Order Code RL34011
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
Updated November 19, 2007
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator,
Robert Bamberger, David M. Bearden, M. Lynne Corn,
Robert Esworthy, Ross W. Gorte, Marc Humphries,
Jane A. Leggett, 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:
FY2008 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 (IHS) 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 House passed H.R. 2643 with $27.63 billion for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for FY2008. This would be higher than enacted for FY2007
(excluding funds for Secure Rural Schools), requested by the Administration for
FY2008, and recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations for FY2008
in S. 1696. The House level was an increase of $679.2 million (2.5%) over the
FY2007 level of $26.95 billion, $1.94 billion (7.6%) over the request of $25.69
billion, and $445.1 million (1.6%) over the Senate Committee level of $27.19 billion.
The House-passed bill contained higher funding for many agencies and
programs than the bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, but lower
funding for others. Among the House-passed levels that were higher than the Senate
Committee recommendations were the following:
! $318.0 million for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
! $81.2 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA);
! $51.8 million for the National Park Service (NPS);
! $40.2 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and
the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) combined; and
! $36.3 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Among the House-passed levels that were lower than the Senate Committee
recommendations were the following:
! -$99.4 million for the Minerals Management Service (MMS);
! -$44.3 million for the Smithsonian Institution (SI); and
! -$35.7 million for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Congress has debated a variety of funding and policy issues during consideration
of FY2008 Interior legislation. These issues 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 program; the Smithsonian Institution; and wildland fire
fighting. Other issues include Indian trust fund management, leasing in the Outer
Continental Shelf, royalty relief, and the impact of climate change.
Currently, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies are operating under a
law (P.L. 110-116) that generally continues funds at FY2007 levels through
December 14, 2007, or until Congress enacts a regular FY2008 appropriations law
for these agencies. This report will be updated following 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
Climate Change
Jane A. Leggett
RSI
7-9525
jaleggett@crs.loc.gov
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
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
rbamberger@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
FY2004-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
FY2008 Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Current Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Status of Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Management of Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Endangered Species Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement . . . 13
Avian Flu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Wildlife Refuge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Major NPS Issues in Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Operation of the National Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
United States Park Police (USPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Centennial Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
National Recreation and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Land Acquisition and State Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Enterprise Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . 23
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Water Resources Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Biological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Science Support and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
BIE Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Law Enforcement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Housing Improvement Program (HIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Office of Insular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
National Indian Gaming Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Water Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
State and Local Air Quality Management Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Proposed Commission on Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Major FS Issues in Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Other FS Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . . . . . 57
Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Salaries and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Facilities Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Trust Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
NEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
FY2008 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
FY2008 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
FY2008 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
House Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
List of Figures
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . 15
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . 18
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2007-FY2008 . . . 22
Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2007-FY2008 . . 32
Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu of Taxes,
FY2000-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 16. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2004-FY2008 . . . . . . . 54
Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry, FY2005-FY2008 . 56
Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . 58
Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2007-FY2008 . . . 65
Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . 67
Table 21. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 22. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 23. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2007-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 24. Appropriations for Climate Change Activities, FY2007-FY2008 . . . 78
Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies are operating under a law (P.L.
110-116) that generally provides funds at FY2007 levels (as contained in P.L. 110-5).
Continuing funds are provided through December 14, 2007, unless a regular
appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2008 is
enacted prior to that date. The law also included emergency funding for fighting
wildfires on federal lands.
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 (IHS) 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
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
(continued...)
CRS-2
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies, which previously had jurisdiction over
EPA.
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 for FY2008 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. Similarly, funding bills and
accompanying reports contain numerous line items and discussions of programs and
issues.
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. A further difference is that FY2007 figures
in this report include supplemental funding. In addition, 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).
2 (...continued)
Agencies.
CRS-3
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
the funding levels agreed to during the most recent stage of congressional action and
those enacted for FY2007 and 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.
FY2004-FY2008
Table 1, below, shows the budget authority for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for FY2004-FY2007. Funding for earlier years is not readily
available due to the changes in the makeup of the Interior appropriations bill. The
President’s request for FY2008 would be the lowest level since FY2004. It would
be a $1.64 billion (6%) decrease in funds from the FY2004 level in current dollars,
or a 16% decrease in constant dollars (assuming 2.24% inflation for 2007 and 2008).
The House approved funding at slightly higher than FY2004 — a $301.8 million
increase (1%) in current dollars but a 10% decrease in constant dollars. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended funding at a slightly lower level than
FY2004 — about a $143.3 million decrease (0.5%) in current dollars and an 11%
decrease in constant dollars. See Table 25 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
$26.95
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 and the FY2007 figure excludes $425.0 million for
Secure Rural Schools.
FY2008 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
Currently, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies are operating under a
law (P.L. 110-116) that generally continues funds at FY2007 levels through
December 14, 2007, or until Congress enacts a regular FY2008 appropriations law
for these agencies. Continuing funding is needed to fund ongoing projects and
activities because Congress did not enact a regular FY2008 funding bill for Interior,
CRS-4
Environment, and Related Agencies before the October 1, 2007, start of the fiscal
year.
The law also included emergency funds for fighting wildfires on federal lands.
It contained $329.0 million for the Forest Service for wildland fire management, with
the funds divided as follows: $110.0 million for suppression, $100.0 million for
repayment of accounts from which funds were borrowed in FY2007, $80.0 million
for hazardous fuels reduction, $25.0 million for rehabilitation and restoration of
federal lands, and $14.0 million for construction and reconstruction of federal
facilities. For fire fighting on DOI lands, the law provided BLM with $171.0 million
in wildland fire management funds. The funds were apportioned as follows: $40.0
million for suppression, $115.0 million for repayment of accounts from which funds
were borrowed in FY2007, $10.0 million for hazardous fuels reduction, and $6.0
million for rehabilitation and restoration of federal lands.
Previously, on June 26, 2007, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported
S. 1696 (S.Rept. 110-91), with $27.19 billion for FY2008 for all agencies included
in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This bill has
not been considered on the Senate floor. On June 27, 2007, the House passed H.R.
2643 with $27.63 billion for FY2008. These would both be increases over the
FY2007 level of $26.95 billion, including supplemental funding except for $425.0
million for the Secure Rural Schools program (established under P.L. 106-393). The
House and the Senate Committee levels also would be increases over the President’s
request for FY2008 of $25.69 billion.
The House-passed bill contained higher funding for many agencies and
programs than the Senate Appropriations Committee, but lower funding for others.
Among the House-passed levels that were higher than the Senate Committee
recommendations were the following:
! $318.0 million for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
! $81.2 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA);
! $51.8 million for the National Park Service (NPS);
! $40.2 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and
the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) combined; and
! $36.3 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Among the House-passed levels that were lower than the Senate Committee
recommendations were the following:
! -$99.4 million for the Minerals Management Service (MMS);
! -$44.3 million for the Smithsonian Institution (SI); and
! -$35.7 million for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The Senate Appropriations Committee considered several amendments during
its markup, in addition to a managers’ package of amendments. The Committee
agreed to an amendment to remove language from the bill that barred funds from
being used for new Outer Continental Shelf leases for those holding leases without
price thresholds, unless the leases were renegotiated. The Committee also agreed to
an amendment seeking to ban imports of polar bears and polar bear parts. An
CRS-5
amendment seeking to extend the Secure Rural Schools Act for four years was
withdrawn. The act provides a method for compensating counties for the tax exempt
status of most national forests (managed by the FS) and some public lands (managed
by the BLM). Amendments seeking to expedite the time frame for filing claims
challenging the land management plan for the Tongass National Forest (AK) also
were withdrawn.
The House considered 58 amendments to H.R. 2643 during two days of floor
debate, and adopted 18 of them before passing the bill (272-155) on June 27, 2007.
The amendments addressed an array of programs and issues. Some of them were
broad, as in those that sought to cut the total appropriation in the bill by a particular
sum or reduce each appropriation in the bill by a fixed percentage (which were not
agreed to). Others were more narrow, such as those prohibiting funds in the bill from
being used for particular programs or purposes. Many of the amendments are
discussed in the pertinent sections throughout this report.
In earlier action, on June 11, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee had
reported H.R. 2643 (H.Rept. 110-187) with a total of $27.63 billion. The House
Appropriations Committee issued a supplemental report (H.Rept. 110-187, Part II)
on June 22, 2007. The report identified projects that would be funded from various
line items in the bill, such as the construction accounts of the land management
agencies. It specified whether the Administration or a particular Member of
Congress requested the funding and the state in which the project is located.
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 has encompassed 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
CRS-6
water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see the
“Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)
! Climate Change, including whether to create a temporary
Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. (For
more information, see the “Environmental Protection Agency” and
“Climate Change” sections 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.)
! 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.)
CRS-7
! 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, contains information on congressional consideration of the
FY2008 Interior appropriations bill so far.
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2008
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
House
Senate Report
Senate
House Report
Conf. Report
Approval
Public
Passage
Passage
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
H.R. 2643
H.Rept. 110-187
06/11/07;
H.R. 2643
S. 1696
Part II
06/27/07
S.Rept. 110-91
05/23/07 06/19/07
06/22/07
272-155
06/26/07
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 suggested changes in law. For instance,
the Administration suggested amending the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
CRS-8
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.
For the BLM for FY2008, the House approved $1.85 billion and the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $1.89 billion. From the FY2007 level of
$1.87 billion (including $95.0 million in FY2007 supplemental funding), the House
level was a decrease of $19.0 million (1%) while the Senate Committee level was an
increase of $16.7 million (1%). See Table 3. Proposed funding for several key
activities is discussed below.
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Bureau of Land Management
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Management of Lands and
866.9
879.4
888.6
902.9
Resources
Wildland Fire Managementa 853.4
801.8
806.6
829.5
— Preparedness
274.9
268.3
274.9
286.0
— Suppressiona
344.2
294.4
294.4
294.4
— Other Operations
234.3
239.1
237.4
249.1
Construction
11.8
6.5
6.5
11.5
Land Acquisition
8.6
1.6
18.6
12.2
Oregon and California Grant Lands
109.0
110.2
110.2
110.2
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeituresb
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriationsa
1,872.0
1,822.0
1,853.0
1,888.7
a. The figures for FY2007 reflect a supplemental appropriation of $95.0 million for wildfire
suppression contained in P.L. 110-28.
b. The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
Management of Lands and Resources. Management of Lands and
Resources includes funds for an array of BLM land programs, including protection,
recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM
administration. For this line item, the House approved $888.6 million and the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $902.9 million. The House figure reflects
$20.0 million in revenues from a new oil and gas cost recovery program as an offset
to the appropriation for energy and minerals management. Both the Senate
Committee and House levels are higher than those enacted for FY2007 and requested
for FY2008. Many programs would share in the increases, including deferred
maintenance, wild horses and burros, range, and recreation.
CRS-9
For deferred maintenance, the House approved $37.1 million and the Senate
Committee recommended $38.9 million. The Administration had requested $33.8
million, slightly higher than the $33.2 million enacted for FY2007. BLM has
estimated its deferred maintenance at between $387 million and $473 million for
FY2006. In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee stated that it did not
support DOI efforts to reduce funding for popular public lands outside the park
system while promoting the parks centennial (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 13).
For management of wild horses and burros, the House approved $37.5 million
and the Senate Committee recommended $36.8 million. The Administration had
sought to reduce funding for FY2008 to $32.1 million, down from $36.4 million in
FY2007. In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee “strongly” encouraged
federal agencies that use horses to first seek to acquire a wild horse from BLM, and
encouraged BLM to expedite providing wild horses to state and local police (S.Rept.
110-91, p. 12). The range program would be increased from the FY2007 level of
$68.3 million to $70.4 million by the Administration, $72.0 million by the House,
and $73.5 million by the Senate Committee.
Recreation resources management, funded at $47.5 million in FY2007, would
increase to $48.5 million under the President’s request, $52.0 million by the House,
and 52.1 million by the Senate Committee. In its report, the House Appropriations
Committee specified a portion of the increase for national scenic and historic trails,
directed BLM to clearly identify trails funding in future budget requests, and stated
that BLM should implement projects connecting children and families with nature.
The House approved lower funding for energy and minerals ($112.1 million)
than has been recommended by the Senate Committee ($139.3 million), enacted for
FY2007 ($136.5 million), and requested by the Administration ($141.5 million). The
House reduction would be accomplished primarily through the collection of $20.0
million in offsetting fees. The House bill capped the appropriation for oil and gas
management at $92.1 million, due to concerns that BLM has used conservation and
other natural resource funds for oil and gas activities (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 16). The
House agreed to an amendment to prohibit funds from being used to prepare final
regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale or to conduct a
commercial oil shale lease sale. Current law (P.L. 109-58) requires BLM to issue the
regulations and to move to a commercial leasing program.
For resource protection and law enforcement, the House approved higher
funding ($24.0 million) than the Senate Committee ($19.0 million), Administration
($18.8 million), and FY2007 level ($20.1 million). The House Appropriations
Committee expressed concern about law enforcement along the Southwest border,
and directed that “a substantial portion” of the increase be used for border areas with
high visitation and potential for drug trafficking (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 17).
The House, like 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 Senate Committee recommended $6.0 million. 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
CRS-10
contributions from partners. For the National Landscape Conservation System
(NLCS), which consists of 26 million acres of BLM’s protected conservation areas,
the President requested $49.2 million. The House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved increases over the request of $10.0 million and $8.0 million
respectively. Both Committees’ reports directed BLM to provide clear, detailed
information on NLCS funding in future budget requests.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2008,
the House approved $806.6 million and the Senate Committee recommended $829.5
million. Both levels are higher than the Administration’s request of $801.8 million,
but lower than the $853.4 million enacted for FY2007.3 Fire suppression would
decline 14% from $344.2 million in FY2007 to $294.4 million in FY2008 under the
House bill, Senate Committee bill, and Administration request. The Administration
stated that this level represents the ten-year average cost of fire suppression, which
continues to increase due to fires involving large fuel loads and areas where
communities and wildlands meet. The FY2008 House and Senate Committee reports
expressed continued concern over the cost of suppressing fires, even though the
agencies have taken steps to manage suppression costs.
The Senate Committee approved higher funding for fire preparedness ($286.0
million) than was approved by the House ($274.9 million), enacted for FY2007
($274.9 million), and requested by the Administration ($268.3 million). The Senate
Committee stated that cutting preparedness funding does not save money, but shifts
expenditures to suppression (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 15). Among other report language,
the House Committee directed that funding for rehabilitation not be reprogrammed,
and that the agencies report on the allocation of funds for reducing hazardous fuels.
The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all
DOI 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, see the “Forest Service” section in this report.)
Construction. For FY2008, the House approved the Administration’s request
of $6.5 million for BLM Construction. This would be a decrease of $5.3 million
(45%) from the FY2007 level of $11.8 million. In recommending $11.5 million for
construction, the Senate Appropriations Committee sought to avoid an increase in the
construction backlog and noted “with disapproval” DOI’s “lack of commitment to
its infrastructure” (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 15-16).
Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition for FY2008, the House approved
$18.6 million and the Senate Committee recommended $12.2 million. The
Administration sought an appropriation of $1.6 million for FY2008, an 81%
reduction from FY2007. The appropriation for BLM acquisitions has fallen steadily
3 This figure includes $95.0 million in emergency supplemental fire suppression funds for
FY2007 that was contained in P.L. 110-28.
CRS-11
from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.6 million for FY2007. In noting the decline, the
Senate Appropriations Committee stated that it intended to establish a “responsible
baseline budget” for future land acquisitions (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 16). The
Administration had proposed augmenting its request by $5.0 million from the
proceeds of sales of portions of the subsurface mineral estate to the surface owners.
BLM estimated 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. Neither the House nor Senate
Appropriations Committees supported this proposal. 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 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), 4% less than the FY2007 level of $1.34 billion. The House approved
$1.42 billion, 6% more than FY2007 and 10% more than the Administration’s
request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1.38 billion. 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 1% increase from the
FY2007 level of $1.02 billion. The House approved $1.10 billion; the Senate
Committee level was $1.08 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
and gas exploration and development.4 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.
4 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-12
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. The House approved $152.5 million, an increase of 5% over FY2007,
with increases spread among the subprograms. See Table 4. During floor debate,
the House defeated an amendment to prohibit use of funds for Mexican wolf
recovery. In addition, the House rejected an amendment to prohibit use of funds for
permits to allow importation of polar bears or their body parts. The Senate
Committee level for Endangered Species was $155.5 million, an 8% increase over
FY2007.
A number of 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 House accepted these
proposals, as did the Senate Committee. 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, under the
Administration’s request. The House approved the FY2007 level, while the Senate
Committee supported the requested level. See Table 4.
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%). The House’s levels varied, with increases in the ESA program proper but
cuts in the related programs. Overall, the House’s total of $233.5 million would be
a 9% decrease from FY2007, while the Senate Committee level was down 8%.
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and
Related Programs, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2008
Endangered Species and
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
Related Programs
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate Conservation
8,425
8,635
9,135
10,135
— Listing
17,824
18,263
18,763
18,763
— Consultation
49,179
51,578
52,578
53,578
— Recovery
69,244
68,067
72,067
73,067
Subtotal, Endangered Species
144,672
146,543
152,543
155,543
Program
Related Programs
— Landowner Incentive Program
23,667
0
0
0
— Private Stewardship Grants
7,277
0
0
0
— Cooperative Endangered
81,001
80,001
81,001
80,001
Species Conservation Fund
Subtotal, Related Programs
111,945
80,001
81,001
80,001
Total Appropriations
256,617
226,544
233,544
235,544
CRS-13
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) 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 House approved
$451.0 million, an increase of 14% over FY2007. The Senate Committee level was
$413.8 million, up 5% over FY2007.
An NWRS budget controversy may affect recreation, especially on less well-
known refuges. Costs of operation have increased on many refuges, partly due to
special problems such as hurricane damage and more aggressive border enforcement.
Reductions in funding for operations in the NWRS, combined with the need to meet
fixed costs such as rent, salaries, and utilities, have led to cuts in funding for
programs to aid endangered species, reduce infestation by invasive species, protect
water supplies, address habitat restoration, and ensure staffing at the less popular
refuges. The Northeast Region (roughly Virginia to Maine, with 71 refuges) took the
lead in addressing this issue by attempting to consolidate management at refuges, and
increasing the number of refuges which are not staffed on a regular basis (termed
“de-staffing”). This region also attempted to consolidate some services in order to
spread resources more effectively. Implications for recreation could include reduced
trash collection, fewer visitor services, less trail maintenance, and greater reliance on
volunteers (if available). Other regions have observed actions in the Northeast, and
have begun their own plans to address reduced operating budgets.
The President proposed $57.6 million for Law Enforcement — a modest
increase from the FY2007 level ($57.3 million). The House approved $60.1 million,
up 5%. The Senate Committee recommended $61.1 million, a 7% increase.
Avian Flu. For FY2008, the Administration, House, and Senate Committee
approved $7.4 million for the study, monitoring, and early detection of highly
pathogenic avian flu. The FY2007 appropriation was $12.4 million, including a $7.4
million supplemental appropriation in P.L. 110-28. FWS cooperates with other
federal and nonfederal agencies in studying the spread of the virus through wild
birds. Attention is on North American species whose migratory patterns make them
likely to come into contact with infected Asian birds. The geographic focus is 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.)
Land Acquisition. For FY2008, the Administration proposed $18.0 million
for Land Acquisition, $10.0 million (36%) below FY2007. Both the House and the
Senate Appropriations Committee approved $43.0 million, $15.0 million (53%)
above 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 $12.5 million.5 The House
5 Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a permanently
(continued...)
CRS-14
increase was devoted entirely to the acquisition function, and the Senate Committee
increase was primarily for this function. (For more information, see the “Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
FWS Land Acquisition
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Acquisitions — Federal Refuge
13,650
5,544
28,650
28,904
Lands
Inholdings
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Emergencies & Hardships
1,478
1,500
1,478
1,500
Exchanges
1,485
1,537
1,485
1,500
Acquisition Management
8,140
6,436
8,140
8,140
Cost Allocation Methodology
1,793
1,494
1,793
1,500
Total Appropriations
28,046
18,011
43,046
43,044
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
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. However, the House approved
the FY2007 level, as did the Senate Committee.
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.6 For FY2008, the President proposed
$4.3 million for the MSCF and $4.0 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
5 (...continued)
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 ($41.9 million in
FY2006) has become increasingly important in the protection of habitat for migratory birds,
especially waterfowl. Other species in these habitats benefit incidentally.
6 The President’s FY2008 budget did not propose to move funding for the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. Congress had rejected the
Administration’s proposed transfer for the previous six fiscal years, beginning in FY2002.
CRS-15
Conservation Fund (NMBCF). The proposal would cut each of the MSCF programs
and hold funding level for NMBCF. Instead, the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee approved increases over FY2007 in both NMBCF and
MSCF. The Senate Committee’s increases were smaller than those approved by the
House. See Table 6.
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2008
Multinational Species
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
African Elephant
1,379
990
2,000
1,500
Tiger and Rhinos
1,576
990
2,500
2,000
Asian Elephant
1,379
990
2,000
1,500
Great Apes
1,379
990
2,000
2,000
Marine Turtles
691
297
1,500
1,000
Total MSCF Appropriations
6,404
4,257
10,000
8,000
Neotropical Migratory Birds
3,941
3,960
5,000
4,000
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help
fund efforts to conserve species (including nongame species) of concern to states,
territories, and tribes. The grants 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 state
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 Administration, House, and Senate
Appropriations Committee approved increases for FY2008, with the House
supporting the highest funding. See Table 7.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2008
State and Tribal Wildlife
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
Grants
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
State Grants
61,852
59,210
73,000
60,580
Competitive Grants for States,
0
5,000
5,000
5,000
Territories, & Other Jurisdictions
Tribal Grants
5,640
5,282
7,000
6,912
Total Appropriationsa
67,492
69,492
85,000
72,492
a. In FY2006 and earlier, administrative costs were limited to 3%, after tribal grants were deducted
from the total. For FY2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House specified only
that such costs be deducted from the state grants share of the program.
CRS-16
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at
[http://www.fws.gov/].
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 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.
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 permanent, temporary, and seasonal 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 Senate Appropriations Committee provided $2.46 billion for the NPS for
FY2008, $97.6 million (4%) above the President’s request and $161.5 million (7%)
above the FY2007 level, but $51.8 million (2%) below the House-passed level. See
Table 8. The parks remain popular with the public and the condition of the parks
and the adequacy of their care and operating capacity continues to be of concern.
Despite protracted budgetary constriction and competing priorities, the
Administration’s budget request for the NPS and the House-approved and Senate
Committee bills are among the largest dollar increases proposed in the agency’s 90-
year history.
To be ready for the NPS’s 100th anniversary in 2016, the Administration
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: (1) a commitment to add $100.0 million annually in discretionary
funds; (2) a challenge for the public to donate $100.0 million annually; and (3) 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
CRS-17
Challenge” — would rely on corporate, foundation, and other private donations,
raising concerns among some park supporters about potential commercialization and
privatization influence on the parks. Many claim that the park system has long
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.7
Major NPS Issues in Appropriations. The House-passed bill would
extend the authorization of the National Park System Advisory Board until January
1, 2009. Board authority expired on January 1, 2007, preventing statutorily required
participation in some NPS programs. The Senate Committee bill did not contain a
similar provision.
A House floor amendment transferred $1.0 million from the Office of the
Secretary to park operations to help fully reopen the Statue of Liberty to park visitors.
The Senate Committee bill did not contain a similar provision. Another House floor
amendment would have exempted a number of cities near Los Angeles from a Park
Service special resources study of the San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains; this
amendment was rejected.
The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) grant program has not
been funded since FY2002. The House Appropriations Committee reminded the
NPS of its responsibility to enforce §1010 of the authorizing legislation (16 U.S.C.
§2509), generally prohibiting the conversion of UPARR project sites from public
recreational use to other (e.g., commercial) use, regardless of whether funding is
provided (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 46). The Senate Committee report did not contain
similar language.
The Senate Committee bill contained provisions not included in the House-
passed bill. For instance, it directed the NPS to keep in force, for the 2007-2008
winter season, the interim Yellowstone snowmobile use regulations of the past three
years. The bill also would repeal a provision in law (P.L. 109-364) that prohibited
the NPS from complying with a court-approved agreement to remove nonnative deer
and elk from Santa Rosa Island in the Channel Islands National Park.
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 80%
of the total NPS budget. For FY2008, the Senate Committee bill provided $1.96
billion, $1.0 million less than the House-approved level (excluding Park Police),
0.5% less than the request, and 11% more than the FY2007 level. The House-passed
bill moved the U.S. Park Police into this account — it had been a separate line item
— and the Senate Committee bill retained it as a separate line item. For comparative
purposes, Table 8 follows the historical arrangement.
The majority of operations funding is provided directly to park managers. It
supports the activities, programs, and services essential to the day-to-day operations
7 See the website of the National Parks Conservation Association at [http://www.npca.org/
media_center/reports/analysis.html].
CRS-18
of the park system, and covers resource protection, visitors’ services, facility
operations and maintenance, and park support programs, as well as such
administrative expenses as employee pay, benefits, and other fixed costs. The Senate
Committee bill provided $1.82 billion for park management, $1.0 million less than
the House-passed level, $5.2 million less than the FY2008 request, and $189.5
million (12%) more than the FY2007 enacted level. The House and the Senate
Committee measures increased accounts over FY2007, with relatively large increases
for maintenance, visitor services, and resource stewardship.
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
National Park Service
Senate
Approp.
Request
House
Comm.
Operation of the National Park System
1,762.7
1,969.0
1,959.7b
1,958.7
— Park Management
1,627.6
1,822.3
1,818.1
1,817.1
— Administrative Costs
135.1
146.7
141.6
141.6
U.S. Park Police
85.2
88.1
88.1b
88.1
Centennial Challenge (Matching Prog.)
0.0
0.0c
50.0
0.0
National Recreation and Preservation 54.4
48.9
62.9
58.8e
Historic Preservation Fund
65.7
63.7
81.5
80.0e
Construction
297.5
201.6
201.6
227.2
Land and Water Conservation Fundd
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
64.0
22.5
99.4
78.7
— Assistance to States
29.6
0.0
50.0
30.0
— NPS Acquisition
34.4
22.5
49.4
48.7
Total Appropriations
2,300.0a
2,363.8
2,513.2
2,461.4
a. Includes an emergency appropriation of $0.5 million not reflected in the figures above.
b. The House-passed appropriation included the U.S. Park Police as part of Operation of the National
Park System. It is reflected in this table as a separate line item to be comparable to the historic,
requested, and Senate Committee recommended appropriations.
c. The Administration requested the establishment of a mandatory fund with $100.0 million annually
for ten years, to match nonfederal contributions to the NPS for certain purposes. The fund has
not been authorized to date. This figure reflects that the Administration did not seek funding
through annual appropriations.
d. Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
e. The Senate Committee appropriation included $5.0 million for Preserve America within the
National Recreation and Preservation line item. It is reflected in the Historic Preservation total
to be comparable to the historic, requested, and House appropriations.
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 House-passed
CRS-19
and Senate Committee bills matched the request, $88.1 million, $2.9 million (3%)
above the enacted level for FY2007. Increased funding was proposed primarily for
enhanced security at National Mall icons, special events in Washington, DC, and at
the Statue of Liberty in New York. As noted above, the House-passed bill moved the
U.S. Park Police to the Operation of the National Park System line item, while the
Senate Committee bill retained it separately. 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.
Centennial Challenge. As noted above, the Administration proposed a
three-part National Parks Centennial Initiative, with additional funding for park
operations (presumably included in the request for park management discussed
above), donations, and federal funds to match the donations. The House approved
$50.0 million to be available for matching donations in FY2008, while the Senate
Committee bill provided no money for the program. The Senate Committee
expressed support for the concept, but a preference that the authorizing committee
address the issue (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 25). The President did not seek an annual
appropriation for this purpose, but instead proposed the establishment of a mandatory
program with $100.0 million annually for ten years. This program has not been
authorized to date, and legislation would be required to effect this 10-year mandatory
spending program.
National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds a variety of
park system recreation and natural and cultural resource protection programs and an
international park affairs office, as well as programs connected with state and local
community efforts to preserve natural and historic resources. For FY2008, the Senate
Committee bill provided $58.8 million (excluding $5.0 million for Preserve
America), $4.1 million (7%) less than the House-passed level, $9.9 million (20%)
more than the request, and $4.4 million (8%) more than the FY2007 level. The
Senate Committee bill included $15.0 million for the heritage partnership program
that funds National Heritage Areas (NHAs) — $5.0 million (25%) less than the
House-approved level, $5.0 million (50%) more than requested, and $1.7 million
(12%) more than enacted for FY2007. For the statutory and contractual aid program
for specific, non-NPS sites, the Senate Committee bill included $5.9 million, $0.9
million (18%) more then the House and $2.7 million (82%) more than the FY2007
level. The Administration again proposed discontinuing statutory and contractual
aid, as for FY2005-FY2007. Congress provided $11.2 million for FY2005 and $7.0
million for FY2006. The Senate Committee bill also provided $5.0 million for
Preserve America, and a transfer of this sub-account from Historic Preservation.
Preserve America was funded at $4.9 million in FY2007; the House and the
Administration supported $10.0 million for FY2008.
Construction. The construction line item funds new construction projects,
as well as improvements, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities.
The Senate Committee bill included $227.2 million for NPS construction, $25.6
million (13%) more than the House approved and the Administration requested, and
$70.3 million (24%) less than FY2007. Recent DOI data (March 2007) report an
CRS-20
NPS deferred maintenance backlog of $7.9 billion, of which $4.3 billion is park
roads, while another DOI source estimates an NPS backlog (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 Senate Committee bill provided $48.7 million for NPS land
acquisition, $0.7 million (1%) less than the House-approved level, but $14.3 million
(42%) above the FY2007 level and more than double the Administration’s request
of $22.5 million. The Administration did not seek funds for state assistance from
LWCF, requesting $1.4 million for program administration under National
Recreation and Preservation. The Senate Committee bill contained $30.0 million for
state assistance, $20.0 million (40%) less than the House-approved level and $0.4
million more than the FY2007 enacted level. (For more information, see the “Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid for activities specified in the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. §470), such as restoring historic districts, sites,
buildings, and objects significant in American history and culture. 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 House bill would provide $81.5 million for the HPF, while the
Senate Committee recommended $80.0 million (including $5.0 million for Preserve
America within another line item). The House level represents an increase over
FY2007 of $15.8 million, or 24%; the Senate Committee recommendation was $14.3
million, or 22% higher. The FY2007 level included a $10.0 million hurricane
recovery supplemental appropriation contained in P.L. 110-28. The FY2008 House
bill would increase funding for state historic preservation offices and tribal historic
preservation grants, by $7.8 million (21%) and $1.1 million (19%) respectively,
rather than decrease these programs as requested by the NPS. The Senate Committee
recommended increases over FY2007 of $1.8 million (5%) for states and $0.6 million
(10%) for tribes. Neither the House nor the Senate Committee would restore
preservation funding for historically black colleges and universities, which was
eliminated for FY2007.
Both the House and the Senate Committee would provide additional funding for
the Save America’s Treasures and the Preserve America grant programs, which had
been cut from $29.6 million in FY2006 to $13.0 million in FY2007. The House
CRS-21
would fund these programs at $30.0 million, a 131% increase, with $20.0 million
toward Save America’s Treasures and $10.0 million for Preserve America. The
Senate Committee recommended $35.0 million, a 169% increase, with $30.0 million
for Treasures and $5.0 million for Preserve America within the National Recreation
and Preservation Account. The House Appropriations Committee specified $6.0
million from Treasures for 43 projects; the Senate Committee specified $7.5 million
for 26 projects.
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. Neither the House nor the Senate Committee would fund this proposal.
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 was $13.1 million
(1%) below the FY2007 level of $988.1 million. The House-passed bill provided
$1,032.8 million for FY2008, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $1,009.9 million, both increases over FY2007. See Table 9.
CRS-22
The FY2008 request proposed eliminating funding for the water resources
research institutes, but the House and the Senate Committee bills provided funding
at $6.4 million. 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. The House and the Senate Committee bills
supported funding for mineral resource assessments. Further, the House included
$10.0 million for an increase to global climate change research for FY2008, which
was not requested by the Administration or included in the Senate Committee bill.
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
U.S. Geological Survey
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Enterprise Information
111.8
112.1
112.1
112.1
Geographic Research, Investigations,
and Remote Sensing
80.2
75.0
80.0
78.5
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes
237.0
222.1
249.8
243.3
Water Resources Investigations
214.9
212.5
223.5
224.1
Biological Research
175.7
181.1
187.1
182.1
Science Support
67.8
70.7b
68.7
68.2
Facilities
95.4
101.6
101.6
101.6
Global Climate Change Research
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
Total Appropriations
988.1a
975.0
1,032.8
1,009.9
a. The FY2007 total includes $5.3 million in P.L. 110-28.
b. This figure includes $2.4 million for the Financial and Business Management System.
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. The House-passed
bill and Senate Committee bill included the same amount.
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-23
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. The House-passed bill provided $80.0
million, and Senate Committee provided $78.5 million. Under the Land Remote
Sensing subheading, $24.2 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. The
House and the Senate Appropriations Committee appeared to support the requested
funding level for Landsat 8.
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. The House-passed
bill provided $249.8 million and the Senate Committee bill recommended $243.3
million. This line item covers programs in three activities: Hazard Assessments,
Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments.
The primary reduction sought by the Administration was 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. In previous years
the Administration requested similar cuts in this program, yet each year funding was
provided. For FY2008, the House and the Senate Committee bills retained funding
for this program.
The FY2008 request contained an increase of $2.1 million for the geologic
hazards program, for a total of $84.0 million. Some of the funds would go towards
supporting research and monitoring on volcanoes, landslides, and earthquakes. The
Senate Appropriations Committee supported this level. The House-passed bill would
add another $5.0 million, for a total of $89.0 million.
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 House bill provided $223.5 million for this program,
and the Senate Committee bill recommended $224.1 million. The hydrologic
monitoring, assessments, and research activities would receive $153.7 million under
the House bill and $153.3 million under the Senate Committee bill. The federal-state
cooperation water program would receive $63.3 million under the House bill and
$64.4 million under the Senate Committee bill. 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 received
funding from FY2002-FY2007, with $5.4 million appropriated for FY2007. The
CRS-24
House and the Senate Committee bills would provide $6.4 million for the water
resources research institutes for FY2008.
The Administration’s request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate Committee
bill would provide additional funds for the National Streamflow Information Program
(NSIP) for FY2008. For FY2007, $16.6 million was enacted. The Administration
and the Senate Committee supported $18.9 million, and the House approved $21.6
million. These additional funds would be used to continue the operation of the
streamgage network of 7,400 streamgages. Further, it would allow for several new
streamgages 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.
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 House
bill included $187.1 million, and the Senate Committee bill recommended $182.1
million.
In cooperation with the FWS and other federal and state agencies, the USGS is
surveying for the early detection of 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 avian flu and coordinate
with other agencies to address the potential for avian flu 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.
The House bill contained $68.7 million, and Senate Committee recommended $68.2
million.
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair. The Administration,
House, and Senate Committee approved $101.6 million for facilities. This would be
an increase of $6.1 million (6%) from the FY2007 enacted level of $95.4 million.
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
CRS-25
among the coastal states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic
Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
The MMS expects to collect and disburse about $14 billion in revenue in
FY2007 from mineral leases on federal and Indian lands (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 54).
This amount fluctuates based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas. Over the
past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40% to 45%
of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties have been not more than 25%. 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, comprised of $161.5 million in appropriations
and an additional $135.7 million in offsetting collections which MMS has been
retaining since 1994. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total
MMS budget of $302.1 million, consisting of a $166.4 million appropriation and
$135.7 million in offsetting collections. The House approved a total MMS budget
of $295.7 million, but much less funding through the annual appropriation process.
Specifically, the House included $67.0 million in appropriations, $135.7 million in
offsetting collections, and an “administrative provisions” section resulting in a $50.0
million deferral for ultra deepwater research and a $43.0 million deduction for state
royalty administrative costs. See Table 10.
Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Minerals Management Service
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
— OCS Lands (OMM)
152.8
160.0
159.0
164.9
— Royalty Management (MRM)
80.1
82.4
82.4
82.4
— General Administration
48.5
48.5
48.0
48.5
— Gross, Royalty and Offshore
Minerals Management
281.3
290.8
289.3
295.7
— Use of Receipts
-128.7
-135.7
-135.7
-135.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management Appropriations
152.6
155.0
153.6
159.9
Oil Spill Research
6.9
6.4
6.4
6.4
Administrative Provisions
— Ultra Deepwater Research
Deferral
—
—
-50.0
—
— State Royalty Administrative
Cost Deduction
—
—
-43.0
—
Total Appropriations
159.5
161.5
67.0
166.4
CRS-26
The administrative provisions section in the House bill stemmed from an
Administration proposal to repeal the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural
Gas and Other Petroleum Research Fund (the Fund) and reintroduce net receipts
sharing among states. The House reflected its support for the Administration
proposal through scoring credits, resulting in a $50.0 million deferral for ultra
deepwater research and a $43.0 million deduction for state royalty administrative
costs. See Table 10. The Fund was created as a mandatory program in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and authorized to receive $50 million each year
from FY2007-FY2017 from federal oil and gas leasing receipts. Congress
established net receipts sharing in 1991 which required states to pay for a portion of
the administrative costs associated with managing federal leases in their states. In
2000, P.L. 106-393 ended that requirement and allowed states to receive their full
share of revenue from federal leases within their state. The current proposal would
deduct 2% from the states 50% share of revenue from onshore federal leases.
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 Final 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 remains under the moratoria. The new five-year program took 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
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 1999.8
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
8 This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS,
during April 2006.
CRS-27
incentive to amend the leases to include price thresholds. The Senate continues to
debate this issue. (For more information, see CRS Report RS22567, Royalty Relief
for U.S. Deepwater Oil and Gas Leases, by Marc Humphries and CRS Report
RL33974 Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating
Incentives for Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price Thresholds, by Robert
Meltz and Adam Vann.)
During consideration of FY2008 Interior appropriations, the House considered
several amendments related to the OCS. An amendment which would have lifted the
OCS moratoria for natural gas leasing and development beyond 25 miles from the
coastline was defeated. Related amendments to open the OCS for oil and gas drilling
beyond 100 miles of the coastline and to open the entire OCS currently under the
moratoria were defeated. The House retained Committee language barring funds in
the bill from being used for new leases for those holding leases under the Deep Water
Royalty Relief Act of 1995 without price thresholds. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, however, rejected bill language that would have prohibited the
government from issuing new offshore leases to companies holding deepwater leases
held in 1998 and 1999 without price thresholds.
The House Appropriations Committee included report language related to
drilling in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, also known as Bristol Bay. The
Committee expressed that drilling in that area should be conducted only after the
availability of detailed studies and information. The House Committee directed DOI
agencies and other scientific bodies to document, among other things, economic and
technological aspects of accidents related to oil and gas drilling and development in
the North Aleutian Basin. The House Committee further directed the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to report to Congress an economic analysis of costs to
the U.S. Treasury resulting from production in the North Aleutian Basin and other
Alaskan OCS waters based on royalty relief provisions in the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 58-59).
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 (IG) 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. The House Appropriations
Committee, in report language on the FY2008 bill, expressed concern about IG
reports on the need for more and better audits, and directed MMS to report on
corrective actions it is taking (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 58).
Oil and gas leasing in offshore California also has continued to be a
controversial issue. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended
(16 U.S.C. §1451-64) (CZMA), development of federal offshore leases must be
consistent with state coastal zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended the
terms of 36 leases in offshore California by granting suspensions of the leases’ five-
CRS-28
year terms. A suspension extends the term of the lease, to allow the lessee to
facilitate development.9 The state of California sued, contending that MMS should
have made a consistency determination showing that the lease suspensions were
consistent with California’s coastal management plan before issuing the suspensions.
In June 2001, the U.S. Court for the Northern District of California agreed with the
state of California and struck down the lease suspensions.10 MMS appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, in December 2002, the Ninth
Circuit upheld the District Court decision.11
Following this ruling, nine oil company lessees brought breach of contract
claims against MMS seeking restitution for “bonus payments” made to MMS in order
to obtain and suspend their leases in offshore California. In November 2005, the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the federal government breached its contract
with the lessees when it enacted the amendments to the CZMA in 1990 that,
according to the decisions described above, required lease suspensions to be
evaluated for consistency with a state’s coastal management plan.12 The Court
reasoned that the lessees had not bargained for the more extensive consistency
determination requirements to be applied to suspension requests when the leases
were signed, and that therefore the legislation creating these new requirements
amounted to breach of the leases.13 The government was ordered to repay the lessees
for all so-called “bonus payments” made to the government in exchange for the
leases.14
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website
at [http://www.mms.gov].
CRS Report RL33974. Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R.
6) Creating Incentives for Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price
Thresholds, by Robert Meltz and Adam Vann.
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.
9 The regulations on suspension are at 30 C.F.R §250.168.
10 California v. Norton, 150 F.Supp.2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
11 California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2002).
12 Amber Resources Co. v. U.S., 68 Fed. Cl. 535 (2005).
13 Id. at 546-48.
14 Id. at 560. The lessees continued to pursue further recovery under other breach of contract
theories. These matters remain unsettled. See Amber Resources Corp. v. United States, 73
Fed. Cl. 738 (2006).
CRS-29
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
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.15 Several states were pressing for increases in the AML
appropriations, with an eye on those unappropriated balances in the state-share
accounts.
The Tax Relief and Health Care Act (P.L. 109-432) 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.16
Under the restructuring, the balances in the state- and tribal-share accounts will be
15 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.
16 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.
CRS-30
returned to all states and tribes in seven annual installments paid with general
Treasury funds.17
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
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.18 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.19
Owing to the establishment of the permanent appropriation, the FY2008 OSM
budget request was sharply lower than the FY2007 level. Overall, the FY2008
budget request for OSM totaled $168.3 million in discretionary spending, a reduction
of $126.3 million (43%) from the FY2007 level of $294.6 million. However, due to
the restructuring of the program, which now provides for 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. Similarly, the House and the Senate Committee levels for FY2008 are not
directly comparable to the FY2007 level.
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 also
has an additional component — regulatory and technology programs.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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-31
The House approved a $1.9 million boost to Regulation and Technology, an
addition of 2%, over the Administration’s request for $115.5 million. The additional
funds were for environmental protection activities. The House agreed with the
Administration request of $52.8 million for AML. In total, the House approved
$170.1 million for OSM, $1.8 million (1%) over the Administration’s request and
$124.5 million (42%) below FY2007.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $121.5 million for
Regulation and Technology, an increase of $6.0 million above the Administration
request of $115.5 million. The increase would provide additional funds to match
state costs for the conduct of regulatory programs intended to minimize impacts of
coal extraction on local environments and populations. The Senate Committee, like
the House, supported the request for $52.8 for the AML. In total, the Senate
Committee recommended $174.3 million for OSM, $6.0 million (4%) over the
Administration’s request and $120.3 million (41%) below FY2007. See Table 11.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
Office of Surface Mining
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
Reclamation and Enforcement
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Regulation and Technology
109.2
115.5
117.3
121.5
— Environmental Protection
78.7
83.8
85.8
89.8
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
185.4
52.8
52.8
52.8
Total Appropriations
294.6
168.3
170.1
174.3
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 $2.31 billion in FY2007. For FY2008, the
Administration proposed $2.23 billion, a decrease of $79.4 million (3%) below
FY2007. The House approved $2.35 billion for FY2008, an increase of $38.6
million (2%) over FY2007 and of $118.1 million (5%) over the Administration’s
CRS-32
request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.27 billion for
FY2008, a decrease of $42.6 million (2%) from FY2007 and of $81.2 million (3%)
from the House FY2008 amount, and an increase of $36.8 million (2%) over the
Administration’s request. See Table 12.
Key issues for the BIA include education programs — including the
Administration’s proposals to increase education management spending, eliminate
funding for the Johnson-O’Malley program and tribal technical colleges, and reduce
education construction — as well as BIA law enforcement and housing programs,
and the Interior Department’s process for acknowledging Indian tribes. In August
2006, the BIA’s administrative office for its education programs was removed from
the BIA, made a parallel agency under the Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs, and
renamed the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Bureau of Indian Affairs
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Operation of Indian Programs
Tribal Government
392,261
397,698
403,009
406,398
— Johnson-O’Malley Grantsa
7,700
0
5,311
7,700
— Housing Improvement
4,266
0
0
0
Programb
— Contract Support Costs
143,628
149,628
149,628
149,628
Human Services
144,824
120,703
146,548
134,128
— Welfare Assistance
80,179
74,164
80,179
77,164
— Housing Improvement
18,824
0
18,830
9,425
Programb
Trust - Natural Resources
145,238
141,684
152,684
147,489
Management
Trust - Real Estate Services
144,073
150,722
150,722
151,722
— Probate
15,884
19,883
19,883
19,883
— Real Estate Services
43,510
47,964
47,964
48,964
— Land Records Improvement
7,897
16,065
16,065
16,065
Bureau of Indian Education
657,912
660,540
699,040
685,540
— Elementary/ Secondary
458,310
476,500
487,500
476,500
(Forward-Funded)
— ISEP Formula Funds
351,817
364,020
364,020
364,020
— Elementary/ Secondary
60,390
61,803
61,803
69,803
[Other]
— Johnson-O’Malley
12,000
0
16,500
8,000
Grantsa
— Post Secondary Programs
108,619
98,520
109,520
115,520
— Tribal Colleges and
54,721
54,721
54,721
59,721
Universities
CRS-33
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Bureau of Indian Affairs
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
— Tribal Colls. and Univs.
4,588
1,292
1,292
1,292
Supplements to Grantsc
— Tribal Technical
2,004
0
6,000
6,000
Collegesc
— Education Management
18,593
23,717
23,717
23,717
Public Safety and Justice
217,611
233,818
250,018
237,818
— Law Enforcement
204,454
221,753
231,753
225,753
— Detention/Corrections
58,678
65,038
65,038
67,038
— Tribal Courts
12,013
12,065
17,065
12,065
Community and Economic
42,234
39,061
47,339
39,061
Development
Executive Direction and
244,070
246,692
244,185
244,185
Administrative Services
— Office of Federal
1,900
1,900
2,900
1,900
Acknowledgment
— Information Resources
53,199
53,704
53,704
53,704
Technology
Subtotal, Operation of Indian
1,988,223 1,990,918
2,093,545
2,046,341
Programs
Construction
Education Construction
204,956
139,844
145,200
125,029
— Replacement School
83,891
14,815
14,815
0
Construction
— Replacement Facility
26,873
22,578
22,578
22,578
Construction
— Education Facilities
92,219
100,834
105,834
100,834
Improvement and Repair
Public Safety and Justice
11,605
11,621
14,621
11,621
Construction
— Law Enforcement
8,103
8,111
11,111
8,111
Facilities Improvement and
Repair
Resources Management
45,125
37,916
39,916
37,916
Construction
General Administration
10,137
8,246
8,246
8,246
Construction and Construction
Management
Subtotal, Construction
271,823
197,627
207,983
179,012d
Land and Water Claim
42,000
34,069
39,136
34,069
Settlements and Miscellaneous
Payments
Indian Guaranteed Loan
6,258
6,276
6,276
6,276
Program
Total Appropriations
2,308,304 2,228,890
2,346,940
2,265,698
CRS-34
Note: N/A = Not available.
a. The Johnson O’Malley program is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and
Bureau of Indian Education.
b. The Housing Improvement Program is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and
Human Services.
c. Of the FY2007 amount for Tribal Colleges and Universities Supplements to Grants, $3.3 million
is for tribal technical colleges.
d. Reflects a rescission of $3.8 million of unobligated prior year balances.
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.
Proposed Indian Education Initiative. The Administration proposed a
nearly $15-million initiative in FY2008 to enhance education at BIE-funded schools.
BIE’s forward-funded elementary and secondary budget activity would receive $9.6
million of the new program funds, to be used to improve instructional resources
(especially through teacher development and principal training) at BIE 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 $5.3
million of the initiative would go to BIE’s education management budget activity, to
add education and administrative specialists at education line offices ($4.0 million)
and maintain BIE’s new student and school information system ($1.2 million). Both
the full House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved these initiatives,
but the House approved an additional $7.0 million for meeting AYP goals and an
additional $1.0 million for student transportation.
Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Program. The JOM program provides
supplementary education assistance grants for tribes and public schools to benefit
Indian students, and is funded in two budget activities, Tribal Government and BIE.
In FY2007 JOM was funded at $7.7 million in the Tribal Government activity and
$12.0 million in the BIE activity. 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 Act20 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 what they see as JOM’s culturally relevant
programs. The House Appropriations Committee rejected the Administration’s
proposal to end JOM funding in FY2008, stating that the Administration’s argument
has not been substantiated (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 70). For FY2008, the House
20 These sections are contained in 20 U.S.C. §§6301, et seq. and 20 U.S.C. §§7401, et seq.
respectively.
CRS-35
approved $5.3 million under Tribal Government and $16.5 million under BIE for
JOM. The Senate Committee recommended $7.7 million under Tribal Government
and $8.0 million under BIE.
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.21 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 a total of
$5.3 million in FY2007, split between the BIA’s Community Development budget
activity and the BIE’s Post Secondary Programs budget subactivity. The
Administration proposed no funding for tribal technical colleges in FY2008, but
neither the full House nor the Senate Committee agreed. The House approved, and
the Senate Committee recommended, $6.0 million for tribal technical colleges, all
in the BIE Post Secondary Programs budget subactivity.
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. Table 12 shows education construction funds. For
FY2008, the Administration proposed reducing the appropriation for education
construction by $65.1 million (32%). Included was a reduction of $69.1 million
(82%) for construction of replacement schools, leaving $14.8 million for two new
replacement schools. The Administration asserted that construction and repairs since
2001 have reduced the proportion of BIE facilities in bad condition from about 66%
to 31%, and that the BIA needed to focus on completing replacement schools funded
in prior years. Opponents of a reduction contend that a large proportion of BIA
schools still need replacement or major repairs and thus funding should not be cut.
The House approved $145.2 million for education construction in FY2008, a
decrease of $59.8 million (29%) from FY2007 and an increase of $5.4 million (4%)
from the Administration proposal. The Senate Committee recommended $125.0
million, a decrease of $79.9 million (39%) from FY2007, $14.8 million (11%) from
the Administration request, and $20.2 million (14%) from the House amount. The
Senate Committee recommended no funding for replacement school construction,
stating that the BIA informed them that 15 replacement school construction projects
(of 18 total) had funding shortfalls, totaling $143 million overall, and that the
Committee believed it imprudent to start new projects until the BIA presented a plan
to address the shortfalls (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 39).
Law Enforcement Program. BIA and Justice Department figures show
rising crime rates, methamphetamine use, and juvenile gang activity on some Indian
21 The provision for tribally controlled vocational institutions is at 20 U.S.C. 2327.
CRS-36
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 were
$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 reservations22 and may not be
sufficient to handle the methamphetamine problem. They also urge greater funding
for tribal courts.
For BIA law enforcement, the House approved $231.8 million in FY2008, an
increase of $27.3 million (13%) from FY2007 and of $10.0 million (5%) from the
Administration proposal, including an additional $9.5 million to combat
methamphetamine abuse. For tribal courts, the House approved $17.1 million, an
increase of $5.1 million (42%) from FY2007 and of $5.0 million (41%) from the
Administration proposal. The Senate Committee recommended $225.8 million for
BIA law enforcement in FY2008, an increase of $21.3 million (10%) from FY2007
and of $4.0 million (2%) from the Administration proposal, but a decrease of $6.0
million (3%) from the House amount. The Senate Committee did not include funds
specifically for methamphetamine abuse, but instead increased funding for criminal
investigations and for detention/corrections by $2.0 million each over the requested
and House-approved amounts. The Senate Committee also required the BIA to
report on the needs of BIA- and tribally operated detention facilities for staffing,
operation and maintenance, and improvement and repairs (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 38).
For tribal courts, the Senate Committee recommended $12.1 million, the same as the
Administration request but a decrease of $5.0 million (29%) from the House amount.
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. BIA’s
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 HIP a safety net for those not eligible for or
not served by the HUD program. Total HIP funding was $23.1 million in FY2007,
split between the Tribal Government budget activity ($4.3 million) and the Human
Services activity ($18.8 million). The Administration proposed eliminating HIP for
22 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, February 15, 2007, p. 3; available at
[http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Keel021507.pdf].
CRS-37
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.
The House declined to end HIP, funding it at $18.8 million in FY2008 in the
Human Services budget activity only, a slight increase ($6,000, or less than 1%) from
the FY2007 Human Services portion, but a decrease of $4.3 million from total HIP
funding in FY2007. The House Appropriations Committee directed the BIA and
HUD to evaluate HIP’s effectiveness and determine whether HIP and its eligibility
criteria could be integrated into existing HUD programs (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 69).
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $9.4 million for HIP in
FY2008, an increase from the request, and a decrease from both the House amount
and the FY2007 Human Services amount of $9.4 million (50%) and a decrease from
the FY2007 total amount of $13.7 million (59%).
Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process. Federal recognition brings an
Indian tribe unique benefits, including partial sovereignty, jurisdictional powers, and
eligibility for federal Indian programs. Tribes have been acknowledged in many
ways, but it was not until 1978 that the Interior Department established a regulatory
process for acknowledgment decisions (25 CFR 83).23 First located within the BIA,
the recognition office is now in the office of the Assistant Secretary — Indian
Affairs, as the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA). OFA employs teams of
expert ethnohistorians, genealogists, and anthropologists to consider recognition
petitions. The OFA process has been frequently criticized for taking too long, one
reason for which is a lack of resources.24 For FY2007 OFA received $1.9 million
within the Executive Direction budget activity, which funds the Assistant Secretary’s
office. The Administration requested, and the Senate Committee recommended, the
same amount for FY2008. The House approved an amendment to designate an
additional $1.0 million for OFA in FY2008, bringing OFA’s total to $2.9 million
within the Assistant Secretary’s office, or 53% more than the FY2007, requested, and
Senate Committee amount. The House’s goal was to add several teams of experts
to increase the number of decisions on recognition petitions.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian
Education, see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].
23 For further information on the BIA acknowledgment process, see CRS Report RS21109,
The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Process for Recognizing Groups as Indian Tribes, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
24 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal
Recognition Process (GAO-02-49, November 2001), and U.S. Government Accountability
Office, Indian Issues: Timeliness of the Tribal Recognition Process Has Improved, But It
Will Take Years to Clear the Existing Backlog of Petitions (GAO-05-347T, February 2005).
CRS-38
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs25
Office of Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides
financial assistance to four insular areas — American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — as well
as three former insular areas — the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Palau, and
the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). OIA staff manage relations between
these jurisdictions and the federal government and work to build the fiscal and
governmental capacity of units of local government.
The total OIA request (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.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the remaining 20% of the OIA budget.26 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 House approved $78.3 million in AT funding and $5.4 million in CFA
funding, totaling $83.7 million in funding for insular affairs. This would be a 3%
increase over FY2007. Of the total for AT, almost $70 million was designated for
technical and maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, brown tree snake control
and research, judiciary grants in American Samoa, other grants to individual
territories, and other territorial assistance typically associated with insular-areas
appropriations. Approximately $8.5 million in remaining funding was designated for
OIA salaries and expenses. The bill specified conditions for release of AT funding,
such as Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits, and specified grants to the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Pacific Basin Development Council, and the Close Up
Foundation. Insular areas funding was not the subject of major floor debate or
amendments in the House.
25 This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under Departmental Offices or
Department-Wide Programs. Total funding for these entities is identified in Table 25 at the
end of this report.
26 Congress has mandated that certain funds be provided. Those funds, however, are subject
to the annual appropriations process.
CRS-39
In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee recommended $77.8 million in AT
funding. That amount would be approximately $0.5 million below the appropriation
passed by the House, but $2.9 million higher than the requested amount. The
legislative language reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee pertaining to
AT is similar to that passed by the House. The CFA language reported in the Senate
is identical to that passed by the House; both bills would allocate $5.4 million in
CFA funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee total for insular affairs was
$83.2 million.
For additional information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html].
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. See Table 13. The House Appropriations
Committee supported the FY2007 level. A House floor amendment added $20.1
million to the Committee’s recommendation for a total of $252.7 million for PILT.
The Administration’s request would provide approximately 51.9% of the authorized
amount; the House level would provide 69.0%. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended the FY2007 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 $3.6 billion have been made. The PILT program has been
controversial, because in recent years the payment formula, which was indexed for
inflation in 1994, has increased authorization levels. However, appropriations have
grown less rapidly, and substantially slower than authorized amounts, ranging from
42% to 68% of authorized levels between FY2000 and FY2007.27 See Table 13.
County governments claim that the program as a whole does not provide funding
comparable to property taxes, and that rural areas in particular need additional PILT
funds to provide the kinds of services that counties with more private land are able
to provide.
Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in
Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-FY2008
($ in millions)
% of
Authorized
Appropriated
Fiscal Year
Authorized
Amount
Amount
Amount
2000
317.6
134.0
42.2
2001
338.6
199.2
58.8
2002
350.8
210.0
59.9
2003
324.1
218.2
67.3
2004
331.3
224.3
67.7
2005
332.0
226.8
68.3
27 When appropriations are not sufficient to cover the authorization, each county receives
a pro rata share of the authorized amount.
CRS-40
% of
Authorized
Appropriated
Fiscal Year
Authorized
Amount
Amount
Amount
2006
344.4
232.5
67.5
2007
358.3
232.5
64.9
2008 Request
366.2
190.0
51.9
2008 House Passed
366.2
252.7
69.0
2008 Senate Comm.
366.2
232.5
63.5
Notes: The FY2008 authorized level, in italics, is an estimate. 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.)
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.28 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.
28 Figures are derived from the OST FY2008 Budget Justification.
CRS-41
OST’s FY2007 appropriation was $223.3 million. The Administration proposed
$196.2 million for FY2008, a decrease of $27.1 million (12%). The House approved
$192.5 million, a decrease of $30.7 million (14%) from FY2007 and of $3.6 million
(2%) from the Administration proposal. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $195.9 million, a decrease of $27.3 million (12%) from FY2007 and
of $0.2 million (less than 1%) from the request, and an increase of $3.4 million (2%)
from the House amount. See Table 14. Key issues for the OST are an historical
accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal and IIM
accounts.
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2008 Senate
FY2008
Comm.
Office of Special Trustee for
FY2007
FY2008
House
American Indians
Approp.
Request
Change
Passed
Total
from
House
Federal Trust Programs
189,251
186,158
182,542
185,947
2%
— Historical Accounting
Office
56,384
60,000
56,384
60,000
6%
Indian Land Consolidation
34,006
10,000
10,000
10,000
0%
Total Appropriations
223,257
196,158
192,542
195,947
2%
Historical Accounting. For FY2008, the Administration proposed $60.0
million for historical accounting activities, an increase of 5% over FY2007. The
House approved $56.4 million, the same as FY2007 and $3.6 million (6%) below the
Administration proposal. The Senate Committee recommended $60.0 million, the
same as the request and $3.6 million (6%) more than the House. 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
CRS-42
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. Kempthorne)
was filed in 1996, in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the
federal government by IIM account holders.29 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 estimated that compliance with the new order
would cost $12-$13 billion,30 appealed the new order. The Appeals Court on
November 15, 2005, vacated the district court’s February 2005 order. The district
court has not 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
29 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].
30 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.
CRS-43
proposed as a settlement amount.31 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,”32 but some senior appropriators
consider the Fund insufficient even for a $6-$13 billion dollar settlement.33 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.34 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
expressed numerous doubts.35 No trust fund settlement legislation has been
introduced thus far in the 110th Congress. The House Appropriations Committee
urged the parties to the litigation, and Congress, to settle trust litigation in its entirety
(H.Rept. 110-187, p. 80).
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
31 Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement Workgroup, “Principles for Legislation,” June 20,
2005, p. 2, at [http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20050620SettlementPrinciples.pdf].
32 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.)
33 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.
34 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].
35 “Bush Administration Won’t Admit Liability on Indian Trust,” Indianz.com (March 30,
2007), available at [http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/002150.asp].
CRS-44
and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming (e.g., casinos and
racing).36 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. Neither the Administration, the House, nor the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended 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].
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.
36 Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but
overlapping regulatory responsibilities for each class.
CRS-45
EPA’s funding over time generally has reflected an increase in overall
appropriations to fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities.37 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. For
FY2008, both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved more
funding for EPA than the President requested, and more than Congress enacted for
FY2007. The House approved $8.09 billion, while the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $7.77 billion. The President had requested $7.20 billion
for the agency, and Congress appropriated $7.73 billion for FY2007. Although the
House and the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed an increase in total
funding for EPA, funding for some individual programs and activities would decline
in each respective bill when compared to the request and the prior year’s
appropriation.
The House considered several amendments relevant to EPA. The House agreed
to an amendment to increase funding by $15.0 million within the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) account for water infrastructure projects along the U.S.-
Mexico border. The amendment would increase total funding for this activity from
$10.0 million to $25.0 million. The Senate Committee recommended $10.0 million
for these projects, as the President requested. Each of these proposed amounts would
be a reduction below the enacted level of $49.3 million in FY2007.
The above House floor amendment offset the $15.0 million increase with
reductions of $5.0 million within EPA’s Science and Technology (S&T) account, and
$5.0 million within its Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account,
resulting in a net increase of $5 million for the agency overall. The remaining $5.0
million was offset within the Department of the Interior. The House also agreed to
three other amendments that would redirect funding for activities within certain EPA
accounts, one in the EPM account and two in the S&T account. However, these
amendments did not alter the total funding for these accounts, or for EPA overall.
The House agreed to other amendments that would affect EPA’s implementation
of certain activities. For example, one amendment would prohibit the agency from
spending funds to promulgate or implement a proposed rule that would alter the
regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions from major sources under the Clean
Air Act. Other House floor amendments relevant to EPA were not agreed to. For
example, one amendment would have decreased the agency’s total funding by $222.0
million, including $160.0 million from the Superfund account and $62.0 million from
EPM, including a reduction of $1.0 million within that latter account for developing
regulations to control emissions of greenhouse gases. A large portion of these
reductions would have been used as an offset within the bill to increase funding for
the National Park Service by $100.0 million.
37 EPA’s funding was moved to the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations. In the beginning of the first
session of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees abolished
their respective Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies, which previously had jurisdiction over EPA.
CRS-46
Table 15 lists the statutory accounts that currently fund EPA.38 The table
specifies the amounts within each account that Congress enacted for FY2007, the
President requested for FY2008, and the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved for FY2008. The House also proposed a new account to fund
a new Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, reflected in the
following table. Neither the Senate Appropriations Committee nor the President
proposed such an account, or other funding in existing accounts, for this purpose.
Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency, FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Environmental Protection Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Science and Technology
— Base Appropriations
733.4
754.5
783.3
772.5
— Transfer in from Superfund
30.2
26.1
26.1
26.1
Science and Technology Total
763.6
780.6
809.4
798.6
Commission on Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigationa
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
Environmental Programs and
Management
2,358.4
2,298.2
2,370.6
2,384.1
Office of Inspector General
— Base Appropriations
37.2
38.0
43.5
40.0
— Transfer in from Superfund
13.3
7.1
10.0
13.3
Office of Inspector General Total
50.5
45.1
53.5
53.3
Buildings & Facilities
39.6
34.8
34.8
34.8
Hazardous Substance Superfund Total
(before transfers)
1,255.1
1,244.7
1,272.0
1,274.6
— Transfer out to Office of Inspector
General
(13.3)
(7.1)
(10.0)
(13.3)
— Transfer out to Science and Technology
(30.2)
(26.1)
(26.1)
(26.1)
Hazardous Substance Superfund Net
(after transfers)
1,211.6
1,211.5
1,235.9
1,235.2
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Programb
100.3
92.2
118.0
72.5
Oil Spill Response
15.7
17.3
17.3
17.5
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
— Clean Water SRF
1,083.8
687.6
1,125.0
887.0
— Drinking Water SRF
837.5
842.2
842.2
842.2
— Categorical Grants
1,084.9
1,045.2
1,113.8
1,118.4
— Other Grants
179.3
149.7
325.5
334.3
38 Congress appropriates funding for EPA according to eight statutory accounts. Congress
established these accounts in FY1996 as a result of a restructuring of the agency’s budget
to more closely align the accounts with the purposes of the activities funded within them.
CRS-47
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Environmental Protection Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Totalb
3,185.5
2,724.7
3,406.5
3,181.9
Rescission (various EPA accounts)
n/a
c (5.0)
c (5.0)
c (5.0)
Total EPA Accounts
7,725.1
7,199.4
8,090.9
7,772.9
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using information provided by the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
a.
The House recommended a new account to support a new Commission on Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation. Neither the Senate Appropriations Committee, nor the President,
proposed funding for such a commission.
b.
The FY2007 enacted, FY2008 requested, and FY2008 House-passed amounts include funding
for specific activities authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The Senate
Appropriations Committee reflected funding for these activities as Categorical Grants in the
STAG account. Consequently, the Committee’s recommended amount would not reduce
funding to the degree suggested by these amounts.
c.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee both recommended a rescission of $5.0
million in unobligated balances from prior years appropriations within “various EPA accounts.”
The Administration had requested this rescission specifically within the STAG account, as
specified in EPA’s FY2008 budget justification. They all presented the rescission as an
offsetting reduction in FY2008.
Key Funding Issues
Although there have been varying levels of interest in the adequacy of funding
for individual programs and activities administered by EPA, much of the attention
has focused on funding for water infrastructure projects, 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. Funding within
EPA and other federal agencies to address climate change has been another area of
increasing interest within Congress. Major funding issues are discussed below.
Water Infrastructure. The adequacy of federal funding to assist states in
capitalizing their Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) has been an ongoing
issue. These state funds are used to issue loans to communities for wastewater
infrastructure improvements, such as municipal sewage treatment plant upgrades.
The Clean Water Act authorized EPA to award grants to states to help capitalize
these loan funds. Although appropriations for these grants have declined in recent
years, Congress has provided significantly more funding than the President has
requested each year. This is generally due to differing views on the extent of the role
of the federal government in capitalizing these state loan funds. For FY2008, the
House proposed $1.13 billion for Clean Water SRF grants within the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) account. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $887.0 million for these grants. Both amounts are more than the
President’s request of $687.6 million. Whereas the House amount also is more than
the FY2007 appropriation of $1.08 billion, the Senate Committee’s recommendation
would be a decrease compared to FY2007.
CRS-48
Similar to Clean Water SRF grants, EPA also administers Drinking Water SRF
grants to assist states in capitalizing separate loan funds to aid communities in
improving drinking water treatment facilities. There has been less disagreement
between Congress and the Administration in regard to the adequacy of funding for
Drinking Water SRF grants. However, some Members have asserted that more
federal funds are needed to help capitalize these loan funds, especially in light of
more stringent drinking water standards with which communities must comply. The
House and the Senate Appropriations Committee both recommended $842.2 million,
as requested, an increase above the FY2007 appropriation of $837.5 million.
Congress also has supported local water infrastructure needs through targeted
funding for “special project grants” within EPA’s STAG account. These grants fund
a variety of wastewater, drinking water, and storm water infrastructure projects.
They are awarded on a noncompetitive basis to specific communities. Although
communities must repay the loan funds that they borrow from the SRFs, special
project grants do not require repayment. However, each recipient of these grants
must provide 45% of a project’s cost in matching funds, unless EPA approves a
waiver due to financial hardship.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed $140.0 million
within the STAG account for special project grants for FY2008, and identified the
intended recipients in their respective reports on the Interior appropriations bill. As
in past years, the Administration did not request funding for these projects. Total
funding for special project grants has declined in the past few years. For FY2006,
$197.1 million was provided. Congress did not provide funding for special project
grants in FY2007, as the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007
(P.L. 110-5) specifically prohibited the funding of these types of grants.
Superfund. The adequacy of funding to clean up the nation’s most
contaminated and threatening sites has been a long-standing issue. The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) established the Superfund program to fund the cleanup of contamination
when responsible parties cannot be found or cannot pay. The House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee proposed similar funding of $1.24 billion for the
Superfund account to fund the program in FY2008. Both amounts would be an
increase above the $1.21 billion requested by the Administration for FY2008 and
appropriated for FY2007. All of these amounts reflect funding for the Superfund
account after transfers to other EPA accounts.
Total funding for the Superfund account has remained relatively close to the
above amounts over the past several years, averaging approximately $1.25 billion.
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.
The availability of funds within the Superfund account for “physical” cleanup
of sites has been a perennial issue, in light of public concerns about health risks from
CRS-49
potential exposure to contamination. Although the primary purpose of the Superfund
program is to clean up contaminated sites, the program does fund many “indirect”
activities that support cleanup, such as enforcement against responsible parties and
research of more effective cleanup methods noted above. In recent years, about 2/3
of annual funding has been devoted to physical cleanup of sites, including both short-
term removal actions to address immediate risks and long-term remedial actions
intended to provide a more permanent means to prevent exposure.
For FY2008, the House proposed $191.9 million for removal actions, the same
as the President requested. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$193.7 million, as appropriated for FY2007. The House proposed $600.0 million for
remedial actions, whereas the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a
slighter higher amount of $601.3 million. Both of these amounts would be an
increase above the President’s request of $584.8 million, and the FY2007
appropriation of $573.8 million. Concerns about the sufficiency of cleanup actions
to protect human health and the environment have raised questions about program
performance. Staffing and funding of EPA’s Office of Inspector General to audit and
evaluate the Superfund program has been particularly controversial, as discussed later
in this report.
Brownfields. In addition to the Superfund program, CERCLA also
established 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.
For FY2008, the House proposed $172.9 million for EPA’s Brownfields
program. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $162.5 million,
closer to the President’s request of $162.2 million and the $163.0 million
appropriated for FY2007. The increase that the House passed would be devoted to
grants to assist communities with cleanup at individual sites. The House and the
Senate Appropriations Committee amounts for administration of the Brownfields
program, and for other grants to assist states with their own Brownfields programs,
are similar to what the President requested and what was appropriated for FY2007.
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.
Including the transfer from Superfund, the House proposed $53.5 million for the
OIG and the Senate Committee recommended $53.3 million. These amounts are an
increase above the President’s request of $45.1 million and the FY2007 appropriation
of $50.5 million. Some Members expressed concern that the request would not be
CRS-50
sufficient to support adequate staffing to audit and evaluate cleanup activities. In
their respective reports on the Interior appropriations bill, the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees directed that the increased funding for the OIG be used
to restore staffing to prior year levels. EPA had reported that the President’s
proposed decrease in funding for the OIG would result in a reduction of 30 workyears
(full time equivalent employees or FTEs), and a reassignment of 20 FTEs from
oversight of Superfund cleanup to oversight of a broader array of agency activities.
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.
Including transfers from the Superfund account, both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee proposed an increase for the S&T account above the
President’s request of $780.6 million and the FY2007 appropriation of $763.6
million. The House proposed $809.4 million for the account, and the Senate
Committee recommended $798.6 million. Although most of this account funds
“actual” research activities, certain facility operations and administration expenses,
such as rent, utilities, and security, are also funded within this account. Both the
House and the Senate Appropriations Committee increased funding for actual
research activities.39 The increase above FY2007 that the President had requested
was mainly due to a continued shift in funds from the Environmental Programs and
Management account to pay the operational and administrative expenses of research
facilities, rather than an increase in funds for actual research.
State and Local 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 House
proposed $220.2 million for these state and local air quality grants, and the Senate
Committee recommended $220.3 million. Both amounts are an increase above the
39 The House agreed to an amendment to reduce, then increase, the S&T account by $3.9
million, resulting in no net increase above the House Appropriations Committee’s
recommendation. The sponsor stated an intent to decrease funding for facility operations
and administration by $3.9 million, and to increase funding for a homeland water security
research initiative by the same amount to raise funding to the President’s request of $21.9
million. However, the amendment did not specify the allocation of funds for activities.
CRS-51
President’s request of $185.2 million, and the FY2007 appropriation of $199.8
million.
According to EPA, the decrease that the President requested for these grants was
mostly due to the agency’s use of different authorities in the Clean Air Act, as EPA
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. Authorities for demonstration grants do not require matching
funds, but those for implementation do require a match, thereby reducing the federal
role in funding these activities.
The Senate Appropriations Committee “strongly” disagreed with the President’s
proposed shift in grant authorities to require matching funds of recipients (S.Rept.
110-91, p. 69). However, the Committee did not include bill language that would
bind EPA to using one grant authority instead of another. Absent such bill language,
it is unclear how the rise in funds that either the House or the Senate Committee
approved would affect which authorities would be used to administer these grants,
particularly whether matching funds may be required of recipients.
Proposed Commission on Climate Change. The House proposed $50.0
million for a new account to fund a new Commission on Climate Change Adaptation
and Mitigation. The Commission would be temporary and would serve for two
years. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not recommend funding for such
purposes. Of the $50.0 million, $5.0 million would be used to establish and operate
the Commission, analyze science questions related to climate change adaptation and
mitigation, and recommend research priorities to better understand climate change.
The remaining $45.0 million would be distributed to various federal agencies to
conduct this research, based on the Commission’s recommended priorities. The
agencies that would receive this funding would not be limited to those funded in the
Interior appropriations bill. Individuals inside and outside of government would
serve on the Commission, and the President of the National Academy of Sciences
would serve as the chairman. (For further discussion of climate change issues, see
the “Climate Change” section in this report.)
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/].
Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a Forest Service (FS)
budget for FY2008 of $4.55 billion. This was $28.0 million (less than 1%) less than
the House-passed level of $4.58 billion, $422.7 million (10%) more than the
Administration’s request, and $156.6 million (3%) less than the appropriation of
CRS-52
$4.71 billion for FY2007 (including $382.0 million of emergency supplemental
appropriations enacted in P.L. 110-28). As discussed below and shown in Figure 1,
FS appropriations are provided in several major accounts, including Forest and
Rangeland Research (FS Research); State and Private Forestry; National Forest
System; Wildland Fire Management; Capital Improvement and Maintenance
(Capital); Land Acquisition; and Other programs.
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Budget Request
($ 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
were 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
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. No legislation to sell
Forest Service lands has been introduced in the 110th Congress to date.
A one-year extension of payments under P.L. 106-393 was included in P.L. 110-
28. On the House floor, an amendment was offered to the FY2008 Interior
CRS-53
appropriations bill to add $425.0 million for another year’s payments under the
program, but a point of order was sustained so the amendment was not in order.
Some Members agreed to write a letter requesting that the authorizing committees
reauthorize the program. Reauthorization of P.L. 106-393 — without land sales —
is still being debated.
The House agreed to an amendment to prohibit funds to plan, design, study, or
build forest development roads in the Tongass (AK) National Forest for timber
harvesting (§503). Proponents of the amendment contended that timber harvests in
the Tongass are a net loss to the Treasury and damaging to the environment;
opponents asserted that federal timber is critical to the economy of southeast Alaska.
A similar amendment had passed the House in the FY2006 appropriations bill but
was removed in the conference agreement. In the FY2007 bill, the amendment was
disallowed on a point of order.
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. The House approved $2.78 billion for FY2008, $110.8 million (4%) more
than the President proposed, $265.7 million (9%) less than FY2007, and $30.7
million (1%) less than the Senate Committee as shown in Table 16.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $829.5 million for BLM
wildfire funding in FY2008, $22.9 million (3%) more than the House, $27.7 million
(3%) more than the request, and $23.9 million (3%) less than FY2007. The Senate
Committee recommendation for FY2008 FS wildfire funding was $1.98 billion, $7.8
million (less than 1%) more than the House, $113.9 million (6%) more than the
request, and $211.1 million (10%) less than FY2007. The FS and BLM wildfire line
items include funds for fire suppression (fighting fires), preparedness (equipment,
training, baseline personnel, prevention, and detection), and other operations
(rehabilitation, fuel reduction, research, and state and private assistance).
CRS-54
Table 16. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan,
FY2004-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2004 FY2005
FY2008
FY2008
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
National Fire Plan
Approp Approp
House
Senate
Approp. Approp. Request
.
.
Passed
Comm.
Forest Service
— Fire suppressiona
1,296.0
1,044.4
790.2
1,111.5
911.0
859.0
859.0
— Preparedness
671.6
676.5
660.7
665.4
568.8
675.4
676.4
— Other operationsb
379.0
407.7
395.2
416.7
388.8
440.2
447.1
Subtotal, FS
2,346.6
2,128.6
1,846.1
2,193.6
1,868.6
1,974.6
1,982.5
BLM
— Fire suppressiona
391.3
317.0
330.7
344.2
294.4
294.4
294.4
— Preparednessc
254.2
258.9
268.8
274.9
268.3
274.9
286.0
— Other Operations
238.1
255.3
255.7
234.3
239.1
237.4
249.1
Subtotal, BLM
883.6
831.3
855.3
853.4
801.8
806.6
829.5
National Fire Plan
— Fire suppressiona
1,687.3
1,361.4
1,120.9
1,455.7
1,205.4
1,153.4
1,153.4
— Preparedness
925.8
935.4
929.5
940.3
837.1
950.2
962.4
— Other Operations
617.1
663.0
650.9
651.0
627.9
677.6
696.2
Total Funding
3,230.2
2,959.8
2,701.3
3,047.0
2,670.4
2,781.3
2,812.0
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 for FY2003 — FY2007.
b. Excludes fire assistance funding under the State & Private Forestry line item.
c. Fire research and fuel reduction funds are included under Other Operations.
BLM suppression would be the same under the House and the Senate
Committee bills and the Administration request. In other cases, the Senate
Committee recommendations for the BLM differed from the House-passed levels and
those proposed by the President. FY2008 preparedness would be $286.0 million,
$11.1 million (4%) more than the House and $17.7 million (7%) more than the
request. For other operations, one difference is that only the Senate Committee
included funds — $8.0 million — for BLM rural fire assistance grants. For the FS,
the House, Senate Committee, and Administration generally supported different
funding levels for fire programs. For FS suppression, the Senate Committee and the
House approved $52.0 million (6%) less than the request and $252.5 million (23%)
less than FY2007. For FS preparedness, the Committee recommended $1.0 million
(less than 1%) more than the House, $107.6 million (19%) more than the request.
The Senate Committee and the House both rejected the separate proposed Wildland
Firefighters account. Within Other Operations, the Committee recommended
additional funding for FS fuel treatments — $14.7 million (5%) above the House and
$33.5 million (11%) above the request. The Senate Committee recommended $6.2
CRS-55
million for post-fire site rehabilitation, matching FY2007 (compared to $18.0 million
passed by the House and $0.0 million requested). The Senate Committee supported
increasing state fire assistance, by $4.0 million (9%) above the House and $15.2
million (43%) above the request. The Senate Committee did not recommend
contingent or emergency funding for FY2008; neither did the House or the
Administration. 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 Senate Committee recommended
$272.5 million for S&PF, $8.1 million (3%) less than the House, $7.2 million (3%)
less than FY2007, and $70.1 million (35%) more than the FY2008 request. See
Table 17.
For S&PF forest health management (insect and disease control on federal and
cooperative [nonfederal] lands) in FY2008, the Senate Committee recommended a
$1.1 million (1%) increase over the House and FY2007 funding, and $11.1 million
(12%) more than the request with most of the increase for cooperative lands. For
S&PF Cooperative Fire Assistance to states’ fire departments, the Senate Committee
recommended $39.0 million, $3.1 million (7%) below the President’s request and the
House. The difference was entirely in volunteer fire assistance.
For Cooperative Forestry (assistance for forestry activities on state and private
lands) in FY2008, the Senate Committee recommended $124.3 million, $5.1 million
(4%) below the House and $8.7 million (7%) below FY2007, and $57.6 million
(86%) above the request. All three major programs were recommended to be
substantially above the request, but below the House level. They are: Forest
Stewardship, for states to assist private landowners; Forest Legacy, to purchase title
or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, such as for
residences; and Urban and Community Forestry, for financial and technical assistance
to localities. Only the Senate Committee supported funding ($6.5 million) for the
Economic Action Program (for rural community assistance, wood recycling, and
Pacific Northwest economic assistance). The Senate Committee and the House
supported S&PF funding for resource information and analysis, while the President
did not. Most forest information and analysis funding is under Forest Research, and
the Senate Committee recommended total funding (S&PF and Research) at $4.6
million (7%) more than the Administration requested, $2.9 million (5%) more than
FY2007, and $0.4 million less than the House.
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations), the
Senate Committee recommended $7.0 million, 13% less than the House-passed level,
nearly triple the amount requested, and $67,000 more than FY2007.
CRS-56
Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry,
FY2005-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
State and Private Forestry
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Forest Health Management
101.9
100.1
101.1
91.1
101.1
102.2
— Federal Lands
54.2
53.2
54.0
53.0
54.0
55.0
— Cooperative Lands
47.6
46.9
47.1
38.1
47.1
47.2
Cooperative Fire Assistance
38.8
38.8
38.8
42.1
42.1
39.0
— State Assistance
32.9
32.9
32.9
33.1
33.1
33.1
— Volunteer Asst.
5.9
5.9
5.9
9.0
9.0
5.9
Cooperative Forestry
145.4
133.2
133.0
66.7
129.4
124.3
— Forest Stewardship
32.3
34.1
41.9
20.0
36.9
34.3
— Forest Legacy
57.1
56.5
56.3
29.3
56.3a
48.1
— Urban & Comm. Forestry
32.0
28.4
30.1
17.4
31.1
30.8
— Economic Action Prog.
19.0
9.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
— Forest Res. Info. & Anal.
5.0
4.6
4.6
0.0
5.0
4.6
International Programs
6.4
6.9
6.9
2.5
8.0
7.0
Emergency Appropriations
49.1
30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total State & Pvt. Forestry
341.6
309.0
279.8
202.5
280.6
272.5
a. An additional $6.5 million ($62.8 million total) is to be available from prior year balances.
National Forest System. For the National Forest System, the Senate
Committee recommended $1.50 billion, $6.3 million (less than 1%) less than the
House, $155.9 million (12%) above the request and $35.5 million (2%) more than
FY2007. The Committee did not support the requested cut in land management
planning, instead providing $6.1 million (12%) more than the request and the House
and $1.1 million (2%) above FY2007. The Senate Committee and House-passed
levels were generally higher than the request for each major program, including
recreation, heritage, and wilderness; inventory and monitoring; and vegetation and
watershed management. The Senate Committee recommended $135.0 million for
law enforcement, $11.2 million (9%) above the House and the request, and $8.0
million above FY2007 (including the $12.0 million supplemental enacted in P.L.
110-28). Funding for the Valles Caldera National Preserve was recommended at
$4.0 million, $0.5 million above FY2007 and the House-passed level, and
substantially above proposed funding of $0.85 million. Only the House supported
funding ($9.5 million) for challenge cost sharing, for partnerships with the private
sector to leverage federal funds for research, assistance, and management projects to
improve natural resource stewardship.
Infrastructure. For Capital Improvement and Maintenance, the Senate
Committee recommended $444.1 million, $21.5 million (5%) above the request, and
$7.7 million (2%) more than FY2007, but $76.1 million (15%) less than the House.
The Senate Committee recommended less than the House for most programs — $3.3
million (2%) less for facilities, $3.9 million (2%) less for roads, and $2.6 million
(3%) less for trails — with more money for construction and less for maintenance.
The $9.1 million Senate Committee recommendation for Deferred Maintenance,
to reduce the agency’s backlog (estimated at $5.6 billion), matched the request and
CRS-57
FY2007 levels, but was $66.4 million less than the House level. The House-passed
level included $65.0 million for “legacy road remediation” to address environmental
damages caused by infrastructure problems.
Other FS Accounts. For FY2008 FS Land Acquisition with LWCF funds,
the Senate Committee recommended $48.2 million, more than triple the request of
$15.7 million, $3.8 million (8%) above the House, and $6.3 million (15%) above
FY2007. (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” section in this report.) For FS Research in FY2008, the Senate Committee
recommended $291.8 million, $4.1 million (1%) less than the House, $28.8 million
(11%) more than the request, and $11.3 million (4%) more 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 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 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 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
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. The House approved $3.38 billion, an
increase of $204.3 million (6%) over FY2007 and of $113.7 million (3%) over the
CRS-58
Administration’s proposal. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$3.37 billion, an increase of $187.3 million (6%) over FY2007 and of $96.7 million
(3%) over the request, and a decrease of $17.0 million (0.5%) below the House
amount. IHS also receives funding through reimbursements and a special Indian
diabetes program (see “Health Services” below). The sum of direct appropriations,
reimbursements, and diabetes is IHS’s “program level” total. See Table 18.
IHS funding is separated into two budget categories: Health Services, and
Facilities. Of total IHS appropriations enacted for FY2007, 89% will be used for
Health Services and 11% for the Facilities program. The most significant issues in
the FY2008 IHS budget concern the urban Indian health program, in Health Services,
and the health care facilities construction program in Facilities.
Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
FY2007-FY2008
($
millions)
FY2008 Senate
FY2008
Committee
FY2007
FY2008
Indian Health Service
House
Change
Approp.
Request
Passed
Total
from
House
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health Clinics
1,442.5
1,493.5
1,493.5
1,503.8
1%
— Dental Health
126.9
135.8
135.8
135.8
0%
— Mental Health
61.7
64.5
64.5
67.0
4%
— Alcohol and Substance Abuse
150.5
162.0
162.0
164.5
2%
— Contract Health Care
517.3
569.5
579.5
579.5
0%
—— Catastrophic Health
17.7
18.0
18.0
28.0
56%
Emergency Fund
— Methamphetamine treatment &
N/A
0
15.0
0.0
-100%
prevention
— Indian Health Care
N/A
0
25.0
0.0
-100%
Improvement Fund
Subtotal, Clinical Services
2,298.8
2,425.3
2,475.3
2,450.6
-1%
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health Nursing
53.0
56.8
56.8
56.8
0%
— Health Education
14.5
15.2
15.2
15.2
0%
— Community Health
55.7
55.8
55.8
55.8
0%
Representatives
— Immunization (Alaska)
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
0%
Subtotal, Preventive Health
124.9
129.6
129.6
129.6
0%
Services
Other Services
— Urban Health Projects
34.0
0
34.0
35.1
3%
— Indian Health Professions
31.7
31.9
36.9
31.9
-14%
— Tribal Management
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
0%
— Direct Operations
63.8
64.6
64.6
64.6
0%
— Self-Governance
5.8
5.9
5.9
5.9
0%
CRS-59
FY2008 Senate
FY2008
Committee
FY2007
FY2008
Indian Health Service
House
Change
Approp.
Request
Passed
Total
from
House
— Contract Support Costs
264.7
271.6
274.6
271.6
-1%
Subtotal, Other Services
402.5
376.6
418.6
411.7
-2%
Subtotal, Indian Health Services
2,826.2
2,931.5
3,023.5
2,991.9
-1%
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and Improvement
52.7
51.9
52.7
53.7
2%
— Sanitation Facilities
94.0
88.5
94.0
95.7
2%
Construction
— Health Care Facilities
24.3
12.7
20.3
33.0
63%
Construction
— Facilities and Environmental
161.3
164.8
172.3
170.6
-1%
Health Support
— Equipment
21.6
21.3
21.6
22.4
4%
Subtotal, Indian Health
353.9
339.2
360.9
375.5
4%
Facilities
Total Appropriations
3,180.1
3,270.7
3,384.4
3,367.4
-<1%
Medicare/Medicaid
Reimbursements and Other
648.2
700.3
700.3
700.3
0%
Collections
Special Diabetes Program for
Indiansa
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
0%
Total Program Level
3,978.4
4,121.0
4,234.7
4,217.7
-<1%
a. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians has a direct appropriation of $150 million for each of
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 are expected
to be $648.2 million in FY2007. Another $150.0 million per year is expended
through IHS 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.
Clinical Services. The clinical services budget includes most of IHS Health
Services funding. The clinical services budget proposed for FY2008 was $2.43
billion, an increase of 6% over the $2.30 billion in FY2007. The House approved
$2.48 billion, an increase of $176.5 million (8%) over FY2007 and $50.0 million
(2%) over the Administration’s proposal. The Senate Committee recommended
$2.45 billion, an increase of $151.8 million (7%) over FY2007 and of $25.3 million
(1%) over the proposal, and a decrease of $24.7 million (1%) below the House
amount.
CRS-60
Clinical services include primary care at IHS- and tribally run hospitals and
clinics. For hospital and health clinic programs, which make up 63% of the FY2007
clinical services budget, the Administration requested and the House approved $1.49
billion for FY2008, 4% over the $1.44 billion for FY2007. The Senate Committee
recommended $1.50 billion, an increase of $61.4 million (4%) over FY2007 and
$10.3 million (1%) over the request and the House amount.
Contract health 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. The Administration proposed that contract health care receive an increase
in FY2008 to $569.5 million, 10% more than the FY2007 appropriation. The House
approved $579.5 million, an increase of $62.2 million (12%) over FY2007 and $10.0
million (2%) over the proposal. The Senate Committee recommended the same
amount as the House, but within contract health care recommended increasing the
Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) from $18.0 million, as requested by
the Administration and approved by the House, to $28.0 million, an increase of 56%.
CHEF is used to pay contract health care costs in critical, high-cost cases (above
$25,000), such as disaster victims or catastrophic illnesses.
For other programs within clinical services for FY2008, the Administration
proposed that dental programs receive $135.8 million, mental health programs $64.5
million, and alcohol and substance abuse programs $162.0 million. The House
approved these proposals, but separately added $15.0 million for methamphetamine
treatment and prevention and $25.0 million for the Indian Health Care Improvement
Fund. The fund was authorized for allocation among IHS service units to reduce
health status and resources deficiencies and shortfalls. The Senate Committee
recommended the same amount as the House for dental health but disagreed with the
House on other programs. The Senate Committee recommended dropping the
House’s separate $15-million appropriation for methamphetamine programs, instead
adding $2.5 million for methamphetamine programs to the Administration and House
amount for alcohol and substance abuse programs, and also adding $2.5 million for
suicide prevention to the proposed and House amount for mental health programs.
The Senate Committee also recommended no funding for the Indian Health Care
Improvement Fund.
Preventive Health Services. For preventive health services, the
Administration proposed $129.6 million for FY2008, a 4% increase over the $124.9
million for FY2007. The House and the Senate Committee approved the same
amount. Included were $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.
Other Health Services. For these health services, the Administration
proposed a total of $376.6 million for FY2008, a 6% decrease from FY2007. The
House approved $418.6 million for these services, an increase of $16.0 million (4%)
from FY2007 and $42.0 million (11%) from the proposal. The Senate Committee
CRS-61
recommended $411.7 million, $9.2 million (2%) more than FY2007 and $35.1
million (9%) more than the proposal, and $6.9 million (2%) below the House
amount. Contract support costs (CSC), the largest item in this category, were
proposed to receive $271.6 million for FY2008, a 3% increase. The House approved
$274.6 million for CSC, up $9.9 million (4%) over FY2007 and $3.0 million (1%)
over the proposal. The Senate Committee recommended the same amount as the
proposal, $3.0 million (1%) less than the House. Contract support costs are provided
to tribes to help pay the costs of administering IHS-funded programs under
self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts authorized by the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended). CSC
pays for costs that tribes incur for such items as financial management, accounting,
training, and program start-up.
Besides urban Indian health programs (discussed below), other health services
include Indian health professions scholarships and other support, for which the
Administration proposed $31.9 million in FY2008; tribal management grants ($2.5
million proposed); direct IHS operation of facilities ($64.6 million proposed); and
self-governance technical assistance ($5.9 million proposed). The House and the
Senate Committee supported these requests, except that for Indian health professions
scholarships and support the House approved $36.9 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 $33.95 million in FY2007. The House disagreed with
the Administration’s proposal and approved $34.0 million for FY2008, slightly
higher than FY2007 ($49,000, or less than 1%). The Senate Committee also
disagreed with the proposal, recommending $35.1 million, or $1.1 million (3%) over
the FY2007 and House amount. 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. The House Appropriations
Committee made similar assertions and added that the urban Indian health program
“provides vital, culturally sensitive health care” (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 146).
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. The House approved $360.9 million, an increase of $7.0 million
(2%) over FY2007 and $21.7 million (6%) over the Administration’s proposal. The
Senate Committee recommended $375.5 million, an increase of $21.5 million (6%)
CRS-62
over FY2007, $36.3 million (11%) over the proposal, and $14.6 million (4%) over
the House amount. See Table 18.
Included in the Administration’s FY2008 Facilities request were $51.9 million
for maintenance and improvement of health care facilities (1% decrease from
FY2007), $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). The House approved $172.3 million for
facilities and environmental health support (7% increase from FY2007) and the same
amounts as FY2007 for maintenance and improvement, sanitation facilities
construction, and equipment. The Senate Committee recommended $53.7 million
for maintenance and improvement (2% over FY2007 and the House and 3% over the
proposal), $95.7 million for sanitation facilities construction (2% over FY2007 and
the House and 8% over the proposal), $22.4 million for equipment (4% over FY2007
and the House and 5% over the proposal), and $170.6 million for facilities and
environmental health support (6% over FY2007, 3% over the proposal, and 1%
below the House).
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 House approved $20.3 million for
FY2008, a decrease of $4.0 million (17%) from FY2007 and an increase of $7.6
million (60%) from the proposal. The Senate Committee recommended $33.0
million, an increase of $8.7 million (36%) from FY2007, $20.4 million (161%) from
the proposal, and $12.8 million (63%) above the House amount. The FY2007 level
for health care facilities construction 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; all of the Senate Committee’s
recommended increase over the proposal would go towards construction of this
hospital (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 87). The Administration asserted that its overall
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.
CRS-63
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 for ONHIR, a 6% increase
from the FY2007 appropriation of $8.5 million. Both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee approved the same amount.
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.
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),40 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, to sunset ONHIR in 2008 and transfer any
remaining duties to the Secretary of the Interior. Further, a long-standing proviso in
ONHIR appropriations language, retained for FY2008 by the Administration, the
House, and the Senate Committee, prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo
40 The number of families is estimated altogether at around 75; they overlap to an
unpredicted extent with the 83 eligible Navajo families
CRS-64
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 in 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
for FY2006.41 The House would increase SI appropriations over FY2007 by $17.5
million (3%), for a total of $652.4 million. The Senate Committee recommended
a substantially higher increase to $696.7 million, an increase of $61.8 million (10%)
over FY2007 and $18.3 million (3%) more than the Institution’s request. Funding
has been provided 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. This represented a $35.1 million (7%) increase over FY2007
($536.3 million). 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.
The House bill would not fund any increase in Salaries and Expenses over the
FY2007 levels,42 based upon concerns of the Appropriations Committee chair and
other Members over governance and fiscal management at the Smithsonian. The
Senate Committee recommendation would increase Salaries and Expenses by $35.4
million (7%) over FY2007. In addition to funding the SI request, the Senate
Committee would add funds for an additional auditor in the Office of Inspector
General and two accountants in the Chief Financial Officer’s division. These
changes were recommended based on the same concerns over governance and fiscal
management. Questions over the salary and other compensation for Smithsonian
Secretary Lawrence M. Small led to his resignation in March 2007. Secretary Small
41 Smithsonian Institution, Illumination: Annual Report 2006. This and earlier annual
reports are available online at [http://www.si.edu/opa/annualrpts/].
42 While the House would match the request for each particular activity within Salaries and
Expenses, it included a “general reduction” of $35.1 million, returning the total to the
FY2007 amount.
CRS-65
was to receive $915,698 in 2007, compared to the President’s salary of $400,000.
Also, the chief executive officer of Smithsonian Business Ventures is resigning at the
end of his contract, effective September 2007, amid an investigation of his expenses.
Some Members and others have questioned whether Congress should begin to limit
the salaries and expenses of certain Smithsonian officials who are often compensated
well over comparable federal levels because they are paid from private trust funds.
Facilities Capital. The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with
approximately 8 million square feet of space. Recent external studies43 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. The
House bill would fund a larger increase than requested for revitalization, bringing
Facilities Capital funds to $116.1 million for FY2008, a $17.5 million (18%) increase
from FY2007. The Senate Committee recommendation would also add funds for
renovations for a total of $125.0 million, or $26.4 million (27%) above FY2007.
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 $284.1 million will be available for
Institution operations from these sources.
Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Smithsonian Institution
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Salaries and Expenses
536,295
571,347
536,295
571,705
— Museums & Research Institutes
215,195
231,541
231,541
231,541
— Program Support and Outreach
37,567
38,205
38,205
38,205
— Administration
64,110
66,740
66,740
66,991
— Inspector General
1,834
1,977
1,977
2084
43 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-66
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Smithsonian Institution
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
— Facilities Services
217,589
232,884
232,884
232,884
— General Reductiona
—
—
-35,052
—
Facilities Capital
98,600
107,100
116,100
125,000
— Revitalization
82,700
91,400
100,400
109,000
— Construction
5,400
0
0
0
— Facilities Planning and Design
10,500
15,700
15,700
16,000
Total Appropriations
634,895
678,447
652,395
696,705
a. The allocation of the recommended “general reduction” within activities covered by Salaries and
Expenses was not specified.
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).44 The NEA and NEH authorization (P.L. 89-209; 20 U.S.C.
§951) expired at the end of FY1993, but the agencies have been operating on
temporary authority through appropriations law. The House bill would provide a total
of $320.0 million to the arts and humanities endowments — an increase of $54.3
million (20%) over FY2007 — while the Senate Committee recommended a smaller
increase to $279.8 million, or $14.1 million (5%) more than the previous year.
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, the House bill would provide a substantial increase for the agency, up $35.4
million (28%) to $160.0 million, as shown in Table 20. The House considered, but did
not agree to, several floor amendments to cut or eliminate funding for the arts. Floor
amendments to increase or decrease arts funding similarly have been raised for many
years. The Senate Committee recommendation for FY2008 would match the NEA
request, plus an additional $5.0 million for grants, for a total increase over FY2007 of
$8.9 million (7%). The House total included $15.0 million to fund Challenge America
— a program of matching grants for arts education, outreach, and community arts
activities for rural and under-served areas. The Senate Committee would reduce this
program from $10.5 million in FY2007 to $8.5 million for FY2008, as requested.
Another $13.5 million in the House bill would fund American Masterpieces — touring
programs, local presentations, and arts education in the fields of dance, visual arts, and
44 IMLS receives funding through the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts.
CRS-67
music. The Senate Committee would provide this program $12.3 million, as requested,
both increases over the FY2007 level of $5.9 million.
Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Arts and Humanities
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
National Endowment for the Arts
Grants
100,319
102,942
133,500
107,942
Program Support
1,672
1,636
2,000
1,636
Administration
22,571
23,834
24,500
23,834
Subtotal, NEA
124,562
128,412
160,000
133,412
National Endowment for the Humanities
Grants
102,247
101,807
119,900
106,807
Matching Grants
15,221
14,510
14,500
14,510
Administration
23,637
25,038
25,600
25,038
Subtotal, NEH
141,105
141,355
160,000
146,355
Total NEA & NEH
265,667
269,767
320,000
279,767
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. However, both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee supported increases over FY2007. The House approved an
increase of $18.9 million (13%), while the Senate Committee recommended an
increase of $5.3 million (4%). The two largest programs funded by NEH are
federal/state partnership grants and the We the People Initiative grants, which would
be funded in the House bill at $36.0 million and $23.0 million, respectively. We the
People grants include model curriculum projects for schools to improve course
offerings in the humanities. The Senate Committee recommended funding these
programs at $32.2 million and $15.2 million, respectively. FY2007 program funding
was $30.9 million for federal/state partnerships and $15.2 million for We the People.
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-68
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. The appropriations for the state
grant program and other related activities rarely have been specified for individual
projects or areas.
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 $12.8 million (3%) over the FY2007 appropriation of $365.9
million. The FY2008 request included funds for federal land acquisition, the stateside
program, and other purposes as described below. Both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee supported decreases from the FY2007 level. The Senate
Committee recommended $292.9 million for LWCF, while the House approved $261.9
million.
Land Acquisition. For land acquisition, the House and the Senate Committee
supported sizeable increases over FY2007 and the FY2008 request. The House
approved $155.6 million, a $42.6 million (38%) increase over the FY2007 level of
$113.0 million and a $97.7 (169%) increase over the President’s request of $57.9
million. An additional $7.8 million was recommended for land appraisals related to
federal land acquisitions, but it does not appear that this amount would be derived from
LWCF. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $152.2 million for land
acquisition, an increase of $39.2 million (35%) over FY2007 and of $94.3 million
CRS-69
(163%) over the President’s request. The Senate Committee also approved $7.8
million for land appraisals with funds derived from LWCF, as had been requested.
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 $113.0 million for FY2007. The decline may be attributed in part to
increased interest in allocating funding to lands already in federal ownership, reducing
the federal budget deficit, and funding other national priorities, such as the war on
terrorism. Table 21 shows recent funding for LWCF.
Table 21. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, FY2004-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
Land and Water
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
House
Senate
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Federal Acquisition
— BLM
18.4
11.2
8.6
8.6
1.6
18.6
12.2
— FWS
38.1
37.0
28.0
28.0
18.0
43.0
43.0
— NPS
41.7
55.1
17.4a
34.4
22.5
49.4
48.7
— FS
66.4
61.0
41.9
41.9
15.7
44.5
48.2
Subtotal, Federal Acquisition
164.6
164.3
95.8
113.0
57.9
155.6
152.2
Appraisal Services
0.0
0.0
7.3
7.4
7.8
0.0c
7.8
Grants to States
93.8
91.2
29.6
29.6
0.0b
50.0
30.0
Other Programs
229.7
203.4
213.1
215.9
313.1
56.3
102.9
Total Appropriations
488.1
458.9
345.9
365.9
378.7
261.9
292.9
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.
c. The House approved $7.8 million for appraisal services, but it does not appear that this amount would
be derived from LWCF. Accordingly, this amount is not reflected here.
Stateside Program. For FY2008, the House approved $50.0 million for the
stateside program, comprised of $48.0 million for new stateside grants and $2.0 million
for administrative expenses. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$30.0 million, with $28.3 million for grants to states and $1.7 million for program
administration. The Senate Committee total was similar to the $29.6 million
appropriated for each of FY2006 and FY2007 for the stateside program.
The Administration did not request funds for new stateside grants in FY2008, as
in FY2006 and FY2007. The Administration has asserted that state and local
governments have alternative sources of funding for parkland acquisition and
development, and that 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
CRS-70
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. 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.
Other Purposes. The largest portion of the President’s FY2008 LWCF request
— $313.1 million — was for 11 other programs in the Department of the Interior and
the Forest Service. This would be a $97.2 million (45%) increase over the FY2007
level of $215.9 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, for instance
requesting $440.6 million for FY2007.
For FY2008, the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee supported
funding fewer other programs from LWCF than the Administration sought. The House
appeared to provide funds for one other program — Forest Legacy — at $56.3 million.
The Senate Committee would provide a total of $102.9 million for other programs,
comprised of $48.1 million for Forest Legacy and $54.8 million for Cooperative
Endangered Species Grants.
Table 22 shows the other programs for which Congress appropriated funds for
FY2006 and FY2007, and for which the President, House, or Senate Committee
supported funds for FY2008. In some cases, Congress provided these programs with
non-LWCF funding, which is not reflected here.
Table 22. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Other Programs
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
— Challenge Cost Share
0.0
0.0
9.4
0.0
0.0
Fish and Wildlife Service
— Refuge Challenge Cost
0.0
0.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
Share
CRS-71
FY2008
FY2008
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Other Programs
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
— Partners for Fish and
0.0
0.0
48.4
0.0
0.0
Wildlife
— Coastal Programs
0.0
0.0
13.3
0.0
0.0
— Migratory Bird Joint
0.0
0.0
11.1
0.0
0.0
Ventures
— State and Tribal Wildlife
67.5
67.5
69.5
0.0
0.0
Grants
— Landowner Incentive Grants
21.7
23.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Private Stewardship Grants
7.3
7.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Cooperative Endangered
60.1
61.1
80.0
0.0
54.8
Species Grants
— North American Wetlands
0.0
0.0
42.6
0.0
0.0
Conservation Fund Grants
National Park Service
— Challenge Cost Share
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
Departmental Management
— Take Pride in America
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
Forest Service (USDA)
— Forest Legacy Program
56.5
56.3
29.3
56.3
48.1
Total Appropriations
213.1
215.9
313.1
56.3
102.9
Notes: This table identifies “other” programs for which Congress appropriated funds for FY2006 or
FY2007, or for which the Administration, House, or Senate Appropriations Committee supported 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 and House and Senate
Appropriations Committees.
CRS Report RL33531. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding
History, and Current Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
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 (Corps) 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.)
CRS-72
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.45 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.46 For FY2008, the Administration requested $235.0 million for DOI and the
Corps 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. 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 $8.0 million to conduct activities authorized by CERP. It is generally
not possible to identify specific funding amounts for Everglades restoration activities
from the House and the Senate Committee bills. Accordingly, they are not reflected
in the table below.
Table 23. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2007
FY2008
Everglades Restoration in DOI
Approp.
Request
National Park Service
— CERP
4,658
4,731
— Park Operationsa 26,350
28,991
— Land Acquisition (use of prior year balances)
0
0
— Everglades Acquisitions Management
500
500
— Modified Water Delivery
13,330
14,526
— Everglades Research
3,863
3,910
45 These figures represent an estimate of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
46 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.
CRS-73
FY2007
FY2008
Everglades Restoration in DOI
Approp.
Request
— South Florida Ecosystem Task Force
1,308
1,324
— GSA Space
554
554
Subtotal, NPS
50,563
54,536
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP
3,269
3,269
— Land Acquisition
0
1,044
— Ecological Services
2,516
2,516
— Refuges and Wildlife
4,086
4,086
— Migratory Birds
101
101
— Law Enforcement
619
619
— Fisheries
95
95
Subtotal, FWS
10,686
11,730
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and Coordination
7,771
5,771
Subtotal, USGS
7,771
5,771
Bureau of Indian Affairs
— Seminole, Miccosukee Tribe Water Studies and
382
382
Restoration
Subtotal, BIA
382
382
Total Appropriations
69,402
72,419
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2008, The Interior Budget in Brief (Washington,
DC: February 2007).
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,
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. For FY2008,
$14.5 million was requested and also was provided in the House and the Senate
Committee bills. The House Appropriations Committee noted that it intends to
monitor the progress of restoring the Everglades and requested that the DOI submit a
progress report on the status of restoration (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 44). Both the House
and the Senate Committee bills provide funds for Mod Waters only if matching
amounts are obligated for similar purposes to the Corps. Further, both bills prohibit
funding for Mod Waters under NPS Construction if any Corps matching funds for Mod
Waters become unavailable, including funds for design analysis of the Tamiami Trail
(a component of Mod Waters).
CRS-74
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 included in
the Administration’s request for FY2008. However, they were included in the House-
passed bill and the Senate Committee bill.
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-75
Climate Change
Overview. Climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) by
human activities has drawn the attention of Congress as scientific understanding of the
causes, extent, and impacts has grown. Several major scientific reports47 have
concluded that:
! “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
! Elevated GHG concentrations are likely responsible for a major
portion of the observed global temperature increase since the 1970s.
! Human activities are principally responsible for the increase of CO2
and other GHG concentrations since the Industrial Revolution.
! Effects of observed climate change are visible in many physical and
ecological systems, including melting of glaciers, sea ice and
permafrost, altered animal behaviors, and species extinctions.
! Based on plausible future greenhouse gas scenarios, global average
temperatures could rise from current levels at least 1.5oC (2.7oF) to
5oC (9oF) by 2100, with some benefits and many risks to ecological
and human systems.
The growing scientific consensus has, in turn, increased interest from many groups and
foreign countries for Congress to take stronger action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and the risks of impacts of climate change. However, a small minority of
scientists dissent from this view, and a broad group of interests are concerned that the
risks may not merit the high costs they expect of abatement policies.
In the federal government, activities explicitly to address climate change are
funded in 13 agencies, including four agencies within the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Forest Service (FS), and Smithsonian Institution (SI). For
FY2007, total federal appropriations for climate change were $5.55 billion. The vast
majority of funds supported scientific and technological research, while a small portion
was dedicated to encouraging businesses and other entities to adopt the least emitting
and/or most efficient technologies, or to supporting international negotiations and
cooperation. Out of the total, an estimated $175 million was appropriated for FY2007
for climate change activities in the four agencies funded by Interior appropriations.48
This was approximately 3% of government-wide, climate-related appropriations. The
$175 million included $121 million for EPA and $26 million for USGS.
47 Among the most recent and authoritative reports are the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change — Working Group I. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/] and Working
Group II. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. [http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/]. The points bulleted in the text
come from these two ICC reports.
48 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report
to Congress, Washington, DC (2007) [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative
/fy08_climate_change.pdf].
CRS-76
FY2008 Funding. The President’s request for climate change activities in the
Interior appropriations bill was $176 million for FY2008, an increase of $1 million
over FY2007 enacted.49 The House Appropriations Committee’s report identified $266
million for climate change activities in FY2008 (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 5), including
increases over the request of $82 million for the EPA and of $10 million for USGS.
(See Table 24, below — small differences from Committee reports may be due to
rounding).
The Senate Appropriations Committee increased the climate-related
appropriations to $179 million for these four agencies, $3 million over the request.50
The Senate Committee bill reduced EPA funding from FY2007 by $3 million, as
requested by the President. For FS climate change activities, the Administration
proposed an increase from FY2007 of $3 million, while the Senate Committee
provided an increase of $5.5 million. The House Appropriations Committee’s report
does not address FS funding for climate change.
The appropriations in both the House bill and the Senate Committee bill
maintained the large emphasis on funding for scientific and technological research.
However, the House-passed bill contained funding for a new Commission on Climate
Change Adaptation and Mitigation within EPA, to recommend and boost funding for
scientific activities. The House bill also contained funding for EPA to develop
regulatory frameworks to mitigate greenhouse gases and to protect health and safety
from underground injection of carbon dioxide — a technology being developed at large
scale to geologically sequester CO rather than allow it to be emitted from large, fossil
2
fuel combustion facilities. The FY2008 House-passed bill included Sense of the
Congress language concerning the risks of climate change and the recommendation to
limit greenhouse gas emissions. These issues are discussed in more detail below.
House Bill. The House-passed bill would establish a two-year Commission on
Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation within the EPA (with $50.0 million in a
new account). The Commission would be composed of nine heads of federal science
agencies, including the President of the National Academy of Sciences as chair, plus
six additional members to be selected by the chair. The Commission would be charged
with identifying and initiating specific steps to address the science challenges related
to climate change adaptation and mitigation. The first set of recommendations for
research is due in early 2008, to enable the proposed appropriations of $45.0 million
to be transferred by EPA to science agencies no later than July 1, 2008. The House
Appropriations Committee’s report directed the Commission to provide a second set
of research recommendations by March 30, 2009 (H.Rept. 110-187, p.101). The
Commission would terminate September 30, 2009, following submission of a report
to Congress on implementation of its recommendations. The appropriation included
49 OMB, op. cit., 2007.
50 Where the House or Senate Committee bills do not specify any change for climate change
activities, this report assumes that they provide appropriations for FY2008 at the level of the
request. Where the House or Senate Appropriations Committee reports do not specify the
FY2007 appropriations or President’s request, this report uses the data provided by the
White House in OMB, op. cit. (2007).
CRS-77
$5.0 million for EPA to support the Commission, both through direct provision of staff,
and a contract with the National Academies of Science.
An amendment to strike the Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation was offered in the House, on the grounds that it constituted authorization
in an appropriations bill and duplicated the purpose of another bill (H.R. 906). The
amendment was rejected. Proponents of the amendment asserted that the Commission
would provide recommendations to the science agencies regarding scientific challenges
and underscore the importance of strengthening research.
In other provisions, the House Committee report directed EPA to use funds for
regulatory development to help mitigate greenhouse gases in two specific areas: (1) to
take actions towards proposing and publishing regulations to reduce GHG emissions
(H.Rept. 110-187, p. 102-103); and (2) to develop a regulatory framework to protect
against “safety and permanence” risks associated with underground injection of carbon
dioxide (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 107). The House bill included not less than $2 million
for EPA to begin the regulatory framework to reduce greenhouse gases. In support of
this provision, the House Committee report cited the Supreme Court decision,
Massachusetts et al. V. EPA et al., which found that regulation of carbon dioxide as a
pollutant is authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Senate
Committee bill similarly set aside no less than $2 million for regulatory development
but with a slightly different purpose: to develop and publish a rule for mandatory
reporting of GHG emissions in all sectors.
The House did not specify the level of funding for developing a regulatory
framework for underground injection of carbon dioxide, under the authority of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The House Committee report stated that EPA should expect to
testify on the underground injection matter in appropriations hearings for FY2009
(H.Rept. 110-187, p. 107). On a related regulatory question, the House Committee
report stated its expectation that EPA issue its decision no later than December 31,
2007 on the California petition for a waiver, under §209(b) of the Clean Air Act, to
allow enactment of state car emissions standards to reduce greenhouse gases from
vehicles by 30% by 2016 (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 100). The Senate Committee report did
not address this activity.
The House-passed bill also included Title V — Global Climate Change,
expressing the Sense of the Congress that there should be enacted comprehensive and
effective, mandatory, market-based limits and incentives to slow, stop and reverse the
accumulation of GHG concentrations in a manner that “(1) will not significantly harm
the United States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other
nations....” It is based on congressional findings that “(1) greenhouse gases
accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate
outside the range of natural variability and are posing a substantial risk.... (2) there is
a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse
gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and (3) mandatory steps will be required to slow
or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.” On the House
floor, one amendment proposed to strike the Sense of Congress and insert language
instructing that “no federally-mandated steps should be taken to mitigate global climate
change if those steps would harm American consumers, workers, or businesses in any
way.” This amendment was disallowed on a point of order that it constituted
CRS-78
legislation in an appropriations bill, contravening existing authority. The House-passed
language nearly duplicates the Sense of the Senate language approved by the Senate to
H.R. 6 (109th Congress) and is identical to language included in the House
Appropriations Committee’s reported version of the FY2007 Interior appropriations
bill (H.R. 5386).
Forest Service. The Senate Committee report added $2.5 million to the
President’s request for climate-related research in the FS Forest and Rangeland
Research account. This suggests an overall increase for the FS of about $6 million
over the FY2007 appropriation for climate. The Senate Committee report directed the
FS to use the increase “to develop forest management techniques that adapt to and
mitigate the effects of climate change, particularly in those geographic regions of the
United States where forest lands are most at risk. Within 60 days of enactment, the
Committee directs the Forest Service to submit a proposed work plan that details the
planned work and accomplishments with this increased funding and the other base
climate change resources” (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 72).
Smithsonian Institution. For the Smithsonian Institution, neither the House
nor the Senate Committee reports mentioned the $6 million enacted in FY2007 for
climate change science research, also in the President’s request for FY2008. In Table
24, the totals for climate change funding in the House-passed and Senate Committee
bills assume that the appropriations remain constant at the FY2007 enacted and
FY2008 requested levels.
Table 24. Appropriations for Climate Change Activities,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Climate Change Activities
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Department of Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Surveys, Investigations and Researcha
26
27
37
NA
Environmental Protection Agency
Science and Technology, of which:
29
30
52
32
— Climate Protectionb
13
13
19
13
— Clean Air (Global Change)c
16
17
33
19
Commission on Climate Change
0
0
50
0
Adaptation and Mitigationd of which:
— To be transferred in FY2008 to climate science
0
0
45
0
agencies
— Support costs of the Commission
0
0
5
0
Environmental Programs and
92
88
98
86
Management, of which:
— Air Toxics and Quality:e “GHG regulation
0
0
2
2
development”
— Energy Star voluntary program
46
44
52
44
— Asia-Pacific Partnership
5
5
3
3
CRS-79
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
FY2008
Climate Change Activities
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
— Water: Human Health Protection: Underground
NA
NA
NA
NA
Injection of Carbon Dioxidef
— Methane-to-Markets Program
4
4
13
4
Environmental Protection Agency Total
121
118
200
118
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Forest and Rangeland Research (science)g
19
19
NA
22
Forest Service R&D - Inventories of
1
1
NA
NA
Carbon Biomass
Biofuels/Biomass, Forest and Rangeland
2
5
NA
NA
Research (technology)
U.S. Forest Service Totalg
22
25
25
28
Smithsonian Institutionh
6
6
NA
NA
Total Climate Change Activities
in Interior, Environment and Related
Agenciesi
175
176
267
179
Note: NA = Not Available
a. The House bill included an increase of $10 million for “global climate change research” by USGS
scientists. This table reflects these funds as added to the President’s request for FY2008, as
represented in the White House report, OMB, Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to
Congress (May, 2007). OMB is the source of the data in this table for USGS for FY2007enacted
and the President’s FY2008 request.
b. The House Committee report expected not less than $9 million of this program to be available for
research and engineering in the Clean Automotive Technology Program, and increased the account
by $5.7 million over FY2007 enacted for that purpose (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 97).
c. The House Committee report allows EPA to use a portion of the $16.4 million increase over the
President’s request in the Science and Technology account, Research: Clean Air program to be
used for further research or technology testing that may be required to promulgate a regulation to
control greenhouse gas emissions (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 98). (See footnote e.)
d. The House bill established a Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, as a new
separate account, within the EPA. The Commission is to expire on September 30, 2009.
e. The House-passed bill set aside no less than $2.0 million in FY2008 that may only be used to begin
to promulgate a regulation to control greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate Committee bill
similarly set aside no less than $2 million for regulatory development but to develop and publish
a rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in all sectors. The Senate Committee report also
recommended approximately $2 million for research to support future rulemaking on greenhouse
gas reduction (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 53).
f. The House Committee report recommended that funds provided to EPA be used in part to analyze
safety and permanence issues associated with underground injection of carbon dioxide, and to
develop a regulatory framework for how the associated risks might be minimized (H.Rept. 110-
187, p. 107). The Senate Committee report did not address this activity.
g. The Senate Committee report recommended an increase of $2.5 million to expand the FS Forest and
Rangeland climate science research program. Because the climate change program is below the
account level and the total is not specified in the Senate Committee report, this table shows the
increase to the President’s request for science research as reported by the White House in OMB,
op. cit. (2007). The data for the President’s request and the FY2007 appropriations for FS are
from OMB, op. cit. (2007).
h. Funding for climate change research in Smithsonian Institution appropriations occurs below the
account level. Neither the House nor the Sen
ate
Committee reports identify changes to the President’s
request specifically for climate change activities.
CRS-80
i. The House Committee report states that it “provides $266 million for various climate change activities
throughout the bill, an increase of $94 million over the 2007 level” (H.Rept. 107-187, p. 5). The
difference for the total climate-related spending between the House and the CRS totals for FY2008
may be rounding error, as it is not discernible from available sources.
CRS Report RL34067. Climate Change Legislation in the 110th Congress, by Jonathan
L. Ramseur and Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Report RL33849. Climate Change: Science and Policy Implications, by Jane A.
Leggett.
CRS Report RL33801. Direct Carbon Sequestration: Capturing and Storing CO , by
2
Peter Folger.
CRS Report RS22665. The Supreme Court’s Climate Change Decision:
Massachusetts v. EPA, by Robert Meltz.
CRS-81
Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, FY2004-FY2008
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Bureau or Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.g
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1,893,233
1,816,910
1,757,188
1,872,047
1,822,029
1,853,029
1,888,736
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,308,405
1,332,591
1,307,639
1,338,109
1,286,769
1,417,120
1,380,857
National Park Service
2,258,581
2,365,683
2,255,768
2,299,960
2,363,784
2,513,172
2,461,419
U.S. Geological Survey
937,985
944,564
961,675
988,050
974,952
1,032,764
1,009,933
Minerals Management Service
170,297
173,826
158,294
159,515
161,451
66,955
166,351
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
295,975
296,573
294,228
294,591
168,295
170,111
174,295
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,300,814
2,295,702
2,274,270
2,308,304
2,228,890
2,346,940
2,265,698
Departmental Officesa
460,859
496,837
527,656
514,873
478,657
486,681
486,302
Departmental-Wide Programsb
221,815
232,542
248,254
248,286
228,418
268,854
285,851
Total Title I
9,847,964
9,955,228
9,784,972 10,023,735
9,713,245 10,155,626 10,119,442
Title II: Environmental Protection
Agency
8,365,817d 8,026,485
7,617,416
7,725,130
7,199,400
8,090,915
7,772,928
Title III: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Servicee
4,939,899
4,770,598
4,200,762
4,706,149
4,126,873
4,577,514
4,549,543
Indian Health Service
2,921,715
2,985,066
3,045,310
3,180,148
3,270,726
3,384,427
3,367,399
National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences
78,309
79,842
79,108
79,117
78,434
79,117
78,434
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
73,034
76,041
74,905
75,212
75,004
75,212
75,004
Council on Environmental Quality and
Office of Environmental Quality
3,219
3,258
2,677
2,698
2,703
2,703
2,703
Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board
8,648
9,424
9,064
9,113
9,049
9,549
9,049
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation
13,366
4,930
8,474
8,509
9,000
9,000
9,000
Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development
6,173
5,916
6,207
6,207
7,297
7,297
7,297
Smithsonian Institution
596,279
615,158
615,097
634,895
678,447
652,395
696,705
National Gallery of Art
98,225
102,654
111,141
111,729
116,000
119,867
119,735
John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts
32,159
33,021
30,347
30,389
39,350
43,350
43,350
Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars
8,498
8,863
9,065
9,100
8,857
10,000
9,718
National Endowment for the Arts
120,972
121,264
124,406
124,562
128,412
160,000
133,412
National Endowment for the Humanities
135,310
138,054
140,949
141,105
141,355
160,000
146,355
Commission of Fine Arts
1,405
1,768
1,865
1,873
2,092
2,092
2,192
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
6,914
6,902
7,143
7,143
—
10,000
7,200
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
3,951
4,536
4,789
4,828
5,348
5,348
5,348
National Capital Planning Commission
7,635
7,888
8,123
8,168
8,265
8,265
8,265
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
39,505
40,858
42,150
42,349
44,996
44,996
45,496
Presidio Trust
20,445
19,722
19,706
19,706
18,450
22,400
18,450
White House Commission on the Natl.
Moment of Remembrance
—
248
247
247
200
200
200
CRS-82
FY2008
FY2008
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Bureau or Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.g
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Comm.
—
—
—
—
5,000
—
—
Total Title III
9,115,661
9,036,011
8,541,535
9,203,247
8,775,858
9,383,732
9,334,855
[Title IV: Veterans’ Health]
—
— [1,500,000]
—
—
—
—
[Title IV: Secure Rural Schools]
[425,000]
Undistributed Reductions
—
—
1,768
—
—
—
—
Grand Total (in Bill)c
27,329,442 27,017,724 25,942,155 f 26,952,112 h 25,688,503 27,631,273 i 27,186,125 j
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.
h. The total does not reflect $425.0 million in emergency appropriations for Secure Rural Schools.
i. The total reflects a $1.0 million increase from FS rights of way.
j. The total reflects a reduction for MMS state royalty costs, and increases from FS marina fees and FS rights-of-way.