Order Code RL34011
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
May 21, 2007
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator,
David M. Bearden, M. Lynne Corn, Ross W. Gorte,
Marc Humphries, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and David L. Whiteman
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Blake Alan Naughton and Roger Walke
Domestic Social Policy Division
R. Sam Garrett
Government and Finance Division

---

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 and Senate
Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, 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 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, and numerous other entities
and agencies.
The President requested $25.68 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies for FY2008, a $766.6 million (3%) reduction from the FY2007 level of
$26.45 billion. The request contained increases for some agencies but decreases for
others. Among the proposed FY2008 increases from FY2007 were the following:
! $90.5 million (3%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
! $74.3 million (3%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
! $45.4 million (7%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI);
! $45.0 million (3%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and
! $3.9 million (3%) for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
Among the proposed decreases were the following:
! $-525.7 million (7%) for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA);
! $-197.3 million (5%) for the Forest Service (FS);
! $-79.4 million (3%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA);
! $-43.9 million (3%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and
! $-27.1 million (12%) for the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians (OST).
The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies have held hearings on agency budget requests. No bill to fund
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2008 has been introduced to date.
Congress may debate a variety of funding and policy issues during consideration of
FY2008 Interior legislation. These issues might include appropriate funding for BIA
construction, education, and housing; IHS construction and urban Indian health;
wastewater/drinking water needs; land acquisition; the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
program; the Superfund; and wildland fire fighting. Other issues might include
Indian trust fund management, leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf, and royalty
relief.
This report will be updated to reflect major congressional action.

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Divisiona
Tel.
E-mail
Interior Budget
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Data/Coordinator
Arts, Humanities,
Blake Alan Naughton
DSP
7-0376
bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
Smithsonian
Bureau of Land
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Management
Environmental
David Bearden
RSI
7-2390
dbearden@crs.loc.gov
Protection Agency
Robert Esworthy
RSI
7-7236
resworthy@crs.loc.gov
Everglades
Pervaze A. Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Restoration
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
Blake Alan Naughton
DSP
7-0376
bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
Indian Affairs
Roger Walke
DSP
7-8641
rwalke@crs.loc.gov
Indian Health Service
Insular Affairs
R. Sam Garrett
G&F
7-6443
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov
Land Acquisition
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Minerals Management
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
Service
National Park Service
David Whiteman
RSI
7-7786
dwhiteman@crs.loc.gov
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
Pervaze A. Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Survey
a. Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance;
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2008 Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Current Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Status of Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Management of Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Construction and Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Endangered Species Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Avian Flu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Wildlife Refuge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Operation of the National Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
United States Park Police (USPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
National Recreation and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Land Acquisition and State Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Enterprise Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . 18
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Water Resources Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Biological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Science Support and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Budget Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
BIE Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Law Enforcement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Housing Improvement Program (HIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Office of Insular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

---

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
National Indian Gaming Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Water Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
State Air Quality Management Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Congressionally Designated Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Major FS Issues in Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Other FS Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . . . . . 46
Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Salaries and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Facilities Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Trust Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment
for the Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
NEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
FY2008 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
FY2008 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
List of Figures
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

---

List of Tables
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . 14
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2006-FY2008 . . . 17
Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2006-FY2008 . . 25
Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments
in Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 16. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2003-FY2008 . . . . . . . 43
Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry, FY2004-FY2008 . 45
Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2006-FY2008 . . . . 47
Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2006-FY2008 . . . 53
Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . 54
Table 21. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 22. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 23. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 24. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

---

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies have held hearings on agency budget requests for FY2008. The
Administration sought a total of $25.68 billion for FY2008 for all agencies included
in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Introduction
The annual 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. It 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 (EPA).
Further, the annual 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 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 These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development.
2 These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies.

---

CRS-2
The FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies contained three primary titles providing funding. 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.
Entries in this report are for major agencies (e.g., the National Park Service) and
cross-cutting issues (e.g., Everglades restoration) that receive funding in the Interior
bill. For each such agency or issue, we discuss some of the key funding changes
proposed by the President that are likely to be of interest to Congress. We also
address related policy issues that have tended to occur, or might be likely to arise, in
the context of considering appropriations legislation. Presenting such information
in summary form is a challenge given that budget submissions for some agencies
number several hundred pages and contain innumerable funding, programmatic, and
legislative changes for congressional consideration.
This report contains final FY2007 enacted levels for agencies, programs, and
activities. These figures were not used as the basis of comparison in agency budget
submissions for FY2008, because agencies were being funded under a short-term
continuing resolution at the time of those submissions. Accordingly, the FY2007
figures used throughout this report will differ in many cases from those contained in
the FY2008 agency budget submissions. Further, final FY2007 enacted levels are not
included in CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations, because they were not available until after the start of the
110th Congress and the beginning of the FY2008 appropriations cycle.
Final FY2007 funding levels were determined by the agencies under the
provisions of P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for
FY2007. Continuing funding was needed to fund agency operations and activities
because Congress did not enact a regular FY2007 appropriations bill for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies. P.L. 110-5 provided funds though September
30, 2007, which is the rest of the fiscal year. It continued funds at the FY2006
account level, except where otherwise specified. The law required that agencies and
departments submit an allocation of funds below the account level, for example for
programs and activities, to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The
submissions were due within 30 days of enactment (March 17, 2007).
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 mandatory budget
authorities. Increases and decreases generally are calculated on comparisons between
FY2007 enacted levels and funding levels requested by the President for FY2008.
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. This report will be updated
following major congressional activity on the Interior appropriations bill.

---

CRS-3
FY2008 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
The President requested $25.68 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies for FY2008, a $766.6 million (3%) reduction from the FY2007 level of
$26.45 billion. The request sought to increase funds for some agencies while
decreasing funds for others. Among the proposed increases for FY2008, from
FY2007, were the following:
! $90.5 million (3%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
! $74.3 million (3%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
! $45.4 million (7%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI);
! $45.0 million (3%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and
! $3.9 million (3%) for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
Among the proposed decreases were the following:
! $-525.7 million (7%) for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA);
! $-197.3 million (5%) for the Forest Service (FS);
! $-79.4 million (3%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA);
! $-43.9 million (3%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and
! $-27.1 million (12%) for the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians (OST).
The Administration also proposed a $126.3 million decrease (43%) for the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, derived from the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. However, the decrease is attributable to a
change in law (P.L. 109-432) making most state and tribal reclamation grants
mandatory appropriations, beginning in FY2008; the grants would still be funded, but
would not require annual appropriations.
Table 1, below, shows the budget authority for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for FY2004-FY2007. The President’s request for FY2008 would
be the lowest level since FY2004; funding for earlier years is not readily available
due to the changes in the makeup of the Interior appropriations bill. Further, the
FY2008 request would be a $1.65 billion (6%) decrease in funds from the FY2004
level in current dollars, or a 17% decrease in constant dollars (assuming 3% inflation
for 2007 and 2008). See Table 24 for a budgetary history of each agency for
FY2004-FY2008.
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2007
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
$27.33
$27.02
$25.94
$26.45
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. They generally reflect rescissions and supplemental appropriations to date, except that
the FY2006 figure does not reflect supplementals.

---

CRS-4
Major Issues
The President’s FY2008 budget requests contained many recommendations for
legislative changes. One proposal was to alter 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. The President
also recommended selling certain National Forest System lands. This issue is
covered briefly in the “Forest Service” section, below. The President’s FY2008
budget further proposed 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 Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR): New Directions in the 110th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb,
and Pamela Baldwin.)
Controversial funding and policy issues typically have been debated during
consideration of the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. Debate on the FY2008 funding levels might encompass a variety
of issues, many of which have been controversial in the past, including the issues
listed below.
! 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.)
! Construction of BIA Schools and IHS Health Facilities, particularly
whether to enact funding cuts proposed in the President’s FY2008
budget. (For more information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs”
and the “Indian Health Service” sections in this report.)
! Indian Trust Funds, especially whether to enact reductions proposed
in the President’s FY2008 request and the method by which a
historical accounting will be conducted of Individual Indian Money
(IIM) accounts to determine correct balances in the class-action
lawsuit against the government. (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.)

---

CRS-5
! 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.)
! Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet
hazardous waste cleanup needs, and whether to continue using
general Treasury revenues to fund the account or reinstate a tax on
industry that originally paid for most of the program. (For more
information, see the “Environmental Protection Agency” section in
this report.)
! Termination of BIA Education and Housing and IHS Urban Health
Programs, particularly whether to end funding for BIA’s Johnson-
O’Malley grants to schools and the Housing Improvement Program
and for IHS’s urban Indian health projects. (For more information,
see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Indian Health Service”
sections 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
FY2008 Interior appropriations bill as it occurs.
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2008
Conference
Subcommittee
Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Approval
Public Law
House
Senate
House Senate

---

CRS-6
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Overview. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately
258 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.
The Administration’s FY2008 budget included several suggested changes in
law. For instance, the Administration suggested amending the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) in part 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 Administration
proposed similar changes in its FY2007 budget request, but these changes were not
enacted.
For the BLM for FY2008, the Administration requested $1.82 billion, an
increase of $45.0 million (3%) over the FY2007 level of $1.78 billion. See Table
3, below. Proposed funding for several key activities is discussed below.
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Bureau of Land Management
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Management of Lands and Resources
847.6
866.9
879.4
Wildland Fire Managementa 755.3
758.4
801.8
— Preparedness
268.8
274.9
268.3
— Suppressiona
230.7
249.2
294.4
— Other Operations
255.7
234.3
239.1
Construction
11.8
11.8
6.5
Land Acquisition
8.6
8.6
1.6
Oregon and California Grant Lands
108.5
109.0
110.2
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeituresb
0.0
0.0
0.0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
15.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriationsa
1,757.2
1,777.0
1,822.0
a. The figures for FY2006 do not reflect a supplemental appropriation of $100.0 million for wildfire
suppression.
b. The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.

---

CRS-7
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the Administration requested $879.4 million, a $12.5 million (1%)
increase over the FY2007 level of $866.9 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 Administration sought
to decrease funds for some programs from FY2007, including wild horse and burro
management, realty and ownership management, and resource protection and
maintenance. The Administration also sought to increase funds for some programs
over FY2007, notably energy and minerals and the healthy lands initiative.
The FY2008 request for wild horse and burro management was $32.1 million,
$4.3 million (12%) less than the FY2007 level of $36.4 million. The Administration
expects to accomplish the reduction through less effort to gather and remove wild
horses and burros from the range. The FY2008 request for realty and ownership
management was $78.7 million, a decline of $3.9 million (5%) from the FY2007
level of $82.6 million. The decrease would come from reduced conveyances of
federal lands in Alaska. Under law, BLM is required to transfer 150 million acres to
the State of Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations; 68 million acres have been
transferred to date. For resource protection and maintenance, the Administration
requested $82.0 million for FY2008, a decrease of $3.2 million (4%) from the
FY2007 level of $85.2 million. In FY2008, the Administration originally had
anticipated preparing 14 land use plans, called resource management plans, but with
reduced funds BLM expects to undertake only nine plans. BLM is in the midst of a
multi-year initiative to develop and update land use plans to reflect current issues and
conditions.
The Administration requested $141.5 million for energy and minerals (including
Alaska minerals) for FY2008, a $3.4 (2%) increase over the FY2007 level of $138.1
million. The increase is primarily in the area of oil and gas management, to conduct
additional inspections and to monitor the effectiveness of oil and gas lease
stipulations. Activities will include production verification and ensuring that proper
royalty payments are made. The Administration sought a large increase in funds for
the healthy lands initiative, from $3.0 million in FY2007 to $15.0 million in FY2008.
The initiative will consist of vegetation resources enhancements to restore and
improve the health and productivity of western public lands. The Administration
anticipated using another $8.2 million in existing BLM funds for the initiative, and
leveraging $10.0 million in contributions from partners.

Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2008,
the Administration sought $801.8 million, a $43.5 million (6%) increase over the
$758.4 million enacted for FY2007. The increase is intended primarily for fire
suppression, which would rise $45.2 million (18%) from $249.2 million in FY2007
to $294.4 million in FY2008. While the average annual cost of fire suppression has
increased overall over the past decade, the FY2008 request represents the ten-year
average cost, according to the Administration. The ten-year average continues to
increase due to the costs of fighting fires in areas with large fuel loads and in areas
where communities and wildlands meet. DOI and the FS have taken steps to respond
to recommendations in recent reports on how to manage suppression costs. The
increase for suppression in FY2008 is partly offset by a reduction in preparedness,
which would decrease from $274.9 million in FY2007 to $268.3 million in FY2008.

---

CRS-8
The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all
Interior Department lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for
wildland fire management to the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire
programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments is implementing the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire Plan,
which emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to catastrophic fires.
(For additional information on wildland fires, see the “Forest Service” section in this
report.)
Construction and Land Acquisition. For FY2007, the Administration
requested $6.5 million for BLM Construction, a decrease of $5.3 million (45%)
relative to the FY2007 level of $11.8 million. The funding would be used for 12
projects in five states. For Land Acquisition for FY2008, the Administration sought
an appropriation of $1.6 million, a $7.0 million (81%) reduction from the FY2007
level of $8.6 million. The Administration proposed augmenting this request by $5.0
million from the proceeds of sales of portions of the subsurface mineral estate to the
surface owners. BLM estimates that 500,000 acres could be sold annually for
approximately $10 per acre, for a total of $5.0 million. Directing the proceeds of the
sales to land acquisition would require a legislative change. The appropriation for
BLM acquisitions has fallen steadily from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.6 million
for FY2007. 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.)
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 RL33792. Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service: Issues for the 110th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte,
Carol Hardy Vincent, and Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL33990. Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2008, the President requested $1.29 billion for the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), 3% less than FY2007. By far the largest portion of the FWS annual
appropriation is for the Resource Management account. The President’s FY2008
request was $1.03 billion, a 2% increase from the FY2007 level of $1.01 billion.
Among the programs included in Resources Management are the Endangered Species
program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement.
In addition, the President’s FY2008 budget proposed enacting legislation to
open part of the Coastal Plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil

---

CRS-9
and gas exploration and development.3 The budget proposed that the first lease sale
would be held in FY2009. Under the proposal, this and subsequent sales are
estimated to generate $7.0 billion in revenues over the next five years, to be divided
evenly between the U.S. Treasury and the State of Alaska. For information on the
debate over whether to approve energy development in the Refuge, see CRS Report
RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th
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 increase the program from $144.7 million in FY2007 to
$146.5 million in FY2008 (1%), with the bulk of the increase in the consultation
subprogram. 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 end the Landowner Incentive Program ($23.7 million in FY2007) as
well as Stewardship Grants ($7.3 million in FY2007). The Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and territories to conserve threatened
and endangered species) would be reduced from $81.0 million to $80.0 million. See
Table 4, below.
Under the President’s request, total FY2008 funding for the Endangered Species
program and related programs would decrease from $256.6 million to $226.5 million
(12%).
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement. For refuge
operations and maintenance in FY2008, the President proposed $394.8 million, a
slight decrease from $395.3 million in FY2007. The President proposed $57.6
million for Law Enforcement — a modest increase from the FY2007 level ($57.3
million).
Avian Flu. For FY2008, the Administration proposed $7.4 million for the
study, monitoring, and early detection of highly pathogenic avian flu. The FY2006
level totaled $7.4 million, provided in a supplemental appropriation; the FY2007
level was $5.0 million. FWS cooperates with other federal and nonfederal agencies
in studying the spread of the virus through wild birds. Attention is on the North
American species whose migratory patterns make them likely to come into contact
with infected Asian birds. The geographic focus would be on Alaska, the Pacific
Flyway (along the west coast), and Pacific islands, with smaller samples in other
areas. (See CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds, by Jim
Monke and M. Lynne Corn.)
3 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S.
Government, Fiscal Year 2008 (Washington, DC), p. 279. 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
FY2008. To date, no legislation to this effect has been introduced in the 110th Congress.

---

CRS-10
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and
Related Programs, FY2006-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Endangered Species and
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Related Programs
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate Conservation
8,619
8,425
8,635
— Listing
17,630
17,824
18,263
— Consultation
47,997
49,179
51,578
— Recovery
73,562
69,244
68,067
Subtotal, Endangered Species Program
147,808
144,672
146,543
Related Programs
— Landowner Incentive Program
21,667
23,667
0
— Private Stewardship Grants
7,277
7,277
0
— Cooperative Endangered Species
80,001
81,001
80,001a
Conservation Fund
Subtotal, Related Programs
108,945b
111,945
80,001
Total Appropriations
256,753b
256,617
226,544
a. The President’s request for FY2008 called for the entire amount to be derived from LWCF.
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.
Land Acquisition. For FY2008, the Administration proposed $18.0 million
for Land Acquisition, $10.0 million (36%) below FY2007. (See Table 5.) This
program is funded with appropriations from LWCF. In the past, the bulk of this
FWS program had been for acquisitions of land for specified federal refuges, 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
FY2008, reserving $5.5 million for specified acquisitions, and funding the remainder
of the program at $12.5 million.4 (For more information, see “Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)
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
4 Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a permanently
appropriated source of mandatory 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-11
provides additional appropriations. The President requested $10.8 million for
FY2008, down $3.4 million (24%) from the FY2007 level of $14.2 million. This
FY2008 level, combined with expected receipts, would provide about 35% of the
authorized full payment, down from 52% in FY2007.
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FWS Land Acquisition
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Acquisitions — Federal Refuge Lands
13,494
13,650
5,544
Inholdings
1,478
1,500
1,500
Emergencies & Hardships
1,478
1,478
1,500
Exchanges
1,478
1,485
1,537
Acquisition Management
8,269
8,140
6,436
Cost Allocation Methodology
1,793
1,793
1,494
Total Appropriations
27,990
28,046
18,011
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants. The Multinational
Species Conservation Fund (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.5 For FY2008, the President proposed
$4.3 million for the MSCF and $4.0 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund (NMBCF). The proposal would cut each of the MSCF programs
and hold funding level for NMBCF. See Table 6, below.
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2006-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
Approp.
Approp.
Request
African Elephant
1,379
1,379
990
Tiger and Rhinos
1,576
1,576
990
Asian Elephant
1,379
1,379
990
Great Apes
1,379
1,379
990
Marine Turtles
691
691
297
Total MSCF Appropriations
6,404
6,404
4,257
Neotropical Migratory Birds
3,941
3,941
3,960
5 The President’s FY2008 budget did not propose to move funding for the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. Congress had rejected the
Administration’s proposed transfer for the previous six fiscal years, beginning in FY2002.

---

CRS-12
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 have 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
does not have 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 portion is for matching grants to states. A
state’s allocation is determined by formula. The President proposed $69.5 million,
a $2.0 million (3%) increase from $67.5 million in FY2007. See Table 7, below.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
Approp.
Approp.
Request
State Grants
59,556
n/a
n/a
Competitive Grants for States, Territories, &
0
n/a
n/a
Other Jurisdictions
Tribal Grants
5,912
n/a
n/a
Administrationa
2,024
n/a
n/a
Cost Allocation Methodology (CAM)b
—
—
—
Total Appropriations
67,492
67,492
69,492
Note: n/a = not available. This level of detail is usually specified in the report accompanying the
conference agreement.
a. In FY2006 and earlier, administrative costs were limited to 3%, after tribal grants were 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, neither the
Senate Appropriations Committee nor the House specified 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.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at
[http://www.fws.gov/].
CRS Report RL33779. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 110th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Robert Meltz, and Kristina Alexander.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RL33872. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in
the 110th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds, by Jim Monke and
M. Lynne Corn.

---

CRS-13
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System,
currently comprising 391 separate and diverse park units covering 85 million acres.
The NPS and its more than 20,000 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.
Annual park visitation is now 273 million visits. 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 and promotes some resource conservation activities outside the Park System
through limited grant and technical assistance programs and cooperation with
partners.
The President’s FY2008 request for the NPS was $2.36 billion, an increase of
$74.3 million (3%) above the FY2007 level of $2.29 billion. (See Table 8, below.)
The parks remain popular with the public and the condition of the parks and the
adequacy of their care and operating capacity, in a protracted climate of budgetary
constriction and competing priorities, continues to be controversial.
To be ready for the NPS’s 100th anniversary in 2016, the Administration has
proposed a multi-year initiative, beginning in FY2008, to strengthen visitor services
and other park programs. The National Parks Centennial Initiative, announced by
President Bush in August 2006, could add up to $3 billion in new funds for the parks
over the next 10 years through a public/private joint effort. The initiative has three
components. It consists of a commitment to an additional $100.0 million annually
in discretionary funds, a challenge for the public to donate $100.0 million annually,
and a commitment to match the public donations with federal funds of up to $100.0
million annually. The second part of the initiative — the proposed $1 billion
“Centennial Challenge” — would rely on corporate, foundation, and other private
donations, raising concerns among some park supporters about potential
commercialization and privatization of the parks. Many claim that the park system
has experienced chronic budget shortfalls. Park advocacy groups have estimated
that, on average, the national parks operate with two-thirds of needed funding — a
budget shortfall of more than $600 million annually.6
Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line-item
is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting for more than 75%
of the total NPS budget in FY2007. 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 and maintenance, and park support
programs, as well as employee pay, benefits, and other fixed costs. The majority of
operations funding is provided directly to park managers. The FY2008 request for
park operations was $1.97 billion, an increase of $206.3 million (12%) from the
FY2007 enacted level. This budget would be the largest ever for park operations.
6 See the website of the National Parks Conservation Association at [http://www.npca.org/
media_center/reports/analysis.html].

---

CRS-14
The largest proposed increase was for maintenance, rising by $94.9 million (16%),
with visitor services rising by $56.2 million (16%).
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
National Park Service
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Operation of the National Park System
1,718.4
1,762.7
1,969.0
U.S. Park Police
80.2
85.2
88.1
National Recreation and Preservation
54.2
54.4
48.9
Historic Preservation Fund
72.2
55.7
63.7
Construction
313.9
297.5
201.6
Land and Water Conservation Fund a
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
— Assistance to States
29.6
29.6
0.0
— NPS Acquisition
17.4b
34.4
22.5
Subtotal, Land Acquisition and State Assistance
47.0b
64.0
22.5
Total Appropriations
2,255.8
2,289.4
2,363.8
a. Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
b. This figure does not reflect the availability of an additional $26.8 million in prior year funds.
United States Park Police (USPP). This budget item supports the U.S.
Park Police, an urban-oriented, full-service, uniformed law enforcement entity 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 FY2007 was $85.2 million, and the FY2008 request was $88.1 million, a 3%
increase. Increased funding is proposed primarily for enhanced security at National
Mall icons and special events in Washington, DC, and at the Statue of Liberty in New
York. 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 funds a variety of
park system 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 FY2008 request
for NPS national recreation and preservation was $48.9 million, a decrease of $5.5
million (10%) from FY2007. The decrease included the proposed elimination of the
statutory and contractual aid program for specific, non-NPS sites and a $3.3 million
reduction for the heritage partnership program that funds National Heritage Areas
(NHAs). The Administration has previously proposed discontinuing statutory and

---

CRS-15
contractual aid, requesting no funding for FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007. Congress
provided $11.2 million for FY2005, $7.0 million for FY2006, and $3.2 million for
FY2007.
Construction. The construction line item funds new construction projects,
as well as improvements, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities.
The FY2008 request for NPS construction was $201.6 million, a $95.9 million (32%)
decline from the FY2007 enacted level and a $112.3 million (36%) decline from the
FY2006 level. Recent DOI data (March 2007) report an NPS deferred maintenance
backlog of $7.9 billion, of which $4.3 billion is park roads, while another DOI source
contains an NPS backlog estimate (mid-range) of $9.1 billion for FY2006. (For
information on NPS maintenance, see CRS Report RL33484, National Park
Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. FY2007 appropriations for the
NPS under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) were $64.0 million,
comprised of $34.4 million for NPS land acquisition and $29.6 million for state
assistance programs. 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 appropriated funds allocated by formula and states determining their
spending priorities.
The FY2008 request for NPS land acquisition was $22.5 million, a decline of
$11.9 million (35%) from FY2007. The Administration did not seek funds for state
assistance from LWCF, but instead requested $1.4 million for program
administration from the National Recreation and Preservation line item. The
Administration did not seek funds for new stateside grants for FY2008, as for
FY2006 and FY2007, although funds were appropriated for both these earlier years.
(For more information, see the section titled “Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” 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. NHPA
reauthorization (P.L. 109-235) was enacted on December 22, 2006, and extends
authority to fund the HPF through 2015. The Fund’s preservation grants are
normally funded on a 60% federal/40% state matching share basis. The HPF also
includes funding for Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America grants.
For FY2008, the Administration’s request for the HPF was $63.7 million, an
increase of $8.0 million (14%) over the funding level for FY2007, but below the
FY2006 level of $72.2 million. In addition, $43.0 million was provided in FY2006
through emergency supplemental funds (P.L. 109-234) for areas affected by the 2005
hurricanes. The request would cut funding for state and tribal historic preservation
grants by $1.5 million (4%) and $1.5 million (28%) respectively. It would not restore
preservation funding for historically black colleges and universities, which was
eliminated for FY2007. The NPS request would restore some funding for both the
Save America’s Treasures and the Preserve America grant programs, which had been

---

CRS-16
cut from $29.6 million in FY2006 to $13.0 million in FY2007. The Administration
requested $20.0 million for FY2008.
New for FY2008, the Park Service proposed to establish a $5.0 million program
to help states and tribal governments create an integrated inventory of historic
properties. Of that amount, $4.0 million would be to fund grants through the HPF
and the balance would be provided through National Recreation and Preservation
funding.
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 RL33617. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RL33484. National Park Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Ross
W. Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, and Susan Boren.
CRS Report RL33525. Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert
and Carol Hardy Vincent.
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation’s premier science agency in
providing physical and biological information related to natural hazards; certain
aspects of the environment; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In
addition, it is the federal government’s principal civilian mapping agency and a
primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s water resources. For FY2008,
the Administration is emphasizing the role USGS plays in the healthy lands initiative,
the ocean action plan, and providing timely scientific information for monitoring
natural hazards and assessing their impacts.
Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and
Research, for seven activities: the National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research;
Enterprise Information; Science Support; and Facilities. For FY2008, the
Administration requested $975.0 million for the USGS, which is $7.8 million (1%)
below the FY2007 level of $982.8 million. See Table 9, below.
For FY2008, the Administration would provide $75.0 million for the
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing Program (formerly the
National Mapping Program); $222.1 million for Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes; $212.5 million for Water Resources Investigations; $181.1 million for
Biological Research; $112.1 million for Enterprise Information; $70.7 million for
Science Support; and $101.6 million for Facilities. The Administration requested
funding below the FY2007 level for Geographic Research, Investigations, and
Remote Sensing; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; and Water Resources

---

CRS-17
Investigations. The Administration requested funding above the FY2007 level for
the other activities.
The FY2008 Administration’s request included a $5.0 million increase for
research in the Green River Basin of Wyoming, which is a designated site for the
healthy lands initiative, and a $3.0 million increase to conduct research activities
related to the U.S. ocean action plan. The FY2008 request proposed eliminating
funding for the water resources research institutes, which the Administration
contends have been generally self-supporting. The FY2008 request also would cut
$20.1 million for mineral resource assessments, to focus on the needs of federal land
management programs, according to the Administration.
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
U.S. Geological Survey
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Enterprise Information
46.4
111.8
112.1
Geographic Research, Investigations, and
Remote Sensing
129.3
80.2
75.0
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes
235.3
237.0
222.1
Water Resources Investigations
211.8
214.9
212.5
Biological Research
174.9
175.7
181.1
Science Support
69.3
67.8
70.7
Facilities
94.8
95.4
101.6
Total Appropriations
970.7a
982.8
975.0
a The total includes emergency appropriations of $9.0 million provided in P.L. 109-148.
Enterprise Information. In FY2005, the Administration proposed a new
line item for funding within the USGS called Enterprise Information. This program
consolidates funding of all USGS information needs including information
technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as capital asset
planning. The FY2008 Administration’s request was $112.1 million for this
program, $0.3 million above the FY2007 level of $111.8 million.
There are three primary programs within Enterprise Information: (1) enterprise
information security and technology, which supports management and operations of
USGS telecommunications (e.g., computing infrastructure and email); (2) enterprise
information resources, which provides policy support, information management, and
oversight over information services; and (3) federal geographic data coordination,
which provides operational support and management for the Federal Geographic Data
Committee (FGDC). The FGDC is an interagency, intergovernmental committee that
encourages collaboration to make geospatial data available to state, local, and tribal
governments, as well as communities.

---

CRS-18
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing. This
program aims to provide access to high quality geospatial information to the public.
The Administration requested $75.0 million for this program, $5.2 million (7%)
below the FY2007 level of $80.2 million. Under the Land Remote Sensing
subheading, $24.0 million was requested to support the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission, also known as Landsat 8. Landsat 8 is an upcoming satellite that is to 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.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, the Administration requested $222.1 million,
$14.9 million (6%) below the FY2007 level of $237.0 million. This line item covers
programs in three activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and Coastal
Assessments, and Resource Assessments.
The primary reduction under this heading is a $20.1 million cut in the mineral
resources program. According to the Administration, proposed cuts will focus efforts
on mineral resource assessments and research that benefit federal land management
programs, as opposed to both federal and nonfederal needs as in previous years. The
Administration expects that universities or other entities will undertake assessments
and research that support nonfederal needs. The reduction would 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 each
year funding has been provided by Congress.
The FY2008 request contained an increase of $2.1 million for the geologic
hazards program. Some of the funds would go towards supporting research and
monitoring on volcanoes, landslides, and earthquakes.
Water Resources Investigations. The Administration’s request for Water
Resources Investigations was $212.5 million, $2.4 million (1%) below the FY2007
level of $214.9 million. The hydrologic monitoring, assessments, and research
activities would receive $150.1 million and the federal-state cooperation water
program would receive $62.4 million. As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-
FY2007 budget requests, the FY2008 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. Nevertheless, the institutes have received funding from FY2002-
FY2007, with $5.4 million appropriated for FY2007.
The Administration requested an increase of $2.3 million for the National
Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), for a total of $18.9 million for FY2008.
These additional funds would be used to continue the operation of the stream-gauge
network of 7,400 streamgauges. Further, it would allow for several new stream-
gauges to be built and maintained. Through the NSIP, the USGS collects the
streamflow data needed by federal, state, and local agencies for planning, operating
water-resources projects, and regulatory programs.

---

CRS-19
Biological Research. The Biological Research Program under the USGS
generates and distributes information related to conserving and managing the nation’s
biological resources. The Administration requested $181.1 million for biological
research, $5.4 million (3%) above the FY2007 level of $175.7 million.
The Administration sought $5.0 million for the USGS to participate in the
healthy lands initiative. The USGS would focus its work in the Green River Basin.
The agency expects to provide a geospatial framework for sharing information;
assess the health of habitats and their resources; and monitor changes in landscapes.
The Green River Basin is a priority site because its landscape and habitats are
changing due to energy resource development. According to DOI, the healthy lands
initiative will expand cooperative conservation efforts to help restore western lands
that support wildlife habitat and energy resources.
In cooperation with the FWS and other federal and state agencies, the USGS is
surveying for the early detection of HPAI (avian flu) in wild birds, and collecting
samples from birds that are known to migrate through the Russian Far East and
Southeast Asia. For 2008, the USGS will continue sampling birds for HPAI and
coordinate with other agencies to address the potential for avian influenza in North
America.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for managing and disseminating
scientific information. The Administration requested $70.7 million for science
support, an increase of 2.9 million (4%) from the FY2007 level of $67.8 million.
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair. The Administration
requested $101.6 million for facilities, an increase of $6.1 million (6%) from the
FY2007 enacted level of $95.4 million. The proposed increase of $4.7 million is to
repair facilities at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (MD).
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 $7 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%

---

CRS-20
to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties have been not more than 25%.
(Other sources of MMS receipts include rents and bonuses for all leaseable minerals
and royalties from coal and other minerals.)
Budget and Appropriations. The Administration submitted an FY2008
total MMS budget of $297.2 million. This includes $6.4 million for Oil Spill
Research and $290.8 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. The
total FY2008 budget request reflected $161.5 million in appropriations and an
additional $135.7 million from offsetting collections which MMS has been retaining
since 1994. The Administration’s total budget request was $8.9 million (3%) above
the $288.2 million enacted for FY2007. The net appropriations request for FY2008
of $161.5 million was a $1.9 million (1%) increase from the $159.5 million enacted
for FY2007. See Table 10, below.
Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Minerals Management Service
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
— OCS Lands (OMM)
148.8
152.8
160.0
— Royalty Management (MRM)
77.9
80.1
82.4
— General Administration
47.5
48.5
48.5
— Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management
274.1
281.3
290.8
— Use of Receipts
-122.7
-128.7
-135.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management Appropriations
151.4
152.6
155.0
Oil Spill Research
6.9
6.9
6.4
Total Appropriations
158.3
159.5
161.5
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts remain controversial. Oil and gas development moratoria in the OCS along
the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, parts of Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico have been
in place since 1982, as a result of public laws and executive orders of the President.
However, Congress enacted separate legislation (P.L.109-432) to open part of the
Gulf of Mexico (about 5.8 million acres) previously under the moratoria, but the law
places nearly all of the eastern Gulf under a leasing moratorium until 2022. The law
also contains revenue sharing provisions for selected coastal states. Two areas —
Bristol Bay (AK) and Virginia — contained in the MMS Proposed Five-Year OCS
Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2007-2012) remain controversial. Bristol Bay, once
included in the congressional moratoria was removed, while oil and gas leasing off
Virginia is still under the moratoria. The new five-year program would take effect
July 1, 2007. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental
Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries.)
Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers was debated during consideration
of FY2007 Interior appropriations. On February 13, 2006, the New York Times

---

CRS-21
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 1999.7
On January 18, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) that would deny new Gulf
of Mexico leases to those holding leases without price thresholds or payment or an
agreement to pay a “conservation of resources” fee that would be established by H.R.
6. DOI has asserted that the House-passed bill could lead to legal challenges which
could delay oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico. The Department also
suggested that Congress offer the lessees a three-year extension to their leases as an
incentive to amend the leases to include price thresholds. The Senate continues to
work on a version that may look different than H.R. 6. (For more information, see
CRS Report RS22567, Royalty Relief for U.S. Deepwater Oil and Gas Leases, by
Marc Humphries).
Another challenge confronting the MMS is to ensure that its audit and
compliance program is consistently effective. Critics contend that less auditing and
more focus on compliance review has led to a less rigorous royalty collection system
and thus a loss of revenue to the federal Treasury. DOI’s Inspector General has made
recommendations to strengthen and improve administrative controls of the
Compliance and Asset Management Program (CAM). Further, DOI established an
independent panel to review the MMS Mineral Leasing Program. The review
includes an examination of the Royalty-In-Kind Program which has grown
significantly over the past three years — from 41.5 million barrels of oil equivalent
(BOE) sold in 2004 to 112 million BOE sold in 2007.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website
at [http://www.mms.gov].
CRS Report RL33493. Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing
and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS22567. Royalty Relief for U.S. Deepwater Oil and Gas Leases, 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. However, coal mining is an
old activity in the United States, and at the time SMCRA was enacted there was a
7 This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS,
during April 2006.

---

CRS-22
large inventory of abandoned mine sites that no company could be held accountable
to reclaim. To address this problem, SMCRA established an Abandoned Mine Land
(AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites that
posed 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. Reclamation in states with no approved
programs is directed by OSM.
Historically, AML collections have been divided up and assigned to different
accounts, some of which fall into a federal designation allocated to individual states
based upon their ranking in historical coal production. A portion of fee collections
also has been credited to a state share account. Grants to states and tribes for
reclamation have been awarded after applying a formula to annual congressional
appropriations from the AML fund. Grants to a state or tribe would draw on both
that state’s federal-share and state-share accounts. Collections have exceeded
appropriations for a number of years. The total unappropriated balance — including
both federal and state share accounts in the AML fund — was over $1.95 billion by
the end of FY2006, of which approximately $1.2 billion was in the state-share
accounts.
As coal production has shifted westward, western states have paid more into the
fund. These states have contended that they are shouldering a disproportionate share
of the reclamation burden because the great majority of the sites requiring
remediation are in the East.8 Several states were pressing for increases in the AML
appropriations, with an eye on those unappropriated balances in the state-share
accounts.
Enactment of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act (P.L. 109-432) in December
2006 reauthorized AML fee collections through FY2021, and also made significant
changes in the procedures for disbursing grants. Grants will now be funded by
permanent appropriations from the AML fund and the general fund of the U. S.
Treasury. All the revenues paid to the fund during a given fiscal year will be returned
during the fiscal year that follows.9 Under the restructuring, the balances in the state-
and tribal-share accounts will be returned to all states and tribes in seven annual
installments paid with general Treasury funds.10
States and tribes are categorized as “Certified” or “Uncertified,” and
distributions to each will differ. Certified states are those that have reclaimed the
most serious sites, while uncertified states have not yet done so. Beginning in
8 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.
9 The permanent appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that
money, which include annual payments to the United Mine Workers of America Combined
Benefit Fund, would exceed the cap, distributions will be proportional.
10 Added to these totals will be any money needed to fund minimum program states. These
states have sites remaining with serious problems. However, these states also have
insufficient levels of current coal production to generate significant fees to the AML fund.
Each minimum program state is to receive $1.5 million annually.

---

CRS-23
FY2008, and over a period of seven years, certified states will receive equal
installments of the unappropriated balances in their state-share accounts as of the end
of FY2006. Additionally, they will receive whatever grants they would be entitled to
based upon application of the distribution formula to both prior year collections and
that state’s entitlement based upon its historic coal production.11 Beginning with fees
collected during FY2008, the amounts that would have been deposited to certified
states’ state-share accounts will instead be credited to the federal-share account
representing historical coal production. Certified states will not receive this allocation
in their annual grants after FY2008. This will have the effect of increasing the pool
of money available for distribution to uncertified states in future years.
The level of grants distributed to uncertified states will be based upon their
proportionate entitlement from the historical coal production account (which, as just
noted, will hold more money than under the old system), as well as the amount that
would have otherwise been deposited to the state-share account.12
Owing to the establishment of the permanent appropriation, the FY2008 OSM
budget request is sharply lower than the FY2007 level. Due to the restructuring of
the program, that includes repayment of the unappropriated state balances from
Treasury funds, one cannot make a direct comparison between the FY2008 request
and the FY2007 appropriated level for OSM. In FY2008, some activities will remain
subject to annual appropriations. Among these are the expenses of federal AML
programs in states with no OSM-approved reclamation programs, an emergency
reclamation program, OSM administrative expenses, and the Clean Streams program.
The agency budget has two components — regulatory and technology programs, and
appropriations from the AML fund. The FY2008 budget request includes $115.5 for
regulation and technology and $52.8 million for the AML appropriation. Overall, the
FY2008 budget request for OSM totals $168.3 million in discretionary spending, a
reduction of $126.3 million (43%) from the FY2007 level of $294.6 million. See
Table 11, below.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2006-FY2008

($ in millions)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Enforcement
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Regulation and Technology
109.0
109.2
115.5
— Environmental Protection
78.4
78.7
83.8
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
185.2
185.4
52.8
Total Appropriations
294.2
294.6
168.3
11 Payments will be ramped up. For the first three years, certified states will receive 25%,
50%, and 75% of the amount the state would receive under the restructured program.
12 An allocation of fee collections under the old program to the Rural Abandoned Mine
Program (RAMP) is discontinued by P.L. 109-432, which transfers the RAMP balances to
the fund pool representing state historical coal production. Whether or not fee collections
are reauthorized beyond FY2021, mandatory distributions will continue so long as money
remains in the AML fund.

---

CRS-24
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 A.
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 direct appropriations were $2.27 billion in FY2006 and $2.31 billion in
FY2007. For FY2008, the Administration proposed $2.23 billion, a decrease of
$79.4 million (3%) below FY2007. For the BIA, its major budget components, and
selected BIA programs, Table 12, below, presents funding figures for FY2006,
FY2007, and the FY2008 proposal, with the percentages of change from FY2007 to
the proposed total levels for FY2008. Decreases are shown with minuses.
Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, cover BIA education programs —
including reorganization of the BIA school system and the Administration’s
proposals to increase education spending, eliminate funding for the Johnson-
O’Malley program and tribal technical colleges, and reduce education construction
— as well as BIA law enforcement and housing programs.
In August 2006, the BIA’s administrative office for its education programs was
removed from the BIA, made a parallel agency under the Assistant Secretary —
Indian Affairs, and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
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 formerly included in different budget activities (e.g., “Tribal Priority
Allocations,” “Other Recurring Programs”), has been restructured so that programs
with the same function fall under the same budget activity (e.g., “Education”). Table
12 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
Appropriation Committees’ requirements for approval of reprogramming. The BIA
identifies in its FY2008 Budget Justification the amounts within the new budget
activities that fall in the TPA category. Those amounts are shown in Table 12.
According to BIA figures, the total TPA funding proposed for FY2008 was $733.6
million.

---

CRS-25
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Percent
FY2008 Request
FY2006
FY2007
Change
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Approp.
Approp.
FY2007-
Total
TPAa
FY2008
Operation of Indian Programs
Tribal Government
374,689
392,261
397,698
390,880
1%
— Contract Support
132,628
143,628
149,628
149,628
4%
Costs
Human Services
150,416
144,824
120,703
117,001
-17%
— Welfare
85,190
80,179
74,164
74,164
-8%
Assistance
— Housing
18,830
18,824
0
0
-100%
Improvement
Program
Trust - Natural
152,754
145,238
141,684
65,660
-2%
Resources Management
Trust - Real Estate
141,842
144,073
150,722
58,878
5%
Services
— Probate
15,708
15,884
19,883
9,001
25%
— Real Estate
40,578
43,510
47,964
33,482
10%
Services
— Land Records
7,891
7,897
16,065
0
103%
Improvement
Bureau of Indian
646,430
657,912
660,540
25,342
<1%
Education
— Elementary/
457,750
458,310
476,500
0
4%
Secondary (Forward-
Funded)
— ISEP Formula
350,062
351,817
364,020
0
3%
Funds
— Elementary/
77,223
72,390
61,803
0
-15%
Secondary [Other]
— Johnson-
16,371
12,000
0
0
-100%
O’Malley Grants
— Post Secondary
102,674
108,619
98,520
25,342
-9%
Programs
— Tribal Colleges
55,545
54,721
54,721
0
0%
and Universities
— Tribal Colls.
1,292
4,588
1,292
1,292
-72%
and Univs.
Supplements to
Grantsb,c
— Tribal
—
2,004
0
0
-100%
Technical
Collegesb

---

CRS-26
Percent
FY2008 Request
FY2006
FY2007
Change
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Approp.
Approp.
FY2007-
Total
TPAa
FY2008
— Education
8,783
18,593
23,717
0
28%
Management
Public Safety and
212,142
217,611
233,818
12,065
7%
Justice
— Law Enforcement
193,377
204,454
221,753
0
8%
—
55,789
58,678
65,038
0
11%
Detention/Correcti
ons
— Tribal Courts
12,291
12,013
12,065
12,065
<1%
Community and
51,782
42,234
39,061
37,635
-8%
Economic Development
— Tribal Technical
5,223
—
—
—
—
Collegesb
Executive Direction and
232,135
244,070
246,692
26,094
1%
Administrative Services
— Office of Federal
1,900
1,900
1,900
0
0%
Acknowledgment
— Information
57,431
53,199
53,704
0
1%
Resources
Technology
Subtotal, Operation of
1,962,190 1,988,223 1,990,918
733,555
<1%
Indian Programs
Construction
Education Construction
206,787
204,956
139,844
—
-32%
— Replacement
64,530
83,891
14,815
—
-82%
School Construction
— Replacement
0
26,873
22,578
—
-16%
Facility Construction
— Education
140,286
92,219
100,834
—
9%
Facilities
Improvement and
Repair
Public Safety and
11,603
11,605
11,621
—
<1%
Justice Construction
— Law Enforcement
8,102
8,103
8,111
—
<1%
Facilities
Improvement and
Repair
Resources Management
45,099
45,125
37,916
—
-16%
Construction
General Administration
8,093
10,137
8,246
—
-19%
Construction and
Construction
Management

---

CRS-27
Percent
FY2008 Request
FY2006
FY2007
Change
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Approp.
Approp.
FY2007-
Total
TPAa
FY2008
Subtotal, Construction
271,582
271,823
197,627
—
-27%
Land and Water Claim
34,243
42,000
34,069
—
-19%
Settlements and
Miscellaneous Payments
Indian Guaranteed Loan
6,255
6,258
6,276
—
<1%
Program
Total Appropriations
2,274,270 2,308,304 2,228,890
733,555
-3%
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 “FY2008 Request — Total” column in the table.
b. The tribal technical colleges program was moved from the Community and Economic Development
activity to the Post Secondary Programs activity for FY2007.
c. The one-year increase of $3.3 million for FY2007 is for tribal technical colleges.
BIE Education Programs. BIE funds an elementary-secondary school
system and higher education programs. The BIA school system comprises 184 BIE-
funded schools and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating
about 46,000 students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-
determination contracts and other grants, operate 120 of these institutions; the BIE
operates the remainder. The BIE operates two postsecondary schools and provides
grants to 26 tribally-controlled colleges and two tribally-controlled technical colleges.
Key problems for the BIE-funded school system are low student achievement,
the high proportion of schools failing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), and
the large number of inadequate school facilities.
School System Management Reorganization. In FY2006, the BIE
began the process of reorganizing its educational management system, asserting that
its schools were failing to meet AYP — 70% failed to make AYP in school year
2004-2005 — because BIE lacked necessary professional education resources and
management expertise. BIE is realigning its regional education line offices (ELOs),
which supervise groups of individual schools, and is trying to increase the number
of highly-qualified education managers and education specialists in its central office
and ELOs. A number of tribes have opposed the ELO realignment, and actions by
tribes in North and South Dakota and New Mexico led to federal courts suspending
temporarily the local ELO realignments. The tribes argue that BIE has failed to
consult tribes sufficiently and that the funds spent on reorganization would be better
spent directly in schools.
Proposed Indian Education Initiative. The Administration proposed a
$15-million initiative in FY2008 to enhance education at BIE-funded schools.
According to the BIA’s FY2008 budget justification, BIE’s forward-funded
elementary and secondary budget activity is to receive $9.6 million of the new
program funds, which are to be used to improve instructional resources (especially
through teacher development and principal training) at schools being restructured to
meet AYP goals ($5.3 million) and to increase operation and maintenance funds for
student transportation ($4.3 million). The remaining $5.5 million of the initiative

---

CRS-28
would go to BIE’s education management budget activity, to add education and
administrative specialists at ELOs ($3.6 million) and maintain BIE’s new student and
school information system ($1.9 million).
Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Program. The JOM program provides
supplementary education assistance grants for tribes and public schools to benefit
Indian students, and was funded at $12.0 million in FY2007. The Administration
proposed no funding for this program in FY2008, asserting that Department of
Education programs under Titles I (education of the disadvantaged) and VII (Indian
education) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act13 provide funds for the
same purposes, and that the funds should be used for BIE-funded schools.
Opponents disagree that the Education Department programs can replace JOM’s
culturally-relevant programs. For instance, the House Appropriations Committee,
in rejecting the Administration’s FY2007 proposal to end JOM funding, stated that
there was no guaranteed one-to-one match between Department of Education grants
and JOM funds.
Tribal Technical Colleges. There are two tribal technical (or vocational)
colleges, one in North Dakota and one on the Navajo Reservation. Both are
statutorily excluded from the BIE tribal colleges and universities assistance program,
but the two are the only colleges receiving grants under the Education Department’s
Carl Perkins Act program for tribally controlled vocational colleges. The BIE has for
several years sought to end its funding for the two technical colleges, asserting that
they receive adequate funding from the Perkins Act and other Education Department
higher education programs and that the funds are needed more at the 26 tribal
colleges and universities. To date, Congress has not agreed to the Administration’s
recommendation. The tribal technical colleges received $5.2 million in FY2006
(under the BIA’s community development budget activity) and will receive a total
of $5.3 million in FY2007 under the BIE’s post-secondary education budget
subactivity. The Administration proposed no funding for tribal technical colleges in
FY2008.
Education Construction. Many BIE 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 in the past estimated the backlog in
education facility repairs at $942 million. Table 12, above, shows education
construction funds. For FY2008, the Administration proposed reducing the
appropriation for education construction by $65.1 million (32%). Included is a
reduction for replacement-school construction of 82%. The Administration asserted
that the BIA needs to focus on completing replacement schools funded in prior years,
and that construction and repairs since 2001 have reduced the proportion of facilities
in bad condition from about 66% to 31%. Opponents contend that a large proportion
of BIA schools still need replacement or major repairs and that hence funding should
not be cut.
13 These sections are contained in 20 U.S.C. §§6301, et seq. and 20 U.S.C. §§7401, et seq.
respectively.

---

CRS-29
Law Enforcement Program. BIA and Justice Department figures show
rising crime rates, methamphetamine use, and juvenile gang activity on Indian
reservations. The federal government has lead jurisdiction over major criminal
offenses on most Indian reservations, although in some states federal law has
transferred criminal jurisdiction to the state. Tribes share jurisdiction but under
federal law they have limited sentencing options, and also fewer law enforcement
resources. The BIA funds most law enforcement, jails, and courts in Indian country,
whether operated by tribes or the BIA. For FY2008 the Administration proposed a
“Safe Indian Communities Initiative” involving a $17.3 million total increase (8%)
in BIA law enforcement funding, to $221.8 million. Included in the initiative are
$5.4 million for additional officers, equipment, and training; $6.4 million to increase
staffing at detention and corrections facilities, a need identified in a 2004 Interior
Inspector General report; and $5.4 million for specialized drug enforcement training,
especially regarding methamphetamine. Separately, the Administration proposed a
small increase (0.4%) in tribal courts, to $12.1 million. Indian tribes and supporters,
estimating a 42% shortfall in law enforcement staffing, suggest the Administration’s
initiative is insufficient for adequate policing on reservations14 and may not be
sufficient to handle the methamphetamine problem. They also urge greater funding
for tribal courts.
Housing Improvement Program (HIP). The major federal Indian housing
program is the Indian Housing Block Grant administered by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which funds all types of housing. HIP, an
older and much smaller program, focuses on urgently needed repairs, renovations, or
modest new houses, on or near reservations, especially for the neediest families. BIA
has considered it a safety net for those not eligible for or served by the HUD
program. HIP was funded at $18.8 million in FY2007. The Administration proposed
eliminating HIP for FY2008, contending that its recipients are not statutorily barred
from the HUD program, that it serves a limited number of tribes, and that other BIA
programs are of higher priority. Indian tribes and supporters oppose the elimination
of HIP, asserting that HIP meets a great need for rehabilitation of substandard
housing, and questioning whether the HUD program could fill the need for urgent
housing repairs.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian
Education, see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs15
Office of Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides
financial assistance to four insular areas — American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
14 Testimony of Jefferson Keel, National Congress of American Indians, “NCAI Testimony
on the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request for Indian Programs,” presented
at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Feb. 15, 2007, p. 3; available at
[http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Keel021507.pdf].
15 This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under Departmental Offices or
Department-Wide Programs. Total funding for these entities is identified in Table 24 at the
end of this report.

---

CRS-30
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 (including permanent and indefinite annual
appropriations) for FY2008 was $403.8 million, an amount below that provided in
FY2007 ($428.6 million). OIA funding consists of two parts: (1) permanent and
indefinite appropriations and (2) funds provided in the annual appropriations process.
Of the total request for FY2008, $324.1 million (80%) in permanent and indefinite
funding is required through statutes, as follows:
! $205.1 million, which includes $30 million in compact impact funds
to Hawaii and three Pacific territories, and approximately $175
million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau)
under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free
Association;16 and
! $119.0 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 20% of the OIA budget.17 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 U.S. government.
Discretionary and mandatory appropriations for FY2007 totaled $81.5 million,
with AT funded at $76.2 million and CFA at $5.3 million. The FY2008 request
would reduce AT funding to $74.9 million, and CFA assistance to $4.9 million, for
a total of $79.8 million. The total request would be a $1.7 million (2%) reduction
from the FY2007 level.
For additional information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html].
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.
17 Congress has mandated that certain funds be provided. Those funds, however, are subject
to the annual appropriations process.

---

CRS-31
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For FY2008, the
Administration requested $190.0 million for PILT, down $42.5 million (18%) from
the FY2007 level of $232.5 million. The Administration asserted that cutting PILT
is part of an effort to reduce the deficit, and is consistent with historical
appropriations levels. (In FY2000, appropriations were below this level.)
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 $3.6 billion have been made. The PILT program has been
controversial, because in recent years the payment formula, which was indexed for
inflation in 1994, has increased authorization levels. However, appropriations have
grown less rapidly, and substantially slower than authorized amounts, ranging from
42% to 68% of authorized levels between FY2000 and FY2006 (the most recent year
available).18 See Table 13, below. County governments claim that the program as
a whole does not provide funding comparable to property taxes, and further that rural
areas in particular need additional PILT funds to provide the kinds of services that
counties with more private land are able to provide.
Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in
Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-FY2008
($ in millions)
Authorized
Appropriated
% of Authorized
Fiscal Year
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
344.4
232.5
67.5
2007
352.0
232.5
66.1
2008a
359.7
190.0
57.6
Notes: The FY2007 and FY2008 authorized levels, in italics, are estimates. Calculation of the level
assumes (1) all revenues from other payment programs are flat over the period; (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, if only marginally. PILT payment levels could become
particularly difficult to predict in the future, depending on the enactment of legislation to amend the
Secure Rural Schools program. Some versions of this legislation would offer counties the choice of
this program’s payments or PILT payments. (See CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties, by Ross W.
Gorte.)
a The appropriated amount reflects the President’s request.
18 When appropriations are not sufficient to cover the authorization, each county receives
a pro rata share of the authorized amount.

---

CRS-32
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.
CRS Report RL33822. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties, by Ross. W.
Gorte.
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, establishment of an adequate
trust fund management system, and support of department claims settlement
activities related to the trust funds. OST also manages Indian funds directly. Indian
trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in 1996 the Secretary transferred
trust fund management to the OST.
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 323,000 accounts with a current total asset
value of about $400 million.19 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 FY2007 appropriation was $223.3 million. The Administration proposed
$196.2 million for FY2008, a decrease of $27.1 million (12%). Table 14, below,
presents funding figures for FY2006-FY2008 for the OST. Key issues for the OST
are an historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal
and IIM accounts.
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2006-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Office of Special Trustee
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Percent Change
for American Indians
Approp.
Approp.
Request
FY2007-FY2008
Federal Trust Programs
188,774
189,251
186,158
-2%
— Historical Accounting
56,354
56,353
60,000
6%
Indian Land Consolidation
34,006
34,006
10,000
-71%
Total Appropriations
222,780
223,257
196,158
-12%
19 Figures are derived from the OST FY2008 Budget Justifications.

---

CRS-33
Historical Accounting. For FY2008, the Administration proposed $60.0
million for historical accounting activities, an increase of 5% over 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. In 2003, DOI proposed an extensive, five-year, $335 million project to
reconcile IIM accounts. The plan has been revised to reflect ongoing experience and
to add additional accounts. The project seeks to reconcile all transactions for certain
types of accounts and all land-based transactions of $5,000 and over, but uses a
statistical sampling approach to reconcile land-based transactions of less than $5,000.
OST continues to follow this plan, subject to court rulings (see “Litigation,” below)
or congressional actions, and now estimates its completion in FY2011.
Plaintiffs in the Cobell litigation (discussed below) consider the statistical
sampling technique invalid. Tribal trust fund and accounting suits have been filed
for over 300 tribes. Most of the tribal suits were filed at the end of 2006, because the
statute of limitations on such claims expired then. OST has been allocating about
$40 million of its historical accounting expenditures to IIM accounts and the
remainder to tribal accounts. In the past, the House Appropriations Committee has
expressed its intent to limit expenditures for historical accounting, asserting it
reduces spending on other Indian programs.
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.20 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 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, on September 25, 2003, rejected both the plaintiffs’ and DOI’s historical
accounting plans and ordered DOI to account for all trust fund and asset transactions
since 1887, without using statistical sampling. DOI estimated that the court’s choice
for historical accounting would cost $6-$12 billion, and appealed the order. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily stayed the September 25
order and, on December 10, 2004, overturned much of the order. On February 23,
2005, however, 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
20 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-34
estimated that compliance with the new order would cost $12-$13 billion,21 appealed
the new 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. In 2006
the D.C. Circuit assigned a new judge to the Cobell case and in April 2007 the judge
scheduled conferences and a hearing during 2007 on DOI’s historical accounting
obligations, methodology, and results.
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.22 The addition of tribal trust fund and accounting
suits may greatly enlarge the potential costs of a settlement, since tribes’ funds are
far larger in size than individuals’ funds.
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,”23 but some senior appropriators
consider the Fund insufficient even for a $6-$13 billion dollar settlement.24 Among
other options, Congress may enact another delay to the court-ordered accounting,
direct a settlement, or delineate the department’s historical accounting obligations
(which could limit, or increase, the size of the historical accounting). Settlement bills
in the 109th Congress would have established in the Treasury Department’s general
fund an IIM claim settlement fund with appropriations from the Judgment Fund, but
did not specify the dollar size of the fund. The Administration on March 1, 2007,
proposed a comprehensive settlement and a settlement amount of $7 billion, but the
proposed settlement would not only cover both IIM and tribal accounting claims but
would also settle all trust land mismanagement claims.25 At a March 29, 2007,
hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, both a Cobell plaintiff and a
tribal representative opposed the Administration’s proposal, and the Committee chair
21 Testimony from the Interior Department estimated the cost at $12-$13 billion. See 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.
22 Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement Workgroup, “Principles for Legislation,” June 20,
2005, p. 2, at [http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20050620SettlementPrinciples.pdf].
23 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.)
24 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.
25 See letter to Sen. Byron Dorgan, Chairman, Senate Indian Affairs Committee, from the
Secretary of the Interior and Attorney General, available at [http://www.indianz.com/docs/
cobell/bush030107.pdf].

---

CRS-35
expressed numerous doubts.26 No trust fund settlement legislation has been
introduced thus far in the 110th Congress.
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 M. Maureen Murphy.
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).27 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. During FY1999-FY2007, all NIGC activities have been funded from
fees, with no direct appropriations. The Administration did not recommend a direct
appropriation for the NIGC for FY2008.
The NIGC in recent years had expressed a need for additional funding because
it was experiencing increased demand for its oversight resources, especially audits
and field investigations. IGRA formerly capped NIGC fees at $8 million per year,
but Congress used appropriations act language to increase the NIGC’s fee ceiling to
$12 million for FY2004-FY2007. In the Native American Technical Corrections Act
of 2006 (P.L. 109-221), Congress amended IGRA to create a formula-based fee
ceiling — 0.08% of the gross gaming revenues of all gaming operations subject to
regulation under IGRA.
For FY2007, based on the FY2007 fee rate of .059%, NIGC anticipates fee
revenues of $16 million, about a 30% increase from its FY2006 fee revenues of $12
million. NIGC plans for FY2007 include increasing its workforce by 31% to 115
employees, opening additional field offices (with auditors and field investigators),
providing employee training to keep up with gaming technology, and developing
standards for Class II and III games. NIGC anticipates FY2008 fee revenues of about
$18 million.
For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its
website at [http://www.nigc.gov].
26 “Bush Administration Won’t Admit Liability on Indian Trust,” Indianz.com (March 30,
2007), available at [http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/002150.asp].
27 Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but
overlapping regulatory responsibilities for each class.

---

CRS-36
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 grew significantly as Congress 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 funding28 over time generally has reflected an increase in overall
appropriations to fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities. Without
adjusting for inflation, the agency’s appropriation has risen from about $1.0 billion
when the agency was established in FY1970 to a high of $8.4 billion in FY2004. The
President’s FY2008 budget request included $7.20 billion for EPA — $525.7 million
(7%) less than the appropriation of $7.73 billion in FY2007. Although the President
has proposed an overall decrease for the agency, funding for some individual
activities would increase, and funds have been requested for new initiatives as well.
Traditionally, EPA’s annual appropriation has been requested and enacted
according to various line-item appropriations accounts, of which there currently are
eight. Table 15 lists each account and presents a breakdown of appropriations by
account for FY2006 and FY2007 enacted, and FY2008 requested.
During the first session of the 110th Congress, the Appropriations Committees
and various oversight committees have held several hearings to consider the
President’s FY2008 budget request for EPA. Although there have been varying
levels of interest in individual programs and activities, much of the attention has
focused on the adequacy of funding for water infrastructure, the cleanup of hazardous
waste sites under the Superfund and Brownfields programs, scientific research on
human health effects upon which pollution control standards are based, and grants
to assist state and local governments in administering air quality programs. There
also has been rising interest in the adequacy of funding and staffing of EPA’s Office
of Inspector General to audit and evaluate the agency’s activities and operations.
28 EPA’s funding was moved to the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations. In the beginning of the first
session of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees abolished
their respective Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies, which previously had jurisdiction over EPA.

---

CRS-37
Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency, FY2006-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Environmental Protection Agency
Approp.a
Approp.
Request
Science and Technology
— Base Appropriations
$730.8
$733.4
$754.5
— Transfer in from Superfund account
30.2
30.2
26.1
Science and Technology Total
761.0
763.6
780.6
Environmental Programs and Management
2,346.7
2,358.4
2,298.2
Office of Inspector General
— Base Appropriations
36.9
37.2
38.0
— Transfer in from Superfund account
13.3
13.3
7.1
Office of Inspector General Total
50.2
50.5
45.1
Buildings & Facilities
39.6
39.6
34.8
Hazardous Substance Superfund Total
(before transfers)
1,242.1
1,255.1
1,244.7
— Transfer out to Office of Inspector General
(13.3)
(13.3)
(7.1)
— Transfer out to Science and Technology
(30.2)
(30.2)
(26.1)
Hazardous Substance Superfund Net
(after transfers)
1,198.6
1,211.6
1,211.4
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Program
72.0
72.0
72.5
Oil Spill Response
15.6
15.7
17.3
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
— Clean Water State Revolving Fund
886.8
1,083.8
687.6
— Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
837.5
837.5
842.2
— Categorical Grants
1,113.1
1,113.1
1,065.0
— Other Grants
296.3
179.3
144.7
— Rescission of Prior Funds
b(80.0)
n/a
c(5.0)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
3,133.7
3,213.7
2,739.5
Total EPA Accounts
d$7,617.4
$7,725.1
$7,199.4
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using information provided by the
House Appropriations Committee. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a Committee amounts for FY2006 do not reflect a total of $21.0 million in emergency supplementals,
including $15.0 million in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program Account, and $6.0 million
in the Environmental Programs and Management Account, for hurricane-related assistance.
b Congress made an additional $80.0 million available to EPA in FY2006. This additional funding
was not newly appropriated, but came from funding Congress had appropriated in prior years. EPA
had not obligated these prior year funds for certain contracts, grants, and interagency agreements
because their funding authorization had expired. Congress directed EPA to allocate these unobligated
funds in FY2006 to increase the total amount available for that year.
c Within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account, the President’s FY2008 budget for EPA
includes a “cancellation of balances from prior years” of $5 million.
d Including the $21 million in emergency supplementals and the $80 million in redirected funds
explained above, Congress appropriated a total of $7.72 billion for EPA in FY2006. Accounting for
these additional funds, EPA received nearly the same amount in FY2007 under P.L. 110-5 as was
provided in FY2006, rather than a larger increase implied by the amounts in the above table.

---

CRS-38
Key Funding Issues
Water Infrastructure. The largest single decrease in the President’s FY2008
budget request for EPA was within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
account to assist states in capitalizing Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs).
These state funds provide loans to communities for wastewater infrastructure
improvements, such as municipal sewage treatment plant upgrades. The FY2008
request included $687.6 million for Clean Water SRF grants. This amount was the
same as the President requested for FY2007, but was $396.3 million (37%) less than
the FY2007 appropriation of $1.08 billion.
The proposed reduction for Clean Water SRF grants has been contentious, as
there is ongoing disagreement over the adequacy of federal funding to help states
capitalize their loan funds to meet local wastewater infrastructure needs. Although
appropriations for the Clean Water SRF have declined in recent years, Congress has
provided significantly more funding than the President has requested. There has been
less disagreement between Congress and the Administration in regard to funding for
Drinking Water SRF grants. However, some Members have argued that more federal
funds are needed to help states capitalize these loan funds, especially in light of
recent, more stringent drinking water standards with which communities must
comply.
Underscoring their prominence, Clean Water SRF grants were one of two EPA
activities for which Congress specified dollar amounts in the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5). The second activity was the
Superfund program, discussed below. For other agency activities, P.L.110-5
provided funding for EPA in FY2007 at the same level, and under the authority and
conditions, as specified in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-54).
Superfund. The adequacy of funding to clean up the nation’s most hazardous
waste sites has been a long-standing issue. The Superfund program administers the
cleanup of these sites. The President’s FY2008 budget included $1.24 billion for the
Superfund account that funds this program. The request was $10.4 million (1%) less
than the FY2007 appropriation of $1.26 billion. After transfers to two other EPA
accounts, the net request was $1.21 billion, about the same as the FY2007
appropriation. Funding for the Superfund account has remained fairly close to these
levels over the past several years. Some Members of Congress and the Bush
Administration have asserted that steady federal funding is sufficient to maintain a
constant pace of cleanup, considering the costs borne by responsible parties that
supplement these funds. Other Members, states, environmental organizations, and
communities have countered that more federal funds are necessary to expedite the
pace of cleanup to address human health and environmental risks more quickly.
Although the President has requested an overall decrease for the Superfund
account (prior to transfers), there would be both increases and decreases in funding
on an individual activity basis within that account. For example, funding for longer
term remedial activities would rise relative to FY2007, whereas funding for shorter
term emergency removal activities would fall. These two activities are often
characterized as the “heart” of the program, as they focus on physical site cleanup

---

CRS-39
rather than on related support activities, such as enforcement, research, and program
administration and oversight. The President’s proposed decrease for program
oversight has been particularly controversial, as discussed below.
EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). The Office of Inspector
General (OIG) is an independent office within EPA that conducts and supervises
audits, evaluations, inspections, and investigations of the agency’s programs and
operations. The OIG also performs audits and evaluations specifically requested by
Congress. The office is funded by a “base” appropriation and a transfer of
appropriations from the Superfund account. Historically, Congress has transferred
these funds to the OIG because a significant portion of its funding and staffing has
been devoted to oversight of EPA’s cleanup efforts under the Superfund program.
The President’s FY2008 budget included a total of $45.1 million for EPA’s OIG
(including the transfer from Superfund). The request was $5.4 million (11%) less
than the FY2007 appropriation of $50.5 million. Although the overall total for the
OIG would decline, the base appropriation would rise somewhat. The reduction in
the total is attributed to a proposed decrease in the transfer from Superfund — from
$13.3 million in FY2007 to $7.1 million in FY2008. There has been rising concern
over the proposed decrease in funding and staffing for the office’s oversight of the
Superfund program, in light of ongoing debate about the pace and adequacy of
cleanup. EPA reports that the proposed decrease in funding would result in a
reduction of 30 workyears (full time equivalent employees or FTEs) and a
reassignment of 20 FTEs from Superfund oversight to oversight of a broader array
of agency activities.
Brownfields. In addition to Superfund, EPA administers a program to clean
up contaminated “brownfields.” 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 desire to redevelop these properties for economic benefit has
generated significant interest in the adequacy of funding for brownfields cleanup
grants to states and local areas. The President’s FY2008 request includes a total of
$162.2 million for EPA’s Brownfields program, slightly less than the FY2007
appropriation of $163.0 million. Of the total request for the program, $138.8 million
would be for grants to states and local areas, and the remainder would be for EPA’s
expenses in administering these grants.
Scientific Research. Some Members, scientists, and environmental
organizations have expressed concern about the downward trend in federal funding
for core scientific research. Debate regarding funding for scientific research
administered by EPA and other federal agencies often has focused on the question
of whether these agencies’ actions are based on “sound science,” and how scientific
research is applied in developing federal policy. Most of EPA’s scientific research
activities are funded within the Science and Technology (S&T) account, including
the agency’s laboratories and research grants. Similar to the OIG account, the S&T
account is funded by a base appropriation and a transfer from Superfund. These
transferred funds are dedicated to research of more effective methods to clean up
contaminated sites.

---

CRS-40
Including the transfer from Superfund, the President’s FY2008 budget included
$780.6 million for the S&T account. The request was $17.0 million (2%) more than
the FY2007 appropriation of $763.6 million. Although an overall increase was
proposed, the transfer from Superfund would fall, whereas the base amount would
rise. Despite this increase in the base amount, total funding within this account for
research would decline, as the increase is mostly due to a continued shift in funds
primarily from the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account to pay
for facility operations and administration, such as rent, utilities, and security. When
comparing funding for research alone, the President’s budget would provide roughly
$20 million less in FY2008 than in FY2007 for the S&T account. The request also
was less than Congress appropriated for research within this account from FY2003
through FY2006, continuing the downward trend in funding. However, there would
be increases for a few research activities funded within the S&T account.
State Air Quality Management Grants. Some Members, and state and
local air pollution control officials, continue to be concerned about reduced funding
for state and local air quality management categorical grants within EPA’s STAG
account. They contend that more funds are needed as a result of increasing Clean Air
Act responsibilities, including broader monitoring of ozone and particulate matter
and efforts to attain national standards for these pollutants. The President’s FY2008
budget included $185.2 million for these grants, $14.6 million (7%) less than the
$199.8 million provided for FY2007, and $35.1 million (16%) less than the $220.3
million in FY2006.
According to EPA, the decrease in funding for these grants is mostly due to the
agency’s use of different authorities in the Clean Air Act, as originally proposed in
its FY2007 budget justification. These grant authorities require matching funds from
recipients, rather than the federal government bearing the full cost. This shift in
authorities is primarily based on EPA’s assertion that the monitoring network for
particulate matter is beyond the demonstration phase, and that the network should
now be considered an operational system in the implementation phase. Although
authorities for demonstration grants do not require matching funds, those for
implementation do require a match, thereby reducing the federal role in funding these
activities. Whether federal assistance is still needed to meet these needs, despite
existing limitations in grant authorities, has been an issue.
Congressionally Designated Projects. Although EPA awards most
grants on either a competitive or formula basis, Congress also has designated funding
within the agency’s annual appropriation for non-competitive grants to specific
recipients. Most of this targeted funding has been provided within the STAG account
for wastewater, drinking water, and storm water infrastructure projects in specific
communities. Designated funding also has been provided within the S&T account
for individual research projects, and within the EPM account for an array of
environmental activities. In FY2006, Congress consolidated these designated funds
in “congressional priorities” line items within each of these three accounts, providing
a total of $280 million for specific projects.
For the past few years, there has been a downward trend in the amount of funds
for congressionally designated projects within EPA’s appropriation, in response to
concerns about the “earmarking” of public funds and overall budgetary constraints.

---

CRS-41
P.L. 110-5 did not provide FY2007 funds for any congressional priorities projects
within EPA’s appropriation. As in past years, the President’s FY2008 budget request
for EPA did not include funding for congressional priorities.
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/].
CRS Report RS22386. Environmental Protection Agency: FY2007 Appropriations
Highlights, by David M. Bearden and Robert Esworthy.

---

CRS-42
Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The Forest Service (FS) budget request for FY2008 was $4.13 billion. This was
$197.3 million (5%) less than the FY2007 appropriations of $4.32 billion.29 As
discussed below and shown in Figure 1, FS appropriations are provided in several
major accounts, including Forest and Rangeland Research; State and Private Forestry
(S&PF); National Forest System (NFS); Wildland Fire Management; Capital
Improvement and Maintenance (Capital); Land Acquisition; and Other programs.
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Budget Request
($ in millions)
FS Research
State & Private
$263
Capital
Forestry
$423
$202
National Forest
System
$1,344
Wildand Fire
$1,869
Other
$9
Land Acquisition
$16
Major FS Issues in Appropriations. Significant FS issues have been raised
during consideration of the Interior appropriations bills. In the FS budget proposals
for FY2007 and FY2008, the President proposed selling about 300,000 acres of
national forest lands. In the FY2007 request, the proceeds would have paid for a
five-year extension of FS payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393). In the FY2008 request, the proceeds
are proposed to be split, with half for a four-year phase-out of payments under P.L.
106-393 and the other half for habitat improvement and land acquisition. Current FS
authorities to sell or otherwise dispose of national forest lands are quite narrow, so
legislation would be needed to authorize the proposed land sale. Last year, the
29 Data for FY2007 and previous years include emergency and supplemental appropriations
and rescissions.

---

CRS-43
Administration sent Congress draft legislation with criteria to determine lands
eligible for sale, such as lands that are inefficient or difficult to manage because they
are isolated or scattered. Land sale legislation was not introduced, and such authority
was not included in the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill. Reauthorization of P.L.
106-393 — without land sales — is still being debated. No legislation to sell Forest
Service lands has been introduced in the 110th Congress to date.
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. Members and Committees also have expressed concerns
about the continued high cost of fire suppression efforts. (For historical background,
descriptions of activities, and analysis of wildfire expenditures, see CRS Report
RL33990, Wildfire 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 FY2008, the President proposed $2.67 billion, $88.5 million (3%) more
than total FY2007 funding of $2.58 billion, as shown in Table 16, below.
The President requested $801.8 million for BLM wildfire funding in FY2008,
$43.5 million (6%) more than FY2007. The request for FY2008 FS wildfire funding
was $1.87 billion, $45.0 million (2%) more than FY2007. The FS and BLM wildfire
line items include funds for fire suppression (fighting fires), preparedness
(equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention, and detection), and other
operations (rehabilitation, fuel reduction, research, and state and private assistance).
Table 16. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan,
FY2003-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
National Fire Plan
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Enacted
Request
Forest Service
— Fire suppressiona
1,307.0
1,296.0
1,044.4
790.2
741.5
911.0
— Preparedness
612.0
671.6
676.5
660.7
665.4
568.8
— Other operationsb
371.0
379.0
407.7
395.2
416.7
388.8
Subtotal, FS
2,290.0
2,346.6
2,128.6
1,846.1
1,823.6
1,868.6
BLM
— Fire suppressiona
384.3
391.3
317.0
330.7
249.2
294.4
— Preparednessc
275.4
254.2
258.9
268.8
274.9
268.3
— Other Operations
215.4
238.1
255.3
255.7
234.3
239.1

---

CRS-44
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
National Fire Plan
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Enacted
Request
Subtotal, BLM
875.2
883.6
831.3
855.3
758.4
801.8
National Fire Plan
— Fire suppressiona
1,691.3
1,687.3
1,361.4
1,120.9
990.7
1,205.4
— Preparedness
887.4
925.8
935.4
929.5
940.3
837.1
— Other Operations
586.4
617.1
663.0
650.9
651.0
627.9
Total Funding
3,165.1
3,230.2
2,959.8
2,701.3
2,582.0
2,670.4
Notes: Includes funding only from BLM and FS Wildland Fire Management accounts.
This table differs from the detailed tables in CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire 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. Includes emergency supplemental and contingent appropriations.
b. Excludes fire assistance funding under the State & Private Forestry line item.
c. Fire research and fuel reduction funds are included under Other Operations.
The principal changes proposed by the President included increases in funds for
wildfire suppression, with smaller decreases for preparedness. BLM suppression
would be increased by $45.2 million (18%), with preparedness declining by $6.5
million (2%). For the FS, suppression would be increased by $169.6 million (23%),
while preparedness would be decreased by $96.6 million (15%). The President also
proposed reducing FS fuel treatments by $9.7 million (3%), while increasing BLM
fuel treatments by $3.0 (2%). The budget proposal would also eliminate FS direct
post-fire rehabilitation funding ($6.2 million in FY2007) and reduce wildfire funding
for state fire assistance by $11.2 million (24%). (State & Private Forestry funding
for state fire assistance would be increased by $0.2 million, less than 1%.) No
contingent or emergency funding has been proposed for FY2008. 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.
State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center
of debate, proposed changes in State and Private Forestry (S&PF) — programs that
provide financial and technical assistance to states and to private forest owners —
also have attracted attention. For FY2008, the President requested S&PF funding of
$202.5 million — $77.3 million (28%) less than FY2007. The FY2008 proposals
differed from the FY2007 levels for many accounts.
For S&PF forest health management (insect and disease control on federal and
cooperative [nonfederal] lands), the President requested FY2008 funds of $91.1
million, $10.0 million (10%) less than FY2007. The requested level was 2% below
FY2007 for federal lands and 19% below FY2007 for cooperative lands.
For S&PF Cooperative Fire Assistance to states and volunteer fire departments,
the President requested $42.1 million, $3.3 million (9%) more than FY2007. Nearly
all the difference was in volunteer fire assistance, with the request being 52% above
the FY2007 enacted level.

---

CRS-45
For Cooperative Forestry (assistance for forestry activities on state and private
lands) in FY2008, the President requested $66.7 million, about half the FY2007
level. All three major programs were proposed to be cut substantially: Forest
Stewardship (for states to assist private landowners) by 52%; Forest Legacy (to
purchase title or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses,
such as for residences) by 48%; and Urban and Community Forestry (financial and
technical assistance to localities) by 42%. The Economic Action Program (EAP; for
rural community assistance, wood recycling, and Pacific Northwest economic
assistance) was not funded in FY2007 (from $9.5 million for FY2006), and the
Administration did not propose funding for FY2008. The Administration also
proposed no S&PF funding for resource information and analysis. Most forest
information and analysis funding is under Forest Research, and total funding (S&PF
and Research) was proposed to decline by $1.6 million (3%) from $64.0 million in
FY2007 to $62.3 million in FY2008.
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations), the
President requested $2.5 million, $4.4 million (64%) less than FY2007.
Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry,
FY2004-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
State and Private Forestry
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Forest Health Management
98.6
101.9
100.1
101.1
91.1
— Federal Lands
53.8
54.2
53.2
54.0
53.0
— Cooperative Lands
44.7
47.6
46.9
47.1
38.1
Cooperative Fire Assistance
38.4
38.8
38.8
38.8
42.1
— State Assistance
33.4
32.9
32.9
32.9
33.1
— Volunteer Asst.
5.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
9.0
Cooperative Forestry
161.4
145.4
133.2
133.0
66.7
— Forest Stewardship
31.9
32.3
34.1
41.9
20.0
— Forest Legacy
64.1
57.1
56.5
56.3
29.3
— Urban & Comm. Forestry
34.9
32.0
28.4
30.1
17.4
— Economic Action Prog.
25.6
19.0
9.5
0.0
0.0
— Forest Res. Info. & Anal.
4.9
5.0
4.6
4.6
0.0
International Programs
5.9
6.4
6.9
6.9
2.5
Emergency Appropriations
24.9
49.1
30.0
0.0
0.0
Total State & Pvt. Forestry
329.2
341.6
309.0
279.8
202.5
Infrastructure. For Capital Improvement and Maintenance, the President
requested $422.6 million, $13.8 million (3%) less than FY2007. Significant changes
were proposed for the various programs. For Facilities, the request was $10.5
million (8%) less than FY2007, with 8% cuts in both maintenance and construction.
For Roads, the request was $3.6 million (2%) more than FY2007, with a 25%
increase in construction and a 14% decline in maintenance. (This is in addition to
a 19% increase in FY2007 construction over FY2006 and an 8% decrease in FY2007
maintenance from FY2006.) For Trails, the request was $7.0 million (10%) less than
FY2007, with a 16% increase in construction and a 22% decrease in maintenance.

---

CRS-46
(This contrasts with a 41% decrease in FY2007 construction from FY2006 and a
22% increase in FY2007 maintenance from FY2006.) The request for
Infrastructure Improvement, to reduce the agency’s backlog of deferred
maintenance (estimated at $5.6 billion), matched the FY2007 level of $9.1 million,
$3.6 million (29%) less than FY2006.
National Forest System. For the National Forest System (NFS), the
President requested $1.34 billion, $108.4 million (7%) less than FY2007. Law
enforcement was proposed to increase by $8.8 million (8%). Forest (timber)
products and grazing management are proposed for modest decreases (less than 2%).
Most other accounts are proposed to decline by 9% — 16%. The exception is
funding for the Valles Caldera National Preserve, proposed at $0.85 million, down
76% from the $3.5 million enacted for FY2007.
Other FS Accounts. For Land Acquisition with LWCF funds, the request
was $15.7 million, $26.2 million (63%) less than FY2007. Acquisition would be cut
by 72% (from $29.0 million in FY2007 to $8.0 million in FY2008), while acquisition
management would be cut by 36% (from $12.1 million in FY2007 to $7.7 million).
(See the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.) For
FS Research in FY2008, the President requested $263.0 million, $17.5 million (6%)
less than FY2007.
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. National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by Pamela
Baldwin and Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL33792. Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service: Issues for the 110th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte,
Carol Hardy Vincent, and Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL33990. Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
Department of Health and Human Services:
Indian Health Service
The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) is responsible for providing comprehensive medical and
environmental health services for approximately 1.9 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

---

CRS-47
residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribal groups, through IHS contracts and
compacts, operate another 15 hospitals, 220 health centers, 9 school health centers,
116 health stations, 166 Alaska Native village clinics, and 28 residential treatment
centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also operate 11 regional youth substance abuse
treatment centers and 2,252 units of residential quarters for staff working in the
clinics.
The Administration proposed $3.27 billion for IHS for FY2008, an increase of
3% over the FY2007 level of $3.18 billion. See Table 18, below. IHS funding is
separated into two budget categories: Health Services, and Facilities. Of the total
IHS appropriation enacted for FY2007, 89% will be used for health services and 11%
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 18.
The most significant changes proposed in the Administration’s FY2008 IHS
budget concern the urban Indian health program, within Indian health services, and
the health care facilities construction program.
Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
FY2006-FY2008

($ in millions)
Percent
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Change
Indian Health Service
Approp.
Approp.
Request
FY2007-
FY2008
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health Clinics
1,339.5
1,442.5
1,493.5
4%
— Dental Health
117.7
126.9
135.8
7%
— Mental Health
58.5
61.7
64.5
5%
— Alcohol and Substance Abuse
143.2
150.6
162.0
8%
— Contract Care
499.6
499.6
551.5
10%
— Catastrophic Health Emergency
17.7
17.7
18.0
1%
Fund
Subtotal, Clinical Services
2,176.2
2,298.9
2,425.3
6%
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health Nursing
49.0
53.0
56.8
7%
— Health Education
13.6
14.5
15.2
5%
— Community Health Representatives
52.9
55.7
55.8
<1%
— Immunization (Alaska)
1.6
1.7
1.8
3%
Subtotal, Preventive Health Services
117.1
124.9
129.6
4%
Other Services
— Urban Health Projects
32.7
34.0
0
-100%
— Indian Health Professions
31.0
31.7
31.9
1%
— Tribal Management
2.4
2.5
2.5
2%
— Direct Operations
62.2
63.8
64.6
1%

---

CRS-48
Percent
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Change
Indian Health Service
Approp.
Approp.
Request
FY2007-
FY2008
— Self-Governance
5.7
5.8
5.9
1%
— Contract Support Costs
264.7
264.7
271.6
3%
Subtotal, Other Services
398.8
402.5
376.6
-6%
Subtotal, Indian Health Services
2,692.1
2,826.3
2,931.5
4%
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and Improvement
51.6
52.7
51.9
-1%
— Sanitation Facilities Construction
92.1
94.0
88.5
-6%
— Health Care Facilities Construction
37.8
24.3
12.7
-48%
— Facilities and Environmental
150.7
161.3
164.8
2%
Health Support
— Equipment
20.9
21.6
21.3
-2%
Subtotal, Indian Health Facilities
353.2
353.9
339.2
-4%
Total Appropriations
3,045.3
3,180.2
3,270.7
3%
Medicare/Medicaid Reimbursements
648.2
648.2
700.3
8%
and Other Collections
Special Diabetes Program for Indiansa
150.0
150.0
150.0
0%
Total Program Level
3,843.5
3,978.4
4,121.0
4%
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 is not a part of 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 $648.2
million in FY2006 and are expected to be the same in FY2007. Another $150.0
million per year is expended through IHS Health Services for the Special Diabetes
Program for Indians under a separate appropriation that expires after FY2008.
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 FY2008
was $2.43 billion, an increase of 6% over the $2.30 billion in FY2007. 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 FY2008 proposal was $1.49 billion, 4% over the $1.44 billion in
FY2007.
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 is especially important
in IHS regions that have fewer direct-care facilities or no inpatient facilities.
Contract care was proposed to receive a significant increase in FY2008, to $551.5
million, 10% more than the FY2007 appropriation of $499.6 million.

---

CRS-49
For other programs within clinical services for FY2008, dental programs would
receive $135.8 million, mental health programs $64.5 million, alcohol and substance
abuse programs $162.0 million, and the Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund $18.0
million.
For
preventive health services, the Administration proposed $129.6 million for
FY2008, a 4% increase over the $124.9 million for FY2007. Included in the
preventive health services proposal for FY2008 was $56.8 million for public health
nursing, $15.2 million for health education in schools and communities, $1.8 million
for immunizations in Alaska, and $55.8 million for the tribally administered
community health representatives program, which supports tribal community
members who work to prevent illness and disease in their communities.
For other health services, the Administration proposed $376.6 million for
FY2008, a 6% decrease from FY2007. Contract support costs (CSC), the largest
item in this category, were proposed to receive $271.6 million for FY2008, a 3%
increase. 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 ($31.9 million), tribal management grants ($2.5 million), direct IHS
operation of facilities ($64.6 million), and self-governance technical assistance ($5.9
million).
Urban Indian Health Program. As in its FY2007 budget proposal, the
Administration proposed no FY2008 funding for the urban Indian health program.
The program was funded at $34.0 million in FY2007. 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 or near
reservations, to serve those who do not have access to health care other than IHS, and
that urban Indians can be served through other federal and local health programs,
such as HHS’s Health Centers program. Opponents assert that the Administration
has not provided evidence that alternative programs can replace the urban Indian
health program and that it has not studied the impact of the loss of IHS funding on
health care for urban Indians who annually receive services through this program.
They further believe that only the urban Indian health program will provide culturally
appropriate care.
Facilities. The IHS’s Facilities category includes money for the equipment,
construction, maintenance, and improvement of both health-care and sanitation
facilities, as well as environmental health support programs. The Administration’s
proposal for FY2008 was $339.2 million, a 4% decrease from FY2007
appropriations. (See Table 18, above.)

---

CRS-50
Included in the FY2008 Facilities proposal were $51.9 million for maintenance
and improvement of health care facilities (1% decrease), $88.5 million for sanitation
facilities construction (6% decrease), $21.3 million for equipment (2% decrease),
$164.8 million for facilities and environmental health support (2% increase), and a
significant decrease in funds for health care facilities construction (discussed below).
Health Care Facilities Construction. The Administration proposed $12.7
million for construction of new health care facilities in FY2008, a 48% reduction
from the FY2007 level of $24.3 million. The FY2007 level was a 36% reduction
from the FY2006 level of $37.8 million, which was itself a 57% reduction from the
FY2005 level of $88.6 million. The Administration’s FY2008 proposal would fund
continued construction of one project, a hospital in Barrow, AK. The Administration
asserted that its proposed cut in new facilities construction is part of an HHS-wide
emphasis on maintenance of existing facilities, and that it helps fund the increasing
costs of health care services and the staffing of several recently-completed facilities.
Opponents contended that the IHS has reported a $1.5 billion backlog in unmet
health-facility needs and that the need is too great for a reduction in new
construction.
For further information on the Indian Health Service, see its website at
[http://www.ihs.gov/].
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) and its predecessor
were created pursuant to a 1974 act (P.L. 93-531, as amended) to resolve a lengthy
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originally set aside by
the federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, the lands
were partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe living on land
partitioned to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes, and
bonuses, at federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary.
ONHIR’s chief activities consist of land acquisition, housing acquisition or
construction, infrastructure construction, and post-move support, all for families
being relocated, as well as certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.
For FY2008, the Administration proposed $9.0 million in new appropriations for
ONHIR, a 6% increase from the FY2007 appropriation of $8.5 million.
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 3,600 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 FY2005, according to
ONHIR, 98% of the currently eligible Navajo families and 100% of the Hopi families
had completed relocation. In addition, however, ONHIR estimates that about half of
roughly 250 Navajo families (not all of them eligible families) who live on Hopi land
and signed “accommodation agreements” (under P.L. 104-301) that allow them to
stay on Hopi land, under Hopi law, may wish to opt out of these agreements and
relocate using ONHIR benefits.

---

CRS-51
ONHIR estimated that, as of the end of FY2005, 83 eligible Navajo families
were awaiting relocation. Eight of these 83 families still resided on Hopi partitioned
land; one of these families was seeking a relocation home and the other seven refused
to relocate or sign an accommodation agreement. ONHIR and the U.S. Department
of Justice were negotiating with the Hopi Tribe to allow the seven families to stay on
Hopi land, as autonomous families, in return for ONHIR’s relocating off Hopi land
those families who had signed accommodation agreements but later decided to opt
out and accept relocation.
In its FY2007 budget justification ONHIR had estimated that relocation moves
for currently eligible families would be completed by the end of FY2006. However,
the addition of Navajo families who opt out of accommodation agreements and of
Navajo families who filed late applications or appeals (but whom ONHIR proposes
to accommodate to avoid litigation),30 would mean that all relocation moves would
not be completed until the end of FY2008, according to ONHIR. This schedule for
completion of relocations 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. In the 109th Congress legislation
passed the Senate, but not the House, that would have sunset ONHIR in 2008 and
transferred any remaining duties to the Secretary of the Interior. Further, a long-
standing proviso in ONHIR appropriations language, retained for FY2007 and in the
FY2008 proposal, prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi
partitioned lands unless a replacement home were provided. This language appears
to prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families in the near future,
because of ONHIR’s backlog of approved relocatees awaiting replacement homes.
As the backlog is reduced, however, forced eviction may become an issue, if any
remaining Navajo families 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
purpose of the negotiations among ONHIR, the Justice Department, and the Hopi
Tribe, mentioned above, was to avoid this.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum and research complex consisting
of 19 museums and galleries and the National Zoo in addition to 9 research facilities
throughout the United States and around the world. Smithsonian facilities logged
nearly 23 million visitors 2006. Established by federal legislation in 1846 in
acceptance of a trust donation by the Institution’s namesake benefactor, SI is funded
by both federal appropriations and a private trust, with over $979 million in revenue
30 The number of families is estimated altogether at around 75; they overlap to an
unpredicted extent with the 83 eligible Navajo families

---

CRS-52
for FY2006.31 The total request for appropriations for FY2008 was $678.4 million,
a $45.4 million (7%) increase over FY2007. The request consists of funding for two
main line items: salaries and expenses and facilities capital.
Salaries and Expenses. For FY2008, the SI requested $571.3 million to
fund salaries and expenses for its museums, research centers, and administration, as
shown in Table 19, below. This represents a $36.9 million (7%) increase over
FY2007 funding and $54.8 million (11%) more than FY2006. Federal appropriations
fund salaries of over 4,200 employees; requested growth in staff and expenditures
would primarily be for the National Museum of African American History and
Culture (established by P.L. 108-184), which is under development.
Recent concern over the salary and other compensation for Smithsonian
Secretary Lawrence M. Small led to his resignation in March 2007. Secretary Small
was to receive $915,698 in 2007, compared to the President’s salary of $400,000.
Some Members and others have questioned whether Congress should begin to limit
salaries of certain Smithsonian officials who are often paid well over federal salaries
because they are paid from private trust funds. This issue was considered in the
context of the FY2008 budget resolution and may continue to be an issue during
consideration of Interior appropriations legislation.

Facilities Capital. The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with
approximately 8 million square feet of space. Recent external studies32 and the SI
estimate that an investment of $2.3 billion over ten years is needed to address
advanced facilities deterioration. Recent appropriations and fundraising fall far short
of this level. Of the FY2008 request for $107.1 million for facilities capital, $87.4
million would fund these renovations with the balance toward security and health and
safety improvements. No funds for construction were requested for FY2008. The
request included funds for planning and design for renovations and new construction,
including preliminary planning for the new African American History and Culture
Museum, which will be located on the Mall near the Washington Monument.
Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian
Institution receives income from trust funds which support salaries for some
employees, donor-designated capital projects and exhibits, and operations. At the
end of FY2006, the SI trust funds endowment was valued at over $2.2 billion. Non-
appropriated revenues fund over a third of SI operations and include income from the
trusts, contributions from private sources, competitive government grants and
contracts from other agencies, and the profits from the Smithsonian Business
Ventures division. For FY2008, the SI estimates $284.1 million will be available for
Institution operations from these sources.
31 Smithsonian Institution, Illumination: Annual Report 2006. This and earlier annual
reports are available online at [http://www.si.edu/opa/annualrpts/].
32 For further information, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Smithsonian
Institution: Facilities Management is Progressing, but Funding Remains a Challenge,
GAO-05-369 (April 2005).

---

CRS-53
Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Smithsonian Institution
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Salaries and Expenses
516,568
534,461
571,347
— Museums and Research Institutes
216,218
215,195
231,541
— Program Support and Outreach
36,878
37,567
38,205
— Administration
63,913
64,110
66,740
— Inspector General a
[1,772]
[1,834]
1,977
— Facilities Services
199,559
217,589
232,884
Facilities Capital
98,529
98,600
107,100
— Revitalization
72,813
82,700
91,400
— Construction
17,834
5,400
0
— Facilities Planning and Design
7,882
10,500
15,700
Total Appropriations
615,097
633,061
678,447
a. The figures for FY2006 and FY2007 are not included in the salaries and expenses total and the
agency total.
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),
the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS). 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.
NEA. The NEA is a major federal source of support for all arts disciplines. Since
1965 it has provided over 120,000 grants that have been distributed to all states. For
FY2008, NEA requested $128.4 million, an increase of $3.9 million (3%) from
FY2007, as shown below in Table 20. At $82.2 million, direct grants and
state/regional partnership grants represent the largest portion of funds. An additional
$8.5 million would fund Challenge America — a program of matching grants for arts
education, outreach, and community arts activities for rural and under-served areas.
Another $12.3 million would fund American Masterpieces — touring programs, local
presentations, and arts education in the fields of dance, visual arts, and music.

---

CRS-54
Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Arts and Humanities
Approp.
Approp.
Request
National Endowment for the Arts
Grants
100,654
100,319
102,942
Program Support
1,672
1,672
1,636
Administration
22,080
22,571
23,834
Subtotal, NEA
124,406
124,562
128,412
National Endowment for the Humanities
Grants
102,247
102,247
101,807
Matching Grants
15,221
15,221
14,510
Administration
23,481
23,637
25,038
Subtotal, NEH
140,949
141,105
141,355
Total NEA & NEH
$265,355
$265,667
$269,767
NEH. The NEH generally supports grants for humanities education, research,
preservation and public humanities programs; the creation of regional humanities
centers; and development of humanities programs under the jurisdiction of the 56 state
humanities councils. Since 1965, NEH has provided approximately 61,000 grants.
NEH also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match private
donations in support of humanities institutions. For FY2008, NEH requested $141.4
million, essentially level with FY2007. The two largest programs funded by NEH are
federal/state partnership grants and the We the People Initiative grants, requested to be
funded at $31.2 million and $15.2 million, respectively. We the People grants include
model curriculum projects for schools to improve course offerings in the humanities.
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-55
Cross-Cutting Topics
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
Overview. The LWCF (16 U.S.C. §§460l-4, et seq.) 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. This third use is relatively recent, 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 FY2007, about $30 billion will have been credited to the
LWCF. About half that amount — $15 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 was between $509 million and $805 million. 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.
FY2008 Funding. For FY2008, the Administration requested $378.7 million
for LWCF, an increase of $12.6 million (3%) over the FY2007 appropriation of $366.1
million. The FY2008 request included funds for federal land acquisition, the stateside
program, and other purposes as described below.
Land Acquisition. Of the total FY2008 Administration request, $57.9 million
was for federal land acquisition, a $55.1 million (49%) reduction from the FY2007
level of $113.0 million. An additional $7.8 million was requested for land appraisals
related to federal land acquisitions.
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 $113.0 million for FY2007. The decline may be attributed in part to
increased interest in allocating funding to lands already in federal ownership, reducing
the federal budget deficit, and funding other national priorities, such as the war on
terrorism. Table 21 shows recent funding for LWCF.

---

CRS-56
Table 21. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, FY2004-FY2008
($ in millions)
Land and Water
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Federal Acquisition
— BLM
18.4
11.2
8.6
8.6
1.6
— FWS
38.1
37.0
28.0
28.0
18.0
— NPS
41.7
55.1
17.4 a
34.4
22.5
— FS
66.4
61.0
41.9
41.9
15.7
Subtotal, Federal Acquisition
164.6
164.3
95.8
113.0
57.9
Appraisal Services
0.0
0.0
7.3
7.4
7.8
Grants to States
93.8
91.2
29.6
29.6
0.0b
Other Programs
229.7
203.4
213.1
216.1
313.1
Total Appropriations
488.1
458.9
345.9
366.1
378.7
Source: Data are from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the DOI Budget Office, and
The Interior Budget in Brief for each fiscal year.
a. This figure does not reflect the availability of an additional $26.8 million in prior year funds.
b. The President proposed $1.4 million for the administration of state grants in FY2008, to be derived
from the appropriation for National Recreation and Preservation rather than the LWCF.
Accordingly, this amount is not reflected here.
Stateside Program. For FY2008, the Administration did not request funds for
new stateside grants. Similarly, the Administration did not request funds for new
stateside grants in FY2006 and 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. As for FY2006 and FY2007, for FY2008 the Administration did
request a relatively small amount of funding for administration of the grant program.
Specifically, the Administration supported $1.4 million for program administration in
FY2008, but in a break from the past, the Administration asked that the funds be
derived from the National Recreation and Preservation line item rather than the LWCF.
Congress appropriated a total of $29.6 million for each of FY2006 and FY2007 for
both new grants and program administration. Seeking to eliminate funds for new
stateside grants is not a new phenomenon. For example, for several years the Clinton
Administration proposed eliminating stateside funding, and Congress concurred. In the
last six years, stateside funding has fallen 79%, from $143.9 million in FY2002 to
$29.6 million in FY2007.
Through provisions of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-
432), a portion of revenues from certain OCS leasing will be provided in future years
(without further appropriation) to the stateside grant program. No money is expected
to be available under these provisions for FY2008. An estimated $6.4 million in
revenue from such OCS leasing is projected to be collected in FY2008 and disbursed
to the stateside program in FY2009. Preliminary estimates of disbursements through
FY2017 total approximately $21.8 million, according to the DOI Budget Office.

---

CRS-57
Other Purposes. The largest portion of the President’s FY2008 request —
$313.1 million — was for 11 other programs in the Department of the Interior and the
Forest Service. This would be a $97.0 million (45%) increase over the FY2007 level
of $216.1 million. Table 21 shows that for each year from FY2004 through FY2007,
the largest portion of the LWCF appropriation was for other programs. The
Administration had requested a much larger amount for each year, most recently
requesting $440.6 million for FY2007. Table 22 shows the other programs for which
Congress appropriated funds for FY2006 and FY2007 and for which the President
requested funds for FY2008. In some cases, Congress provided these programs with
non-LWCF funding.
Table 22. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Other Programs
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
— Challenge Cost Share
0.0
0.0
9.4
Fish and Wildlife Service
— Refuge Challenge Cost Share
0.0
0.0
6.7
— Partners for Fish and Wildlife
0.0
0.0
48.4
— Coastal Programs
0.0
0.0
13.3
— Migratory Bird Joint Ventures
0.0
0.0
11.1
— State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
67.5
67.5
69.5
— Landowner Incentive Grants
21.7
23.7
0.0
— Private Stewardship Grants
7.3
7.3
0.0
— Cooperative Endangered Species Grants
60.1
61.1
80.0
— North American Wetlands Conservation
0.0
0.0
42.6
Fund Grants
National Park Service
— Challenge Cost Share
0.0
0.0
2.4
Departmental Management
— Take Pride in America
0.0
0.0
0.5
Forest Service (USDA)
— Forest Legacy Program
56.5
56.5
29.3
Total Appropriations
213.1
216.1
313.1
Notes: This table identifies “other” programs for which Congress appropriated funds for FY2006 or
FY2007 or for which the Administration sought LWCF funds for FY2008. It excludes federal land
acquisition and the stateside program. Funding provided outside of LWCF is not reflected. Information
is from the DOI Budget Office.
CRS Report RL33531. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding
History, and Current Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

---

CRS-58
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.
(See CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T.
Carter.)
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 several DOI agencies for restoration projects. Specifically, DOI conducts CERP and
non-CERP activities in southern Florida through the National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. (For more on
Everglades funding, see CRS Report RS22048, Everglades Restoration: The Federal
Role in Funding, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.)
From FY1993 to FY2007, federal appropriations for projects and services related
to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem exceeded $2.8 billion, and state
funding topped $4.8 billion.33 The average annual federal cost for restoration activities
in southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to be approximately $286 million
per year.34 For FY2008, the Administration requested $235.0 million for DOI and the
Army Corps of Engineers for restoration efforts in the Everglades.
FY2008 Funding. For DOI, the Administration requested $72.4 million for
CERP and non-CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida ecosystem
for FY2008. The request was approximately $3.0 million (4%) above the FY2007
level. See Table 23, below. Of the total, the NPS requested $54.5 million for park
management, construction, and research activities; the FWS requested $11.7 million
for land acquisition, refuges, ecological services, and other activities; the USGS
requested $5.8 million for research, planning, and coordination; and the BIA requested
$0.4 million for water projects on Seminole and Miccosukee Tribal lands. The DOI
request included $8.0 million to conduct activities authorized by CERP.

33 These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
34 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.

---

CRS-59
Table 23. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget, FY2006-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Everglades Restoration in DOI
Approp.
Approp.
Request
National Park Service
— CERP
4,620
4,658
4,731
— Park Operationsa 25,832
26,350
28,991
— Land Acquisition (use of prior year
-17,000
0
0
balances)
— Everglades Acquisitions Management
690
500
500
— Modified Water Delivery
24,882
13,330
14,526
— Everglades Research
3,840
3,863
3,910
— South Florida Ecosystem Task Force
1,286
1,308
1,324
— GSA Space
554
554
554
Subtotal, NPS
44,704
50,563
54,536
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP
3,269
3,269
3,269
— Land Acquisition
0
0
1,044
— Ecological Services
2,516
2,516
2,516
— Refuges and Wildlife
4,086
4,086
4,086
— Migratory Birds
101
101
101
— Law Enforcement
619
619
619
— Fisheries
95
95
95
Subtotal, FWS
10,686
10,686
11,730
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and Coordination
7,771
7,771
5,771
Subtotal, USGS
7,771
7,771
5,771
Bureau of Indian Affairs
— Seminole, Miccosukee Tribe Water Studies
382
382
382
and Restoration
Subtotal, BIA
382
382
382
Total Appropriations
63,543
69,402
72,419
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2008, The Interior Budget in Brief (Washington,
DC: February 2007). N/a is not available.
a. This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National
Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve.
The FY2008 request for Everglades funding had slight increases in several
categories compared to the FY2007 enacted level. One increase would be 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,

---

CRS-60
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
FY2007, $13.3 million in new funds were appropriated for Mod Waters; and for
FY2008, $14.5 million were requested.
A funding issue receiving broad attention is the level of commitment by the
federal government to implement restoration activities in the Everglades. Some
observers measure commitment by the frequency and number of projects authorized
under CERP, and the appropriations they receive. Because no restoration projects have
been authorized since WRDA 2000, these observers are concerned that federal
commitment to CERP implementation is waning. Others assert that the federal
commitment will be measurable by the amount of federal funding for construction,
expected when the first projects break ground in the next few years. Some state and
federal officials contend that federal funding will increase compared to state funding
as CERP projects move beyond design, into construction. Still others question whether
the federal government should maintain the current level of funding, or increase its
commitment, because of escalating costs and project delays.
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation. Since FY2004, Interior
appropriations laws have conditioned funding for the Modified Water Deliveries
Project based on meeting state water quality standards. Funds appropriated in the laws
and any prior laws for Mod Waters 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 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. 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. Provisions
conditioning funds on the achievement of water quality standards were not requested
in the Administration’s request for FY2008.
For further information on Everglades Restoration, see the website of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program at [http://www.sfrestore.org] and the website
of the Corps of Engineers at [http://www.evergladesplan.org/].
CRS Report RS22048. Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by
Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara A. Johnson.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.

---

CRS-61
Table 24. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, FY2004-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Bureau or Agency
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.g
Approp.
Request
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1,893,233
1,816,910
1,757,188
1,777,047
1,822,029
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,308,405
1,332,591
1,307,639
1,330,711
1,286,769
National Park Service
2,258,581
2,365,683
2,255,768
2,289,435
2,363,784
U.S. Geological Survey
937,985
944,564
961,675
982,780
974,952
Minerals Management Service
170,297
173,826
158,294
159,515
161,451
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
295,975
296,573
294,228
294,591
168,295
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,300,814
2,295,702
2,274,270
2,308,304
2,228,890
Departmental Officesa
460,859
496,837
527,656
514,873
478,657
Departmental-Wide Programsb
221,815
232,542
248,254
248,286
228,418
Total Title I
9,847,964
9,955,228
9,784,972
9,905,542
9,713,245
Title II: Environmental Protection
Agency
8,365,817d 8,026,485
7,617,416
7,725,130
7,199,400
Title III: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Servicee
4,939,899
4,770,598
4,200,762
4,324,149
4,126,873
Indian Health Service
2,921,715
2,985,066
3,045,310
3,180,208
3,270,726
National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences
78,309
79,842
79,108
79,117
78,434
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
73,034
76,041
74,905
75,212
75,004
Council on Environmental Quality and
Office of Environmental Quality
3,219
3,258
2,677
2,698
2,703
Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board
8,648
9,424
9,064
9,113
9,049
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation
13,366
4,930
8,474
8,509
9,000
Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development
6,173
5,916
6,207
6,207
7,297
Smithsonian Institution
596,279
615,158
615,097
633,061
678,447
National Gallery of Art
98,225
102,654
111,141
111,729
116,000
John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts
32,159
33,021
30,347
30,389
39,350
Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars
8,498
8,863
9,065
9,100
8,857
National Endowment for the Arts
120,972
121,264
124,406
124,562
128,412
National Endowment for the Humanities
135,310
138,054
140,949
141,105
141,355
Commission of Fine Arts
1,405
1,768
1,865
1,873
2,092
National Capital Arts and Cultural
Affairs
6,914
6,902
7,143
7,143
—
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
3,951
4,536
4,789
4,828
5,348
National Capital Planning Commission
7,635
7,888
8,123
8,168
8,265
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
39,505
40,858
42,150
42,349
44,996
Presidio Trust
20,445
19,722
19,706
19,706
18,450

---

CRS-62
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Bureau or Agency
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.g
Approp.
Request
White House Commission on the Natl.
Moment of Remembrance
—
248
247
247
200
Total Title III
9,115,661
9,036,011
8,541,535
8,819,473
8,770,858
[Title IV: Veterans’ Health]
—
—
[1,500,000]
—
—
Undistributed Reductions
—
—
— 1,768
—
—
Grand Total (in Bill)c
27,329,442
27,017,724 25,942,155f
26,450,145
25,683,503
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
a. The Departmental Offices figure currently includes the Office of the Secretary, Insular Affairs, Office of the Solicitor,
Office of Inspector General, and Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.
b. The Departmental-Wide Programs figure currently includes the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), Central
Hazardous Materials Fund, Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fund, and Working Capital Fund.
c. Figures generally do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments.
d. Derived from the report of the House Appropriations Committee on H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674).
e. The FY2005 figure excludes $40.0 million in transferred funds from the Department of Defense (§8098, P.L. 108-
287).
f. The total does not reflect a $1.50 billion in emergency appropriations for veteran’s health. The total does reflect
undistributed reductions which are not included in the individual agency figures in the column.
g. Supplemental appropriations are not reflected in this column.

---