Order Code RL33399
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Updated June 1, 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 18, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5386, providing $25.94 billion for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007. The House-passed 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-passed bill for
FY2007, from the FY2006 level, are the following:
! $-99.5 million (4%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
! $-65.5 million (2%) for the Forest Service (FS);
! $-55.4 million (4%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
! $-48.7 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);
! $15.8 million (2%) for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS);
! $9.0 million (1%) for the Smithsonian Institution; and
! $5.0 million (4%) for each of the National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
The House considered many amendments to H.R. 5386 and agreed to a number
of them. They included amendments to prohibit funds in the bill from being used for
the sale or slaughter of wild horses and burros, building roads in the Tongass
National Forest in Alaska for harvesting timber, limiting the outreach programs of
the Smithsonian Institution, and issuing new lease sales to current Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lessees who do not have price thresholds in their leases. The
House also retained the moratoria on OCS leasing, and increased funds for the NEA,
NEH, and Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, among other changes. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Status of Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Management of Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Construction and Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Endangered Species Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 10
Avian Flu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Wildlife Refuge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Operation of the National Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
United States Park Police (USPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
National Recreation and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Land Acquisition and State Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Enterprise Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
National Mapping Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Water Resources Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Biological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Science Support and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Water Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Superfund and Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
EPA’s Homeland Security Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Clean Air Act Implementation and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Major FS Issues in Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Other Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . . . . . 53
Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
House Consideration and FY2007 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Facilities Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
National Museum of African American History and Culture . . . . . . . 59
National Zoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Trust Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Business Ventures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
NEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
FY2007 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
FY2007 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
List of Figures
Figure 1. Forest Service FY2007 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
List of Tables
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 T
axes, FY2000-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians, FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 16. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 17. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2003-FY2007 . . . . . . . 50
Table 18. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry, FY2004-FY2007 . . 52
Table 19. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2006-FY2007 . . . . 54
Table 20. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2005-FY2007 . . . 61
Table 21. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . 63
Table 22. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 23. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 24. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2005-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On May 18, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5386, the FY2007 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill containing $25.94 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. The FY2007 legislation follows a
similar organization, and this report is organized along these lines. 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 FY2007
funding levels for the most recent action, and those 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 18, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5386, providing $25.94 billion for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007. The House-passed 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-passed bill for
FY2007, from the FY2006 level, are the following:
! $-99.5 million (4%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
! $-65.5 million (2%) for the Forest Service (FS);
! $-55.4 million (4%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
! $-48.7 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);
! $15.8 million (2%) for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS);
! $9.0 million (1%) for the Smithsonian Institution; and
! $5.0 million (4%) for each of the National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
CRS-3
The House considered many amendments to H.R. 5386, and agreed to a number
of them. They included amendments to prohibit funds in the bill from being used for
the sale or slaughter of wild horses and burros, building roads in the Tongass
National Forest in Alaska for harvesting timber, limiting the outreach programs of
the Smithsonian Institution, and issuing new lease sales to current Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lessees who do not have price thresholds in their leases. The
House also retained the moratoria on OCS leasing, and increased funds for the NEA,
NEH, and Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, among other changes.
In earlier action, on May 15, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee
reported H.R. 5386 (H.Rept. 109-465), also with $25.94 billion for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007. The House Appropriations
Committee adopted a number of amendments during its markup before ordering the
bill reported.
Table 1 below shows the budget authority for Interior, Environment, 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-passed levels for FY2007.
Table 1. Interior, Environment, 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.
CRS-4
! 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.)
! 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
CRS-5
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.)
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 Interior, Environment, 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.
H.R. 5386,
109-465
(293-128)
5/04/06
5/15/06
5/18/06
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 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 and
nearly the same as the Administration’s FY2007 request. See Table 3 below.
CRS-6
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 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.
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the House 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 House 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 also agreed with the Administration’s approach to increase funds for
some programs over FY2006, although in some cases the House 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 House approved $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
House 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 included increases over FY2006 for programs the
Administration had sought to cut. For instance, the House approved $67.0 million
for recreation management, a 3% increase over FY2006. The House also included
$20.1 million for resource protection and law enforcement, a 6% increase over
FY2006, in part for law enforcement along the southwest border.
The House-passed bill would continue to bar funds from being used for energy
leasing activities within the boundaries of national monuments, as they were on
January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the presidential proclamations that
created the monuments. The law also continued the moratorium on accepting and
processing applications for patents for mining and mill site claims on federal lands.
CRS-7
However, applications meeting certain requirements that were filed on or before
September 30, 1994, would be allowed to proceed, and third party contractors would
be authorized to process the mineral examinations on those applications.
The House agreed to an amendment to prohibit funds in the bill from being used
for the sale or slaughter of wild horses and burros (as defined in P.L. 92-195).
Amendment proponents seek to prevent BLM from selling, during FY2007, excess
wild horses and burros under authority enacted in P.L. 108-447. According to BLM,
41 animals that were sold under that authority were subsequently resold or traded,
and then sent to slaughterhouses by the new owners. Advocates of the amendment
assert that there are alternatives for controlling populations of wild horses on federal
lands, such as fertility control. Opponents of a similar amendment to last year’s
appropriations bill contended that BLM’s changes to the sale procedure would
prevent animals from being slaughtered. They maintained that sale authority was
needed because adoptions and other efforts to reduce herd sizes have been
insufficient. Further, they asserted that significant funds used for caring for animals
in holding facilities could be redirected to other government priorities. Although the
House passed a similar amendment to the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill, the
provision was not enacted.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2007,
the House 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 House-passed level represents the 10-year average cost of fire
suppression. 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 for state and local fire assistance was $9.9 million.
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).
The Committee also 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. Committee report language, and provisions
of the House-passed bill, seek to address other concerns, including the sufficiency of
readiness for fire fighting and the cost and utility of the fire program analysis system.
CRS-8
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 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 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 House Appropriations Committee stated
that new land acquisition is a low priority. The appropriation for BLM acquisitions
has fallen steadily from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.6 million for FY2006. Money
for land acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
(For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)”
section in this report.)
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2006
FY2007
Bureau of Land Management
House
Approp.
Request
Passed
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
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.
CRS-9
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 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 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. For
information on the debate over whether to approve energy development in the
Refuge, see CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
Controversies for the 109th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and
Pamela Baldwin.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The
Administration proposed to reduce the program from $147.8 million in FY2006 to
$141.0 million in FY2007 (5%), with the bulk of the reduction in the recovery
subprogram. For FY2007, the House approved $146.6 million, $1.2 million below
FY2006 and $5.6 million above the request. 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 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 approved a decrease to $249.1 million (3%).
3 The proposed authorization for exploration and development would be separate legislation,
rather than part of the Interior appropriations bill. The proposal does not appear in the FWS
Budget Justification for FY2007.
CRS-10
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and
Related Programs, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
Endangered Species and
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
House
Related Programs
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
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
21,667
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
House approved $60.3 million from LWCF, an amount the report of the House Committee on
Appropriations 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 and a $1.0 million
rescission in the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund 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 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-passed bill contained $57.5
million.
Avian Flu. For FY2007, the Administration proposed to continue the special
supplemental 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 passed by the House. 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 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 did not elaborate on the efforts intended nor the
geographic areas to be given additional emphasis.
CRS-11
Land Acquisition. For FY2007, the Administration proposed $27.1 million
for Land Acquisition, 3% below FY2006. The House approved $19.8 million, a
decrease of 29%. (See Table 5.) The House Appropriations Committee report
earmarked 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 $13.4 million.4 The House-passed bill allocated a smaller fraction to
acquisition than the President’s proposal. (For more information, see “Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FWS Land Acquisition
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
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 $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. The House-passed figure was $14.2 million, as in FY2006.
4 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
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
again rejected the proposal for FY2007. For FY2007, the President proposed $8.2
million for the MSCF (including the proposed transfer of the NMBCF to this
program). The proposal would cut programs for great apes, rhinos, tigers, African
and Asian elephants, and marine turtles, but increase funding for neotropical
migratory birds. The House passed smaller reductions. See Table 6 below.
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
Multinational Species
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
House
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
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 approved a decrease to $50.0
million. See Table 7 below. An amendment to transfer $500,000 to this program
for alligator control in Florida was withdrawn.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
CRS-13
FY2007
State and Tribal Wildlife
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
House
Grants
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
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 House
Appropriations Committee 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-passed total is $2.18 billion for the NPS, an increase of $20.0
million (1%) above the President’s FY2007 request ($2.16 billion), and a decrease
of $99.5 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
CRS-14
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.5
Two amendments adopted by the House involved the NPS. The first increased
funding for the Operation of the National Park System by $1.0 million, with the
intent of increasing security to open all of the Statue of Liberty to visitors. The other
excluded certain cities from an ongoing NPS study of the San Gabriel watershed. In
addition, House Appropriations Committee Members agreed to help resolve a matter
concerning repeated extensions of the concessions contract to provide ferry service
to the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island National Monument.
Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line-item
is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting for 81% 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 majority of operations funding
is provided directly to park managers. In its report on the FY2007 bill, 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 House retained the committee’s
bill language to counter this policy.
The House-passed bill allowed $1.76 billion for park operations in FY2007, an
increase of $13.0 million (1%) above the request and of $36.4 million (2%) above
FY2006. An ongoing NPS “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 2011.6 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 $150 million for park
operations in FY2007, as well as additional funding for park security, land
acquisition, and hurricane damage repairs. The condition of the national parks and
the adequacy of their care and operation continue to be controversial.
5 “National Parks Cutting Back on Services, Raising Fees,” USA Today (May 12, 2006): A1.
6 “National Parks: Directions to Increase Efficiency, Cut Costs Gets Mixed Reviews,” Land
Letter (May 4, 2006.)
CRS-15
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
National Park Service
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Operation of the National Park System
$1,683.6
$1,718.9
$1,742.3
$1,755.3
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
$2,175.8
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.
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-passed bill both allowed $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-passed bill
allowed a total of $47.2 million for the line item, $13.9 million (42%) above the
request of $33.3 million, but $7.0 million (13%) below the FY2006 enacted level of
$54.2 million. The large requested decrease was partly from the proposal to
CRS-16
eliminate statutory and contractual aid program for specific sites, as had been
proposed — and rejected by Congress — in FY2005 and FY2006. The House agreed
with the proposal not to fund statutory and contractual aid.
The House-passed bill 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 a decrease in
FY2007 funding for heritage areas to $7.4 million, down $5.9 million (44%) from
FY2006.
In agreement with the committee report, the House 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-passed bill allowed $229.9 million, $0.7
million (0.3%) more than the FY2007 request, and $102.9 million (31%) less than
FY2006 enacted. While the FY2006 request cited high priority health, safety, and
resource protection needs, the FY2007 request contained no similar specific
direction.
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.”7 (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.8 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-passed bill allowed 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. Within the $30.0 million, the report of the House
7 Leslie Ann Duncan, “Senate Energy Panel Hears from Mainella on Parks Budget,”
Congressional Quarterly Green Sheets, March 12, 2006.
8 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-17
Appropriations Committee specified $5.0 million for the United Airlines Flight 93
memorial near Shanksville, PA. 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 House 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 House approved $58.7 million for the HPF, $13.5 million
below the FY2006 appropriation and $13.2 million below the Administration’s
FY2007 budget of $71.9 million. See Table 9 below. The House-passed measure
would include $35.7 million for grants-in-aid to state historic preservation offices,
$3.9 million for Tribal grants, and $1.0 million for preserving and restoring historic
buildings and structures on campuses of Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs); the FY2006 appropriation for HBCUs was $3.0 million.
The House disagreed with the Administration’s FY2007 request to create the
America’s Heritage and Preservation Partnership program within the Historic
Preservation Fund. The Administration’s FY2007 budget would have combined
funding for National Heritage Areas ($7.4 million), Save America’s Treasures ($14.8
million), and Preserve America grants ($10.0 million). The NPS supports National
Heritage Areas, which are managed by private or state organizations, with financial
and technical assistance. The House bill would retain the Heritage Partnership
program within the National Recreation and Preservation programs line item.
The House-passed bill would provide $15.0 million for Save America’s
Treasures. 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 House-passed bill would provide $3.0 million for Preserve America.
An issue that is often considered during the appropriations process is whether
historic preservation should be funded by private money rather than the federal
government. Also, pending legislation (H.R. 3446 and S. 1378) would reauthorize
the Historic Preservation Fund through FY2011 and FY2015 respectively and make
changes to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal
agency that promotes historic preservation and oversees NHPA §106 historic
preservation review.
CRS-18
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Historic Preservation
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
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.
b. Funding for heritage areas in FY2005 and FY2006 was included in the National Recreation and
Preservation line item. The House-passed bill 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;
CRS-19
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.9 The House-passed bill contains $986.4
million, which is $41.7 million above the request and $15.8 million above the
FY2006 enacted level. See Table 10 below. The House-passed bill is $5.0 million
less than the bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee due to a floor
amendment. The amendment did not specify the activity or activities that would be
reduced.
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
also is reflected in the House-passed bill. The FY2007 request proposed to eliminate
funding for the Water Resources Research Institutes, which the Administration
contends have been generally self-supporting. The House-passed bill would retain
$6.4 million for this program. The House-passed bill 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-passed bill 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-passed bill would change the program name to the Geographic
9 This includes $9.0 million in emergency appropriations under P.L. 109-148.
CRS-20
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 passed by the House 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
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-passed 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-passed 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 FY2007 House-passed 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 Appropriations Committee stated that it “strongly
disagrees” with the proposed reduction in the program and urged the Administration
not to propose program elimination again. The Committee disagreed with the notion
that objective data can be prepared in the private sector. In FY2006, the conference
CRS-21
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-passed
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-passed bill included $213.8 million for this
heading, $9.7 million above the requested amount and $2.0 million above the
FY2006 enacted level.
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-passed 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
passed by the House 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-passed bill 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-
CRS-22
passed bill. The House Appropriations Committee stated 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-passed 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.
The House-passed 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-passed bill
would provide $95.5 million for Facilities, similar to the requested amount and $0.7
million above the FY2006 enacted level.
CRS-23
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
U.S. Geological Survey
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
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
Decrease in House Floor
Action
- 5.0
Total Appropriations
$944.6a
$970.6b
$944.8
$986.4
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.
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
CRS-24
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 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
Passed
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.
The House retained the moratoria on oil and natural gas leasing in its FY2007
appropriations bill. The House Appropriations Committee had approved an
amendment that would have allowed for natural gas leasing in the OCS moratoria
areas. Oil leasing would still have been prohibited. The House voted to restore the
moratoria on natural gas development in certain offshore areas and also to defeat an
amendment to strike sections 104-106 of the bill that contain the OCS oil leasing
moratoria. Separately, 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 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
CRS-25
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 1999.10
A House 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. The committee language, however, was removed from the bill on a point
of order during the House floor debate. Subsequently, the House agreed to an
amendment that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to issue new lease
sales to current lessees that do not have price thresholds in their leases. Opponents
of the amendment argued that the companies with valid leases, even though without
price thresholds, should not be penalized.
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
10 This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS,
during April, 2006.
CRS-26
Court decision.11 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.12
11 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 01-16637.
12 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.”13 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 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 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 $361 million balance in funds set aside for RAMP
were transferred to the federal share of AML collections in the FY2006
13 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Budget Justification and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2007, p. 49-50.
CRS-28
appropriation. The FY2007 Administration request recommended that this practice
continue. The House included language transferring the RAMP balance to the
federal share fund.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
FY2006
FY2007
House
and Enforcement
Approp.
Request
Passed
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 approved $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 for FY2007, with the percentages of change from FY2006 to the House-
passed level for FY2007. 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
Allocations,” “Other Recurring Programs”), has been restructured so that programs
CRS-29
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)
FY2007 Request
FY2007 House Passed
FY2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs
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
—
— Community and Economic
51,782
39,175
38,204
39,175
-24%
Development
—— Tribal Vocational Colleges
5,223
0
0
0
-100%
CRS-30
FY2007 Request
FY2007 House Passed
FY2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Approp.
Change from
Total
TPAa
Total
FY2006
— Executive Direction and
232,135
238,253
24,379
238,253
3%
Administrative Services
——Office of Federal
1,350
1,850
0
1,850
37%
Acknowledgment
——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
Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate services, processing
CRS-31
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.14 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
approved the same exclusion for FY2007. Congress has not, however, suspended or
stopped the reorganization.
14 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. The House approved the Committee’s recommendation.
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 approved the Administration’s proposal for BIA
education construction. However, the House Appropriations 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 Offices15
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;16 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 approved $3.2 million more for AT ($77.6 million) than had
been requested, for increased oversight and technical assistance funding. The House
passed 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 by World War II conflicts as well as atomic bomb testing. In total, the House
15 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.
16 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
passed $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.) A House
floor amendment transferred an additional $16.0 million from Interior Department
salaries and expenses, to bring the figure to $244.0 million. It passed by voice vote.
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 $3.6 billion have been made. The PILT program has been
controversial, because in recent years the payment formula, which was indexed to the
Consumer Price Index in 1994, has increased authorization levels. However,
appropriations have grown less rapidly, and substantially slower than authorized
amounts, ranging from 42% to 68% of authorized levels between FY2000 and
FY2005 (the most recent year available).17 See Table 14 below. County
governments claim that the program as a whole does not provide funding comparable
to property taxes, and further that rural areas in particular need additional PILT funds
to provide the kinds of services that counties with more private land are able to
provide.
Table 14. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in
Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-FY2007
($ 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
244.0a
70.2
Notes: The FY2006 and FY2007 authorized levels, in italics, are estimates. Calculations of these
levels assume: (1) all revenues from other payment programs are flat over the two year period;
17 When appropriations are not sufficient to cover the authorization, each county receives
a pro rata share of the authorized amount.
CRS-35
(2) the number of acres eligible for PILT payments is unchanged; (3) all of the counties’
populations are unchanged; and (4) 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 passed by the House.
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
approved $184.0 million for FY2007, a reduction of $38.7 million (17%) from
FY2006 and $60.4 million (25%) from the proposal. Table 15 below presents
funding figures for FY2006-FY2007 for the OST. Key issues for the OST are an
historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal and
IIM accounts.
CRS-36
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2006-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007 House Passed
Office of Special Trustee for
FY2006
FY2007
American Indians
Approp.
Request
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%
Historical Accounting. For FY2007, the Administration proposed $56.4
million for historical accounting activities, the same as enacted for FY2006. The
House approved $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. For FY2007, the House
Appropriations 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.18 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
18 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
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
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,19 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 (1) the court-ordered
historical accounting, (2) the more than $100 billion that Cobell plaintiffs estimate
their IIM accounts are owed, or (3) the $27.5 billion that the Cobell plaintiffs have
proposed as a settlement amount.20 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,”21 but
some senior appropriators consider the Fund insufficient even for a $6-$13 billion
dollar settlement.22 Among other options, Congress may enact another delay to the
court-ordered accounting, direct a settlement, or delineate the department’s historical
19 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.
20 Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement Workgroup, “Principles for Legislation,” June 20,
2005, p. 2, at [http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20050620SettlementPrinciples.pdf].
21 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.)
22 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
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 the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill, 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/].
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).23 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 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
23 Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but
overlapping regulatory responsibilities for each class.
CRS-39
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). If the fee ceiling percentage were applied to the latest NIGC
figures for gross Indian gaming revenues ($19.4 billion in 2004), the fee ceiling
based on 2004 would be $15.5 million.
During FY1999-FY2006, all NIGC activities have been funded from fees, with
no direct appropriations. The Administration did not propose, nor did the House
approve, a direct appropriation for the NIGC for FY2007.
For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its
website at [http://www.nigc.gov].
CRS-40
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. The House approved
$7.58 billion for EPA in FY2007. The House amount is $261.2 million more than
the President’s request of $7.32 billion, but $48.7 million less than the FY2006
appropriation of $7.63 billion. 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.24 Consequently, the
proposed funding level for EPA in the House bill is $128.7 million less than overall
FY2006 funding of $7.71 billion, which included new appropriations of $7.63 billion
and $80.0 million in rescinded prior year funds redirected to FY2006.
The House approved the House Appropriations Committee’s recommended
funding level for EPA for FY2007, and two floor amendments increased the agency’s
funding by $3.8 million. One amendment included an additional $1.8 million for
Energy Star programs aimed at improving energy efficiency. The second amendment
included $2.0 million for EPA’s National Clean Diesel Initiative. The House also
passed other floor amendments that would affect EPA’s implementation of certain
activities. For example, one amendment would prohibit funds from being spent on
implementing controversial guidance on determining federal jurisdiction over
wetlands. (See CRS Issue Brief IB97014, Wetlands Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn and
Claudia Copeland.) A few other amendments relevant to EPA were not agreed to.
For example, one amendment would have provided $800 million in additional funds
for several agencies in the bill, of which $250 million would have been for EPA
grants to states for Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). These grants assist
states in issuing loans to communities for wastewater infrastructure improvements,
discussed below.
24 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 $1.0 million to Science and Technology.
CRS-41
Traditionally, EPA’s annual appropriation has been requested and enacted
according to various line-item appropriations accounts, of which there currently are
eight. Table 16 indicates amounts by appropriations account for FY2006 enacted,
FY2007 requested, and FY2007 House passed.
Table 16. Appropriations for the
Environmental Protection Agency, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2006
FY2007
Environmental Protection Agency
House
Enacted
Requested
Passed
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
2,338.2
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
1,480.2
— 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
3,009.3
Total Appropriations
$7,625.4
$7,315.5
$7,576.7
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 FY2007 House-passed bill includes 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
CRS-42
appropriation. Although there have been varying levels of interest in FY2007
funding for the agency’s programs and activities, funding for water infrastructure
within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account, the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites within the Superfund account, 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 for EPA’s homeland
security activities, and congressional funding priorities for individual research and
water infrastructure projects, often referred to as earmarks.25 The FY2007 House-
passed bill includes a total of $270.0 million for congressional priority projects,
which are identified in the House Appropriations Committee report. Congress set
aside $280.0 million for such projects in the FY2006 appropriation. As in past years,
the President’s FY2007 request did not include any funding for congressional priority
projects in EPA’s budget. Proposed funding for each of the above activities in which
there has been broad congressional interest is discussed further below.
Water Infrastructure. From appropriations provided within the STAG
account, EPA issues grants to states to support Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds (SRFs). These funds provide seed monies for state loans to
communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, respectively.
The FY2007 House-passed bill would provide the President’s request of $687.6
million for Clean Water SRF grants, $199.2 million less than the FY2006
appropriation of $886.8 million. The proposed decrease 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 appropriated significantly more funding
than the President has requested to meet these needs. However, the House’s decision
to approve the President’s requested decrease for FY2007 departs from this trend.
The FY2007 House-passed bill also would provide 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 House’s decision 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 in past
appropriations for water infrastructure projects in specific communities. The House
bill would set aside $200.0 million for “congressional priority” water infrastructure
grants within the STAG account, slightly more than the $197.1 million set aside in
the FY2006 appropriation. The House Appropriations Committee identified the
recipients of these funds in its report on the FY2007 bill. 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
25 See CRS Report 98-518, Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriations Bills, by Sandy
Streeter.
CRS-43
concerns, and the competing needs of many EPA activities in general, the amount of
funding earmarked for water infrastructure projects has declined since FY2004.26
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 cleanup
at contaminated sites. The House bill would provide 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. This account funds
many activities related to cleanup, including administration, enforcement, and certain
homeland security functions. However, only a portion of the funding is for “actual”
(i.e., physical) cleanup of contaminated sites. Of the House amount, $832.9 million
would be for site cleanup, $1.0 million less than the FY2006 appropriation. The
President had requested $822.9 million for site cleanup. Some Members had
questioned the President’s proposed decrease during budget oversight hearings, in
light of public concerns about the pace of cleanup.
The source of funding for the Superfund program also has been an ongoing
issue. Nearly all of the House amount and the President’s FY2007 request for the
Superfund account 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 House approved the President’s request of $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.
EPA’s Homeland Security Activities. Under the Bioterrorism Act of
2002, and Homeland Security Presidential Directives 7, 9 and 10, EPA is the lead
26 See CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Project Earmarks in EPA
Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS-44
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.
The FY2007 House-passed bill includes $143.7 million for EPA’s homeland
security activities, an increase above the FY2006 appropriation of $129.1 million, but
less than the FY2007 request of $184.0 million. In its report on the FY2007 bill, the
House Appropriations Committee indicated that it could only include a “modest”
increase above FY2006 for EPA’s homeland security activities (as well as for certain
programs authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005) because of limited funding
available for the bill as a whole and competing funding needs for activities that the
committee viewed as essential to the agency’s mission and as having a higher priority
(H.Rept. 109-465, p.93).
The House amount of $143.7 million for EPA’s homeland security activities
would be distributed among five of the agency’s accounts: S&T, EPM, Superfund,
Building and Facilities, and STAG. This funding level would support various
activities, including critical water infrastructure protection, laboratory preparedness,
decontamination, protection of EPA personnel and operations, and communication.
Among these five accounts, the S&T account would include the largest portion of
funding for EPA’s homeland security activities. The House bill would provide $61.8
million within this account for these activities, an increase above the FY2006
appropriation of $50.2 million. The increase above FY2006 is intended for one
additional project for a water quality surveillance and monitoring pilot project,
referred to as the “Water Sentinel Initiative,” which EPA began in FY2006.
The FY2007 request had included $91.8 million within the S&T account for
homeland security activities, a large portion of which would have funded 4 additional
pilots under the above initiative. Some Members of Congress and scientists had
expressed concerns that the increase requested for homeland security funding within
the S&T account for activities such as these pilots was competing with EPA’s core
research programs, for which funding has been declining in recent years (see related
discussion below). In its report, the House Appropriations Committee directed OMB
and EPA to coordinate future funding requests 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 bill would provide $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 House amount for the S&T
account is more than the FY2006 appropriation of $761.0 million (including a
transfer of $30.2 million), and more than the FY2007 request of $816.1 million
CRS-45
(including a transfer of $27.8 million). The House bill also included $30.0 million
within this account for “research/congressional priorities” (earmarks), compared to
$32.9 million that Congress provided in FY2006. The FY2007 request did not
include any funding for these types of projects.
A significant portion of the increase above FY2006 in the House bill for the
S&T account is in the form of an accounting adjustment, as the President’s FY2007
budget proposed. This 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
House 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.
Among individual research activities, as opposed to the account level, the
House-passed bill includes both increases and decreases within the S&T account,
relative to the FY2006 appropriation and the FY2007 request. For example, the
House bill includes $238.0 million for the “Human Health and Ecosystems”research
program area, slightly more than the FY2006 appropriation but significantly more
than the FY2007 request of $228.2 million. Research fellowships are funded within
this program area, including Science to Achieve Results (STAR) fellowships in
which there has been ongoing congressional interest. The House bill includes $11.7
million for all fellowships within this area, slightly more than the FY2006
appropriation, but significantly more than the FY2007 request of $8.4 million with
the increase devoted to STAR fellowships. Homeland security funding within the
S&T account is another example of differing priorities for individual activities, as
discussed above.
Although there are varying views on the adequacy of funding for specific
scientific research activities, such as those noted above, there has been much debate
about support for scientific research in general. Some Members of Congress,27
scientists, and environmental organizations have expressed concern about declining
funding for what they refer to as “core” scientific research essential to ongoing
federal roles. 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 reductions in
funding that it requested for some scientific research activities in FY2007 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. As noted above, the
House bill would increase funding for certain research activities, differing from the
Administration in what constitutes adequate funding.
27 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.
CRS-46
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.28 Funding within the S&T, EPM, Superfund, and
STAG accounts would support various programmatic implementation, research, and
monitoring activities addressing toxic air pollutants and air quality, radiation, climate
protection, indoor air quality, and radon. The FY2007 House-passed bill includes
both increases and decreases relative to the FY2006 appropriation and the FY2007
request for a variety of air quality activities throughout these accounts.
The House-passed bill includes less funding than requested in various EPA
accounts for a new category introduced in the President’s budget for implementation
of certain activities authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct, P.L.
109-58).29 These activities primarily focus on air quality. As noted above, the
House Appropriations Committee indicated that it was unable to fully fund the
FY2007 request for EPAct activities given the limited funding for the bill as a whole
and competing funding needs for activities it viewed as essential to the agency’s
mission and as having a higher priority. For example, the House bill would provide
$28.0 million for a new diesel emissions reduction grant program within the EPAct
category, whereas the President had requested $49.5 million. In some cases, EPAct
activities would absorb certain activities funded as separate line-items in prior years.
For example, a portion of the funding for the new diesel emissions reduction grant
program would support Clean School Bus grants, for which Congress provided $6.9
million as a separate line-item in FY2006. Overall, the House amount and the
President’s request for EPAct air quality activities are less than what Congress
authorized in the 2005 statute.
The FY2007 House-passed bill also includes $220.3 million for a categorical
grant within the STAG account for state and local air quality programs. The House
amount is roughly the same as the FY2006 appropriation, but is more than the $185.2
million request. Some Members and state and local air pollution control officials30
had raised concerns about the President’s requested reduction for this categorical
grant, 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.
28 See CRS Issue Brief IB10137, Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th Congress, by James E.
McCarthy; and CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th
Congress, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
29 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.
30 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-47
For further information on the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget and
activities, see its websites [http://www.epa.gov] and [http://epa.gov/ocfo/budget/],
and the following CRS products.
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.
CRS-48
Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The House agreed to $4.19 billion for the Forest Service (FS) for FY2007. This
was $95.5 million (2%) more than the President’s request of $4.10 billion, and $65.5
million (2%) less than FY2006 appropriations of $4.26 billion.31 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).
Figure 1. Forest Service FY2007 Budget Request
Major FS Issues in Appropriations. Significant FS issues have been raised
during consideration of the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill. 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 of national forest lands are
extremely narrow, so legislation would be needed to authorize the land sale. 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
31 Data for FY2006 and previous years include emergency and supplemental appropriations
and rescissions.
CRS-49
are isolated or scattered. Relevant legislation has not been introduced to date, and
the House did not include such authority in the bill as passed.
Another issue was raised on the House floor. The House agreed to an
amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to plan, design, study, or build
roads in the Tongass National Forest, in Alaska, for harvesting timber. A similar
amendment to the FY2005 Interior Appropriations Act had passed the House, but
was removed before enactment. In the FY2006 bill, a similar amendment was struck
on a point of order as legislation on an appropriations bill. The amendment to the
FY2007 bill was different to avoid a point-of-order being raised.
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 passed $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 included $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 House passed FS wildfire funding of $1.85 billion for FY2007, $48.6 million
(3%) more than the request, and $64.7 million (4%) more than FY2006. The FS and
BLM wildfire line items include funds for fire suppression (fighting fires),
preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention, and detection),
and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel reduction, research, and state and private
assistance).
CRS-50
Table 17. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan,
FY2003-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
National Fire Plan
House
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
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 included $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 House nor the Administration included 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.
For FY2007, the House passed $930.7 million for fire preparedness, equal to the
request; this is $1.1 million more than the FY2006 appropriation. The House-passed
level and request include an increase of $6.0 million (2%) for BLM preparedness and
a decrease of $4.8 million (1%) for FS preparedness.
CRS-51
The House included 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 approved at $496.6 million, $5.0
million (1%) more than the request and $8.3 million (2%) more than FY2006. The
House-passed increase above the request is all for FS fuel reduction. Compared to
FY2006, 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 approved at more than the request, with the increases ranging
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 approved
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 levels 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 passed $101.9 million, $17.4
million (21%) more than the request and $1.8 million (2%) more than FY2006. This
level 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 included $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 requested and House-passed level for assistance to
volunteer fire departments changing by about 2% from FY2006.
For Cooperative Forestry (assistance for forestry activities on state and private
lands) in FY2007, the House included $80.8 million, $41.4 million (34%) less than
the request and $52.4 million (39%) less than FY2006. For Forest Legacy (to
purchase title or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses,
such as for residences), the House passed $12.7 million, reduced by $3.4 million by
use of prior year balances. The net funding of $9.3 million is 15% of the $61.5
million requested for FY2007, and 16% of the $56.5 million enacted for FY2006. For
Forest Stewardship (for states to assist private landowners), the House included $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
localities) received $29.5 million, $2.7 million (10%) more than requested and $1.1
million (4%) more than FY2006. The House 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 House 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.
CRS-52
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations), the
House passed $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
Passed
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. For Capital Improvement and Maintenance, the House
approved $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 passed for the
various programs. For Facilities, the House passed $15.1 million (12%) less than the
request — $5.0 million (7%) less in maintenance and $10.1 million (17%) less in
construction; the House-passed level for facilities was $8.7 million (7%) below
FY2006, reducing construction by $23.0 million (31%) and increasing maintenance
by $14.3 million (28%). For Roads, the House approved $30.5 million (17%) more
than the request — reducing construction by $10.0 million (11%) and increasing
maintenance by $40.5 million (44%); the House-passed funding for roads was $7.4
million (3%) below FY2006, increasing construction by $4.1 million (5%) and
reducing maintenance by $11.6 million (8%). For Trails, the House passed $13.1
million (22%) more than the request — $7.7 million (31%) more in construction and
$5.4 million (15%) more in maintenance. The House-passed level 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. For FS Research in FY2007, the House approved $280.3
million, $12.5 million (5%) more than the request and $2.6 million (1%) more than
FY2006. For the National Forest System (NFS), the House passed $1.44 billion,
$45.6 million (3%) more than the request and $8.0 million (1%) more than FY2006.
CRS-53
The House included the proposed $32.5 million (12%) increase in forest (timber)
products. Except for the proposed and House approved 80% reduction in funding for
Valles Caldera National Preserve, the House level for other NFS accounts was
generally much closer to the FY2006 level than to the request. For Land Acquisition
with LWCF funds, the House passed $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.
The Administration proposed $3.17 billion for IHS for FY2007, an increase of
4% over the FY2006 level of $3.05 billion. The House approved $3.19 billion, an
increase of 5% over FY2006 and 1% over the Administration proposal. See Table 19
below. IHS funding is separated into two budget categories: Health Services, and
Facilities. Of the total IHS appropriation enacted for FY2006, 88% will be used for
health services and 12% for the facilities program. IHS also receives funding through
reimbursements and a special Indian diabetes program (see “Health Services” below).
The sum of direct appropriations, reimbursements, and diabetes is IHS’s “program
level” total, shown in Table 19.
CRS-54
The most significant changes proposed in the Administration’s FY2007 IHS
budget concern the urban Indian health program, within Indian health services, and the
health care facilities construction program.
Table 19. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007 House Passed
FY2006
FY2007
Indian Health Service
Change from
Approp.
Request
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%
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
CRS-55
FY2007 House Passed
FY2006
FY2007
Indian Health Service
Change from
Approp.
Request
Total
FY2006
— 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
House approved this decrease. 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
approved $2.33 billion. Clinical services include primary care at IHS 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 approved $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 agreed to 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
CRS-56
programs $150.6 million, and the Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund $18.0 million.
The House agreed to 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 agreed to
all these proposed amounts.
For other health services, the Administration proposed $374.2 million for
FY2007, a 6% decrease from FY2006. The House approved $406.9 million, an
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 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 agreed to 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
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. The House agreed with the Committee’s
recommendation.
Facilities. The IHS’s Facilities category includes money for the equipment,
construction, maintenance, and improvement of both health-care and sanitation
CRS-57
facilities, as well as environmental health support programs. The Administration’s
proposal was $347.3 million, a 2% decrease from FY2006 appropriations. The House
approved $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%. The House agreed to the decrease.
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 approved
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 FY2006 level was a 57% reduction from the
FY2005 level of $88.6 million. The House approved $36.7 million, which is 3%
below FY2006 and 108% above the proposal. The Administration’s FY2007 proposal
would fund completion of one ongoing project. The House-approved bill would fund
3 ongoing projects and partially fund dental and small ambulatory facilities
construction and IHS-tribal joint venture construction. The Administration asserted
that its 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.
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.
CRS-58
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 approved
the Administration’s proposed amount. 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
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 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
CRS-59
relocatees awaiting replacement homes. As the backlog is reduced, however, forced
eviction may become an issue, if any remaining Navajo families were to 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 and education and research
complex consisting 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 75%
federally funded and also supported by various types of trust funds. A federal
commitment to fund the SI was established by legislation in 1846.
House Consideration and FY2007 Budget. For FY2007, the House-
passed bill would provide $624.1 million for the Smithsonian, a decrease of $20.3
million from the Administration’s proposed $644.4 million for FY2007, but a $9.0
million increase over the FY2006 level of $615.1 million. See Table 20 below. For
Salaries and Expenses, the House approved $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-
passed bill cut the Smithsonian’s Salaries and Expenses funding on the grounds that
Congress was not consulted on a contract that the Smithsonian Institution made with
Showtime. (See below under Business Ventures.) During House consideration, an
amendment was adopted to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to limit the
Smithsonian’s outreach programs, which currently extend to many communities
across all states.
Facilities Capital. For FY2007, the House approved $107.0 million for
facilities capital, the same as the Administration’s budget. This would be an increase
over the FY2006 level of $98.5 million. The House 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, 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
CRS-60
FY2007, the House supported the Administration’s budget request for $3.0 million,
a slight 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 House approved $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-passed 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 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.
Business Ventures. Some Members of Congress 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
CRS-61
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 House-passed bill. The House also reduced the Administration’s request for
Smithsonian Institution’s Salaries and Expenses by $20.3 million from $537.4 million
to $517.1 million. Finally, the House agreed to limit the salary of the Secretary of the
Smithsonian to not more than that of the President of the United States and to reduce
the salaries of any other SI officer or employee now receiving more than the President
to the level of the President.
Table 20. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Smithsonian Institution (SI)
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
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/].
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
CRS-62
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 or by the authorizing
committees.
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-passed bill would provide $129.4 million for NEA,
an increase of $5.0 million over the Administration’s FY2007 budget and the FY2006
appropriation. The FY2007 House-passed bill provided $44.9 million for direct grants
and $39.5 million for state partnerships. During House consideration, an amendment
was adopted to add $5.0 million for both the NEA and NEH. Another House
amendment that would have reduced the NEA by $30.0 million and redirected most of
that money to the wildland fire management budget of the Forest Service was not
agreed to.
Both the House-passed bill 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-passed 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.
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-passed bill would provide $146.0 million, $5.0
million above the FY2007 Administration request and the FY2006 level. The House-
passed bill would provide $14.9 million for matching grants for both Treasury Funds
and Challenge Grants, and $131.0 million for grants and administration (comprised of
$101.2 million for grants, $24.8 million for administration, and $5.0 million in
CRS-63
unspecified funds due to a House floor amendment). See Table 21 below. The House-
passed 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
Passed
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
Increase from House floor
—
—
—
5,000
amendment
Total, NEA
121,264
124,406
124,412
129,412
NEH
— Subtotal, NEH Grants and
122,156
125,728
126,049
126,049
Administration
— Increase from House floor
—
—
—
5,000
amendment
Total, NEH Grants and
122,156
125,728
126,049 131,049
Administration
Matching Grants
15,898
15,221
14,906
14,906
Total, NEH
138,054
140,949
140,955
145,955
Total Appropriations NFAH
$259,318
$265,355
$265,367
$275,367
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-64
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
Passed
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-65
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 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 House
Appropriations 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 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 House approved an additional $7.4 million for appraisal services.
For the five fiscal 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 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 million in FY2002 to $29.6 million in FY2006.
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
CRS-66
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 passed $142.1 million for other purposes. This included
funds for four FWS programs, one FS program, and one DOI program. The House-
passed 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
Other Programs
House
Approp.
Request
Passed
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
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.
CRS-67
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.32 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.33
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 passed by the House 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
year balances, making the FY2006 appropriation for restoration $63.5 million. The
FY2007 House-passed level of $69.0 million for Everglades restoration is $5.5 million
above the FY2006 appropriation.
32 These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
33 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.
CRS-68
Table 24. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration
in the DOI Budget, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Everglades Restoration in DOI
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passeda
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.
a. The report of the House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-465) and the House-passed bill do
not specify funding for all of the 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.
CRS-69
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-passed bill 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-passed 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
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 for FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee contends that good
water quality is essential for restoring the Everglades and opposes any changes to the
CRS-70
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 House-
passed 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-71
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
Passed
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
2,175,840
U.S. Geological Survey
937,985
944,564
970,645
944,760
986,447
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
717,943
Total Title I
9,847,964
9,955,228
9,863,751
9,612,568
9,652,386
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
8,365,817c 8,026,485
7,625,416
7,315,475
7,576,670
Title III: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,939,899
4,770,598d
4,257,762
4,096,728
4,192,266
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
129,412
National Endowment for the Humanities
135,310
138,054
140,949
140,955
145,955
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
8,715,069
[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-72
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-73
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-74
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-75
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.