $598.7
million in FY2005 and $648.2 million in FY2006.
The IHS Health Services budget has several subcategories: clinical services,
preventive health services, and other services. Itâ€™s total appropriation for FY2005
was $2.60 billion. The Administration proposed an increase of 5%, for a total of
$2.73 billion for FY2006. The House and the Senate concurred.
The Clinical Services budget includes by far the most program funding. The
Clinical Services budget enacted for FY2005 was $2.09 billion, but the
Administration, House, and Senate agreed to $2.21 billion for FY2006, an increase
of 6% over last year. 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 requested, House, and Senate amounts 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, the request, House,
and Senate agreed that dental programs would 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 House, Senate, and request for contract care
for FY2006 was $507.0 million, or 6% more than the appropriation for FY2005 of
$480.3 million.

For Preventive Health Services, the Administration requested, and the House
and Senate approved $118.9 million, an 8% increase for FY2006 over the $110.4
million for FY2005. Approved funding for the programs within preventive health
services in FY2006 included $49.7 million for public health nursing, $13.8 million
for health education in schools and communities, $1.7 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 the House and
Senate approved, $404.7 million for FY2006, a 2% increase over the FY2005
appropriation of $395.5 million. The largest item in this category is contract support
costs, with $268.7 million for FY2006. 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. Both the Senate and House approved
FY2006 funding of $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.

CRS-61
Facilities. The IHSâ€™s Facilities category includes money for the equipment,
construction, maintenance, improvement of both health and sanitation facilities, and
environmental health support programs. While the Administrationâ€™s proposal was
$315.7 million, a 19% decrease from the total FY2005 appropriation of $388.6
million, the House agreed to $370.8 million, a 17% increase over the Presidentâ€™s
request but a 5% reduction from the FY2005 appropriation. The Senate-passed bill,
however, contained $335.6 million, $35.1 million less than the House, $20.0 million
more than the Presidentâ€™s request, and $52.9 million less than in FY2005.
All of the Administrationâ€™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
were controversial. IHS stated that the Administrationâ€™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. It also is attempting to bolster health
services funding. The major national Indian health organization, the National Indian
Health Board (NIHB), opposed 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. However, the House agreed to $50.1 million for facilities
construction. In report language, the House Appropriations Committee stated that
it restored funds for Indian facility construction to the maximum extent possible. The
Senate approved $20.3 million for health care facilities construction, seeking to limit
funds temporarily while IHS and the tribes revise the construction priority system.
The Senate urged that IHS complete this work soon.
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 total $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.
A December 2004 Interim Report to Congress on the Special Diabetes Program
for Indians gave an accounting of how the money has been distributed to

CRS-62
communities through grants. The formula for distribution of these grants depended
on the prevalence and mortality or the disease burden; the number of active users in
a tribe; and a tribal size adjustment for very small communities. The funding is being
used to provide prevention services. Both the House and Senate Appropriations
Committee reports mentioned this interim report and its positive accounting of
prevention activities.
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.
ONHIRâ€™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 familiesâ€™ eligibility for relocation benefits.
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. (ONHIRâ€™s proposal included using
$10.4 million in carryover funds in FY2006.) The House and Senate approved the
Administrationâ€™s proposed amount for FY2006 appropriations for ONHIR.
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 â€” only some of
them among the 3,400 eligible families â€” signed â€œaccommodation agreementsâ€ 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.

CRS-63
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 Tribe to allow the
eight families to stay on Hopi land, as autonomous families, in return for ONHIRâ€™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 of Navajo
families who filed late applications or appeals but whom ONHIR proposes to
accommodate to avoid litigation â€” together estimated at 210 families â€” would
mean 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 relocateesâ€™ 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 times expressed impatience at the speed of relocation.

A long-standing proviso in ONHIR appropriations language, retained for
FY2006 in the Administrationâ€™s proposal and the House- and Senate-passed bills,
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 ONHIRâ€™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 â€œquiet possessionâ€ of all Hopi partitioned lands. The agreement that ONHIR
reports it is negotiating with the Justice Department and the Hopi Tribe 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.

CRS-64
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations. For FY2006, the House-passed bill
allowed $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). The Senate- passed bill would provide $624.1
million for the Smithsonian, $8.9 million over the House-passed bill. (See Table 18
below.) For Salaries and Expenses, the House-passed bill would provide $524.4
million, a 7% increase over the FY2005 amount of $489.0 million. The Senate-
passed bill would provide $524.1 million for Salaries and Expenses, the same as the
budget request. Salaries and Expenses cover administration of all of the museums
and research institutions that are part of the Smithsonian Institution. It also includes
program support and outreach, and facilities services (security and maintenance).

Facilities Capital. For FY2006, the House-passed bill and the Administration
would provide $90.9 million for Facilities Capital, significantly (28%) less than the
$126.1 million enacted for FY2005. The Senate-passed bill would provide $100.0
million for Facilities Capital, $9.1 million more that the House-passed funding level.
These funding levels are significantly less for FY2006 than for FY2005 due in part
to the completion of the renovation of the Patent Office Building. The House-passed
bill would provide $73.9 million for revitalization, $9.0 million for construction, and
$8.0 million for facilities planning and design. The Senate-passed bill would provide
$72.9 million for revitalization, $18.1 million for construction for the Museum
support center storage facility, and $9.0 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. These funds would support projects at the National Museum of American
History and the National Museum of Natural History.
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The House- and
Senate-passed bills, and 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 the NMAI took
place September 28, 1999, and the grand opening ceremony was September 21, 2004,
beginning with a celebration called the â€œFirst Americans Festival.â€ 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- and Senate-passed bills would provide $3.9 million for the
NMAAHC, the same as the FY2005 appropriation, but $1.2 million below the
Administrationâ€™s request of $5.1 million. In report language, the Senate
Appropriations Committee expressed support for this new museum and an intention
to â€œmake every effort to meet future requests for additional fundsâ€ (S.Rept. 108-90,
p. 97). The funding would cover operating costs, including 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

CRS-65
NMAAHC. The House Appropriations Committeeâ€™s report for FY2006 stipulated
that the Smithsonianâ€™s purchase of any additional buildings would require initial
consultation with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
National Zoo. For FY2006, the House-passed bill 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. The Senate-passed bill would provide $20.3 million. Recently, Congress
and the public have expressed increased concern about the National Zooâ€™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 Administrationâ€™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 Department of Agriculture and American Zoo
and Aquarium Association standards, and help correct â€œinfrastructure deficienciesâ€
found throughout the National Zoo. The House concurred with 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. The Senate-passed bill did not contain instructions about
the National Zooâ€™s construction projects, except to state in report language (S.Rept.
109-80) that there is a base of $13.0 million for the Zooâ€™s facilities capital projects.
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
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.

CRS-66
Table 18. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Smithsonian Institution (SI)
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Salaries and Expenses
$489,035
$524,135
$524,381
$524,135
Facilities Capital
â€” Revitalization
110,355
72,900
73,900
72,900
â€” Construction
7,879
9,000
9,000
18,100
â€” Facilities Planning and
7,889
9,000
8,000
9,000
Design
Subtotal, Facilities Capital
126,123
90,900
90,900
100,000
Total Appropriations
$615,158
$615,035
$615,281
$624,135
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. Â§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
information on IMLS appropriations, see CRS Report RL32952, Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education: FY2006 Appropriations, 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.

CRS-67
NEA. NEAâ€™s direct grant program for the arts currently supports approximately
1,600 grants annually. 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-passed bill would provide $131.3 million for NEA,
$10.0 million above the Administrationâ€™s FY2006 request and the FY2005
appropriation, and $5.0 million over the Senate-passed bill. A House floor
amendment increased NEAâ€™s appropriation by $10.0 million and the NEH by $5.0
million, with offsets totaling $15.0 million from the National Forest System and
DOIâ€™s Departmental Management activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee
had agreed to an amendment adding $5.0 million in general increases to each of NEA
and NEH, without specifying which programs would be increased. The Senate-
passed bill maintained the same amounts, i.e. $126.3 million for NEA and $143.1
million for NEH.
Both the House- and Senate-passed bills would fund NEAâ€™s direct grants at
$45.1 million. They also included $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-passed bill specified that the $10.0 million
increase would be used for the Challenge America Fund program for a total of $24.9
million. The Challenge America Arts Fund is 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.)
During House floor consideration, other amendments were not agreed to that
would have reduced funding for the NEA. One sought to cut $15.0 million from the
NEA to provide $4.8 million for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. Another
amendment proposed cutting $30.0 million from the NEA to shift $27.5 million to
the Forest Serviceâ€™s Wildland Fire Management program. The Senate also
considered amendments related to funding for the arts and humanities. A Senate
amendment, which was withdrawn, sought to increase BLM fire funding while
reducing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
Although there appears to be congressional support for the NEA, concern often
arises about previous questionable NEA grants when appropriations are considered.22
Congress continues to restate the language of NEA reforms in appropriations laws.
For example, both the FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations laws retained language
22 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 â€œcan consider general standards of decencyâ€ when
judging grants for artistic merit and that the decency provision does not â€œinherently interfere
with First Amendment rights nor violate constitutional vagueness principles.â€ No NEA
projects have been judged obscene by the courts. Also, NEA eliminated grants to
individuals by arts discipline with some exceptions.

CRS-68
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
fellowships. For FY2006, the House- and Senate-passed bills included 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- and Senate-passed bills would provide
$143.1 million, $5.0 million above the FY2006 request and the FY2005
appropriation. The House- and Senate-passed bills would provide $15.5 million for
matching grants, and $127.6 million for grants and administration. (See Table 19
below.) They would allow $11.2 million for the â€œWe the Peopleâ€ initiative, the same
as the FY2006 request and the FY2005 appropriation. These grants include model
curriculum projects for schools to improve course offerings in the humanities â€”
American history, culture, and civics.
Table 19. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Arts and Humanities
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
NEA
â€” Challenge America Arts
Fund a
$21,427
$14,922
$14,922b
$14,922
â€” National Initiative:
American
1,972
8,000
8,000
8,000
Masterpieces a
Subtotal Grants
99,452
98,148
98,148
98,148
Program support
1,270
1,470
1,470
1,470
Administration
20,542
21,646
21,646
21,646
Total, NEA
121,264
121,264
131,264b
126,264c
NEH
â€” NEH Grants and
122,156
122,605
127,605d
127,605e
Administration
â€” NEH Matching Grants
15,898
15,449
15,449
15,449
Total, NEH
138,054
138,054
143,054
143,054
Total Appropriations NFAH
$259,318
$259,318
$274,318
$269,318
a. Included in the NEA total.

CRS-69
b. The House-passed bill added $10.0 million to NEA, specifying that the funds would go to the
Challenge America program. However, the Challenge America figure does not reflect the $10.0
million increase; only the NEA total reflects the increase.
c. The Senate-passed bill added a general increase of $5.0 million to grants and administration for
NEA, which is reflected in the total.
d. Includes a House-passed general increase for NEH of $5.0 million.
e. Includes a Senate-passed general increase for NEH of $5.0 million.
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 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 â€” Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, and Forest Service â€” 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 totaled $14.2 billion. Table 20 shows recent funding for LWCF. 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 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-70
Table 20. Appropriations from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, FY2004-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY200
FY200
6
6
Land and Water
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2006
House
Senate
Conservation Fund
Approp. Request Approp. Request
Passed
Passed
Federal Acquisition
â€” BLM
$18.4
$24.0
$11.2
$13.4
$3.8
$12.3
â€” FWS
43.1
45.0
37.0
41.0
14.9
40.8
â€” NPS
41.8
84.3
55.1
52.9
7.8
56.0
â€” FS
66.4
66.9
61.0
40.0
15.0
44.9
Subtotal, Federal
169.7
220.2
164.3
147.3
41.5
154.0
Acquisition
Grants to States
93.8
93.8
91.2
1.6
1.6
30.0
Other Programs
433.2
586.2
203.4
531.7
185.3
220.2
Total Appropriations
$696.7
$900.2
$458.9
$680.6
$228.4 $404.2
Source: Data for FY2004-FY2006 are from House and Senate documents, except that data for the
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 passed $228.4 million for the LWCF
in FY2006; the Senate-passed bill included $404.2 million. In report language, the
House Appropriations 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, appropriations in the House-passed
bill generally mirror, or are reductions from, the Administration request and FY2005
appropriations. The Senate provided more than the Administration request for
federal land acquisition and stateside grants, but less for other programs. A Senate
amendment to reduce funds for land acquisition fell on a point of order. It had sought
to eliminate BLM and FS land acquisition funding and significantly reduce FWS and
NPS acquisition funds, and to increase funds for the Indian Health Service.
For federal land acquisition, the House provided $41.5 million â€” a decrease of
$105.8 million from the Administration request and $122.8 million from FY2005
appropriations. The House included funds for management of the acquisition
program and for emergencies, but did not earmark funds for specified federal

CRS-71
acquisitions, as is typically the case. Unlike the House, the Senate provided $154.0
million for federal land acquisition â€” an increase of $6.7 million from the
Administration request and a decrease of $10.3 million from FY2005 appropriations.
The Senate would earmark the bulk of the funds for specific federal land acquisitions.
For the stateside grant program, the Senate included $30.0 million â€” $28.4
million more than the Administration request. A Senate amendment seeking to
augment money for the stateside program through state retention of certain
recreational user fees was withdrawn. The House, as in the Administration request,
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 state
grants in FY2006, on the grounds that large federal deficits require a focus on core
federal responsibilities, state and local governments have alternative sources of
funding for parkland acquisition and development, 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 Congress concurred.
The bulk of the Administrationâ€™s FY2006 request for appropriations from the
LWCF was for purposes other than land acquisition and stateside grants (other
programs). The $531.7 million request for other programs is the second largest such
request in the history of the LWCF. Though they provided less than the
Administration requested, both the House and Senate provided more for other
programs than for federal land acquisition and stateside grants combined. The Senate
provided $220.2 million in LWCF funding for other programs. The House provided
$185.3 million â€” $346.4 million less than the Administration request and $34.9
million less than the Senate. As shown in Table 21, the Senate and the House
generally provided the indicated programs with less funding from the LWCF than the
Administration requested. In some cases, however, the House and Senate may have
provided these programs with non-LWCF funding.

CRS-72
Table 21. FY2006 Funding for Other Programs from the LWCF
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
House
Senate
Other Programs
Request
Passed
Passed
Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI)
â€” Cooperative Conservation Programs
$125.7
$0.0
$0.0
â€” State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
$74.0
$65.0
$72.0
â€” Landowner Incentive Grants
$40.0
$23.7
$25.0
â€” Private Stewardship Grants
$10.0
$7.4
$7.5
â€” Cooperative Endangered Species Grants
$80.0
$64.2
$45.7
â€” North American Wetlands Conservation
$49.9
$0.0
$0.0
Fund Grants
â€” Other (Salaries and Expenses)
$7.4
$0.0
$7.4
Forest Service (USDA)
â€” Forest Legacy Program
$80.0
$25.0
$62.6
â€” Forest Stewardship Program
$37.1
$0.0
$0.0
â€” Urban and Community Forestry Program
$27.5
$0.0
$0.0
Total Appropriations
$531.7
$185.3
$220.2
Notes: This table identifies funding for the indicated programs that would be derived from LWCF,
although in some cases additional funding is being sought. Funds provided in the House-passed bill
within the Forest Serviceâ€™s State and Private Forestry account are presumed to be included for the
Forest Legacy Program, based on report language of the House Committee on Appropriations.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
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

CRS-73
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
billion in FY2006. All CSC funding is subject to the appropriations process.23 The
appropriations history through FY2006 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 Committeeâ€™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 Committeeâ€™s report included a discussion of conservation funding
(S.Rept. 108-341, p. 5), but did not mention CSC. It stated that the committee
23 How programs are categorized, or â€œscored,â€ 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-74
â€œremains concernedâ€ about proposals to create â€œdirect entitlement fundingâ€ 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.
For FY2006, neither the request from DOI nor the House- or Senate-passed bills
appeared to delineate funding for the CSC. Therefore, it is not clear if Congress is
continuing to use the CSC structure for appropriations decisions.

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.
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 â€œexcessâ€ 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.24 WRDA 2000 authorizes $1.4 billion (the federal
share is $700 million) for an initial set of projects under CERP.
24 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-75
Overview of Appropriations. Appropriations for restoration projects in the
South Florida ecosystem have been provided to various agencies as part of several
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 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.25 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.26 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 22 below.
The House-passed bill would provide $84.0 million for Everglades restoration
for FY2006. It is unclear how much the Senate-passed bill would provide for
Everglades restoration activities because most of them are not specified and a total
figure was not provided in the bill language or committee report. The amounts for
specific agencies that conduct restoration in the Everglades typically 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.
Funding for the Modified Water Deliveries project is included in both the
House-passed and Senate-passed bills. For FY2006, they would provide $17.0
million for the Modified Water Deliveries Project. Project funding would come
from a transfer of unobligated balances in the Land Acquisition and State Assistance
account for Everglades National Park land acquisitions. The House-passed and
Senate-passed bills also would provide $9.9 million for planning and interagency
coordination in support of Everglades restoration. Programs included in this funding
25 These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
26 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.

CRS-76
were not specified and therefore could not be compared to the Administration's
request.
Table 22. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget, FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2005
FY2006
Everglades Restoration in DOI
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
National Park Service a
â€” CERP
$5,213
$5,245
n/a
n/a
â€” Park Operations b 25,266
25,854
n/a
n/a
â€” Land Acquisition
0
0
n/a
n/a
â€” Everglades Acquisitions
1,500
1,400
n/a
n/a
Management
â€” Modified Water Delivery
7,965
25,000
17,000
17,000
â€” Everglades Research
3,882
3,898
n/a
n/a
â€” South Florida Ecosystem
1,290
1,305
n/a
n/a
Task Force
Subtotal, NPS
45,116
62,702
n/a
n/a
Fish and Wildlife Service
â€” CERP
3,304
3,351
n/a
n/a
â€” Land Acquisition
740
0
n/a
n/a
â€” Ecological Services
2,518
2,554
n/a
n/a
â€” Refuges and Wildlife
4,787
5,787
n/a
n/a
â€” Migratory Birds
0
103
n/a
n/a
â€” Law Enforcement
627
636
n/a
n/a
â€” Fisheries
99
100
n/a
n/a
Subtotal, FWS
12,075
12,531
n/a
n/a
U.S. Geological Survey
â€” Research, Planning and
7,738
7,738
n/a
n/a
Coordination
â€” Biological Research
0
150
n/a
n/a
Subtotal, USGS
7,738
7,888
n/a
n/a
Bureau of Indian Affairs
â€” Seminole, Miccosukee Tribe
536
388
n/a
n/a
Water Studies and Restoration
Subtotal, BIA
536
388
n/a
n/a
Total Appropriations
$65,465
$83,509
$84,000
n/a
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.

CRS-77

a. The $9.9 million that would be provided by the House-passed bill and Senate Committee for
interagency coordination and support of Everglades restoration was not included in the table
because the components of this line item were not specified and could not be related to the
Administrationâ€™s request.
b. This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National
Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve.
The Administrationâ€™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 â€”
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.27 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.28
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 House Committee noted that there
are challenges to restoration, but emphasized that they must be overcome and
restoration goals must be achieved. The House Committee expressed concern that
the restoration initiative may not be achieving the primary federal interest â€” the
restoration of the Everglades. The House Appropriations 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 House Appropriations 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,
27 For more information, see CRS Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water
Deliveries Project, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
28 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2006: The Interior Budget in Brief (Washington,
DC: Feb. 2005).

CRS-78
collaborative efforts, and any changes needed to be made in project implementation
priorities. The Senate Appropriations Committee report did not comment on
restoration activities in the Everglades.
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
House Appropriations 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 included in the House-passed bill and Senate-
passed bill for FY2006. In report language, the House Appropriations Committee
expressed that it expects this joint report to be submitted on time in the future.
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 Â§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.29 Provisions
conditioning funds on the achievement of water quality standards were not requested
in the Administrationâ€™s budget for FY2006. (For more information see CRS Report
RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and
Barbara Johnson.)
In report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern over
efforts to improve water quality in the Everglades. The House 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
House Committee directed the FWS to keep the Committee fully appraised of water
quality modeling and monitoring in the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife
29 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-79
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/].
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 RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole
T. Carter.
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs
The Bush Administrationâ€™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- and Senate-passed
FY2006 bills placed a cap of $3.45 million on DOI competitive sourcing studies
during FY2006. The cap applies to FY2006 funds for DOI in the bill or any other
act. The portion that would be allocated to the NPS was not specified. Both versions
of the bill also contained language on reprogramming funds. In the House-passed
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, while the Senate-passed bill
provided a limit of $3.0 million. In Statements of Administration Policy, the
Administration had urged the House and Senate to remove the funding limitations
during floor action, on the grounds that they would restrict agencies from improving
program management through competitive sourcing. 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.
The Senate-passed bill also specified that agencies include, in any reports to the
Appropriations Committees on competitive sourcing, information on the costs
associated with sourcing studies and related activities. During House floor
consideration, similar language was removed on a point of order that it constituted

CRS-80
legislation on an appropriations bill. Further, the Senate-passed bill included a floor
amendment related to the effect of Forest Service competitive sourcing on wildland
fire management activities. The amendment directed the Secretary of Agriculture to
determine whether FS employees affected by competitive sourcing studies are
qualified to participate in wildland fire management, and to consider the effect that
contracting out would have on the FSâ€™s ability to suppress and manage wildfires.
Another Senate amendment, to require the Government Accountability Office to
audit the FSâ€™s competitive sourcing program, was withdrawn.
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.30 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
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.)
30 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2006 Presidentâ€™s Budget: Budget
Justification (Washington, DC: 2005), p. 14-16.

CRS-81
Table 23. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Bureau or Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
$1,893,233
$1,816,910
$1,759,042
$1,755,115
$1,788,310
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,308,405
1,332,591
1,322,894
1,306,168
1,315,037
National Park Service
2,258,581
2,365,683
2,249,275
2,228,963
2,315,332
U.S. Geological Survey
937,985
944,564
933,515
974,586
963,057
Minerals Management Service
170,297
173,826
167,422
159,682
159,522
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement
295,975
296,573
356,549
298,549
298,549
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,300,814
2,295,702
2,187,469
2,317,976
2,269,371
Departmental Offices a 682,674
729,379
815,903
758,654
780,563
Total Title I
9,847,964
9,955,228
9,792,069
9,799,693
9,889,741
Title II: Environmental Protection
Agency
8,365,817c 8,026,485
7,520,600
7,708,027
7,881,989
Title III: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,939,899
4,770,598d
4,065,000
4,241,358
4,122,767
Indian Health Service
2,921,715
2,985,066
3,047,966
3,103,072
3,067,966
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
78,309
79,842
80,289
80,289
80,289
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
73,034
76,041
76,024
76,024
76,024
Council on Environmental Quality and
Office of Environmental Quality
3,219
3,258
2,717
2,717
2,717
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board
8,648
9,424
9,200
9,200
9,200
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation
13,366
4,930
8,601
8,601
8,601
Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development
6,173
5,916
6,300
6,300
6,300
Smithsonian Institution
596,279
615,158
615,035
615,281
624,135
National Gallery of Art
98,225
102,654
113,300
113,300
111,600
John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts
32,159
33,021
33,000
27,800
33,000
Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars
8,498
8,863
9,201
9,085
9,201
National Endowment for the Arts
120,972
121,264
121,264
131,264
126,264
National Endowment for the Humanities
135,310
138,054
138,054
143,054
143,054
Commission of Fine Arts
1,405
1,768
1,893
1,893
1,893
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
6,914
6,902
7,000
7,000
7,492
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
3,951
4,536
4,988
4,860
4,943
National Capital Planning Commission
7,635
7,888
8,344
8,177
8,244
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
39,505
40,858
43,233
41,880
43,233
Presidio Trust
20,445
19,722
20,000
20,000
19,722

CRS-82
FY2006
FY2006
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Bureau or Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Passed
White House Commission on the Natl.
Moment of Remembrance
â€”
248
250
250
250
Total Title III
9,115,661
9,036,011
8,411,659
8,651,405
8,506,895
[Title IV: Veteransâ€™ Health]
â€”
â€”
â€”
â€”
[1,500,000]
$26,258,625 e
Grand Total (in Bill) b
$27,329,442 $27,017,724 $25,724,328 $26,159,125
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
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 generally do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments.
c. Derived from the report of the House Appropriations Committee on H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674).
d. Excludes $40.0 million in transferred funds from the Department of Defense (Â§8098, P.L. 108-287.)
e. The Senate total does not include a $1.5 billion FY2005 emergency appropriation for veteransâ€™ health. It reflects a
$22.0 million reduction in DOI administrative expenses, as an offset to increases in the bill, and a $2.0
million adjustment for Forest Service facility enhancement. These amounts are not reflected in the individual
agency figures in the column.

CRS-83
For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL32373. Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected
Issues. By Robert L. Bamberger.
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 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. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Pamela Baldwin, and Robert Meltz.
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 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 RS21738. The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v.
Norton, by Nathan Brooks.
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 Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.

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-84
CRS Report RL31521. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas: Energy Security and
Other Major Issues, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole
T. Carter
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,
coordinated 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 Agenciesâ€™ 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 A.
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
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 RS22064. Environmental Protection Agency: FY2006 Appropriations
Highlights, by David Bearden and Robert Esworthy.

CRS-85
CRS Issue Brief IB10146. Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Susan R. 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.
CRS Report RS22024. Wildfire Protection in the 108th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.