Order Code RL33399
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Updated May 16, 2006
Carol Hardy Vincent, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Susan Boren, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation,
other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs
and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing
statutes. Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the
submission of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional
practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are
rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. It summarizes the
status of the Interior, Environment, 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://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
The FY2007 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 — 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 recently
transferred to the appropriations subcommittees that deal with Interior and Related
Agencies; and numerous other entities and agencies.
On May 15, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R.5386
(H.Rept. 109-465) providing $25.94 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies for FY2007. The committee approved level would be a $141.8 million
(1%) decrease from the FY2006 enacted level of $26.09 billion, but a $412.0 million
(2%) increase over the President’s request for FY2007 of $25.53 billion. Among the
proposed decreases in the House Committee bill for FY2007, from the FY2006 level,
are the following:
! $-100.4 million (4%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
! $-63.5 million (1%) for the Forest Service (FS);
! $-55.4 million (4%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
! $-52.5 million (1%) for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA);
! $-39.6 million (2% ) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and
! $-38.7 million (17%) for the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians.
Among the increases for FY2007 were the following:
! $148.4 million (5%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
! $31.2 million (2%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
! $20.8 million (2%) for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and
! $4.0 million (1%) for the Office of Surface Mining (OSM).
As part of House Committee action, several amendments were adopted. One
amendment would lift a moratorium on drilling for natural gas on the Outer
Continental Shelf. Another amendment would decrease the Smithsonian Institution’s
salaries and expenses account by $15.0 million, and increase the Payment in Lieu of
Taxes program by $12.0 million and the EPA State and Tribal Assistance grants by
$3.0 million for the National Clean Diesel Initiative.
Congress is debating a variety of issues for FY2007 including appropriate
funding for wildland fire fighting, land acquisition, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
program, BIA schools, IHS hospitals, clean air and water needs, maintenance
backlogs, and Indian trust fund management. Other issues include land sales,
Smithsonian business ventures, Everglades restoration, Outer Continental Shelf
leasing, and oil and gas royalty relief. This report will be updated as action occurs.
Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Divisiona
Tel.
E-mail
Interior Budget
Carol Hardy
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Data/Coordinators
Vincent
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crs.loc.gov
and Susan Boren
Art, Humanities,
Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crs.loc.gov
Cultural Affairs
Historic Preservation
Bureau of Land
Carol Hardy
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Management
Vincent
Environmental
David Bearden
RSI
7-2390
dbearden@crs.loc.gov
Protection Agency
Everglades Restoration
Pervaze A. Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Fish and Wildlife
M. Lynne Corn
RSI
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Service
Forest Service
Ross W. Gorte
RSI
7-7266
rgorte@crs.loc.gov
Historic Preservation
Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crs.loc.gov
Indian Affairs
Roger Walke
DSP
7-8641
rwalke@crs.loc.gov
Indian Health Service
Insular Affairs
Keith Bea
G&F
7-8672
kbea@crs.loc.gov
Land Acquisition
Carol Hardy
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Vincent
Minerals Management
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
Service
National Park Service
David Whiteman
RSI
7-7786
dwhiteman@crs.loc.gov
Payments in Lieu of
M. Lynne Corn
RSI
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Taxes Program (PILT)
Surface Mining and
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
Reclamation
U.S. Geological Survey
Pervaze A. 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
FY2007 Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Current Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Status of Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Management of Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Construction and Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Endangered Species Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 11
Avian Flu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Wildlife Refuge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Operation of the National Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
United States Park Police (USPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
National Recreation and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Land Acquisition and State Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Enterprise Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
National Mapping Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Water Resources Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Biological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Science Support and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
BIA Reorganization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
BIA School System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Insular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
National Indian Gaming Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Water Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Superfund and Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
EPA’s Homeland Security Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Clean Air Act Implementation and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Other Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . . . . . 51
Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
House Committee Consideration and FY2007 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Facilities Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
National Museum of African American History and Culture . . . . . . . 58
National Zoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Trust Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Business Ventures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for
the Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
NEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
FY2007 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
FY2007 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
List of Figures
Figure 1. Forest Service FY2007 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
List of Tables
Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2006 . . . 4
Table 2. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . 15
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2005-FY2007 . . 23
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 13. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2006-FY2007 . . 29
Table 14. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu
of Taxes, FY2000-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 16. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 17. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2003-FY2007 . . . . . . . 48
Table 18. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry, FY2004-FY2007 . . 50
Table 19. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2006-FY2007 . . . . 52
Table 20. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2005-FY2007 . . . 59
Table 21. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . 61
Table 22. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 23. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 24. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On May 15, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R.5386, the
FY2007 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill containing
$25.94 billion (H.Rept. 109-465). The President had requested $25.53 billion.
Introduction
The FY2007 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: 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 FY2007 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
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.
1 The House panel is called the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies. The Senate panel is entitled the Subcommittee on Energy and Water.
2 The House panel is called the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. The Senate panel is entitled the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
CRS-2
The FY2006 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law
contained three primary titles providing funding. This report is organized along the
lines of that law on the assumption that the FY2007 legislation follows a similar
organization. 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. 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 requested by the President for FY2007 and appropriated for FY2006. 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.
FY2007 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
On May 15, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee reported $25.94 billion
for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007. The House Committee
approved level would be a $141.8 million (1%) decrease from the FY2006 enacted
level of $26.09 billion, but a $412.0 million (2%) increase over the President’s
request for FY2007 of $25.53 billion. Among the proposed decreases in the House
Committee bill for FY2007, with respect to the FY2006 level, are the following:
! $-100.4 million (4%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
! $-63.5 million (1%) for the Forest Service (FS);
! $-55.4 million (4%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
! $-52.5 million (1%)for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
! $-39.6 million (2% ) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA);
! $-38.7 million (17%) for the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians; and
! $-9.9 million (6%) for the Minerals Management Service (MMS).
Among the increases for FY2007 were the following:
! $148.4 million (5%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
! $31.2 million (2%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
! $20.8 million (2%) for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and
! $4.0 million (1%) for the Office of Surface Mining (OSM).
As part of House Committee action, several amendments were adopted. They
included the following:
CRS-3
! Climate Change Study — adds report language instructing the EPA
to provide $1 million to support a National Academy of Sciences
study on the potential effects of global climate change on human
health;
! George Washington Parkway — adds report language to require the
NPS to consider the feasibility of a third lane on the George
Washington Memorial Parkway;
! Greenhouse Gases — expresses the Sense of Congress that
greenhouse gases are causing average temperatures to rise;
mandatory steps would be required to slow the growth of gas
emissions; there is a growing scientific consensus that human
activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gases; there should be
a national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives
to respond to the issue;
! Moratorium on Natural Gas Drilling — lifts a moratorium on
drilling for natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf;
! National Parks Public-Private Partnerships — adds report language
that expresses the committee’s support for public private
partnerships in the national parks and urges NPS to act on a proposal
by First Tee of Washington, DC, for an educational partnership at
Kenilworth Park South;
! Oil and Gas Royalties — suspends royalty relief for production of
oil and natural gas from federal lands in certain circumstances;
! Personal Watercraft Rule — adds report language that urges the NPS
to complete rulemaking on the use of personal watercraft within
certain units of the national park system in a timely manner;
! Smithsonian Institution — reduces the Smithsonian salaries and
expenses account by $15.0 million and increases the Payments in
Lieu of Taxes program by $12.0 million and the EPA State and
Tribal Assistance Grants account by $3.0 million for the National
Clean Diesel Initiative;
! Smithsonian Salary Limits — bars funds from being used to pay
compensation to any employee of the Smithsonian Institution higher
than the rate of pay of the President of the United States; and
! USGS Missouri Mapping Center — appropriates $13.0 million from
the USGS account for the Mid-Continent Mapping Center in Rolla,
Missouri.
Amendments not adopted included an amendment that would increase funding
in the Interior bill by $800 million, the cost to be offset by a partial repeal of 2001
and 2003 tax cuts for individuals making $1 million a year or more in taxable
CRS-4
income. Another amendment would have transferred $10.3 million from the BLM
to the EPA’s Energy Star program. It was withdrawn.
Table 1 below shows the budget authority for Interior and Related Agencies for
FY2004-2006. See Table 25 for a budgetary history of each agency for FY2004-
FY2006, the President’s budget request for FY2007, and the House Committee’s
budget authority for FY2007.
Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2006
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
$27.33
$27.02
$26.09
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. They generally reflect rescissions and supplemental appropriations to date.
Major Issues
One issue being debated in this appropriations cycle is the distribution of
proceeds from land sales under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
(FLTFA). This issue is covered briefly in the “Bureau of Land Management”
section, below. Another issue being debated is the sale of certain National Forest
System lands. This issue is covered briefly in the “Forest Service” section, below.
The President’s FY2007 budget assumed enactment of legislation to open part of the
Coastal Plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and
development. This issue is covered briefly in the “Fish and Wildlife Service”
section, below. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress, by M.
Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.)
Controversial policy and funding issues typically have been debated during
consideration of the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. Debate on FY2007 funding levels encompasses a variety of
issues, many of which have been controversial in the past, including the issues listed
below.
! BIA Schools and IHS Hospitals, particularly whether to enact
funding cuts proposed in the President’s FY2007 budget. (For more
information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Indian
Health Service” sections in this report.)
! Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially
the adequacy of funding to meet state and local wastewater and
drinking water needs. These state revolving funds provide seed
money for state loans to communities for wastewater and drinking
water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see the
“Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)
CRS-5
! Indian Trust Funds, especially the method by which an historical
accounting will be conducted of Individual Indian Money (IIM)
accounts to determine correct balances in the class-action lawsuit
against the government involving tribal and IIM accounts. (For
more information, see the “Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians” section in this report.)
! Land Acquisition, including the appropriate level of funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and
the state grant program, and extent to which the fund should be used
for activities not involving land acquisition. (For more information,
see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in
this report.)
! Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly the moratoria on
preleasing and leasing activities in offshore areas, and oil and gas
leases in offshore California. (For more information, see the
“Minerals Management Service” section in this report.)
! Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), primarily the
appropriate level of funding for compensating local governments for
federal land within their jurisdictions. (For more information, see
the “Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT)” section in this
report.)
! Royalty Relief, especially the extent to which oil and natural gas
companies receive royalty relief for production of oil and natural gas
on federal lands. (For more information see “MMS” section of this
report.)
! Smithsonian Institution, in particular its contract with
CBS/Showtime that gives certain rights to Showtime in accessing
the Smithsonian’s collection. (For more information see the
“Smithsonian Institution” section of this report.)
! Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet
hazardous waste cleanup needs, and whether to continue using
general Treasury revenues to fund the account or reinstate a tax on
industry that originally paid for most of the program. (For more
information, see the “Environmental Protection Agency” section in
this report.)
! Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate
level of funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of
borrowing funds from other agency programs to fight wildfires;
implementation of a new program for wildland fire protection and
locations for fire protection treatments; and impact of environmental
analysis, public involvement, and challenges to agency decisions on
fuel reduction activities. (For more information, see the “Bureau of
Land Management” and “Forest Service” sections in this report.)
CRS-6
Status of Bill
Table 2 below will contain information on congressional consideration of the
FY2007 Interior appropriations bill as it occurs.
Table 2. Status of Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2007
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
Report Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage Report
House
Senate
Law
H.R.5386,
H. Rept.
109-465
5/04/06
5/15/06
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 FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee approved $1.79 billion for
BLM. This would be an increase of $31.2 million (2%) from the FY2006 enacted
level of $1.75 billion, but a decrease of $31.6 million (2%) from the FY2005 level
of $1.82 billion. See Table 3 below.
The Administration’s FY2007 budget suggested amending the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) to alter the distribution of proceeds from land
sales. Under current law, proceeds are deposited into a separate Treasury account
and are available primarily for land acquisition. The President’s proposal would
direct 70% of the proceeds to the general fund of the Treasury to help reduce the
deficit. Legislation would be needed to make this change. The House
Appropriations Committee did not include such a proposal in its FY2007 bill. In last
year’s budget request, the President proposed amending the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act (SNPLMA) to change the allocation of proceeds of BLM land
sales in Nevada, but the proposal has not been enacted. These land sales in Nevada
have generated significantly more proceeds than the land sales under FLTFA.
CRS-7
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the House Appropriations Committee approved $867.7 million, a $20.1
million (2%) increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $847.6 million. This line
item includes funds for an array of BLM land programs, including protection,
recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM
administration. The Committee agreed with the Administration’s approach to
decrease funds for some programs from FY2006, including rangelands; soil, air, and
water; cadastral surveys; land conveyances in Alaska; and annual and deferred
maintenance.
The House Appropriations Committee also agreed with the Administration’s
approach to increase funds for some programs over FY2006, although in some cases
the Committee approved less of an increase than the Administration had sought. For
instance, for cultural resources, the request was $18.1 million, up $3.1 million (21%)
from the FY2006 enacted level of $15.0 million, but the Committee recommended
$16.6 million. The increase over FY2006 is for a long-term initiative to inventory,
monitor, stabilize, and protect cultural resources. For energy and minerals, the
request was $134.7 million, an increase of $24.3 million (22%) over FY2006 ($110.4
million, including Alaska minerals); the Committee supported $133.0 million. The
overall increase is intended to foster access to energy resources on federal lands. A
portion would be used to process the growing number of Applications for Permits to
Drill, and for related inspection, enforcement, and monitoring. Another portion
would accelerate implementation of an oil shale development program. Further, the
budget assumes that Congress will enact legislation in 2006 to open the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to development. Thus, an increase is sought for
preparing and implementing an ANWR leasing program and for management of
energy development activities in the National Petroleum Reserve — Alaska.
In other cases, the House Appropriations Committee included increases over
FY2006 for programs the Administration had sought to cut. For instance, the
Committee approved $67.0 million for recreation management, a 3% increase over
FY2006. The Committee also approved $20.1 million for resource protection and
law enforcement, a 6% increase over FY2006, in part for law enforcement activities
along the southwest border.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2007,
the House Appropriations Committee approved $769.3 million, a $14.0 million
increase (2%) over the $755.3 million enacted for FY2006 and nearly identical ($0.3
million less) to the Administration’s request. The increase is intended primarily for
fire suppression, which would rise $26.3 million (11%), from $230.7 million in
FY2006 to $257.0 million. The FY2007 committee-approved level represents the
10-year average cost of fire suppression, according to the Committee. 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. The increase for suppression is partially
offset by reductions in other areas. For instance, there is a decrease of $8.3 million
(4%, to $199.8 million) for hazardous fuels reduction. Also, funds for state and local
fire assistance would be eliminated, on the grounds that assistance for local fire
departments will be provided through other programs. The FY2006 funding level
was $9.9 million.
CRS-8
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.
In report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed that the FS and
DOI “do not have a suitable or comprehensive plan and strategy to deal with the
Nation’s wildfire management needs,” and directed the development and
implementation of a comprehensive and cohesive strategy (H.Rept. 109-465, p. 18).
In other report language, the Committee stated that it is still not clear that hazardous
fuels funding is being used for priority projects, and an expectation that DOI provide
a report on how funding is to be prioritized and allocated. Through report and bill
language the House Appropriations Committee sought to address other concerns,
including regarding the sufficiency of readiness for fire fighting and the cost and
utility of the fire program analysis system. The program is being developed by DOI
and the FS to determine the best distribution of firefighting resources. (For
additional information on wildland fires, see the “Forest Service” section in this
report.)
Construction and Land Acquisition. For FY2007, the House
Appropriations Committee approved $11.5 million for BLM Construction, a 2%
decrease from the FY2006 level ($11.8 million). The Administration had requested
$6.5 million, a 45% decrease. For Land Acquisition for FY2007, the House
Appropriations Committee approved $3.1 million, a $5.6 million cut (64%) from the
FY2006 level ($8.6 million) and $5.7 million (65%) less than requested by the
Administration. In report language, the Committee stated that new land acquisition
is a low priority. The appropriation for BLM acquisitions has fallen steadily from
$49.9 million in FY2002 through the FY2006 enacted level. Money for land
acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more
information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this
report.)
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2006
FY2007
Bureau of Land Management
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Management of Lands and Resources
$847.6
$863.2
$867.7
Wildland Fire Management
755.3
769.6
769.3
— Preparedness
268.8
274.8
274.8
— Suppression
230.7
257.0
257.0
— Other Operations
255.7
237.7
237.4
Construction
11.8
6.5
11.5
Land Acquisition
8.6
8.8
3.1
Oregon and California Grant Lands
108.5
112.4
111.4
CRS-9
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeituresa
0.0
0.0
0.0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriations
$1,754.1
$1,782.9
$1,785.3
a. The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
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 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2007, the President requested $1.29 billion for the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), 4% less than FY2006 ($1.35 billion). The House Appropriations
Committee approved $1.9 million less than the request. By far the largest portion of
the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources Management account. The
President’s FY2007 request was $995.6 million, a 1% decrease from the FY2006
level of $1.00 billion. The House Appropriations Committee approved $1.02 billion.
Among the programs included in Resources Management are the Endangered Species
program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement.
In addition, the President’s FY2007 budget proposed enacting legislation to
open part of the Coastal Plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil
and gas exploration and development.3 The budget proposed that the first lease sale
would be held in FY2008. Under the proposal, this and subsequent sales were
estimated to generate $4.0 billion in federal revenues over the next five years. Many
expect to see ANWR development included in, or the sole element of, a
reconciliation bill for FY2007.4 (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.)
3 The proposed authorization for exploration and development would be separate legislation,
rather than part of the Interior appropriations bill. The proposal does not appear in the FWS
Budget Justification for FY2007.
4 On March 16, 2006, the Senate agreed to a budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83) whose sole
reconciliation instruction is to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for
savings equivalent to estimated revenues from ANWR leasing. No reconciliation targets
were included for other committees.
CRS-10
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 from $147.8 million in FY2006 to
$141.0 million in FY2007 (5%), with the bulk of the reduction in the recovery
subprogram. The House Appropriations Committee approved a smaller reduction,
to $146.6 million. See Table 4 below.
A number of other related programs also benefit conservation of species that are
listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The President’s
request would increase the Landowner Incentive Program from $21.7 million in
FY2006 (including a $2.0 million rescission) to $24.4 million in FY2007.
Stewardship Grants would rise from $7.3 million in FY2006 to $9.4 million. The
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and
territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) would remain at $80.0
million. Within that figure, the Administration proposed to earmark $5.1 million in
FY2007 for the Idaho Salmon and Clearwater River Basins Habitat Account. The
House Committee approved cuts in the Landowner Incentive Program and Private
Stewardship Grants, but a modest increase in the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund. See Table 4, below.
Under the President’s request, total FY2007 funding for the Endangered Species
program and related programs would decrease from $256.8 million to $254.8 million
(1%). The House Appropriations Committee approved a decrease to $249.1 million
(3%).
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and
Related Programs, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
Endangered Species and
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
House
Related Programs
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate Conservation
$9,255
$8,619
$8,063
$8,163
— Listing
15,960
17,630
17,759
17,759
— Consultation
48,129
47,997
49,337
50,018
— Recovery
69,870
73,562
65,879
70,670
Subtotal, Endangered Species
143,214
147,808
141,038
146,610
Program
Related Programs
— Landowner Incentive
21,694
21,667b
24,400
15,000
Program
— Private Stewardship Grants
6,903
7,277
9,400
7,000
— Cooperative Endangered
80,462
80,001
80,001
80,507
Species Conservation Funda
Subtotal, Related Programs
109,059
108,945b
113,801
102,507
Total Appropriations
$252,273
$256,753b
$254,839
$249,117
a. The President’s request for FY2007 called for the entire amount to be derived from LWCF. The
Committee recommend that $60.3 million be derived from LWCF, an amount the report
CRS-11
identifies as equal to species recovery, land acquisition, and acquisition for Habitat
Conservation Plans.
b. Reflects a $2.0 million rescission in the Landowner Incentive Program in P.L. 109-148.
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement. For refuge
operations and maintenance in FY2007, the President proposed $381.7 million, a
decrease from $382.5 million in FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee
approved $388.7 million. The President proposed $57.3 million for Law
Enforcement — an increase of $1.2 million from the FY2006 level ($56.1 million).
The House Committee approved $57.5 million.
Avian Flu. For FY2007, the Administration proposed to continue the special
funding Congress provided in FY2006 for the study, monitoring, and early detection
of highly pathogenic avian flu, through a virus strain known as H5N1. The FY2006
level was $7.4 million. The same was proposed by the Administration for FY2007,
and this amount was approved by the House Appropriations Committee. FWS will
cooperate with other federal and non-federal agencies in studying the spread of the
virus through wild birds. Attention will be focused on the North American species
whose migratory patterns make them likely to come into contact with infected Asian
birds. The geographic focus will be on Alaska, the Pacific Flyway (along the west
coast), and Pacific islands. The House Appropriations Committee, in its report, also
directed that the funds be used not only for monitoring and testing in Alaska, but also
for “vector control efforts in other areas,” but the Committee did not elaborate its
meaning on the efforts intended nor the geographic areas to be given additional
emphasis.
Land Acquisition. For FY2007, the Administration proposed $27.1 million
for Land Acquisition, 3% below FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee
approved $19.8 million, a decrease of 29%. (See Table 5.) The House Committee
also earmarked all of the acquisition funding for six refuges in the northeast. This
program is funded from appropriations from LWCF. In the past, the bulk of this
FWS program had been for specified acquisitions 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
(“Cost Allocation Methodology”). In recent years, less of the funding has been
reserved for traditional land acquisition. The Administration continued this trend for
FY2007, reserving $13.7 million for specified acquisitions, and funding the
remainder of the program at $13.4 million.5 (For more information, see “Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)
5 Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a permanently
appropriated source of funding (from the sale of “duck stamps” to hunters, and import duties
on certain arms and ammunition) for land acquisition. As annual appropriations for
acquisitions under LWCF have declined, the MBCA ($41.9 million in FY2006) has become
increasingly important in the protection of habitat for migratory birds, especially waterfowl.
Other species in these habitats benefit incidentally.
CRS-12
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FWS Land Acquisition
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Acquisitions — Federal Refuge
$22,593
$13,494
$13,672
$8,800
Lands
Inholdings
1,479
1,478
1,478
478
Emergencies & Hardships
986
1,478
1,478
1,500
Exchanges
1,726
1,478
1,478
0
Acquisition Management
8,249
8,269
7,171
7,171
Cost Allocation Methodology
1,972
1,793
1,802
1,802
Total Appropriations
$37,005
$27,990
$27,079
$19,751
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 amounts authorized in the formula, and county governments have long
urged additional appropriations to make up the difference. Congress generally does
provide additional appropriations. The President requested, and the House
Committee approved, $10.8 million for FY2007, down from $14.2 million in
FY2006. This FY2007 level, combined with expected receipts, would provide about
30% of the authorized full payment, down from 40% in FY2006. Due to proposed
cuts in Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT, a program that compensates local
governments for the presence of certain non-taxable federal lands), debate over the
Wildlife Refuge Fund level seems likely to join with the PILT funding debate to
generate more than normal controversy and constituent interest.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has
generated considerable constituent interest despite the small size of the program. It
benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, great apes, and marine
turtles. The President’s FY2007 budget again proposed to move funding for the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. Congress
has rejected the proposed transfer annually from FY2002 to FY2006, and the House
Committee again rejected the proposal. For FY2007, the President proposed $8.2
million for the MSCF (including the proposed transfer of the NMBCF to this
program). The proposal would cut programs for great apes, rhinos, tigers, African
and Asian elephants, and marine turtles, but increase funding for neotropical
migratory birds. The House Appropriations Committee approved smaller reductions.
See Table 6 below.
CRS-13
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
Multinational Species
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
House
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
African Elephant
$1,381
$1,379
$990
$1,290
Tiger and Rhinos
1,477
1,576
990
1,490
Asian Elephant
1,381
1,379
990
1,290
Great Apes
1,381
1,379
990
1,290
Marine Turtles
99
691
297
697
[Neotropical Migratory Birds]
[3,944]
[3,941]
[3,960]
[4,000]
Total Appropriations
$5,719
$6,404
$4,257
$6,057
Note: The Neotropical Migratory Bird program was first authorized in FY2002, and is not part of
the MSCF, although the transfer has been proposed in the President’s budgets from FY2002-FY2007.
Congress has rejected the proposal five times, and the program is not included in the column totals.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help
fund efforts to conserve species (including non-game species) of concern to states,
territories, and tribes and has generated considerable support from these
governments. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior appropriations law
(P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior appropriations bills. (It
lacks any separate authorizing statute.) Funds may be used to develop conservation
plans as well as to support specific practical conservation projects. A portion of the
funding is set aside for competitive grants to tribal governments or tribal wildlife
agencies. The remaining state portion is for matching grants to states. A state’s
allocation is determined by formula. The President proposed $74.7 million, an
increase from $67.5 million in FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee
approved a decrease to $50.0 million. See Table 7 below.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
State and Tribal Wildlife
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
House
Grants
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
State Grants
$61,040
$59,556
$61,486
$45,000
Competitive Grants for
0
0
5,000
0
States, Territories, & Other
Jurisdictions
Tribal Grants
5,917
5,912
5,940
5,000
Administrationa
1,947
2,024
2,240
NA
Cost Allocation Methodology
124
—
—
—
(CAM)b
Total Appropriations
$69,028
$67,492
$74,666
$50,000
a. In FY2006 and earlier, administrative costs were limited to 3%, after tribal grants are deducted
from the total. Committee reports and the conference report did not specify a dollar figure for
allocation to administration or to the cost allocation methodology. For FY2007, the Committee
CRS-14
did not specify either a dollar or a percent limit on administrative costs, but only that such costs
be deducted from the state grants share of the program.
b. Beginning in FY2006, CAM was included under administrative costs.
NA = Not available.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at
[http://www.fws.gov/].
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 Pervaze A.
Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10136. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies
for the 109th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela
Baldwin.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System,
currently comprising 390 separate and very diverse park units covering 85 million
acres. The NPS and its 20,400 employees protect, preserve, interpret, and administer
the park system’s diverse natural and historic areas representing the cultural identity
of the American people. The NPS mission is to protect park resources and values,
unimpaired, while making them accessible to the public. 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
NPS also supports some resource conservation activities outside the Park System.
The House Committee recommended a total of $2.17 billion for the NPS, an
increase of $19.0 million (1%) above the President’s FY2007 request ($2.16 billion),
and a decrease of $100.5 million (4%) from the FY2006 enacted level. See Table
8, below. The NPS budget request is in accordance with the Administration’s goal
of cutting the federal budget deficit, but may be at odds with the agency’s public
popularity. It included increases for park operations and park police, with other line
items either nearly level or significantly reduced. It has been reported that inflation;
fixed costs, such as mandatory pay and benefit increases; and rising fuel and utility
costs are forcing park managers to reduce visitor programs and services and to raise
entry fees as the summer season approaches.6
Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line-item
is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting for more than
three-quarters 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, visitors’ services, facility operations, facility maintenance, and
park support programs, as well as employee pay, benefits, and other fixed costs. The
6 “National Parks Cutting Back on Services, Raising Fees,” USA Today (May 12, 2006): A1.
CRS-15
majority of operations funding is provided directly to park managers. In its report,
the House Appropriations Committee was critical of a Department “hold harmless”
policy for law enforcement rangers “... while forcing all other visitor service,
maintenance, and resources protection functions to deal with the absorption of fixed
costs and other budgetary limitations” (H. Rept. 109-465, p. 44). The Committee
included bill language to counter this policy.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $1.75 billion for park
operations in FY2007, an increase of $12.0 million (1%) above the request and of
$35.9 million (2%) above FY2006. An ongoing “core operations analysis” program
aims to reduce park spending by 20-30% without compromising the core mission
functions of resource protection and visitor hospitality. To date, 53 park units have
completed the studies and 34 more are scheduled to finish by the end of FY2006.
The NPS intends to complete all unit studies by the end of 2011.7 Park advocacy
groups have estimated that, in recent years, the national parks operate with two-thirds
of needed funding, on average, and have asked Congress to provide an additional
$150 million for park operations in FY2007, as well as additional funding for park
security, land acquisition, and hurricane damage repairs. The condition of the
national parks and the adequacy of their care and operation continue to be
controversial.
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
National Park Service
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Operation of the National Park System
$1,683.6
$1,718.9
$1,742.3
$1,754.3
U.S. Park Police
80.1
80.2
84.8
84.8
National Recreation and Preservation 61.0
54.2
33.3
47.2
Historic Preservation Fund
71.7
72.2
71.9
58.7
Constructiona
353.0
332.9
229.3
229.9
Land and Water Conservation Fundb
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
— Assistance to States
91.2
29.6
1.6
1.6
— NPS Acquisition
55.1
34.4c
22.7
28.4
Subtotal, Land Acquisition and State
146.3
47.0d
24.3
30.0
Assistance
Total Appropriations
$2,365.7
$2,275.3
$2,155.8
$2,174.8
a. Includes $50.8 million of emergency funding for FY2005 enacted in P.L. 108-324, and $19.0
million of emergency funding for FY2006 enacted in P.L. 109-148.
b. Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
c. The funding figure is reduced by the use of $9.8 million from prior year balances.
7 “National Parks: Directions to Increase Efficiency, Cut Costs Gets Mixed Reviews,” Land
Letter (May 4, 2006.)
CRS-16
d. The funding figure is reduced by the use of $17.0 million from prior year balances, which are not
allocated between Assistance to States and NPS Acquisition.
United States Park Police (USPP). This budget item supports the U.S.
Park Police, an urban-oriented, full-service, uniformed law enforcement entity of the
NPS with primary jurisdiction at park sites within the metropolitan areas of
Washington, DC, New York City, and San Francisco. USPP law enforcement
authority extends to all NPS units and to certain other federal and state lands. The
park police provide 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 enacted level for FY2006 was $80.2 million; the FY2007 request and the
House Appropriations Committee recommendation were $84.8 million, a 6%
increase. Increased funding is proposed for heightened security at icon parks and for
recruitment and training of new officers. An internal review concluded in December
2004 reportedly addressed long-standing fiscal and management problems and
redefined USPP priorities to be: (1) protection of “iconic” (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 has funded 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 historic (heritage) resources. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $47.2 million for the line item,
$13.9 million (42%) above the request, but $7.0 million (13%) below the FY2006
enacted level. The large requested decrease was partly from the proposed elimination
of statutory and contractual aid program for specific sites, as had been proposed —
and rejected by Congress — in FY2005 and FY2006.
The House Committee also rejected the request to reduce funding for the
heritage partnership program and to transfer the program to the Historic Preservation
Fund. The Administration had proposed the transfer of heritage partnership
programs (for heritage areas) to the Historic Preservation Fund (see below) and
FY2007 funding of $7.4 million, down $5.9 million (44%) from FY2006.
Citing in the report a number of “serious problems,” the Committee declined
to provide funds for the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trail initiative, a
program that had received a total of $11.0 million since FY2000.
Construction. The construction line item funds new construction, as well as
improvements, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. The FY2006
Interior appropriations law provided $332.9 million for NPS construction, $20.1
million (6%) less than FY2005. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $229.9 million, $0.7 million (0.3%) more than the FY2007 request,
and $102.9 million (31%) less than FY2006. While the FY2006 request cited high
priority health, safety, and resource protection needs, the FY2007 request contained
no similar specific direction.
CRS-17
Cuts in the construction line item could limit the reduction of the NPS multi-
billion dollar maintenance backlog. Rather than fund the reduction of the backlog
in FY2007, it has been reported that the Administration is proposing to hold the line
against any further backlog accumulation by sustaining the same level of “facility
condition index.”8 (For information on NPS maintenance, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. FY2006 appropriations for the
NPS under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) were $47.0 million,
comprised of $34.4 million for NPS land acquisition, $29.6 million for state
assistance programs, and a $17.0 million reduction due to the use of prior year
funds.9 Land acquisition funds are used to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for
inclusion within the National Park System. 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 House Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $30.0 million for
NPS land acquisition and state assistance, $5.7 million (23%) more than the FY2007
request and $17.0 million (36%) less than FY2006. The request for state assistance
funds was limited to $1.6 million for administrative expenses, with no funds for state
grants ($28.0 million in FY2006); the Committee agreed with this request. (For more
information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this
report.)
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid for activities specified in the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. §470), such as 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. The
HPF includes funding for Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America grants.
For FY2007, the Administration requested $71.9 million for the HPF, a slight
decrease from the FY2006 appropriation of $72.2 million but a slight increase from
the FY2005 level of $71.7 million. See Table 9 below. The request included $35.7
million for grants-in-aid to state historic preservation offices and $3.9 million for
Tribal grants. It did not include funds for preserving and restoring historic buildings
and structures on campuses of Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs); the FY2006 appropriation was $3.0 million.
The Administration’s FY2007 budget proposed the America’s Heritage and
Preservation Partnership program, within the Historic Preservation Fund, that would
combine funding for National Heritage Areas ($7.4 million), Save America’s
Treasures ($14.8 million), and Preserve America grants ($10.0 million). The NPS
8 Leslie Ann Duncan, “Senate Energy Panel Hears from Mainella on Parks Budget,”
Congressional Quarterly Green Sheets, March 12, 2006.
9 Prior year balances of $9.8 million for land acquisition and of $17.0 million for both
programs (with no specified allocation between NPS land acquisition and state assistance)
offset additional LWCF appropriations for FY2006.
CRS-18
supports National Heritage Areas, which are managed by private or state
organizations, with financial and technical assistance. Save America’s Treasures
preserves nationally significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic
structures. Annual appropriations laws have required that project recommendations
be subject to approval by the Appropriations Committees. From the total for Save
America’s Treasures for FY2006 ($29.6 million), approximately $16.0 million was
specified by Congress for designated projects. Preserve America grants-in-aid were
created to supplement Save America’s Treasures in supporting community efforts to
develop resource management strategies and to encourage heritage tourism. They are
competitively awarded on a matching basis, as one-time seed money grants. The
FY2006 appropriation provided that not to exceed $5.0 million could be allocated to
Preserve America grants; the FY2007 budget would increase it to $10.0 million.
The House Appropriations Committee bill for FY2007 would provide $58.7
million for the HPF, $13.5 million below the FY2006 final appropriation and $13.2
million below the Administration’s FY2007 budget. It would, however, retain the
Heritage Partnership program within the National Recreation and Preservation
programs line item. The President had included funds for heritage areas within the
request for the HPF. The Committee’s recommendations include $15.0 million for
Save America’s Treasures, $3.0 million for Preserve America, $35.7 million for state
historic preservation grants-in-aid, $3.9 million for Tribal grants, and $1.0 million
for HBCUs.
An issue that is often considered during the appropriations process is whether
historic preservation should be funded by private money rather than the federal
government. Also, pending legislation (H. R. 3446 and S. 1378) would reauthorize
the Historic Preservation Fund through FY2011 and FY2015 respectively and make
changes to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal
agency that promotes historic preservation and oversees NHPA §106 historic
preservation review.
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Historic Preservation
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Grants-in-Aid to States and
Territoriesa
$35,500
$35,717
$35,717
$35,717
Tribal Grants
3,205
3,941
3,941
3,941
HBCUs
3,451
2,956
—
1,000
Heritage Partnership Programsb
[14,579]
[13,301]
7,400
b—
Save America’s Treasures
29,583
29,558c
14,800
15,000
Preserve America Grants-In-Aid
0
c
10,000
3,000
Total Appropriations
$71,739
$72,172
$71,858
$58,658
a. The term “Grants-in-Aid to States and Territories” is used in conjunction with the budget and refers
to the same program as Grants-in-Aid to State Historic Preservation Offices.
CRS-19
b. Funding for heritage areas in FY2005 and FY2006 was included in the National Recreation and
Preservation line item. The House Appropriations Committee-reported version would retain
the Heritage Partnership program in the National Recreation and Preservation line item and fund
it at $13.9 million for FY2007.
c. The FY2006 appropriation allowed not to exceed $5.0 million to be used for Preserve America
grants within funding for Save America’s Treasures.
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://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/].
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Issue Brief IB10145. National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation’s premier science agency in
providing physical and biological information related to natural hazards; certain
aspects of the environment; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In
addition, it is the federal government’s principal civilian mapping agency and a
primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s water resources. For FY2007,
the Administration is emphasizing the role USGS plays in providing timely scientific
information for monitoring natural hazards and assessing their impacts, measuring
land cover changes, and assessing mineral resources.
Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and
Research, for seven activities: the National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research;
Enterprise Information; Science Support; and Facilities. For FY2007, the
Administration requested $944.8 million for the USGS, which is $25.9 million (3%)
below the FY2006 level of $970.7 million.10 The House Appropriations Committee-
reported bill contains $991.4 million, which is $46.7 million above the request and
$20.8 million above the FY2006 enacted level. See Table 10 below.
Of the proposed changes in the Administration’s request, the largest would be
the transfer of funds ($68.9 million in FY2006) from the Cooperative Topographic
Mapping Program to the Enterprise Information Program. This transfer is consistent
with changes in the direction of the National Mapping Program, which the
Administration proposed to change to the Geographic Research, Investigations, and
Remote Sensing Program. The Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote
Sensing Program, under these changes, would emphasize fundamental geographic
research and consolidate elements of national geospatial programs. This transfer is
also reflected in the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill. The FY2007
10 This includes $9.0 million in emergency appropriations under P.L. 109-148.
CRS-20
request proposed to eliminate funding for the Water Resources Research Institutes,
which the Administration contends have been generally self-supporting. The House
Appropriations Committee-reported bill would retain $6.4 million for this program.
The House Appropriations Committee also would retain $22.9 million for mineral
resource assessments, which were cut in the FY2007 request.
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. 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. The FY2007 Administration’s request provided $111.2 million for this
program, $64.8 million above the FY2006 enacted level of $46.4 million. The House
Appropriations Committee would provide $113.7 million for this program, which is
$2.5 million above the Administration’s request and $67.3 million over the FY2006
enacted level. The increase in funds is due to a proposed reorganization of the USGS
budget. (See introduction above.)
National Mapping Program. The National Mapping Program aims to
provide public access to high quality geospatial information. The Administration
requested $76.6 million for this program, $52.7 million below the FY2006 enacted
level of $129.3 million. Further, the Administration requested that the program name
be changed to the Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing
Program. The House Appropriations Committee-reported bill would change the
program name to the Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing
Program and provide $78.6 million, $2.0 million above the request and $50.7 million
less than the FY2006 enacted level.
The primary reduction in requested funds for this program is due to budget
restructuring, as noted above. Further, the AmericaView program would not be
funded (a reduction of $3.0 million). The AmericaView program is a state level
network that provides access and imagery archives for university participants and
other government participants. The bill reported by the House Appropriations
Committee would provide $2.0 million to the AmericaView program. The bill also
would provide $13.0 million for the Mid-Continent Mapping Center (MCMC) in
Rolla, Missouri, and prohibit the use of funds to consolidate the functions and
operations of the MCMC into the National Geospatial Technical Operations Center.
Under the Land Remote Sensing subheading, an increase of $16.0 million is
requested by the Administration to support the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, also
known as Landsat 8. Landsat 8 is an upcoming satellite that will take remotely-
sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and surrounding coastal areas primarily for
environmental monitoring. The volume of data taken by Landsat 8 is to be four
times greater than its predecessor, Landsat 7, and Landsat 8 is to include additional
CRS-21
spectral bands and higher resolution than Landsat 7 data. The requested funds would
be used to establish ground systems to provide for the transfer, storage, and
accessibility of data from Landsat 8, when it is launched. The House Appropriations
Committee-reported bill would fund this program along the lines of the request.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, the Administration requested $217.4 million,
which is $17.9 million below the FY2006 enacted level of $235.3 million. This line
item covers programs in three activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and
Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments. The House Appropriations
Committee bill would provide $241.9 million, which is $24.4 million above the
requested amount and $6.6 million above the FY2006 enacted level.
The primary reduction in the Administration’s request under this heading is a
$22.9 million reduction in the Mineral Resources Program. According to the
Administration, proposed cuts in the mineral resources program will focus efforts on
mineral resource assessments and research that benefit federal land management
programs, as opposed to both federal and non-federal needs as in previous years. The
Administration expects that universities or other entities will undertake assessments
and research that support non-federal needs. The reduction will result in the
discontinuation of most research and data collection projects, including those on
industrial mineral research, and the elimination of some geophysical labs. In
previous years, the Administration has requested similar cuts in this program, yet
funding has been included by Congress. The House Appropriations Committee bill
would retain funding for this program, including $18.4 million for research and
assessments of mineral deposits, and $4.5 million for minerals information. The
House Committee states that it “strongly disagrees” with the proposed reduction in
the program and urges the Administration not to propose program elimination again.
The Committee disagrees with the notion that objective data can be prepared in the
private sector. In FY2006, the conference committee report stated that it would seem
“irresponsible for the Administration to decrease or eliminate funding for what is
clearly an inherently Federal responsibility” (H.Rept. 109-188, p. 89).
The FY2007 request contained an increase of $1.4 million for the Geologic
Hazards Program. Some of the funds would go toward supporting a Multi-hazard
Pilot Initiative within the USGS. This initiative would increase funding for research
to assess coastal vulnerability to extreme storms, for earthquake and landslide
hazards research, and for geographic and water resources studies. The House
Appropriations Committee bill also would provide this increase.
Water Resources Investigations. The Administration’s request for Water
Resources Investigations was $204.0 million, $7.7 million below the FY2006 enacted
level of $211.8 million. The Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and Research
sub-activity would receive $141.9 million; the Federal-State Cooperation Water
Program would receive $62.2 million; and the Water Resource Research Institutes
would not be funded. The House Appropriations Committee approved $213.8
million for this heading, $9.7 million above the requested amount and $2.0 million
above the FY2006 enacted level.
CRS-22
As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2006 budget requests, the
FY2007 request would discontinue USGS support for Water Resources Research
Institutes because, according to the Administration, most institutes have succeeded
in leveraging sufficient funding for program activities from non-USGS sources.
Congress has provided funding for the institutes from FY2002 to FY2006,
appropriating $6.4 million for FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee-
reported bill would retain funding for the Institutes at $6.4 million.
The Administration requested an increase of $2.3 million for network operations
under the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), which would receive
a total of $16.8 million for FY2007. These additional funds would be used to
continue the operation of 114 streamgages that would otherwise be shut down due
to the anticipated loss of partner contributions. Further, they would allow for the
number of streamgages to increase by 30 nationwide. Through the NSIP program,
the USGS collects the streamflow data needed by federal, state, and local agencies
for planning, operating water-resources projects, and regulatory programs. The bill
reported by the House Appropriations Committee also would provide this increase.
Biological Research. The Biological Research Program under the USGS
generates and distributes information related to the conservation and management of
the nation’s biological resources. The Administration requested $172.6 million for
biological research, which is $2.3 million below the FY2006 enacted level of $174.9
million. The House Appropriations Committee would provide $175.6 million for
this heading, which is $3.0 million above the request and $0.7 million above the
FY2006 enacted level.
Under the Administration’s request, several earmarked activities totaling $6.4
million under the Biological Research and Monitoring Program would be removed
for FY2007. According to the USGS, these projects do not address the highest
priority science. Some of these program reductions would be restored in the House
Appropriations Committee bill. The Committee also states that the USGS should
implement the Chesapeake Bay science plan to assess components of the ecosystem.
Under the Terrestrial and Endangered Resources sub-activity, the USGS will be
conducting activities related to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). The
Administration requested $3.2 million for FY2007 to continue USGS avian flu
detection activities. In cooperation with the FWS and other federal and state
agencies, the USGS began targeted surveillance for the early detection of HPAI in
wild birds in Alaska in 2005, collecting samples from 520 birds of 10 species that are
known to migrate through the Russian Far East and Southeast Asia. A steering
committee was formed in 2006 to coordinate efforts and establish standard operating
procedures for sampling and analysis. For 2007, the USGS will continue sampling
birds for HPAI and coordinate with other agencies to deal with avian influenza in
North America. The House Appropriations Committee bill provides these increases.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for managing and disseminating
scientific information. The Administration requested $67.4 million for science
support, a decrease of $1.9 million from the FY2006 enacted level of $69.3 million.
CRS-23
The House Appropriations Committee bill would provide $72.4 million, $5.0 million
above the requested amount and $3.1 million above the FY2006 enacted level.
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. The
Administration requested $95.5 million for facilities for FY2007, an increase of $0.7
million from the FY2006 enacted level of $94.8 million. The House Appropriations
Committee approved $95.5 million for Facilities, similar to the requested amount and
$0.7 million above the FY2006 enacted level.
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
U.S. Geological Survey
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Enterprise Information
$44.4
$46.4
$111.2
$113.7
National Mapping Program
118.8
129.3
76.6
78.6
Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes
229.2
235.3
217.4
241.9
Water Resources
Investigations
211.2
211.8
204.1
213.8
Biological Research
171.7
174.9
172.6
175.6
Science Support
65.6
69.3
67.4
72.4
Facilities
94.6
94.8
95.5
95.5
Total Appropriations
$944.6a
$970.6b
$944.8
$991.5
a. The total includes emergency appropriations of $1.0 million provided in P.L. 108-324 and $8.1
million in P.L. 109-13.
b. The total includes emergency appropriations of $9.0 million provided in P.L. 109-148.
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, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic
Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
The MMS estimates that it collects and disburses over $8 billion in revenue
annually. This amount fluctuates based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas.
CRS-24
Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40%
to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties have been not more than 25%.
Budget and Appropriations. The Administration submitted an FY2007
total MMS budget of $292.3 million. This includes $6.9 million for Oil Spill
Research and $285.4 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. The
total FY2007 budget request reflects $163.6 million in appropriations and an
additional $128.7 million from offsetting collections which MMS has been retaining
since 1994. The Administration’s total budget request is 2% below the $297.0
million enacted for FY2006 (including an emergency appropriation of $16.0 million).
The net appropriations request for FY2007 of $163.6 million is a 6% reduction from
the $174.3 million enacted for FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $164.4 million, slightly higher than the request due to a greater
increase for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. See Table 11 below.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2006
FY2007
Minerals Management Service
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
— OCS Lands (OMM)
$148.8
$159.4
$158.4
— Royalty Management (MRM)
77.9
79.2
79.2
— General Administration
47.5
46.9
48.7
— Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management
290.1a
285.4
286.2
— Use of Receipts
-122.7
-128.7
128.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management Appropriations
167.4
156.7
157.5
Oil Spill Research
6.9
6.9
6.9
Total Appropriations
$174.3
$163.6
$164.4
a. Includes an emergency appropriation of $16.0 million in P.L. 109-148.
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts remain controversial. Oil and gas development moratoria in the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) 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 FY2006 appropriations law retained the
moratorium on funding preleasing and leasing activities in the OCS.
A committee amendment to the FY2007 Interior appropriation bill, included in
the bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee, would allow for natural
gas leasing in the OCS moratoria areas. Oil leasing would still be prohibited.
Additionally, legislation (S. 2290, H.R. 4318) has been introduced to allow natural
gas-only drilling in areas currently under the moratoria. The bills would allow the
Secretary of the Interior to offer natural gas-only leases in the 2007-2012 leasing
CRS-25
program. Under both bills, the states would receive a larger share of the revenue
generated from U.S. offshore leases.
Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers has been debated during
consideration of FY2007 Interior appropriations. On February 13, 2006, the New
York Times reported that the MMS would not collect royalties on leases awarded in
1998 and 1999 because no price threshold was included in the lease agreements
during those two years. Without the price thresholds, producers may produce oil and
gas up to specified volumes without paying royalties no matter what the price. The
MMS asserts that placing price thresholds in the lease agreements is at the discretion
of the Secretary of the Interior. However, according to the MMS, the price thresholds
were omitted by mistake during 1998 and 1999.11 A committee amendment to the
FY2007 Interior appropriations bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to
include price thresholds in all leases (based on $34.71/barrel of oil and
$4.34/thousand cubic feet of natural gas) and require the Secretary to renegotiate
leases to conform with current price thresholds levels. This provision would impact
the 1998 and 1999 leases and those shallow water deep-gas leases with price
threshold levels currently around $9.90/thousand cubic feet.
Leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has been controversial over the past
several years. There were several blocks that were removed by the Administration
from Eastern GOM sale 181 that could become available for release after 2007, as
part of the Administration’s proposed five-year (2007-2012) leasing program. A
Senate proposal (S. 2253) would make available for lease about 3.6 million acres
within the lease sale 181 area within one year of enactment of the bill — prior to the
next five-year lease program. Industry groups contend that Eastern GOM sales are
too limited, asserting that the resource potential is significant. Environmental groups
and some state officials contend that the risks of development to the environment and
local economies are too great.
Oil and gas leasing in offshore California also has continued to be a
controversial issue. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
§1451), development of federal offshore leases must be consistent with state coastal
zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended 36 of the 40 leases at issue in
offshore California by granting lease suspensions, but the State of California
contended that it should have first reviewed the suspensions for consistency with the
state’s coastal zone management plan. In June 2001, the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of California agreed with the State of California and struck down the MMS
suspensions.
The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 9, 2002, to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after the state rejected a more limited lease
development plan that involved 20 leases using existing drilling platforms. However,
on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the District
11 This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS,
during April, 2006.
CRS-26
Court decision.12 The Department of the Interior did not appeal this decision and is
currently working with lessees to resolve the issue.
A breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed against MMS by nine oil companies
seeking compensation for their undeveloped leases. On November 17, 2005, the U.S.
Federal Court of Claims made a determination that the federal government breached
its contract with the lessees regarding the 36 offshore California leases. Although the
government was ordered to repay the lessees $1.1 billion, the judge deferred a final
judgement until additional claims (such as recovery of sunk costs) are resolved.
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.
CRS Issue Brief IB10149. Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas
Leasing and Revenue Sharing, 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. §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 that calculates not
only how much money goes to each state, but also what portion came from each of
the state and federal share accounts. In instances where states have no approved
program, OSM directs reclamation.
Several states have pressed in recent years for increases in the AML
appropriations, with an eye on the unappropriated balances in the state-share accounts
that now exceed $1 billion. The total unappropriated balance — including both
federal and state share accounts in the AML fund — was $1.8 billion by the end of
FY2005. Western states are additionally critical of the program because, as coal
production has shifted westward, these states are paying more into the fund. They
have contended that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation
burden as more of the sites requiring remediation are in the East.13
12 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 01-16637.
13 Interest generated by unappropriated balances in the AML fund is transferred to the
United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, established by P.L. 102-486 to
cover the unreimbursed health cost requirements of retired miners.
CRS-27
The FY2005 and FY2006 budget requests from the Administration were
accompanied by a proposal to restructure the program, including a plan to return the
unobligated balances to the states. The Administration plan was not widely
supported. Other proposals for reauthorization of AML collections and restructuring
the program have been introduced in the House and Senate, but Congress has not
reached a consensus surrounding the structure of the program.
As a consequence, reauthorization of fee collection during the last few fiscal
years has been for relatively short terms. In the 108th Congress, authorization for
collection of AML fees was extended for nine months, to the end of June 2005 by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005 (P.L. 108-447). The Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 109-13) extended authorization
for collection of the fees that are deposited to the AML reclamation fund to the end
of FY2005. The FY2006 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 109-54) included the
Senate language extending the authorization for collections to the end of June 2006.
The FY2007 request does not include any broad Administration proposal to change
the program, and instead seeks what the Administration describes as an “interim
extension” through the end of FY2007 “while allowing the Administration to
continue working with Congress on finding an appropriate, fiscally responsible and
fair, long-term resolution to the reauthorization discussion.”14 In report language,
the House Appropriations Committee supported the interim extension through
December 31, 2007 that was included in the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations. The Committee also expressed that a more permanent solution is
needed.
For FY2007, the Administration sought $185.9 million, an increase of $0.7
million over the FY2006 enacted level of $185.2 million. The other component of
the OSM budget is for regulation and technology programs. For regulation and
technology, Congress provided $108.9 million in FY2006, and the Administration
requested $112.2 million. The greater part of the $3.3 million increase (3%) is for
environmental protection. In total, the Administration requested $298.1 million for
the OSM for FY2007, a $4.0 million increase (1%) over the FY2006 enacted level
of $294.2 million. The House Appropriations Committee supported the same levels
of funding as the Administration requested for FY2007. See Table 12 below.
In its FY2007 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. While
Congress is authorized to appropriate $2 million annually to minimum program
states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program states since
FY1996. The House Appropriations Committee retained language limiting funding
for minimum program states to $1.5 million. The SMCRA legislation also provided
that 10% of AML collections would be allocated to the Rural Abandoned Mine
Program (RAMP), administered by the Department of Agriculture. However, no
funds have been requested for RAMP since FY1996, and the $361 million balance
in funds set aside for RAMP were transferred to the federal share of AML
14 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Budget Justification and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2007, p. 49-50.
CRS-28
collections in the FY2006 appropriation. The FY2007 Administration request
recommended that this practice continue. The House Appropriations Committee
included language transferring the RAMP balance to the federal share fund.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
FY2006
FY2007
House
and Enforcement
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Regulation and Technology
$108.9
$112.2
$112.2
— Environmental Protection
78.4
81.0
81.0
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
185.2
185.9
185.9
Total Appropriations
$294.2
$298.1
$298.1
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its website at [http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm].
CRS Report RL32993. Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fee on Coal, by Nonna Noto.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally-
recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and
historically has been the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs
provided or funded through the BIA include government operations, courts, law
enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education, roads, economic
development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection,
implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust assets (real estate
and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.
BIA’s FY2006 direct appropriations are $2.27 billion. For FY2007, the
Administration proposed $2.22 billion, a decrease of $52.4 million (2.3%) below
FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $2.23 billion, a
reduction of $39.6 million (2%) below FY2006, but an increase of $12.8 million
(0.6%) over the Administration proposal. For the BIA, its major budget components,
and selected BIA programs, Table 13 below presents funding figures for FY2006 and
for the Administration and the House Appropriations Committee for FY2007, with
the percentages of change from FY2006 to the House Appropriation Committee
FY2007 recommendation. Decreases are shown with minuses.
Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of the
Bureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in the BIA
school system, including the proposal not to fund the Johnson-O’Malley program.
Budget Presentation. The BIA’s budget presentation of its Operation of
Indian Programs activities, in which programs with the same budget function (e.g.,
education) were included in different budget activities (e.g., “Tribal Priority
CRS-29
Allocations,” “Other Recurring Programs”), has been restructured so that programs
with the same function fall under the same budget activity (e.g., “Education”). Table
13 below illustrates the new structure. The Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) budget
activity is significant to tribes because it covers many basic tribal services. Perhaps
more importantly, tribes may apply their own priorities to TPA programs, moving
funds among programs without prior BIA approval and without triggering
congressional Appropriation Committees’ requirements for approval of
reprogramming. The BIA identifies in its FY2007 Budget Justifications the amounts
within the new budget activities that fall in the TPA category. Those amounts are
shown in Table 13. According to BIA figures, the total TPA funding proposed for
FY2007 was $754.1 million. Other sources suggest TPA funding for FY2006 was
$769.5 million, but it is not certain that the BIA’s FY2007 figures cover all the same
programs. The House Appropriations Committee commended the new budget
structure but required the BIA to report on the budget structure and tribes’ reactions,
TPA transparency, BIA management accountability, and BIA central and regional
offices’ funding.
Table 13. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs
FY2007 Request
FY2007 House Committee
Approp.
Change from
Total
TPAa
Total
FY2006
Operation of Indian Programs
— Tribal Government
$374,689
$401,738
$394,374
$401,738
7%
—— Contract Support Costs
132,628
151,628
151,628
151,628
14%
— Human Services
150,416
139,385
135,449
139,385
-7%
—— Welfare Assistance
85,190
74,179
74,179
74,179
-13%
— Trust - Natural Resources
152,754
142,510
63,279
141,510
-7%
Management
— Trust - Real Estate Services
141,842
152,649
55,480
151,593
7%
—— Probate
15,708
19,075
8,193
18,019
15%
—— Real Estate Services
40,578
47,647
31,249
47,647
17%
— Education
646,430
639,155
30,786
652,214
1%
—— Elementary/Secondary
457,750
457,352
0
457,352
-<1%
(Forward-Funded)
—— Elementary/Secondary
77,223
60,800
0
73,859
-4%
[Other]
——— Johnson-O’Malley
16,371
0
0
16,371
0%
Grants
——Post Secondary Programs
102,674
103,161
30,786
103,161
<1%
——— Tribal Colleges and
55,545
54,721
0
54,721
-1%
Universities
— Public Safety and Justice
212,142
213,729
12,109
209,535
-1%
——Detention/Corrections
55,567
58,663
0
n/a
—
CRS-30
FY2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs
FY2007 Request
FY2007 House Committee
Approp.
Change from
Total
TPAa
Total
FY2006
— Community and Economic
51,782
39,175
38,204
39,175
-24%
Development
—— Tribal Vocational Colleges
5,223
0
0
0
-100%
— Executive Direction and
232,135
238,253
24,379
238,253
3%
Administrative Services
——Information Resources
57,431
53,365
0
53,365
-7%
Technology
Subtotal, Operation of Indian
1,962,190
1,966,594
754,060
1,973,403
<1%
Programs
Construction
— Education Construction
206,787
157,441
—
157,441
-24%
—— Replacement School
64,530
36,536
—
36,536
-43%
Construction
—— Education Facilities
113,395
92,053
—
92,053
-19%
Improvement and Repair
— Public Safety and Justice
11,603
11,611
—
11,611
<1%
Construction
—— Law Enforcement
8,102
8,106
—
8,106
<1%
Facilities Improvement and
Repair
— Resources Management
45,099
37,810
—
38,560
-14%
Construction
— General Administration
8,093
8,187
—
8,187
1%
Construction; Management
Subtotal, Construction
271,582
215,049
—
215,799
-21%
Land and Water Claim
34,243
33,946
—
39,213
15%
Settlements and Miscellaneous
Payments
Indian Guaranteed Loan
6,255
6,262
—
6,262
<1%
Program
Total Appropriations
$2,274,270 $2,221,851
$754,060 $2,234,677
-2%
a. Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) are a subset of funds for BIA Operation of Indian Programs. The amounts
in this column are included in the “FY2007 Request – Total” column in the table.
BIA Reorganization. In April 2003, Secretary of the Interior Norton began
implementing a reorganization of the BIA, the Office of Assistant Secretary-Indian
Affairs (AS-IA), and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) in the
Office of the Interior Secretary. (See “Office of Special Trustee” section below.)
The reorganization arose from issues and events related to trust funds and trust assets
management, and is integrally related to the reform and improvement of trust
management. Historically, the BIA has been responsible for managing Indian tribes’
and individuals’ trust funds and trust assets. Trust assets include trust lands and the
lands’ surface and subsurface economic resources (e.g., timber, grazing, or minerals),
and cover about 45 million acres of tribal trust land and 10 million acres of individual
CRS-31
Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate services, processing
of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), surveys, appraisals, probate functions, land
title records activities, and other functions.
The BIA, however, has been frequently charged with mismanaging Indian trust
funds and trust assets. Investigations and audits in the 1980s and after supported
these criticisms, especially in the areas of accounting, linkage of owners to assets,
and retention of records. This led to a trust reform act in 1994 and the filing of an
extensive court case in 1996. (See “Office of Special Trustee” section below.) The
1994 act created the OST, assigning it responsibility for oversight of trust
management reform. In 1996, trust fund management was transferred to the OST
from the BIA, but the BIA retained management of trust assets.
Unsuccessful efforts at trust management reform in the 1990s led DOI to
contract in 2001 with a management consultant firm. The firm’s recommendations
included both improvements in trust management and reorganization of the DOI
agencies carrying out trust management and improvement.15 After nearly a year of
consultation with Indian tribes and individuals, DOI announced the reorganization
in December 2002, even though the department and tribal leaders had not reached
agreement on all aspects of reorganization. DOI, however, faced a deadline in the
court case to file a plan for overall trust management reform, and reorganization was
part of DOI’s plan.
The current reorganization of BIA, AS-IA, and OST chiefly involves trust
management structures and functions. The BIA’s trust operations at regional and
agency levels remains in those offices but are split off from other BIA services. The
OST adds trust officers to BIA regional and agency offices to oversee trust
management and provide information to Indian trust beneficiaries. The BIA, OST,
and AS-IA, together with the Office of Historical Trust Accounting in the Secretary’s
office, also are implementing a separate trust management improvement project. The
project 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 much
of BIA’s World-Wide-Web connections), and maintenance of the improved system.
Many Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the plaintiffs in the court case,
have been critical of the new reorganization and have asked that it be suspended.
Tribes contend 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-FY2006, Congress responded to tribal concerns by
excluding from BIA reorganization certain tribes that have been operating trust
management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended the same exclusion for FY2007. Congress
has not, however, suspended or stopped the reorganization, and Congress funded the
BIA Central Office trust reform and reorganization in FY2006.
15 The report is available on the DOI website at [http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/
pdf/roadmap.pdf].
CRS-32
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 schools’ key problems are low student achievement and,
especially, a large number of inadequate school facilities.
The Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) program provides supplementary education
assistance grants for tribes and public schools to benefit Indian students, and was
funded at $16.4 million in FY2006. The Administration proposed no funding for this
program in FY2007, asserting that U.S. Department of Education programs under
Titles I (education of the disadvantaged) and VII (Indian education) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act provide funds for the same purposes, and
that the funds should be used for BIA-funded schools. Opponents disagree that the
Education Department programs can replace JOM’s culturally-relevant programs.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended restoring the JOM program to
its FY2006 level, stating that other federal programs could not provide the funds
because there was no guaranteed one-to-one match between Department of Education
grants and JOM funds.
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.
Table 13 above shows education construction funds. For FY2007, the
Administration proposed reducing the appropriation for education construction by
$49.3 million (24%). Included is a reduction for replacement-school construction of
43%. The Administration asserts that the BIA needs to focus on completing
replacement schools funded in prior years. Opponents contend that a large
proportion of BIA schools need replacement or major repairs and that hence funding
should not be cut. The House Appropriations Committee agreed with the
Administration’s proposal for BIA education construction. However, the Committee
disagreed that funding for new schools should be reduced while current school
construction projects are finished and expressed concern about large amounts of
unobligated construction balances from prior years. The Committee directed BIA to
report on the projected obligation of current unobligated balances and on
improvements in construction planning and design procedures, enrollment
projections, and space standards.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger Walke.
CRS-33
Departmental Offices16
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to four insular areas — American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — as well as
three former insular areas — the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Palau, and
the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). OIA staff manage relations between
these jurisdictions and the federal government and work to build the fiscal and
governmental capacity of units of local government.
The total OIA request for FY2007 is $426.3 million, an amount slightly above
that provided in FY2006 ($425.6 million). OIA funding consists of two parts: (1)
permanent and indefinite appropriations and (2) discretionary and current mandatory
funding subject to the appropriations process. Of the total request for FY2007,
$347.1 million (81%) is mandated through statutes as follows:
! $202.4 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and
Palau) under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free
Association;17 and
! $144.7 million in fiscal assistance through payments to territories,
divided between the U.S. Virgin Islands for estimated rum excise
and income tax collections and Guam for income tax collections.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the remaining 19% of the OIA budget. Two accounts — Assistance to
Territories (AT) and the Compact of Free Association (CFA) — comprise
discretionary and current mandatory funding. AT funding is used to provide grants
for the operation of the government of American Samoa, infrastructure improvement
projects on many of the insular area islands, and specified natural resource initiatives.
The CFA account provides federal assistance to the freely associated states pursuant
to compact agreements negotiated with the federal government.
Discretionary and mandatory appropriations for FY2006 total $81.5 million
(including government-wide rescissions enacted in P.L. 109-148), with AT funded
at $76.2 million and CFA at $5.3 million. The FY2007 request would reduce AT
funding to $74.4 million, and CFA assistance to $4.9 million, for a total of $79.2
million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $3.2 million more for
AT ($77.6 million) than had been requested, for increased oversight and technical
assistance funding. The House Appropriations Committee recommended CFA
funding totaling $5.4 million, $0.5 million above the request to support food
production activities necessary on Enewetak island as a result of destruction caused
16 This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under “Departmental Offices.”
Total funding for Departmental Offices is identified in Table 25 at the end of this report.
17 Legislation to approve the amended compacts was enacted in the 108th Congress (P.L. 108-
188). For background, see CRS Report RL31737, The Marshall Islands and Micronesia:
Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the United States, by Thomas Lum. The
Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994 and will terminate in FY2009.
CRS-34
by World War II conflicts as well as atomic bomb testing. In total, the House
Appropriations Committee approved $82.9 million for Insular Affairs, 2% above
FY2006 and 5% above the Administration’s FY2007 request.
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 FY2007, the
Administration requested $198.0 million for PILT, down 15% from the FY2006 level
of $232.5 million. The Administration asserts that cutting PILT is part of an effort
to reduce the deficit, and is consistent with historical appropriations levels. The
House Appropriations Committee’s draft contained $216.0 million, but the
Committee agreed to an amendment transferring $12.0 million from the Smithsonian
Institution to PILT, bringing the total to $228.0 million. (See “Smithsonian
Institution, Business Ventures” section of this report for more information.)
The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their
jurisdictions which cannot be taxed. Since the beginning of the program in 1976,
payments of more than $3.6 billion have been made. The PILT program has been
controversial, because in recent years the payment formula, which was indexed to the
Consumer Price Index in 1994, has increased authorization levels. However,
appropriations have grown less rapidly, and substantially slower than authorized
amounts, ranging from 42% to 68% of authorized levels between FY2000 and
FY2005 (the most recent year available).18 See Table 14 below. County
governments claim that the program as a whole does not provide funding comparable
to property taxes, and further that rural areas in particular need additional PILT funds
to provide the kinds of services that counties with more private land are able to
provide.
Table 14. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in
Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-FY2007
($ in millions)
Appropriated
% of Authorized
Fiscal Year
Authorized Amount
Amount
Amount
2000
$317.6
$134.0
42.2
2001
338.6
199.2
58.8
2002
350.8
210.0
59.9
2003
324.1
218.2
67.3
2004
331.3
224.3
67.7
2005
332.0
226.8
68.3
2006
340.3
232.5
68.3
2007
347.8
228.0a
65.6
Notes: The FY2006 and FY2007 authorized levels, in italics, are estimates. Calculations of these
levels assume: (a) all revenues from other payment programs are flat over the two year period; (b) the
number of acres eligible for PILT payments is unchanged; (c) all of the counties’ populations are
18 When appropriations are not sufficient to cover the authorization, each county receives
a pro rata share of the authorized amount.
CRS-35
unchanged; and (d) no states change their “pass-through” laws. In consequence, only the changes in
the Consumer Price Index would influence PILT payments. However, it is likely that at least some
of these assumptions would need to be modified.
a. This figure is the amount approved by the House Appropriations Committee.
For further information on the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, see the DOI
website at [http://www.doi.gov/pilt/].
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified by
M. Lynne Corn.
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians (OST), in the Secretary of the Interior’s office, was
authorized by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act
of 1994 (25 U.S.C. §§4001 et seq.). The OST generally oversees the reform of
Interior Department management of Indian trust assets, the direct management of
Indian trust funds, establishment of an adequate trust fund management system, and
support of department claims settlement activities related to the trust funds. Indian
trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in 1996 the Secretary transferred
trust fund management to the OST. (See “Bureau of Indian Affairs” section above.)
Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal
funds owned by about 300 tribes in approximately 1,450 accounts, with a total asset
value of about $2.9 billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual
Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 277,000 accounts with a current total asset
value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2007 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.
OST’s FY2006 appropriation was $222.8 million. The Administration proposed
$244.5 million for FY2007, an increase of $21.7 million (10%). The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $184.0 million for FY2007, a reduction of
$38.7 million (17%) from FY2006 and $60.4 million (25%) from the proposal.
Table 15 below presents funding figures for FY2006-FY2007 for the OST. Key
issues for the OST are an historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and
litigation involving tribal and IIM accounts.
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2006-FY2007
($ in thousands)
Office of Special Trustee for
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007 House
American Indians
Approp.
Request
Committee
Change from
Total
FY2006
Federal Trust Programs
$188,774
$185,036
$150,036
-21%
— Historical Accounting
56,353
56,353
45,000
-20%
Indian Land Consolidation
34,006
59,449
34,006
0%
Total Appropriations
$222,780
$244,485
$184,042
-17%
CRS-36
Historical Accounting. For FY2007, the Administration proposed $56.4
million for historical accounting activities, the same as enacted for FY2006. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended $45.0 million for FY2007. 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. The project would reconcile all
transactions for certain types of accounts and all land-based transactions of $5,000
and over, but a statistical sample for land-based transactions of less than $5,000.
OST continues to follow this plan, subject to court rulings (see “Litigation” below)
or congressional actions. Plaintiffs in the litigation consider the statistical sampling
technique invalid. The House Committee did not disagree with DOI’s historical
accounting plan, but expressed its intent to limit spending for historical accounting
and also directed DOI to make quarterly reports on any use of funds from BIA
“Operation of Indian Programs” for IIM litigation support costs.
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.19 Many OST activities are related to the
Cobell case, including litigation support activities. The most significant issue for
appropriations concerns the method for the historical accounting to estimate IIM
accounts’ proper balances. The DOI estimated its proposed method would cost $335
million over five years and produce a total owed to IIM accounts in the low millions.
The plaintiffs’ method, based on estimated rates of errors applied to an agreed-upon
figure for IIM throughput, was estimated to produce a total owed to IIM accounts of
as much as $177 billion, depending on the error rate used. After a lengthy trial, the
court, in September 2003, rejected both the plaintiffs’ and DOI’s historical
accounting plans and ordered DOI to account for all trust fund and asset transactions
since 1887, without using statistical sampling. The Interior Department estimated
that the court’s choice for historical accounting would cost $6-12 billion.
In the FY2004 Interior appropriations act, Congress enacted a controversial
provision aimed at the court’s decision. It directed that no statute or trust law
principle should be construed to require DOI to conduct the historical accounting
until either Congress had delineated the department’s specific historical accounting
obligations or December 31, 2004, whichever was earlier. Based on this provision,
the DOI appealed the court’s September 25, 2003 order. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia temporarily stayed the September 25 order. During the
stay, on April 5, 2004, the IIM plaintiffs and the federal government commenced
mediation. On December 10, 2004, the Appeals Court overturned much of the
19 Cobell v. Norton (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). Updated information is available on the
websites of the plaintiffs at [http://www.indiantrust.com], the DOI at [http://www.doi.gov/
indiantrust/], and the Justice Department at [http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/
index.htm].
CRS-37
September 25 order, finding that the congressional provision prevented the district
court from requiring DOI to follow its directions for a historical accounting. The
Appeals Court noted that the provision expired on December 31, 2004, but did not
discuss the district court’s possible reissue of the order. On February 23, 2005, the
district court issued an order on historical accounting very similar to its September
2003 order, requiring that an accounting cover all trust fund and asset transactions
since 1887 and not use statistical sampling. The DOI, which estimated that
compliance with the new order would cost $12-13 billion,20 appealed the order. The
Appeals Court on November 15, 2005, vacated the district court’s February 2005
order. The district court has not yet issued another order, and the OST continues its
historical accounting under its September 2003 plan.
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, the over-$100 billion that Cobell plaintiffs estimate their IIM
accounts are owed, or the $27.5 billion that the Cobell plaintiffs have proposed as a
settlement amount.21 Among the funding sources for these large costs discussed in
a 2005 House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing were discretionary
appropriations and the Treasury Department’s “Judgment Fund,”22 but some senior
appropriators consider the Fund insufficient even for a $6-$13 billion dollar
settlement.23 Among other options, Congress may enact another delay to the court-
ordered accounting, direct a settlement, or delineate the department’s historical
accounting obligations (which could limit, or increase, the size of the historical
accounting). Settlement bills (S. 1439 and H.R. 4322) would establish in the
Treasury Department’s general fund an IIM claim settlement fund with
appropriations from the Judgment Fund. The dollar size of the fund is not stated and
is still being discussed among the plaintiffs, the Administration, and Congress. In
considering a bill for FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee expressed its
desire that Cobell be resolved but stated no opinion on a settlement amount.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its website at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
20 Testimony from the Interior Department estimated the cost at $12-13 billion (James
Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary, U.S. Dept. 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.
21 Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement Workgroup, “Principles for Legislation,” June 20,
2005, p. 2, at [http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20050620SettlementPrinciples.pdf].
22 The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation for paying judgments against,
and settlements by, the U.S. Government. (See 31 U.S.C. §1304.)
23 Matt Spangler, “Treasury Fund May Be Short of Cash Needed to Settle Indian royalty
Case,” Inside Energy with Federal Lands (March 21, 2005), p. 6.
CRS-38
CRS Report RS22343. Indian Trust Fund Litigation: Legislation to Resolve
Accounting Claims in Cobell v. Norton, by M. Maureen Murphy.
CRS Report RS21738. The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v.
Norton, by Nathan Brooks and M. Maureen Murphy.
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 (25 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq.) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of tribal bingo
and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming (e.g., casinos
and racing).24 The primary appropriations issue for NIGC is whether its funding is
adequate for its regulatory responsibilities.
The NIGC is authorized to receive annual appropriations of $2 million, but its
budget authority consists chiefly of annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II and III
operations. IGRA currently caps NIGC fees at $8 million per year. The NIGC in
recent years has requested additional funding because it has experienced increased
demand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field investigations.
Congress, in the FY2003-FY2006 appropriations acts, increased the NIGC’s fee
ceiling to $12 million, but only for FY2004-FY2007. The FY2007 NIGC budget
proposal requested that the fee ceiling be increased to $13 million for FY2008, and
the House Appropriations Committee agreed.
In the FY2005-FY2006 NIGC budget requests, the Administration proposed
language amending IGRA to create an adjustable, formula-based ceiling for fees
instead of the current fixed ceiling. In response, several bills in the current Congress,
including S. 1295 and H.R. 3351, included the Administration’s proposal to replace
IGRA’s dollar ceiling with a percentage ceiling. Supporters contend that a formula-
based fee ceiling would allow NIGC funding to grow as the Indian gaming industry
grows. Gaming tribes do not support the increased fee ceiling or the proposed
amendment of IGRA’s fee ceiling. They assert that NIGC’s budget should first be
reviewed in the context of extensive tribal and state expenditures on regulation of
Indian gaming, and that changes in NIGC’s fees should be developed in consultation
with tribes. Congress enacted the formula-based fee ceiling — 0.08% of the gross
gaming revenues of all gaming operations subject to regulation under IGRA
(H.R.3351; P.L.109-221). Assuming the fee ceiling percentage may be applied to the
latest NIGC figures for gross Indian gaming revenues ($19.4 billion in 2004), the fee
ceiling based on that year would be $15.5 million.
During FY1999-FY2006, all NIGC activities have been funded from fees, with
no direct appropriations. Neither the Administration nor the House Appropriations
Committee proposed a direct appropriation for the NIGC for FY2007.
24 Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but
overlapping regulatory responsibilities for each class.
CRS-39
For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its
website at [http://www.nigc.gov/nigc/index.jsp].
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
EPA was established in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control
responsibilities that had been divided among several federal agencies. EPA’s
responsibilities have grown as Congress has enacted an increasing number of
environmental laws, as well as major amendments to these statutes. Among the
agency’s primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality, water quality,
pesticides, and toxic substances; the management and disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants
to assist state and local governments in controlling pollution.
EPA’s funding over time generally reflects an increase in overall appropriations
to fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities. Without adjusting for inflation,
the agency’s appropriation has risen from $1.0 billion when the agency was
established in FY1970 to a high of $8.4 billion in FY2004. For FY2007, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $7.57 billion for EPA. This amount is
$257.4 million (4%) more than the President’s request of $7.32 billion, but $52.5
million (1%) less than the FY2006 appropriation. However, Congress made an
additional $80.0 million available to EPA in FY2006 by rescinding and redirecting
previously appropriated agency funds that had not been obligated for certain
activities.25 Consequently, the House Appropriations Committee recommendation
for FY2007 was about $132.5 million less than the overall funding of $7.71 billion
for FY2006, including new appropriations of $7.63 billion and $80.0 million in
rescinded prior year funds redirected to FY2006.
Traditionally, EPA’s annual appropriation has been requested and enacted
according to various line-item appropriations accounts, of which there currently are
eight. Table 16 lists each account and presents a breakdown of appropriations by
account for FY2006 enacted, FY2007 requested, and House Appropriations
Committee reported for FY2007.
25 P.L. 109-54 rescinded $80.0 million from prior years’ appropriations that EPA had not
obligated for contracts, grants, and interagency agreements, for which the funding
authorization had expired. The law redirected these funds to be available in FY2006 but did
not specify how this funding was to be allocated among EPA’s accounts. EPA’s budget
justification indicates that for FY2006, the agency allocated $66.0 million to State and
Tribal Assistance Grants, $11.0 million to Hazardous Substance Superfund, $2.0 million to
Environmental Programs and Management, and $1.0 million to Science and Technology.
CRS-40
Table 16. Appropriations for the
Environmental Protection Agency, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2006
FY2007
Environmental Protection Agency
House
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Science and Technology
— Direct Appropriations
$730.8
$788.3
$808.0
— Transfer in from Superfund account
30.2
27.8
30.0
Science and Technology Total
761.0
816.1
838.0
Environmental Programs and Management
2,346.7
2,306.6
2,336.4
Office of Inspector General
— Direct Appropriations
36.9
35.1
35.1
— Transfer in from Superfund account
13.3
13.3
13.3
Office of Inspector General Total
50.2
48.4
48.4
Buildings & Facilities
39.6
39.8
39.8
Hazardous Substance Superfund Total
1,242.1
1,259.0
1,256.9
— Transfer out to Office of Inspector General
(13.3)
(13.3)
(13.3)
— Transfer out to Science and Technology
(30.2)
(27.8)
(30.0)
— Net Appropriations After Transfers
1,198.6
1,217.8
1,213.6
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Program
80.0
72.8
72.8
Oil Spill Response
15.6
16.5
16.5
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
— Clean Water State Revolving Fund
886.8
687.6
687.6
— Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
837.5
841.5
841.5
— Categorical and Other Grants
1,489.4
1,268.3
1,478.3
— Rescission and Redirection of Prior Funds
(80.0)a
n/a
n/a
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
3,133.7
2,797.4
3,007.3
Total Appropriations
$7,625.4
$7,315.5
$7,572.9
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Amounts are from the House
Appropriations Committee, reflecting rescissions and supplementals.
a. Congress made an additional $80.0 million available to EPA in FY2006 by rescinding and
redirecting prior years’ appropriated funds that had not been obligated for contracts, grants, and
interagency agreements, for which the funding authorization had expired. This $80.0 million
is shown as a reduction in the above table to reflect new appropriations for FY2006. Including
this $80.0 million, Congress made a total of $7.71 billion available to EPA in FY2006.
Key Funding Issues
The House Appropriations Committee-reported bill included both decreases
and increases for individual EPA programs and activities throughout the various
appropriations accounts when compared to the President’s FY2007 request and the
FY2006 appropriation. Although there have been varying levels of interest in
FY2007 funding for the agency’s programs and activities, funding for water
infrastructure, the cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program,
scientific research, and air quality programs have received the most attention thus far
in the second session of the 109th Congress. Other areas of interest include funding
CRS-41
for EPA’s homeland security activities, and congressional funding priorities for
individual research and water infrastructure projects, often referred to as earmarks.26
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $270.0 million for
congressional priority projects in its report on H.R. 5386. Congress set aside $280.0
million for such projects in the FY2006 appropriation. As in past years, the
President’s FY2007 budget did not include any funding for congressional priority
projects. Proposed funding for each of the above activities in which there has been
broad congressional interest is discussed further below.
Water Infrastructure. EPA issues grants to states to support Clean Water
and Drinking Water SRFs. These funds provide seed monies for state loans to
communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, respectively.
The President’s proposed reduction for Clean Water SRF grants has been
contentious, as there is disagreement over the adequacy of funding to meet local
needs, such as municipal sewage treatment plant upgrades. Although appropriations
for these grants have declined in recent years, Congress has ended up appropriating
significantly more funding than the President has requested to meet these needs.
Departing from this trend, the House Appropriations Committee approved the
President’s proposed decrease, recommending the requested funding level of $687.6
million for Clean Water SRF grants in FY2007. The House Appropriations
Committee’s recommendation is $199.2 million less than the FY2006 appropriation
of $886.8 million.
The House Appropriations Committee also approved the President’s request of
$841.5 million for Drinking Water SRF grants, $4.0 million more than the FY2006
appropriation of $837.5 million. The Committee’s recommendation to fund Drinking
Water SRF grants at the requested level is consistent with past years, as there
generally has been less disagreement between Congress and the Administration about
the appropriate funding level for these grants. However, some Members support
higher funding to meet local drinking water needs, such as assistance to help
communities comply with new standards for drinking water contaminants (e.g.,
arsenic and radium).
In addition to funding the SRFs, Congress has provided specific funds for water
infrastructure projects in specific communities in past appropriations. The bill
reported by the Appropriations Committee would set aside $200.0 million for
“congressional priority” STAG water infrastructure grants for FY2007, slightly more
than the $197.1 million that Congress set aside for such projects in the FY2006
appropriation. As in past years, the President’s FY2007 budget did not include any
funding for congressional priority water infrastructure projects. Whether these needs
should be met with SRF loan monies or earmarked grant assistance has become
controversial. Due in part to such concerns, and the competing needs of many EPA
activities in general, the amount of funding earmarked for water infrastructure
projects has declined since FY2004.27
26 See CRS Report 98-518, Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriations Bills, by Sandy
Streeter.
27 See CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Project Earmarks in EPA
(continued...)
CRS-42
Superfund and Brownfields. Another prominent issue is the adequacy of
funding for the Superfund program to clean up the nation’s most hazardous waste
sites. Some Members, states, and environmental organizations have contended that
more funds than have been appropriated are necessary to speed the pace of
remediation at contaminated sites. The House Appropriations Committee bill
included a total of $1.26 billion for the Superfund account (prior to transfers to other
accounts), $14.8 million more than the FY2006 appropriation, but $2.1 million less
than requested. The President’s proposed increase for the Superfund account
reflected increases above FY2006 for certain activities such as homeland security and
enforcement. However, funding for “actual” cleanup would decline from $833.9
million in FY2006 to $822.9 million in FY2007. In light of concerns about the pace
of remediation, the President’s proposed decrease in actual cleanup funding has been
the topic of debate during budget oversight hearings. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $832.9 million for Superfund cleanup activities, $1 million
less than in FY2006.
The source of funding for the Superfund program also has been an ongoing
issue. Nearly all of the House committee-reported amount and the President’s
FY2007 request for the Superfund program would be provided from general U.S.
Treasury revenues. Three dedicated taxes (on petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and
corporate income) historically provided the majority of funding for the Superfund
program. These taxes expired at the end of 1995, and the remaining revenues were
essentially used up by the end of FY2003. Since then, Congress has funded the
program almost entirely with general revenues. Although cost recoveries from
responsible parties, fines and penalties, and interest on the unexpended balance of the
trust fund continue to contribute revenue to the Superfund program, these sources
continue to be relatively small compared to general revenues. Some Members of
Congress advocate reinstating the Superfund taxes and assert that the use of general
revenues undermines the “polluter pays” principle. Other Members and the
Administration counter that viable parties are still required to pay for the cleanup of
contamination and that polluters are not escaping their responsibility. According to
EPA, responsible parties pay for the cleanup at more than 70% of Superfund sites.
There also has been ongoing interest in the adequacy of funding to clean up
other contaminated sites, referred to as brownfields. The cleanup of these sites is
funded separately from Superfund. Typically, brownfields are abandoned, idled, or
underutilized commercial and industrial properties with levels of contamination less
hazardous than a Superfund site, but that still warrant cleanup before the land can be
safe for reuse. The President’s FY2007 budget included $163.3 million for EPA’s
Brownfields program to assist states and tribes in the cleanup of these properties, a
slight increase above the FY2006 appropriation of $162.5 million. The House
Appropriations Committee reported bill contained the same funding level as the
President’s FY2007 request for these activities.
EPA’s Homeland Security Activities. The House Appropriations
Committee-reported bill included $143.7 million for EPA’s homeland security
27 (...continued)
Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS-43
activities, an increase above the $129.0 million appropriated in FY2006, but
significantly less than the FY2007 request of $184.0 million. Under the Bioterrorism
Act of 2002, and Homeland Security Presidential Directives 7, 9 and 10, EPA is the
lead federal agency for coordinating security of U.S. water systems, and plays a role
in early warning monitoring and decontamination associated with potential attacks
using biological contaminants. Although EPA’s homeland security funding is a
relatively small portion compared to most other federal agencies, the EPA activities
supported with this funding and their competition for funds with core environmental
programs have been a concern to some Members of Congress.
In its report on the FY2007 bill, the House Appropriations Committee states that
it could only include a modest increase for this activity (as well as other activities)
because of greater funding needs for activities essential to the agency’s mission that
the committee viewed as having a higher priority (H.Rept. 109-465, p.93). This
funding would be distributed among five of the eight EPA appropriations accounts:
S&T, EPM, Superfund, Building and Facilities, and STAG. The funding level would
support various activities, including critical water infrastructure protection,
laboratory preparedness, decontamination, protection of EPA personnel and
operations, and communication.
The largest reduction recommended by the House Appropriations Committee
for EPA homeland security activities relative to the FY2007 budget request would
occur in the S&T account, from $91.8 million to $61.8 million. However, the
committee-reported level is an $11.6 million increase relative to the $50.2 million
provided in the S&T account for FY2006. The committee expected the increase to
allow sufficient funding to add one additional project for a water quality surveillance
and monitoring pilot project, referred to as the “Water Sentinel Initiative,” begun in
FY2006. The FY2007 request had proposed funding for 4 additional pilots. Some
Members of Congress and some scientists had expressed concerns that the homeland
security funding requested for FY2007 within the S&T account was competing with
EPA’s core research programs, for which funding has been declining in recent years
(see related discussion in the next section). In its report, the House Appropriations
Committee directed OMB and EPA to coordinate future funding requests (beginning
with FY2008) for the Water Sentinel Initiative through the Department of Homeland
Security.
Scientific Research. EPA’s S&T account provides the bulk of the funding
for developing the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support decisions on
preventing, regulating, and abating environmental pollution. It also supports efforts
to advance the base of understanding for environmental sciences. This account
incorporates elements of the former Research and Development account in place until
FY1996.
The House Appropriations Committee bill included $838.0 million for the S&T
account, including a transfer of $30.0 million from the Superfund account. Similar
to transfers in past appropriations, this funding would support research and
development related to environmental cleanup. The amount in the Committee bill
is $21.9 million more than the FY2007 request of $816.1 million (including a transfer
of $27.8 million), and $77.0 million more than the FY2006 appropriation of $761.0
million (including a transfer of $30.2 million). The House Appropriations
CRS-44
Committee also included $30.0 million within this account for
“research/congressional priorities” (earmarks) compared to $32.9 million that
Congress provided in FY2006. The request did not include any funding for these
types of projects.
Although an overall increase compared to FY2006, a significant portion of this
increase is in the form of an accounting adjustment the committee included and as
proposed in the FY2007 request. The adjustment would transfer $61.0 million into
the S&T account for “facilities infrastructure and operations.” These activities have
been funded within the EPM account through FY2006. The net effect is that the total
FY2007 amount of $838.0 million for the S&T account, without the $61.0 million
adjustment, would be a significantly smaller increase relative to the FY2006
appropriation.
The House Appropriations Committee-reported bill included both increases and
decreases relative to the FY2007 request and FY2006 appropriations for various
research activities within the S&T account. For example, although the Committee’s
bill included an increase in funding relative to FY2006 for the Energy Policy Act of
2005 and homeland security activities within the S&T account, the amounts would
be substantially less than the increases as proposed in the FY2007 request. As
discussed in the previous section, the largest increase within the S&T account
included in the FY2007 request would have been for EPA homeland security
activities relative to FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee-reported bill
also reflects increases relative to FY2006 for activities that would have been reduced
in the FY2007 request, including “Human Health and Ecosystem Research” and the
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. The committee bill would restore
funding for other activities for which funding was not requested.
Some Members of Congress,28 scientists, and environmental organizations have
expressed concern about declining funding for core scientific research. Debate
regarding funding for scientific research administered by EPA and other federal
agencies often has focused on the question of whether these agencies’ actions are
based on “sound science,” and how scientific research is applied in developing
federal policy. The Administration contends that the requested reductions would not
impair the quality of science, citing that less funding is needed in certain areas
because of efficiencies gained and cost savings realized from consolidating certain
research areas, and the fruition of certain research projects.
Clean Air Act Implementation and Research. EPA’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 air quality programs
among Members of Congress.29 Funding provided within the S&T, EPM,
28 See the House Science Committee Majority Views and Estimates on the President’s
FY2007 budget: [http://www.house.gov/science/hot/FinalViewsandEstimatesFY2007.pdf],
and the House Science Committee Minority Views and Estimates on the President’s FY2007
budget: [http://sciencedems.house.gov/randd/views_fy07.htm], visited April 12, 2006.
29 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
(continued...)
CRS-45
Superfund, and STAG accounts would support various programmatic
implementation, research, and monitoring activities addressing air toxics and air
quality, radiation, climate protection, indoor air quality, and radon. The House
Appropriations Committee-reported bill included both increases and decreases
relative to the FY2007 request and the FY2006 appropriations for a variety of air
quality activities throughout these accounts.
For example, the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill included less
funding than requested for a new initiative introduced in the FY2007 request for
implementation of certain activities under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct,
P.L. 109-58).30 These activities include the diesel emission reduction grants in the
STAG account. Instead, the House Appropriations Committee allocated greater
funding than requested for what it viewed as core mission activities. The House
Appropriations Committee reported bill also included $220.3 million for state and
local air quality act grants, similar to the FY2006 level of $220.2 million but a
substantial increase above the $185.2 million requested for FY2007. Some Members
of Congress and state and local air pollution control officials,31 had raised concerns
about the requested $35.1 million reduction for state and local air quality
management categorical grants, contending that more funds are needed as a result of
increasing Clean Air Act responsibilities. For example, EPA has promulgated
several new air quality regulations within the past two years, requiring more of states
and local governments.
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 RL32856. Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for
FY2006, by Robert Esworthy and David Bearden.
CRS Issue Brief IB10146. Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Susan R. Fletcher and Margaret Isler.
29 (...continued)
Congress, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
30 See CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental Issues in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6), by Brent D. Yacobucci.
31 State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local
Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO), Impact of Proposed FY 2007 Budget
Cuts on State and Local Air Quality Agencies, March 14, 2006, at
[http://www.4cleanair.org/StateandLocalExamplesofImpactsofCuts.pdf], visited April 12,
2006.
CRS-46
Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $4.19 billion for the Forest
Service (FS) for FY2007. This was $97.5 million (2%) more than the President’s
request of $4.10 billion, and $63.5 million (1%) less than FY2006 appropriations of
$4.26 billion.32 As discussed below and shown in Figure 1, FS appropriations are
provided in several major accounts, including Forest and Rangeland Research; State
and Private Forestry (S&PF); National Forest System (NFS); Wildland Fire
Management; Capital Improvement and Maintenance (Infrastructure); and Other
programs (substantially land acquisition).
In the FS budget proposal, the President proposed selling about 300,000 acres
of national forest lands, with the proceeds to pay for a five-year extension of FS
payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act
of 2000 (P.L. 106-393). Current FS authorities to sell or otherwise dispose national
forest lands are extremely narrow, so legislation would be needed to authorize the
President’s proposal. The Administration has sent to Congress draft legislation with
criteria to determine lands eligible for sale, such as lands that are inefficient or
difficult to manage because they are isolated or scattered. Relevant legislation has
not been introduced to date, and the House Appropriations Committee did not
include such authority in the bill as reported.
32 Data for FY2006 and previous years include emergency and supplemental appropriations
and rescissions.
CRS-47
Figure 1. Forest Service FY2007 Budget Request
Wildland Fire Management. Fire funding and fire protection programs
continue to be controversial. Ongoing discussions include 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 and post-fire
rehabilitation activities. (For historical background and descriptions of activities, see
CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)
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. For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $2.62
billion, $48.2 million (2%) more than the President requested for the National Fire
Plan, as shown in Table 17 below. This was $78.6 million (3%) more than total
FY2006 funding of $2.54 billion.
The House Committee recommended $769.3 million for BLM wildfire funding
in FY2007, $0.3 million less than the President requested, and $14.0 million (2%)
more than FY2006. The FY2007 recommendation for FS wildfire funding was $1.85
billion, $48.6 million (3%) more than the request, and $64.7 million (4%) more than
FY2006. The FS and BLM wildfire line items include funds for fire suppression
(fighting fires), preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention,
CRS-48
and detection), and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel reduction, research, and state
and private assistance).
Table 17. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan,
FY2003-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
National Fire Plan
House
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Forest Service
— Wildfire Suppression
$418.0
$597.1
$648.9
$690.2
$746.2
$741.5
— Emergency Fundinga
919.0
748.9
425.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Preparedness
612.0
671.6
676.5
660.7
655.9
655.9
— Other Operations
371.5
392.6
416.5
434.0
399.0
452.2
Subtotal, Forest Service
2,320.5
2,410.3
2,167.3
1,784.9
1,801.0
1,849.6
BLM
— Wildfire Suppression
159.3
192.9
218.4
230.7
257.0
257.0
— Emergency Fundinga
225.0
198.4
98.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Preparednessb
275.4
254.2
258.9
268.8
274.8
274.8
— Other Operations
215.4
238.1
255.3
255.7
237.7
237.4
Subtotal, BLM
875.2
883.6
831.3
755.3
769.6
769.3
Total National Fire Plan
— Wildfire Suppression
577.3
790.0
867.3
920.9
1,003.2
998.5
— Emergency Fundinga
1,144.0
947.3
524.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Preparedness
887.4
925.8
935.4
929.5
930.7
930.7
— Other Operations
586.9
630.7
671.8
689.7
636.7
689.6
Total Appropriations
$3,195.6
$3,293.9
$2,998.6
$2,540.2
$2,570.6
$2,618.8
Notes: Includes funding from BLM and FS Wildland Fire Management accounts and from FS State
and Private Forestry (Cooperative Fire Protection).
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. Fire research and fuel reduction funds are included under Other Operations.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $998.5 million for wildfire
suppression funding in FY2007, $4.7 million (0.5%) less than the request, and $77.6
million (8%) more than FY2006. Neither the recommendation nor the request
includes contingent or emergency funding ($524.1 million for FY2005). The agencies
have the authority to borrow unobligated funds from any other account to pay for
firefighting, for instance, if the fire season is worse than average. Such borrowing
typically is repaid, commonly through subsequent emergency appropriations bills.
CRS-49
For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $930.7 million
for fire preparedness, exactly equal to the request; this is $1.1 million more than the
FY2006 appropriation. The recommendation and request include an increase of $6.0
million (2%) for BLM preparedness and a decrease of $4.8 million (1%) for FS
preparedness.
The House Committee recommendation contained a total of $689.6 million for
other fire operations, $52.9 million (8%) more than the request, and $0.1 million less
than FY2006. Fuel reduction funding (under the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative
and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, P.L. 108-148) was recommended to
be $496.6 million, $5.0 million (1%) more than the request and $8.3 million (2%)
more than FY2006. The recommended increase above the request is all for FS fuel
reduction; compared to FY2007, FS fuel reduction would rise by $16.7 million (6%)
while BLM fuel reduction for FY2007 would decline by $8.3 million (4%). Funding
for the remaining FS other fire operation programs (fire research, site rehabilitation,
forest health, and state fire assistance) was recommended at more than the request,
with the increases recommended to range from $2.8 million to $13.9 million (13%–
153%). The BLM’s state and local fire assistance program would be terminated,
while the other programs would generally be maintained at FY2006 levels.
State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center
of debate, proposed and recommended changes in State and Private Forestry (S&PF)
— programs that provide financial and technical assistance to states and to private
forest owners — have also attracted attention. For FY2007, the House Appropriations
Committee recommended total S&PF funding of $228.6 million — $15.8 million
(6%) less than the request and $80.4 million (26%) less than FY2006. The House
Committee recommendations differ from the Administration’s proposals for most
accounts.
For S&PF forest health management (insect and disease control on federal and
cooperative [nonfederal] lands) in FY2007, the House Committee recommended
$101.9 million, $17.4 million (21%) more than the request and $1.8 million (2%)
more than FY2006. The recommendation was 9% above the request for federal lands
and 38% above the request for cooperative lands.
For S&PF Cooperative Fire Assistance to states and volunteer fire departments,
the House Committee recommended $39.0 million, $6.2 million (19%) more than the
request and $0.2 million (0.5%) more than appropriated for FY2006. Nearly all the
difference was in assistance to states, with the recommendation and the request for
assistance to volunteer fire departments changing by about 2% from FY2006.
For Cooperative Forestry (assistance for forestry activities on state and private
lands), the FY2007 House Appropriations Committee recommended $80.8 million,
$41.4 million (34%) less than the request and $52.4 million (39%) less than FY2006.
The recommendation for Forest Legacy (for purchasing title or easements for lands
threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, such as for residences) was $12.7
million and reduced by $3.4 million by use of prior year balances. The net funding
of $9.3 million is only 15% of the $61.5 million requested for FY2007. For Forest
Stewardship (for states to assist private landowners), the Committee recommended
$37.0 million, $3.1 million (9%) more than the request and $2.9 million (8%) more
than FY2006. Urban and Community Forestry (financial and technical assistance to
CRS-50
localities) would receive $29.5 million, $2.7 million (10%) more than requested and
$1.1 million (4%) more than FY2006. The recommendation accepted the request to
terminate the Economic Action Program (EAP; for rural community assistance, wood
recycling, and Pacific Northwest economic assistance); FY2006 funding was $9.5
million and FY2005 funding was $19.0 million. However, the recommendation
included $5.0 million of S&PF funding for resource inventory, funded at $4.6 million
in FY2006, but proposed for termination in the Administration’s budget request.
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations), the
House Appropriations Committee recommendation was $7.0 million, $2.0 million
(41%) more than the request and slightly ($64,000, 1%) more than FY2006.
Table 18. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry,
FY2004-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
State and Private Forestry
House
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Forest Health Management
$98.6
$101.9
$100.1
$84.4
$101.9
— Federal Lands
53.8
54.2
53.2
49.8
54.2
— Cooperative Lands
44.7
47.6
46.9
34.6
47.6
Cooperative Fire Assistance
38.4
38.8
38.8
32.8
39.0
— State Assistance
33.4
32.9
32.9
27.0
33.0
— Volunteer Asst.
5.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
6.0
Cooperative Forestry
161.4
145.4
133.2
122.2
80.8
— Forest Stewardship
31.9
32.3
34.1
33.9
37.0
— Forest Legacy
64.1
57.1
56.5
61.5
9.3 a
— Urban & Community Forestry
34.9
32.0
28.4
26.8
29.5
— Economic Action (Program)
25.6
19.0
9.5
0.0
0.0
— Forest Resource Info. & Analysis
4.9
5.0
4.6
0.0
5.0
International Programs
5.9
6.4
6.9
4.9
7.0
Emergency Appropriations
24.9
49.1
30.0
0.0
0.0
Total State & Private Forestry
$329.2
$341.6
$309.0
$244.4
$228.6
a. Reflects an appropriation of $12.7 million reduced by use of $3.4 million of prior year balances.
Infrastructure. The House Appropriations Committee recommendation for
Capital Improvement and Maintenance was $411.0 million, $28.4 million (7%) more
than the request and $27.3 million (6%) less than FY2006. Significant changes from
the request were recommended for the various programs. The House Committee
recommendation for Facilities was $15.1 million (12%) below the request — $5.0
million (7%) in maintenance and $10.1 million (17%) decrease in construction; the
recommendation for facilities was $8.7 million (7%) below FY2006, reducing
construction by $23.0 million (31%) and increasing maintenance by $14.3 million
(28%). The House Committee recommendation for Roads was $30.5 million (17%)
above the request — reducing construction by $10.0 million (11%) and increasing
maintenance by $40.5 million (44%); the roads recommendation was $7.4 million
(3%) below FY2006, increasing construction by $4.1 million (5%) and reducing
maintenance by $11.6 million (8%). The House Committee recommendation for
Trails was $13.1 million (22%) greater than the request — $7.7 million (31%) in
CRS-51
construction and$5.4 million (15%) in maintenance. The House Committee
recommendation for Infrastructure Improvement, to reduce the agency’s backlog
of deferred maintenance (estimated at $6.0 billion), matched the request, at $9.3
million, $3.4 million (27%) less than FY2006.
Other Accounts. The House Appropriations Committee recommendation for
FS Research in FY2007 was $280.3 million, $12.5 million (5%) more than the
requests and $2.6 million (1%) more than FY2006. For the National Forest System
(NFS), the recommendation was $1.45 billion, $47.6 million (3%) more than the
request and $10.0 million (1%) more than FY2006. The recommendation included
the proposed $32.5 million (12%) increase in forest (timber) products. Except for the
proposed and recommended 80% reduction in funding for Valles Caldera National
Preserve, the recommendation for other NFS accounts was generally much closer to
the FY2006 level than to the request. The request for Land Acquisition with LWCF
funds was $7.5 million, $17.6 million (70%) less than the request and $34.3 million
(82%) less than FY2006. (See the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)”
section in this report.)
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its website at
[http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome].
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 33 hospitals, 52 health centers, 2 school health centers, 38 health
stations, and 5 residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribal groups, through IHS
contracts and compacts, operate another 15 hospitals, 220 health centers, 9 school
health centers, 98 health stations, and 162 Alaska Native village clinics, and 28
residential treatment centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also operated 9 regional
youth substance abuse treatment centers and 2,252 units of residential quarters for
staff working in the clinics.
CRS-52
The Administration proposed $3.17 billion for IHS for FY2007, an increase of
4% over the FY2006 level of $3.05 billion. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $3.19 billion, an increase of 5% over FY2006 and 1% over the
Administration proposal. See Table 19 below. IHS funding is separated into two
budget categories: Health Services, and Facilities. Of the total IHS appropriation
enacted for FY2006, 88% will be used for health services and 12% for the facilities
program. IHS also receives funding through reimbursements and a special Indian
diabetes program (see “Health Services” below). The sum of direct appropriations,
reimbursements, and diabetes is IHS’s “program level” total, shown in Table 19.
The most significant changes proposed in the Administration’s FY2007 IHS
budget concern the urban Indian health program, within Indian health services, and the
health care facilities construction program.
Table 19. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007 House
Indian Health Service
Approp.
Request
Committee
Change from
Total
FY2006
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health Clinic
$1,339.5
$1,429.8
$1,439.0
7%
Programs
— Dental Health
117.7
127.0
127.0
8%
— Mental Health
58.5
61.7
61.7
6%
— Alcohol and Substance
143.2
150.6
150.6
5%
Abuse
— Contract Care
499.6
536.3
536.3
7%
— Catastrophic Health
17.7
18.0
18.0
1%
Emergency Fund
Subtotal, Clinical Services
2,176.2
2,323.3
2,332.6
7%
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health Nursing
49.0
53.0
53.0
8%
— Health Education
13.6
14.5
14.5
7%
— Community Health
52.9
55.8
55.8
5%
Representatives
— Immunization (Alaska)
1.6
1.7
1.7
5%
Subtotal, Preventive Health
117.1
125.0
125.0
7%
Other Services
— Urban Health Projects
32.7
0
32.7
0%
— Indian Health Professions
31.0
31.7
31.7
2%
— Tribal Management
2.4
2.5
2.5
4%
— Direct Operations
62.2
63.8
63.8
3%
— Self-Governance
5.7
5.8
5.8
3%
— Contract Support Costs
264.7
270.3
270.3
2%
Subtotal, Other Services
398.8
374.2
406.9
2%
CRS-53
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007 House
Indian Health Service
Approp.
Request
Committee
Change from
Total
FY2006
Fixed Costs Decrease
—
—
-34.4
—
Subtotal, Indian Health
2,692.1
2,822.5
2,830.1
5%
Services
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and
51.6
52.7
52.7
2%
Improvement
— Sanitation Facilities
92.1
94.0
94.0
2%
Construction
— Health Care Facilities
37.8
17.7
36.7
-3%
Construction
— Facilities and
150.7
161.3
161.3
7%
Environmental Health Support
— Equipment
20.9
21.6
21.6
3%
Fixed Costs Decrease
—
—
-2.7
—
Subtotal, Indian Health
353.2
347.3
363.6
3%
Facilities
Total Appropriations
$3,045.3
$3,169.8
$3,193.7
5%
Medicare/Medicaid
Reimbursements and Other
648.2
684.1
684.1
6%
Collections
Special Diabetes Program for
Indiansa
150.0
150.0
150.0
0%
Total Program Level
$3,843.5
$4,003.9
$4,027.8
5%
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). Funded through the General Treasury, this
program cost does not appear in the IHS appropriations.
Health Services. IHS Health Services are funded not only through
congressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from private health
insurance and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Estimated total reimbursements were $598.7
million in FY2005 and are expected to be $648.2 million in FY2006. Another $150
million per year is expended through IHS Health Services for the Special Diabetes
Program for Indians.
While the House Appropriations Committee agreed with most of the
Administration’s proposed amounts for Health Services, it recommended a “fixed cost
decrease” of $34.4 million across the entire Health Services budget, cutting about 40%
of the funding proposed to pay costs of medical inflation and population growth. The
decrease would affect each Health Services program differently.
The IHS Health Services budget has three subcategories: clinical services;
preventive health services; and other services. The clinical services budget includes
by far the most program funding. The clinical services budget proposed for FY2007
was $2.32 billion, an increase of 7% over $2.18 billion in FY2006. The House
Committee recommended $2.33 billion. Clinical services include primary care at IHS
CRS-54
and tribally run hospitals and clinics. For hospital and health clinic programs, which
make up 62% of the clinical services budget, the FY2007 proposal was $1.43 billion,
7% over $1.34 billion in FY2006. The House Committee recommended $1.44 billion.
Contract care is a significant clinical service that funds the purchase of health services
from local and community health care providers when IHS cannot provide medical
care and specific services through its own system. It would receive $536.3 million for
FY2007, 7% more than the FY2006 appropriation of $499.6 million. The House
Committee agreed with this amount. For other programs within clinical services for
FY2007, dental programs would receive $127.0 million, mental health programs $61.7
million, alcohol and substance abuse programs $150.6 million, and the Catastrophic
Health Emergency Fund $18.0 million. The House Committee agreed with these
amounts.
For
preventive health services, the Administration proposed $125.0 million for
FY2007, an 7% increase over the $117.1 million for FY2006. Included in the
preventive health services proposal for FY2007 is $53.0 million for public health
nursing, $14.5 million for health education in schools and communities, $1.7 million
for immunizations in Alaska, and $55.8 million for the tribally administered
community health representatives program that supports tribal community members
who work to prevent illness and disease in their communities. The House
Appropriations Committee agreed with all these proposed amounts.
For other health services, the Administration proposed $374.2 million for
FY2007, a 6% decrease from FY2006. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $406.9 million, a increase of 2% from FY2006 and of 9% from the
proposal. Contract support costs (CSC), the largest item in this category, were
proposed to receive $270.3 million for FY2007, a 2% increase, to which the House
Committee agreed. Contract support costs are provided to tribes to help pay the costs
of administering IHS-funded programs under contracts or compacts authorized by the
Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended). CSC pays for costs tribes
incur for such items as financial management, accounting, training, and program start
up. Most tribes and tribal organizations participate in self-determination contracts and
self-governing compacts. Other health services also include urban Indian health
programs (discussed below), Indian health professions scholarships and other support
($31.7 million), tribal management grants ($2.5 million), direct IHS operation of
facilities ($63.8 million), and self-governance technical assistance ($5.8 million). The
House Appropriations Committee agreed with all these amounts except for urban
Indian health.
Urban Indian Health Program. The Administration proposed no new
funding for the urban Indian health program, funded at $32.7 million in FY2006. The
28-year-old program helps fund preventive and primary health services for eligible
urban Indians through contracts and grants with 34 urban Indian organizations at 41
urban sites. The specific services vary from site to site, and may include direct
clinical care, alcohol and substance abuse care, referrals, and health information. The
Administration contends that IHS must target funding and services towards Indians
on reservations, and that urban Indians can be served through other federal, health, and
local health programs. For instance, the Administration proposed increased funding
for the Health Centers program in HHS. Opponents assert that the Administration has
not provided evidence that these alternative programs can replace the urban Indian
CRS-55
health program and has not studied the impact of the loss of IHS funding on health
care for the approximately 71,000 urban Indians who annually receive services
through the program. They further believe that only the urban Indian health program
will provide culturally appropriate care. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended funding for the urban Indian health program at its FY2006 level,
asserting that the program had a good assessment rating and that the program has
attracted additional non-IHS funding.
Facilities. The IHS’s Facilities category includes money for the equipment,
construction, maintenance, and improvement of both health-care and sanitation
facilities, as well as environmental health support programs. The Administration’s
proposal was $347.3 million, a 2% decrease from FY2006 appropriations. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $363.6 million, a 3% increase from FY2006
and a 5% increase from the Administration’s proposal. (See Table 19.) As with
Health Services, the House Committee recommended a fixed cost decrease for
Facilities, in this case a cut of $2.7 million, cutting funding proposed to pay costs of
medical inflation and population growth by 40%.
Included in the FY2007 Facilities proposal are $52.7 million for maintenance and
improvement of health care facilities (2% increase), $94.0 million for sanitation
facilities construction (2% increase), $21.6 million for equipment (3% increase),
$161.3 million for facilities and environmental health support (7% increase), and
funds for health care facilities construction (discussed below). The House
Appropriations Committee agreed with all these proposed amounts.
Health Care Facilities Construction. The Administration proposed $17.7
million for construction of new health care facilities in FY2007, a 53% reduction from
the FY2006 level of $37.8 million. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $36.7 million, which is 3% below FY2006 and 108% above the
proposal. The FY2006 level was a 57% reduction from the FY2005 level of $88.6
million. The Administration’s FY2007 proposal would fund completion of one
ongoing project. The House Appropriations Committee’s recommendation would fund
3 ongoing projects and partially fund dental and small ambulatory facilities
construction and IHS-tribal joint venture construction. The Administration asserted
that the proposed cut was part of an HHS-wide pause in new construction and that it
helped fund staffing of newly-completed facilities and the increase in Indian health
services. Opponents contended that the IHS reports a $1.5-billion backlog in unmet
health-facility needs and that the need is too great for a pause. The House
Appropriations Committee expressed concern about IHS health care facilities budget
requests, stating that it would take 48 years to complete the facilities on IHS’s current
priority list at the rate of funding IHS requested for FY2007, while about one-third of
IHS-operated hospitals and health centers are already over 40 years old.
For further information on the Indian Health Service, see its website at
[http://www.ihs.gov/].
CRS Report RL33022. Indian Health Service: Health Care Delivery, Status,
Funding, and Legislative Issues, by Donna U. Vogt and Roger Walke.
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger Walke.
CRS-56
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) and its predecessor
were created pursuant to a 1974 act (P.L. 93-531, as amended) to resolve a lengthy
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originally set aside by the
federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, the lands were
partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe living on land partitioned
to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes, and bonuses, at
federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary.
ONHIR’s chief activities consist of land acquisition, housing acquisition or
construction, infrastructure construction, and post-move support, all for families being
relocated, as well as certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits. For
FY2007, the Administration proposed $5.9 million in new appropriations for ONHIR,
a 30% reduction from the FY2006 appropriation of $8.5 million. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended the same amount, $5.9 million. ONHIR
estimated it would also spend about $12.0 million in unobligated “carryover” funds
during FY2006, thereby reducing its large unobligated balance from $19.0 million at
the beginning of FY2005 to $3.0 million by the end of FY2006.
Navajo-Hopi relocation began in 1977 and is now nearing completion. 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. Originally, 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. By the end of FY2004, according to
ONHIR, 96% of the Navajo families and 100% of the Hopi families had completed
relocation. In addition, however, about half of the roughly 250 Navajo families —
only some of them among the 3,400 eligible families — who signed “accommodation
agreements” (under P.L. 104-301) that allowed them to stay on Hopi land under Hopi
law, may wish to opt out of these agreements and relocate using ONHIR benefits,
according to ONHIR.
ONHIR estimated that as of the end of FY2004, 130 Navajo families were
awaiting relocation. Eleven of these families were still residing on Hopi partitioned
land, with three of them having homes built or seeking homes and eight refusing 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 ONHIR’s relocating off Hopi land those
families who signed agreements but wish to opt out.
In its FY2006 budget justification ONHIR estimated that relocation moves for
currently eligible families would 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 — together estimated at 210 families — would mean
that all relocation moves would not be completed until the end of FY2008, according
to ONHIR. This schedule would depend on infrastructure needs and relocatees’
decisions. In addition, required post-move assistance to relocatees would necessitate
CRS-57
another two years of expenditures after the last relocation move (whether in FY2006
or FY2008).
Congress has been concerned, at times, about the speed of the relocation process
and about avoiding forced relocations or evictions. Pending legislation (S. 1003)
would sunset ONHIR in 2008 and transfer any remaining duties to the Secretary of the
Interior. Further, a long-standing proviso in ONHIR appropriations language, retained
for FY2006 and recommended by the House Appropriations Committee for FY2007,
prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi partitioned lands unless
a replacement home were provided. This language appears to prevent ONHIR from
forcibly relocating Navajo families in the near future, because of ONHIR’s backlog
of approved relocatees awaiting replacement homes. As the backlog is reduced,
however, forced eviction may become an issue, if any remaining Navajo families
refuse relocation and if the Hopi Tribe were to exercise a right under P.L. 104-301 to
begin legal action against the United States for failure to give the Hopi Tribe “quiet
possession” of all Hopi partitioned lands. The agreement that ONHIR reports it is
negotiating with the Justice Department and the Hopi Tribe seeks to avoid this.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education, and research complex
of 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and 9 research facilities throughout
the United States and around the world, plus 144 affiliated museums. The SI is
responsible for over 400 buildings with approximately 8 million square feet of space.
There were over 24 million visitors to SI museums last year, a 24% increase over
FY2004. The Smithsonian Institution 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.
House Committee Consideration and FY2007 Budget. For FY2007,
the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $624.1 million for
the Smithsonian, a decrease from the Administration’s proposed $644.4 million for
FY2007, but an increase over the enacted FY2006 level ($615.1 million). See Table
20 below. For Salaries and Expenses, the House Appropriations Committee would
provide $517.1 million, a decrease from the Administration’s request of $537.4
million, and a slight increase over the FY2006 amount of $516.6 million. Salaries and
Expenses cover administration of all of the museums and research institutions that are
part of the SI. It also includes program support and outreach, and facilities services
(security and maintenance). The House Appropriations Committee cut the
Smithsonian’s Salaries and Expenses request on the grounds that Congress was not
consulted on a contract that the Smithsonian Institution made with Showtime. (See
below under Business Ventures.)
Facilities Capital. For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee agreed
with the Administration’s budget to provide $107.0 million for facilities capital. This
would be an increase over the FY2006 level of $98.5 million. The House
Appropriations Committee approved $91.1 million for revitalization, $5.4 million for
construction, and $10.5 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. Several studies,
CRS-58
including one by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-05-369), indicate that
the SI needs an investment of $1.6 billion for revitalization and construction over the
next decade.
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
FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee supported the Administration’s budget
request for $3.0 million, an increase from the FY2006 appropriation of $2.9 million.
The funding will cover operating costs, including personnel for planning, and capital
fund raising. Space has been selected on the Mall near the Washington Monument.
Other groups, such as Latinos, have been seeking museum space on the Mall, and
legislation has been introduced (H.R. 2134, S. 2475) for an American Latino Museum.
The House Appropriations Committee’s report on FY2006 appropriations stipulated
that the SI’s purchase of any additional buildings would require initial consultation
with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
National Zoo. For FY2007, the bill reported by the House Appropriations
Committee would provide $21.4 million for salaries and expenses at the National Zoo,
an increase over the Administration’s request ($20.7 million) and FY2006 ($20.0
million). In the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill, $1 million is to
address critical infrastructure including fire detection and suppression systems.
Recently, Members of Congress and the public have expressed increased concern
about the National Zoo’s facilities and the care and health of its animals. The
Smithsonian Institution has a plan to revitalize the zoo, to make the facilities safer for
the public and healthier for the animals. The Administration’s FY2007 request
estimated $13.0 million (under the Facilities Capital account) to begin Phase II of the
Asia Trail and Elephant Trails to provide ample space for the elephants. It also
included renewing facades, roofs, and skylights at Rock Creek ($2.0 million); and an
upgrade of critical infrastructure ($1.0 million), including installing fire protection
systems and upgrading utilities. The new construction and renovation will help the
Zoo come into compliance with the Department of Agriculture and American Zoo and
Aquarium Association standards, and help correct “infrastructure deficiencies” found
throughout the National Zoo. The House Appropriations Committee agreed to
provide the full amount for Facilities Planning and Design, but asked to review the
list of the Zoo’s projects for Facilities Planning and Design before approval.
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. For FY2006 (the most recent estimate), the trust funds
available for operations were estimated at $274.0 million, comprised of $59.0 million
for general trust, $109.0 million for government grants and contracts, and $106.0
million for donor-designated funds. Of concern to Congress is the extent to which the
SI’s financial managers are investing in hedge funds to boost the endowment. The SI
has tried to assure the Congress that it is not reducing the endowment from these
investments.
CRS-59
Business Ventures. Some Members have expressed concern over a new
business venture between the Smithsonian and Showtime. The venture, called
“Smithsonian On Demand,” is a new cable programming service that will offer
commercial-free shows about Smithsonian resources and collections. According to
the SI, the Institution will take advantage of the power of cable television to expand
access to objects, scientists, and scholars in keeping with its mission to diffuse
knowledge. The primary concern is that the national collections might not be
available to the public and that access by other film makers could be limited. The SI
asserts that its collections will remain open to all researchers. Further, according to
the SI, it will not refuse access to other producers and in fact will hire independent
film makers to produce the programs for the channel. The SI claims that it does not
need to divulge the terms of its contract with CBS/Showtime, because it is a business
contract that does not involve federal funds. Some lawmakers assert that, because of
the substantial federal support of the SI, they have a right to know about this contract,
while others contend that they should be informed as a courtesy. The SI contends that
it maintains separate trust fund accounts and that activities related to the private
accounts do not need to be made public.
To express its disapproval with the Smithsonian over the Showtime business
venture, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee included bill language
limiting the Smithsonian’s ability to execute any contract or legal agreement which
could limit access by the public to the Smithsonian collections. This was retained in
the reported bill by the full House Appropriations Committee. The House
Appropriations Committee also reduced the Administration’s request for Smithsonian
Institution Salaries and Expenses by $20.3 million from $537.4 million to $517.1
million. Finally, the Committee agreed to limit the salary of the Secretary of the
Smithsonian to not more than that of the President of the United States and to reduce
the salaries of any other SI officer or employee now receiving more than the President
to the level of the President.
Table 20. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Smithsonian Institution (SI)
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Salaries and Expenses
$489,035
$516,568
$537,394
$517,094
Facilities Capital
— Revitalization
110,355
72,813
91,065
91,065
— Construction
7,879
17,834
5,435
5,435
— Facilities Planning and Design
7,889
7,882
10,500
10,500
Subtotal, Facilities Capital
126,123
98,529
107,000
107,000
Total Appropriations
$615,158
$615,097
$644,394
$624,094
For further information on the Smithsonian Institution, see its website at
[http://www.si.edu/].
CRS-60
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. The NEA and NEH authorization
(P.L. 89-209; 20 U.S.C. §951) expired at the end of FY1993, but the agencies have
been operating on temporary authority through appropriations law. IMLS receives
funding through the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. (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. Additional
concerns of Congress for FY2007 include whether NEA and NEH funding is keeping
up with inflation and whether it is adequate for both NEA and NEH to cover their
mandatory and escalating costs, such as cost of living increases in salaries and rent. An
idea that has been in the background for years is combining the two Endowments into
one to share programs and staff. It is not known if this change would achieve savings
ultimately, or whether it would be feasible, given that the programs for the most part
serve different constituencies. There may be further discussion of this idea during
consideration of the FY2007 NEA and NEH appropriations.
NEA. The NEA is a major federal source of support for the arts in all arts
disciplines. Since 1965 it has provided over 120,000 grants that have been distributed
to all states. NEA is celebrating its 40th anniversary as a fully operational public
agency. For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee’s reported bill would
provide $124.4 million for NEA, the same as the Administration budget, and very
similar to the amount appropriated for FY2006. The FY2007 House committee-
reported amount includes $44.9 million for direct grants and $39.5 million for state
partnerships.
Both the House Appropriations Committee recommendation and the FY2007
Administration request would allow $14.1 million to be used for Challenge America
grants. 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.
These grants reach over 17,000 schools, many in remote areas. Both the House
Appropriations Committee bill and the FY2007 Administration request included $9.9
million for the American Masterpieces program. It is funded jointly 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. See
Table 21 below.
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.
CRS-61
NEH also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match private
donations in support of humanities institutions. NEH is celebrating its 40th anniversary
as a fully operational public agency.
For NEH, for FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill and
Administration budget would provide $141.0 million, the same as enacted for FY2006.
The House Appropriations Committee-reported bill and the FY2007 Administration
request would provide $14.9 million for matching grants for both Treasury Funds and
Challenge Grants, and $126.0 million for grants and administration (comprised of
$101.2 million for grants and $24.8 million for administration). See Table 21 below.
The House Appropriations Committee-reported bill and the FY2007 budget request
would allow $15.2 million for the “We the People” initiative. These grants include
model curriculum projects for schools to improve course offerings in the humanities
— American history, culture, and civics.
Table 21. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Arts and Humanities
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
NEA
— Challenge America Arts Fund
$21,427
$17,559
$14,097
$14,097
— National Initiative: American
1,972
9,852
9,852
9,852
Masterpieces
Subtotal Grants
99,452
100,654
98,817
98,817
Program support
1,270
1,672
1,761
1,761
Administration
20,542
22,080
23,834
23,834
Total, NEA
121,264
124,406
124,412
124,412
NEH
— NEH Grants and
122,156
125,728
126,049
126,049
Administration
— NEH Matching Grants
15,898
15,221
14,906
14,906
Total, NEH
138,054
140,949
140,955
140,955
Total Appropriations NFAH
$259,318
$265,355
$265,367
$265,367
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.
CRS-62
Cross-Cutting Topics
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
Overview. The LWCF is authorized at $900 million annually through FY2015.
However, these funds may not be spent without an appropriation. The LWCF is used
for three purposes. First, the four principal federal land management agencies —
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and
Forest Service — draw primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The sections on each
of those agencies earlier in this report identify funding levels and other details for their
land acquisition activities. Second, the LWCF funds acquisition and recreational
development by state and local governments through a grant program administered by
the NPS, sometimes referred to as stateside funding. 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 other related activities rarely are earmarked.
From FY1965 through FY2006, about $29 billion has been credited to the LWCF.
About half that amount — $14.3 billion — has been appropriated. Throughout history,
annual appropriations from LWCF have fluctuated considerably. Until FY1998,
LWCF funding did not exceed $400 million, except from FY1977-FY1980, when
funding ranged from $509 million (FY1980) to $805 million (FY1978). In FY1998,
LWCF appropriations exceeded the authorized level for the first time, spiking to $969
million from the FY1997 level of $159 million. A record level of funding was
provided in FY2001, when appropriations reached $1.0 billion, partly in response to
President Clinton’s Lands Legacy Initiative and some interest in increased and more
certain funding for LWCF.
Table 22. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, FY2004-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
Land and Water
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
House
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Federal Acquisition
— BLM
$18.4
$11.2
$13.4
$8.6
$8.8
$3.1
— FWS
38.1
37.0
41.0
28.0
27.1
19.8
— NPS
41.7
55.1
52.9
34.4 a
22.7
28.4
— FS
66.4
61.0
40.0
41.8
25.1
7.5
Subtotal, Federal
164.6
164.3
147.3
112.8
83.6
58.7
Acquisition
Appraisal Services
0.0
0.0
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
Grants to States
93.8
91.2
1.6
29.6a
1.6
1.6
Other Programs
229.7
203.4
524.3
214.1
440.6
142.1
Total Appropriations
$488.1
$458.9
$680.6
$346.8a
$533.3
$209.9
CRS-63
Source: Data are from the House Appropriations Committee, the DOI Budget Office, and The Interior
Budget in Brief for each fiscal year.
a. The NPS land acquisition and total appropriation figures are reduced by $9.8 million due to the use
of prior year funds for NPS federal land acquisition. The total only also is reduced by $17.0
million due to the use of prior year funds for NPS land acquisition and state assistance. Thus, the
figures in the column exceed the total by $17.0 million.
FY2007 Funding. For FY2007, the Administration requested $533.3 million
for LWCF, an increase of $186.5 million (54%) over the FY2006 appropriation of
$346.8 million. From prior year funds, for the NPS for FY2006 there are an additional
$17.0 million for land acquisition and state assistance and $9.8 million for federal land
acquisition. The FY2007 request includes funds for federal land acquisition, the
stateside program, and other purposes. The House Committee on Appropriations
approved a total of $209.9 for LWCF, a decrease of $136.9 million (39%) from
FY2006 and of $323.4 million (61%) from the Administration’s request. In its report
on the FY2007 bill, the Committee stated that new land acquisition and unproven grant
programs are a low priority.
Land Acquisition. Of the total FY2007 request, $83.6 million is for federal
land acquisition, a $29.1 million (26%) reduction from the FY2006 level of $112.8
million. An additional $7.4 million was requested for land appraisals related to federal
land acquisitions. The House Appropriations Committee approved $58.7 million for
land acquisition, a reduction of $54.1 million (48%) from FY2006 and of $24.9 million
(30%) from the President’s request. The Committee approved an additional $7.4
million for appraisal services.
For the five years ending in FY2001, appropriations for federal land acquisition
had more than tripled, rising from $136.6 million in FY1996 to $453.4 million in
FY2001. However, since then the appropriation for land acquisition has declined, to
$112.8 million for FY2006. Not only did the total for federal land acquisition decline
each year from FY2002 to FY2006, but each of the four component accounts declined
each year (except NPS from FY2004 to FY2005). The decline may be attributed in
part to increased attention to the federal budget deficit and enhanced interest in funding
other national priorities, such as the war on terrorism. Table 22 shows recent funding
for LWCF.
Stateside Program. Another $1.6 million of the total FY2007 request is for
administration of the stateside grant program. The Administration is not seeking funds
for new state grants in FY2007 on the grounds that 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. For
FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee also supported $1.6 million for program
administration only. This is not a new phenomenon. For example, the President
similarly did not seek funds for new state grants in FY2006, although Congress
appropriated $29.6 million for that purpose. In addition, for several years the Clinton
Administration proposed eliminating stateside funding, and Congress concurred. In the
last five years, stateside funding has fallen 79%, from $144.0 in FY2002 to $29.6
million in FY2006.
CRS-64
Other Purposes. The largest portion of the President’s FY2007 request —
$440.6 million — is for 15 other programs in the Department of the Interior and the
Forest Service. This would be a $226.5 million (106%) increase over the FY2006 level
of $214.1 million. Table 22 shows that in FY2006, the largest portion of the
appropriation was for other programs but the Administration had requested a much
larger amount. Table 23 shows the programs for which the President seeks LWCF
funds in FY2007, and the FY2006 appropriation for the indicated programs. In some
cases, Congress provided these programs with non-LWCF funding.
For FY2007, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended $142.1
million for other purposes. The Committee approved funds for four FWS programs,
one FS program, and one DOI program. The House Appropriations Committee-
reported level would constitute a reduction of $72.0 million (34%) from FY2006 and
of $298.5 million (68%) from the President’s request.
Table 23. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2006
FY2007
House
Other Programs
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
— Challenge Cost Share
$0.0
$9.4
$0.0
Fish and Wildlife Service
— Refuge Challenge Cost Share
0.0
8.6
0.0
— Partners for Fish and Wildlife
0.0
42.7
0.0
— Coastal Programs
0.0
13.0
0.0
— Migratory Bird Joint Ventures
0.0
11.8
0.0
— State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
67.5
74.7
50.0
— Landowner Incentive Grants
21.7
24.4
15.0
— Private Stewardship Grants
7.3
9.4
7.0
— Cooperative Endangered Species Grants
61.1
80.0
60.3
— North American Wetlands Conservation
0.0
41.6
0.0
Fund Grants
National Park Service
— Challenge Cost Share
0.0
2.4
0.0
Departmental Management
— Take Pride in America
0.0
0.5
0.5
Forest Service (USDA)
— Forest Legacy Program
56.5
61.5
9.3
— Forest Stewardship Program
0.0
33.9
0.0
— Urban and Community Forestry Program
0.0
26.8
0.0
Total Appropriations
$214.1
$440.6
$142.1
Notes: This table identifies “other” programs for which the Administration seeks LWCF funds for
FY2007; it excludes federal land acquisition and the stateside program. The FY2007 information is
CRS-65
derived from DOI and the House Committee on Appropriations. Funding provided outside of LWCF
is not reflected.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey A. 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.
Appropriations for restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem have been
provided to various agencies as part of several annual appropriations bills. The
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws have provided funds
to 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 FY1993-FY2006, federal appropriations for projects and services related to
the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem exceeded $2.6 billion, and state funding
topped $3.6 billion.33 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.34
FY2007 Funding. For FY2007, the Administration requested $233.4 million
for the Department of the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers for restoration
efforts in the Everglades, which is an increase of $31.0 million from the FY2006
enacted level of $202.4 million. For DOI, the Administration requested $69.4 million
for CERP and non-CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida
ecosystem for FY2007. The bill reported by the Committee on House Appropriations
would provide $69.0 million for Everglades restoration, which is similar to the
requested amount. See Table 24 below.
For FY2006, $80.5 million was provided to the DOI for Everglades restoration.
However, of this amount, $17.0 million was provided for land acquisition from prior
33 These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
34 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.
CRS-66
year balances, making the FY2006 appropriation for restoration $63.5 million. The
FY2007 request of $69.4 million for Everglades restoration is $5.9 million above the
FY2006 appropriation.
Table 24. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration
in the DOI Budget, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Everglades Restoration in DOI
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.a
National Park Service
— CERP
$5,213
$4,620
$4,658
n/a
— Park Operations b 25,266
25,832
26,350
n/a
— Land Acquisition (use of prior
0
-17,000
0
n/a
year balances)
— Everglades Acquisitions
1,500
690
500
n/a
Management
— Modified Water Delivery
7,965
24,882
13,330
13,330
— Everglades Research
3,882
3,840
3,863
n/a
— South Florida Ecosystem Task
1,290
1,286
1,308
n/a
Force
— GSA Space
0
554
554
n/a
Subtotal, NPS
45,116
44,704
50,563
n/a
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP
3,304
3,269
3,269
n/a
— Land Acquisition
740
0
0
n/a
— Ecological Services
2,518
2,516
2,516
n/a
— Refuges and Wildlife
4,787
4,086
4,086
n/a
— Migratory Birds
0
101
101
n/a
— Law Enforcement
627
619
619
n/a
— Fisheries
99
95
95
n/a
Subtotal, FWS
12,075
10,686
10,686
n/a
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and
7,738
7,771
7,771
n/a
Coordination
Subtotal, USGS
7,738
7,771
7,771
n/a
Bureau of Indian Affairs
— Seminole, Miccosukee Tribe Water
536
382
382
n/a
Studies and Restoration
Subtotal, BIA
536
382
382
n/a
Total Appropriations
$65,465
$63,543
$69,402
$69,000
Source: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2007, The Interior Budget in Brief (Washington, DC:
Feb. 2006) and House Appropriations Committee Press Release, accessed May 15, 2006 at
[http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=605].
n/a = not available.
CRS-67
a. The report of the Appropriations Committee (H. Rept. 109-465) does not specify funding for all of
projects listed under Everglades restoration.
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 primary increase in funding for Everglades restoration requested for FY2007
is for the Modified Water Deliveries Project (Mod Waters) under NPS. 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. The completion
of this project is required prior to the construction of certain projects under CERP. For
FY2006, $7.9 million in new funds were appropriated for Mod Waters. This figure
reflects a reduction of $17.0 million due to the use of prior year funds. For FY2007,
$13.3 million was requested. The House Appropriations Committee would provide
similar funding based on conditions discussed under the phosphorus mitigation
heading.
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 sustain the current level of funding, in light of escalating
costs and project delays. In H.Rept. 109-80 (FY2006 appropriations), 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. In report language for FY2007 appropriations, the
Committee expresses its appreciation of the efforts the state of Florida has made to
provide funding for Acceler8 projects.
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation. For FY2006, P.L. 109-54
conditioned funding for Mod Waters based on meeting state water quality standards.
It provided that funds appropriated in the act and any prior acts for the project would
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 provision was included in the FY2007 House Appropriations
Committee bill and also had been enacted in the FY2004 and FY2005 Interior
appropriations laws. Provisions conditioning funds on the achievement of water
quality standards were not requested in the Administration’s budget for FY2007.
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
CRS-68
of 1994 (Florida Statutes §373.4592) by authorizing a new plan to mitigate phosphorus
pollution in the Everglades. Phosphorus is one of the primary water pollutants in the
Everglades and a primary cause for ecosystem degradation.
In its report, the House Appropriations Committee contends that good water
quality is essential for restoring the Everglades and opposes any changes to the consent
decree, which establishes a goal of lowering phosphorus levels to 10 ppb (parts per
billion) in federal lands in the Everglades. To support this position, the Committee-
reported bill would condition funds for implementing Mod Waters based on the state
of Florida meeting water quality standards. This condition also applies if the terms of
the consent decree are terminated prior to its mandate of achieving low levels of
phosphorus. Funds for Mod Waters would also be unavailable unless funds for
implementing Mod Waters and engineering and design documents for the Tamiami
Trail component of the project are appropriated to the Corps. The condition on funding
Mod Waters stems from a provision in the law (P.L.106-541) that authorizes the
implementation of CERP. This provision states that Mod Waters must be completed
before several other restoration projects are undertaken. Therefore, delays in the
completion of Mod Waters would result in delays in the implementation of a larger
portion of the restoration plan.
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 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.
CRS-69
Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Bureau or Agency
House
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
$1,893,233
$1,816,910
$1,754,145 $1,782,860
$1,785,347
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,308,405
1,332,591
1,345,037
1,291,536
1,289,588
National Park Service
2,258,581
2,365,683
2,275,293
2,155,823
2,174,840
U.S. Geological Survey
937,985
944,564
970,645
944,760
991,447
Minerals Management Service
170,297
173,826
174,294
163,554
164,399
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement
295,975
296,573
294,157
298,145
298,145
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,300,814
2,295,702
2,274,270
2,221,851
2,234,677
Departmental Officesa
682,674
729,379
775,910
754,039
725,743
Total Title I
9,847,964
9,955,228
9,863,751
9,612,568
9,664,186
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
8,365,817c 8,026,485
7,625,416
7,315,475
7,572,870
Title III: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,939,899
4,770,598d
4,257,762
4,096,728
4,194,266
Indian Health Service
2,921,715
2,985,066
3,045,310
3,169,787
3,193,709
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
78,309
79,842
79,108
78,414
79,414
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
73,034
76,041
74,905
75,004
76,754
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality
3,219
3,258
2,677
2,627
2,627
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
8,648
9,424
9,064
9,108
9,208
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
13,366
4,930
8,474
5,940
5,940
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development
6,173
5,916
6,207
6,703
6,703
Smithsonian Institution
596,279
615,158
615,097
644,394
624,094
National Gallery of Art
98,225
102,654
111,141
116,743
116,743
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
32,159
33,021
30,347
38,709
38,709
Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars
8,498
8,863
9,065
9,438
9,438
National Endowment for the Arts
120,972
121,264
124,406
124,412
124,412
National Endowment for the Humanities
135,310
138,054
140,949
140,955
140,955
Commission of Fine Arts
1,405
1,768
1,865
1,951
1,951
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
6,914
6,902
7,143
6,534
6,534
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
3,951
4,536
4,789
5,118
5,118
National Capital Planning Commission
7,635
7,888
8,123
8,265
7,623
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
39,505
40,858
42,150
43,786
43,415
Presidio Trust
20,445
19,722
19,706
19,256
19,256
White House Commission on the Natl. Moment
of Remembrance
—
248
247
200
200
Total Title III
9,115,661
9,036,011
8,598,535
8,604,072
8,707,069
[Title IV: Veterans’ Health]
—
—
[1,500,000]
—
Undistributed Reductions
—
—
— 1,768
—
Grand Total (in Bill)b
$27,329,442
$27,017,724
$26,085,934e $25,532,115 $25,944,125
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
CRS-70
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 (§8098, P.L. 108-287).
e. The total does not reflect a $1.50 billion in emergency appropriations for veteran’s health. It reflects undistributed
reductions which are not reflected in the individual agency figures in the column.
CRS-71
For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL32993. Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fee on Coal, by Nonna Noto.
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 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 RS22343. Indian Trust Fund Litigation: Legislation to Resolve
Accounting Claims in Cobell v. Norton, by M. Maureen Murphy.
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 Pervaze A.
Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
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-72
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 Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS 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-73
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 RL33022. Indian Health Service: Health Care Delivery, Status,
Funding, and Legislative Issues, by Donna U. Vogt and Roger Walke.
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.
crsphpgw