Order Code RL34461
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2009 Appropriations
April 25, 2008
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator,
Robert Bamberger, David M. Bearden, M. Lynne Corn,
Robert Esworthy, Ross W. Gorte, Marc Humphries,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, and David L. Whiteman
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Blake Alan Naughton and Roger Walke
Domestic Social Policy Division
R. Sam Garrett
Government and Finance Division
The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation,
other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs
and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing
statutes. Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the
submission of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional
practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are
rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. It summarizes the status
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, its scope, major
issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant.
The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2009 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.
The President requested $25.78 billion for FY2009 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies, a $1.63 billion (6%) reduction from the FY2008 level of $27.40
billion. While the President sought to increase funds for some agencies, he requested
reduced funds for most agencies. Among the proposed increases for FY2009, over
FY2008 appropriations, were the following:
! $42.3 million (36%) for the Minerals Management Service (MMS);
and
! $33.8 million (5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI).
Among the proposed decreases were the following:
! -$885.1 million (18%) for the Forest Service (FS);
! -$319.0 million (4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA);
! -$206.9 million (20%) for DOI Wildland Fire Management;
! -$99.9 million (4%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and
! -$64.6 million (5%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies have held hearings on agency budget requests. No bill to fund
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2009 has been introduced to date.
Congress may debate a variety of funding and policy issues during consideration of
FY2009 Interior appropriations legislation. These issues might include appropriate
funding for BIA construction, education, and housing; IHS construction and urban
Indian health; wastewater/drinking water needs; land acquisition; the Payments in
Lieu of Taxes program; the Superfund program; and wildland fire fighting. Other
issues include Indian trust fund management, leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf,
and royalty relief.
This report will be updated to reflect major congressional action.
Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Divisiona
Tel.
E-mail
Interior Budget
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Data/Coordinator
Arts, Humanities,
Blake Alan Naughton
DSP
7-0376
bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
Smithsonian
Bureau of Land
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Management
Environmental
David Bearden
RSI
7-2390
dbearden@crs.loc.gov
Protection Agency
Robert Esworthy
RSI
7-7236
resworthy@crs.loc.gov
Everglades
Pervaze A. Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Restoration
Fish and Wildlife
M. Lynne Corn
RSI
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Service
Forest Service
Ross W. Gorte
RSI
7-7266
rgorte@crs.loc.gov
Historic Preservation
Blake Alan Naughton
DSP
7-0376
bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
Indian Affairs
Roger Walke
DSP
7-8641
rwalke@crs.loc.gov
Indian Health Service
Insular Affairs
R. Sam Garrett
G&F
7-6443
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov
Land Acquisition
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Minerals Management
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
Service
National Park Service
David Whiteman
RSI
7-7786
dwhiteman@crs.loc.gov
Payments in Lieu of
M. Lynne Corn
RSI
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Taxes Program (PILT)
Surface Mining and
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-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2009 Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Current Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Status of Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Management of Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Endangered Species Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement . . . . 9
Avian Flu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Wildlife Refuge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Operation of the National Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
United States Park Police (USPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Centennial Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
National Recreation and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Land Acquisition and State Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Enterprise Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . 19
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Water Resources Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Biological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Science Support and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Global Climate Change Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Law Enforcement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Housing Improvement Program (HIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Road Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Office of Insular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
National Indian Gaming Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Water Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Brownfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Title III: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Major FS Issues in Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
FS Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
National Forest System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Capital Improvement and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . . . . . 52
Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Salaries and Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Facilities Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Legacy Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Trust Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment
for the Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
NEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
FY2009 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
FY2009 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Wildfire Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Fire Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Other Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Emergency Supplemental and Contingent Appropriations . . . . . . . . . 70
List of Figures
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
List of Tables
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2008-FY2009 . . . 12
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . 14
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2008-FY2009 . . . 18
Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2008-FY2009 . . 29
Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu
of Taxes, FY2000-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 16. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry,
FY2005-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . 53
Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2008-FY2009 . . . 59
Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . 61
Table 21. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2008-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 22. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 23. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 24. Appropriations for FS and DOI Wildland Fire Management,
FY2004-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2009 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies have held hearings on agency budget requests for FY2009. The
Administration sought a total of $25.78 billion for FY2009 for all agencies and
activities included in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations
bill.
Introduction
The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
includes funding for agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as
well as numerous related agencies and bureaus. It provides funding for Department
of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded in
Energy and Water Development appropriations laws), many of which manage land
and other natural resource or regulatory programs. The bill also provides funds for
agencies in two other departments — the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture, and the Indian Health Service (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 former years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies
provided funds for several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE),
including research, development, and conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum
Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, at the outset of the 109th
Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House and Senate
Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate jurisdiction
over DOE.1 At the same time, jurisdiction over the EPA and several smaller entities
was moved to the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering Interior
and Related Agencies.2 This change resulted from the abolition of the House and
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies, which previously had jurisdiction over
EPA.
1 These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development.
2 These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies.
CRS-2
Since FY2006, appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies have 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,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. For each such agency or
issue, we discuss some of the key funding changes proposed for FY2009 that are
likely to be of interest to Congress. We also address related policy issues that might
occur 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. For
information on programs funded in the bill but not directly discussed in this report,
please contact the key policy staff members listed at the beginning of the report.
This report contains final FY2008 enacted levels for agencies, programs, and
activities. 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 enacted for FY2008 and those requested by the President for
FY2009. 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. References to the “Explanatory Statement” refer to the
statement on the FY2008 appropriations bill published in the December 17, 2007,
Congressional Record. That bill, H.R. 2764, was enacted as P.L. 110-161, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008. In the tables throughout this report,
some columns of funding figures do not add to the precise totals provided due to
rounding.
FY2004-FY2009
Table 1, below, shows appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies for FY2004-FY2009. Funding for earlier years is not readily available due
to the changes in the makeup of the Interior appropriations bill. If enacted, the
President’s request for FY2009 (shown below) would be the lowest level since at
least FY2004. It would be a $1.55 billion (6%) decrease in funds from the FY2004
level in current dollars, or an 18% decrease in constant dollars (assuming the
Congressional Budget Office’s inflation projections of 2.8% for 2008 and 1.9% for
2009). See Table 25 for a budgetary history of each agency for FY2004-FY2009.
CRS-3
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2009
(in billions of current dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
$27.33
$27.02
$25.94
$27.40
$27.40
25.78
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. The FY2007 figure includes $425.0 million for
Secure Rural Schools. The FY2009 figure is the Administration’s request.
FY2009 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
The President requested $25.78 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, a $1.63 billion (6%) reduction from the FY2008 level of $27.40 billion.
While the President sought to increase funds for some agencies, he requested reduced
funds for most agencies. Among the proposed increases for FY2009, from FY2008,
were the following:
! $42.3 million (36%) for the Minerals Management Service (MMS);
and
! $33.8 million (5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI).
Among the proposed decreases were the following:
! -$885.1 million (18%) for the Forest Service (FS);
! -$319.0 million (4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA);
! -$206.9 million (20%) for DOI Wildland Fire Management;
! -$99.9 million (4%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and
! -$64.6 million (5%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Major Issues
Controversial funding and policy issues typically have been debated during
consideration of the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. Debate on the FY2009 funding levels might encompass a variety
of issues, many of which have been controversial in the past, including the issues
listed below.
! Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially
the adequacy of funding to meet state and local wastewater and
drinking water needs. These state revolving funds provide seed
money for state loans to communities for wastewater and drinking
water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see the
“Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)
CRS-4
! 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 FY2009 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.)
! 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.)
CRS-5
! 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 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 “Wildland
Fire Management” section in this report.)
Status of Bill
Table 2, below, will contain information on congressional consideration of the
FY2009 Interior appropriations bill as it occurs.
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2009
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
H. Comm.
House
S. Comm.
Senate
Conf.
Report Approval Public Law
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
House
Senate
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management3
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 requested a total of $987.4 million for BLM for FY2009.
This would be a reduction of $20.5 million (2%) from the FY2008 level of $1.01
billion. See Table 3. These figures do not include funds for DOI wildland fire
management. In the past, wildland fire funds have been appropriated to BLM for fire
fighting on all DOI lands. However, for FY2009, the Administration proposed
funding for DOI fire fighting as a department-wide program, rather than through the
3 For more information on BLM funding, contact Carol Hardy Vincent at 7-8651.
CRS-6
BLM. The Administration sought $850.1 million for DOI wildland fire management,
a reduction of $206.9 million (20%) from the $1.06 billion appropriated to the BLM
for FY2008. (For more information, see the “Wildland Fire Management” section
in this report.) Proposed funding for several key activities is discussed below.
The Administration’s FY2009 budget included several suggested changes in
law. For instance, the Administration suggested amending the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) in part to alter the distribution of proceeds
from land sales. Under current law, proceeds are deposited into a separate Treasury
account and are available primarily for land acquisition. The President’s proposal
would direct 70% of the proceeds to the general fund of the Treasury. It would cap
receipts retained by the DOI at $60 million annually, and direct using updated land
management plans to determine which lands to sell or exchange. The Administration
supports these changes to reduce the amount of money not subject to oversight during
the appropriations process and to enhance the public benefits from land sales,
according to the BLM budget justification. Legislation would be needed to make
these changes. The Administration made similar proposals in earlier budget requests,
which were not enacted.
The Administration also proposed to eliminate the Range Improvements Fund,
and consequently did not request an appropriation from the fund. The Administration
seeks a legislative change to direct that the grazing fee receipts that are deposited into
the fund instead be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. Range
improvements include vegetation projects, fencing, and water developments. The
Administration advocates the change so that construction and maintenance of public
land projects is the responsibility of public land users and interest groups, while
allowing that BLM funds from other accounts could be used for range improvements.
The Administration proposed similar changes in earlier budget requests, but they
have not been enacted. While the Administration did not request funds for Range
Improvements for FY2009, Table 3, below, shows a request of $10.0 million because
under current law a portion of the grazing fees collected are deposited in the fund.
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 Administration requested $864.8 million, an
increase of $10.9 million (1%) over the FY2008 level of $853.9 million. The
FY2009 request specified $21.8 million from this account for the National Landscape
Conservation System (NLCS). This system consists of 26 million acres of BLM’s
protected conservation areas. Overall, the Administration sought $51.8 million for
the NLCS, from multiple accounts, compared with an appropriation of $54.1 million
for FY2008.
CRS-7
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2009
Bureau of Land Management
Approp.
Request
Management of Lands and Resources
853.9
864.8
Construction
6.4
4.5
Land Acquisition
8.9
4.5
Oregon and California Grant Lands
108.5
108.3
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeituresb
0.0
0.0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds and Permanent Operating Funds
20.1
-4.6
— Current Appropriations
20.1
20.1
— Naval Oil Shale Reserves, Mineral Leasing Receipts
—
-24.7
Total Appropriationsa
1,007.9
987.4
a. The figures do not reflect funds for DOI wildland fire management. For FY2008, $1.06 billion was
appropriated to the BLM for DOI wildland fire management. For FY2009, the Administration
is seeking to fund wildland fire management as a department-wide program, with a request for
$850.1 million.
b. The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
In general, the Administration sought reduced funds for FY2009 for activities
funded by this account. This is due in part to the separate identification of funds for
the NLCS in FY2009, which in the past were included as part of other activities.
Proposed reductions for FY2009 from the FY2008 levels include the following:
! range management: $2.3 million, from $73.0 million to $70.7
million;
! cultural resources: $2.6 million, from $16.1 million to $13.5
million;
! threatened and endangered species: $1.7 million, from $22.3 million
to $20.6 million;
! recreation management: $8.8 million, from $67.9 million to $59.1
million;
! resource management planning: $4.1 million, from $47.5 million to
$43.4 million; and
! deferred maintenance: $10.2 million, from $36.5 million to $26.3
million.
The FY2009 request included an increase in appropriations of $22.1 million for
oil and gas management, from $109.9 million in FY2008 to $132.0 million in
FY2009. The lower amount for FY2008 was primarily the result of $25.5 million in
offsetting fees. These revenues were expected to be derived through a program for
FY2008 requiring payment of $4,000 for each application for a permit to drill oil and
gas wells. Including these revenues, the amount available for FY2008 was $135.4
million. The Administration is seeking a legislative change to make permanent the
cost recovery fee, with the hope of generating $34.0 million for FY2009.
For the healthy lands initiative for FY2009, the Administration requested $14.9
million, an increase above the $4.9 million appropriated for FY2008. The
CRS-8
Administration anticipates using another $8.2 million in existing funds for the
initiative for both FY2009 and FY2008, while raising $10.0 million in contributions
from partners in FY2009 and $3.4 million in FY2008. The initiative consists of
vegetation resources enhancements to restore and improve the health and productivity
of western public lands across large areas of land. It currently focuses on six areas
located in Utah, New Mexico, southwest Wyoming, southeast Oregon-southwest
Idaho-northern Nevada, south-central Idaho, and western Colorado. In its FY2009
budget justification, BLM stated that these areas were selected due to an “urgent”
need to maintain, improve, and restore wildlife habitat to help preclude the need to
list species under the Endangered Species Act. With the additional funds in FY2009,
the Administration is seeking to expand the Colorado initiative to include the
northwest portion of Colorado, and to add a seventh area — California — which will
incorporate three smaller initiatives.
Construction. For FY2009, the Administration requested $4.5 million for
BLM Construction, including funds for two specified projects. This was a decrease
of $1.9 million from the FY2008 level of $6.4 million, and would be the lowest
appropriation in at least a decade. The BLM’s multi-year construction plan similarly
anticipates a request of $4.5 million for each of FY2010 through FY2013, according
to the FY2009 budget justification. In its report on the FY2008 Interior
appropriations bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee had supported funding of
$11.5 million, nearly the FY2007 level, to avoid an increase in the construction
backlog. The Committee had expressed “disapproval” regarding DOI’s “lack of
commitment to its infrastructure” (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 15-16).
Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition for FY2009, the Administration
sought $4.5 million, including funds for four specified acquisitions. This would be
a decrease of $4.5 million from the FY2008 level of $8.9 million. The appropriation
for BLM acquisitions had fallen steadily from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.9
million for FY2008. 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 Service4
For FY2009, the President requested $1.30 billion for the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), down 5% from the FY2008 level of $1.37 billion. By far the largest
portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resource Management account.
The FY2009 request for this account was $1.07 billion, down 1% from FY2008.
4 For more information on FWS funding, contact M. Lynne Corn at 7-7267.
CRS-9
Among the programs included in Resources Management are the Endangered Species
program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The
FY2009 request is $146.8 million, down 2% from the FY2008 level of $150.5
million. See Table 4.
A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are
listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. For FY2008, the
President proposed, and Congress approved, ending the Landowner Incentive
Program ($23.7 million in FY2007) as well as Stewardship Grants ($7.3 million in
FY2007). No funding was sought for either program for FY2009. This year, the
President proposed to increase the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund (for grants to states and territories to conserve threatened and endangered
species) from $73.8 million to $75.5 million. The request included a proposal to
cancel $4.5 million in prior year balances. Without the cancellation, the proposal
would provide for $80.0 million, slightly below the FY2007 funding level of $81.0
million. See Table 4.
In total, the FY2009 request contained $222.3 million for endangered species
and related programs, down 1% from the FY2008 level of $224.3 million and 13%
below the FY2007 level of $256.6 million.
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and
Related Programs, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
Endangered Species and
FY2008
FY2009
Related Programs
Approp.
Request
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate Conservation
9,731
8,659
— Listing
17,978
18,188
— Consultation
51,758
51,577
— Recovery
71,041
68,417
Subtotal, Endangered Species Program
150,508
146,841
Related Programs
— Landowner Incentive Program
0
0
— Private Stewardship Grants
0
0
— Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
73,831
75,501a
Subtotal, Related Programs
73,831
75,501a
Total Appropriations
224,339
222,342
a. Reflects a cancellation of $4.5 million in prior year balances.
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement. For
refuge operations and maintenance, the FY2008 appropriation was $434.1 million;
the President proposed the same level for FY2009. Within refuge funding, modest
cuts in visitor services, conservation planning, and refuge maintenance were balanced
by increases in refuge-based law enforcement, and in wildlife and habitat
CRS-10
management. A portion of the wildlife and habitat management spending is
proposed to be charged to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Costs of operation have increased on many refuges, partly due to special
problems such as hurricane damage and more aggressive border enforcement, but
also due to increased use, invasive species control, and other demands. Refuge
funding has not kept pace with new demands, and these demands, combined with the
rising costs of rent, salaries, fuel, 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 remaining resources more effectively. Other regions began their own plans
to address reduced operating budgets. Congress responded to funding shortfalls with
additional appropriations for refuge operations for FY2008, increasing funds for that
purpose from $264.0 million in FY2007 to $296.6 million in FY2008. In the
Explanatory Statement for the FY2008 appropriation, FWS was directed to use the
additional FY2008 funding to reestablish basic operations nationwide. FWS was
further directed to report back to the Appropriations Committees on allocation of the
increased funding within 60 days.
The FY2009 request included $57.4 million for Law Enforcement nationwide,
covering border inspections, investigations of violations of endangered species or
waterfowl hunting laws, etc. This would be a decrease of 4% from the FY2008 level
of $59.6 million.
Avian Flu. For FY2009, the President’s request would fund avian flu research
and monitoring at $4.9 million, down 33% from the FY2008 level of $7.3 million for
the study, monitoring, and early detection of highly pathogenic avian flu. In addition,
the President proposed to transfer the program from General Administration to the
Migratory Bird Management Program. Under the FY2008 program, 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 FY2009, the President’s budget included $10.2
million for Land Acquisition, down 71% from the FY2008 level of $34.6 million.
The Administration proposed that $0.9 million be allocated to Refuge Acquisition,
down $19.8 million (96%) from FY2008. The Administration asserted that the
proposed reduction would allow the agency to better focus on management of lands
currently in the refuge system, by not adding to operations and maintenance costs
CRS-11
through additional acquisitions.5 See Table 5. In the past, the bulk of this FWS
program has been for acquisitions of land for specified federal refuges, but a portion
was used for closely related functions such as acquisition management, land
exchanges, emergency acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, and general overhead.
In recent years, less of the funding has been reserved for traditional land acquisition.
This program is funded with appropriations from LWCF. (For more information, see
the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2009
FWS Land Acquisition
Approp.
Request
Acquisitions — Federal Refuge Lands
20,676
900
Inholdings
2,953
1,500
Emergencies & Hardships
0
1,500
Exchanges
1,477
1,537
Acquisition Management
8,013
3,240
Cost Allocation Methodology
1,477
1,494
Total Appropriations
34,596
10,171
Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a source
of mandatory spending for land acquisition. The account is permanently
appropriated, with funds derived from the sale of duck stamps to hunters and import
duties on certain arms and ammunition. For FY2009, the President proposed to
increase the price of a duck stamp from the current $15 to $25, with a further increase
to $35 beginning in FY2013. As annual appropriations for acquisitions under LWCF
have declined, the MBCA ($43.7 million in FY2007, and an estimated $40.0 million
for FY2008) has become increasingly used to protect habitat for migratory birds,
especially waterfowl. Other species in these habitats benefit incidentally. The
President’s budget assumes that Congress will enact an increase in the price of duck
stamps, and that as a result MBCA revenues for FY2009 will increase 35% to $54.0
million. The MBCA would rise from 54% of the agency’s land acquisition budget
to 84%, if both the reduction in the basic land acquisition account and the increase
in the duck stamp price are enacted.
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 has
provided additional appropriations. For FY2009, the President requested $10.8
million, down 23% from the FY2008 level of $14.0 million. With refuge receipts,
5 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year FY2009: The Interior Budget in Brief, February
2008, p. DO-21.
CRS-12
the FY2009 level would fund about 40% of the authorized payment level, down from
51% in FY2008.
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. For FY2009, the President requested
$4.3 million for MSCF, down 46% from the FY2008 level of $7.9 million. The
request also included $4.0 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Fund (NMBCF), down 11% from the FY2008 level of $4.4 million. See Table 6.
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2009
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
Approp.
Request
African Elephant
1,477
990
Tiger and Rhinos
1,969
990
Asian Elephant
1,477
990
Great Apes
1,969
990
Marine Turtles
983
296
Total MSCF Appropriations
7,875
4,256
Neotropical Migratory Birds
4,430
3,960
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 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 appropriation for FY2008 was $73.8
million, and the FY2009 request was identical. See Table 7.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2009
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
Approp.
Request
State Grants
62,724
62,724
Competitive Grants for States, Territories, & Other
4,922
4,922
Jurisdictions
Tribal Grants
6,184
6,184
Total Appropriations
73,830
73,830
CRS-13
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 Service6
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. After nearly a decade of generally flat or declining numbers
and an abrupt disruption of tourism following the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, park visits increased by 3 million (1%) in 2007, to nearly 276 million visits.
The Park System has roughly 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.
For FY2009, the President proposed a budget of $2.40 billion for the NPS,
$13.9 million (less than 1%) more than the FY2008 enacted level of $2.39 billion.
See Table 8. The proposal would provide a major boost in funding for the park
operations account but would reduce the recreation and preservation, construction,
and land acquisition line items.
The condition of the parks and the adequacy of their care and operating capacity
continues to be a congressional focus. Some advocacy groups claim that the park
system has long experienced chronic budget shortfalls. By one estimate, the national
6 For more information on NPS funding in general, contact David Whiteman at 7-7786. For
more information on funding for historic preservation, contact Blake Alan Naughton at 7-
0376.
CRS-14
parks operate with two-thirds of needed funding — a budget shortfall of more than
$600 million annually.7
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2009
National Park Service
Approp.
Requesta
Operation of the National Park System
1,970.6
2,130.7
— Park Management
1,744.5
1,889.1
— Administrative Costs
139.4
148.1
— U.S. Park Police
86.7
93.6
Centennial Challenge (Matching Program)b
24.6
0.0
National Recreation and Preservationc
67.4
45.5
Historic Preservation Fundc
70.4
66.1
Construction
218.5
172.5
Land and Water Conservation Fundd
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
69.0
20.8
— Assistance to States
24.6
-1.0
— NPS Acquisition
44.4
21.8
Total Appropriations
2,390.5
2,404.3
a. Includes cancellation of $4.3 million of prior-year funds: $0.8 for U.S. Park Police, $0.5 million
for Historic Preservation, $0.6 million for Construction, $1.0 million for Assistance to States,
and $1.3 million for Urban Parks and Recreation.
b. The FY2009 figure reflects that the Administration did not seek funding for the matching program
through annual appropriations.
c. Preserve America funding requested for FY2009 ($10.0 million) is included in the Historic
Preservation Fund. For FY2008, funds were included ($7.4 million) in National Recreation and
Preservation.
d. Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
To be ready for the NPS’s 100th anniversary in 2016, the Administration
proposed a multi-year initiative, to begin 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
request that legislation be enacted to establish a mandatory fund with $100.0 million
annually to match the public donations. The second part of the initiative — the
proposed $1 billion “Centennial Challenge” — would rely on corporate, foundation,
and other private donations, raising concerns among some park supporters about
potential commercialization and privatization influence on the parks. (See the
“Centennial Challenge” section, below.)
7 See the website of the National Parks Conservation Association at [http://www.npca.org/
media_center/reports/analysis.html].
CRS-15
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. The FY2009 request targeted $2.13 billion to support
overall park operations, $160.9 million (8%) above the FY2008 enacted level. The
FY2008 law incorporated the U.S. Park Police account into the operations line item.
See Table 8. 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 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.
United States Park Police (USPP). The U.S. Park Police is 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 support the approximately 1,500 law
enforcement trained and commissioned park rangers and 400 seasonal law
enforcement rangers working in park units.
The FY2009 request was $93.6 million (including a cancellation of $0.8 million
in prior year funds). This would be an increase of $6.8 million (8%) above the
FY2008 enacted level. The increase is primarily intended to address a perceived
under-staffing issue by raising the number of sworn officers, which had fallen to a
20-year low of 576 at the end of January 2008.
A report by the DOI Inspector General cited serious deficiencies in USPP
leadership, staffing, training, and equipment.8 The report charged that the force was
failing to adequately perform its expanded security duties for the icon parks and
monuments as well as other law enforcement obligations, including patrol functions,
dignitary protection, and special events and crowd management. Following release
of the OIG report, the USPP Chief was detailed to DOI headquarters to be part of a
team addressing program reforms for the force, according to the Park Service.
Centennial Challenge. As discussed above, the Administration proposed a
three-part National Parks Centennial Initiative, with additional discretionary funding
for park operations, and a Centennial Challenge program consisting of public
donations and federal funds to match the donations. The President’s FY2009 budget
proposed to establish $100.0 million in mandatory spending to provide the federal
match. Related legislative proposals have been introduced in the House and Senate.
The House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 312) accommodates legislation
establishing a National Parks Centennial Fund, but would require the authorizing
legislation to identify financial offsets so as to not increase the deficit.
Congress provided $24.6 million as seed money for the Centennial Challenge
in the FY2008 appropriations law, to be matched by equal private contributions.
Until authorizing legislation is enacted, language in that law will guide related
8 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Assessment of the United States
Park Police, PI-EV-NPS-0001-2007 (Washington, DC: February 2008).
CRS-16
spending priorities. The FY2008 appropriations law and language in the House
Appropriations Committee report on the Interior Appropriations bill (H.Rept. 110-
187) direct that the Challenge money be used for signature projects, not for core
operations or for projects that commercialize parks, and that the NPS must control
all projects. Park Service identification of the initial projects to be funded is
reportedly nearing completion.
National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds a variety of
park system recreation, 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, historic, and cultural resources. The request
for FY2009 of $45.5 million would be $21.9 million (33%) less than the FY2008
appropriation of $67.4 million. The proposed reduction in funding has drawn
criticism from some Members of Congress and from some park support
organizations.
The proposed decrease was partly the result of moving funding for Preserve
America ($7.4 million) from this line item to Historic Preservation, where it was
funded in FY2007. (See the “Historic Preservation” section below.) However, the
request also sought to reduce funding for the heritage partnerships program that
supports the national heritage areas, from $15.3 million in FY2008 to $7.1 million
in FY2009. Also, as in recent budget requests, the Administration again proposed
discontinuing statutory and contractual aid; the program was funded at $7.5 million
in FY2008.
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 the Save America’s Treasures grant program.
For FY2009, the Administration’s request for the HPF was $66.1 million, a
decrease of $4.2 million (6%) from the funding level for FY2008. See Table 8. The
request proposed cancellation of $0.5 million in unobligated balances appropriated
in prior years. The request would reduce funding for state and tribal historic
preservation grants by $3.7 million (9%) and $2.5 million (38%) respectively. The
NPS request for Save America’s Treasures was $15.0 million, down 39% from the
$24.6 million appropriated in FY2008, but higher than the FY2007 funding of $8.1
million. The Administration’s request for the Preserve America grant programs —
traditionally funded through the HPF but funded through National Recreation and
Preservation in FY2008 — moved Preserve America grant programs back to the
HPF, and proposed funding of $10.0 million, an increase of $2.6 million (35%) over
FY2008.
For FY2009, the NPS proposed a $3.0 million program to help states and tribal
governments create an integrated inventory of historic properties. Of that amount,
$2.0 million would fund grants through the HPF and the balance would be provided
CRS-17
through the National Recreation and Preservation account. A $5.0 million proposal
for a similar program was included in the Administration’s FY2008 request, but was
not funded.
Construction. The Construction line item funds new construction projects,
as well as improvements, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities.
The FY2009 request would reduce the Park Service’s construction budget by $46.1
million to $172.5 million for FY2009, a 21% decrease compared to FY2008. Such
a reduction in construction funding could affect the Park Service’s ability to address
its maintenance backlog. DOI data (March 2007) show an 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. The FY2009 request for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was $20.8 million, comprised of $21.8
million for NPS land acquisition and -$1.0 million for state assistance programs by
cancelling state assistance balances. This would reduce funding by $48.1 million
(70%) from FY2008 appropriations of $69.0 million ($44.4 million for NPS land
acquisition and $24.6 million for state assistance). Land acquisition funds are used
to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for inclusion within the National Park System.
This account also includes money to buy inholdings — the private lands within park
boundaries. 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 $21.8 million proposed for NPS land acquisition was $22.5 million (51%)
below the FY2008 level. The Administration again requested no funds for LWCF
state assistance; for FY2008 Congress provided $24.6 million. (For more
information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this
report.)
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.
CRS-18
U.S. Geological Survey9
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.
Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and
Research, for eight activities: Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote
Sensing; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water Resources
Investigations; Biological Research; Enterprise Information; Science Support;
Facilities; and Global Climate Change Research. The FY2009 request for the USGS
was $968.5 million, a $38.0 million decrease from the FY2008 level of $1.01 billion.
With the exception of Global Climate Change Research and Enterprise Information
activities, funding for all other USGS programs would either remain about the same
or decrease according to the FY2009 request. See Table 9.
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2009
U.S. Geological Survey
Approp.
Request
Enterprise Information
110.4
112.1
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing
77.7
73.1
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes
243.5
208.0
Water Resources Investigations
220.5
203.0
Biological Research
179.9
180.3
Science Support
67.2
67.2
Facilities
100.0
98.1
Global Climate Change Research
7.4
26.6
Total Appropriations
1,006.5
968.5
The FY2009 budget request for USGS contained approximately $34.9 million
in program increases and $87.8 million in program reductions, according to the
agency.10 The budget contained an $8.2 million increase to support a water census
component of the Water for America Initiative with the Bureau of Reclamation, and
a $3.7 million increase to upgrade 350 streamgages in the National Streamflow
Information Program. The request also contained $26.6 million to continue global
climate change research, a $19.2 million increase. (See the “Global Climate Change
9 For more information on USGS funding, contact Pervaze A. Sheikh at 7-6070.
10 U.S. Geological Survey, The President’s FY 2009 Request for USGS, accessed March 20,
2008 at [http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1867].
CRS-19
Research” section below.) The FY2009 request proposed to eliminate funding for
the Water Resources Research Institutes, which the Administration contends have
been generally self-supporting. In FY2008, the Institutes were appropriated $6.3
million. The FY2009 request also had a net reduction of $24.6 million for mineral
resource assessments, a scaling back to focus on the needs of federal land
management programs, according to the Administration.
Enterprise Information. The Enterprise Information Program consolidates
funding of all USGS information needs including information technology, security,
services, and resources management, as well as capital asset planning. The FY2009
request recommended $112.1 million for this program, $1.8 million above the
FY2008 level.
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) national geospatial program, 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.
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing. This
program aims to provide access to high quality geospatial information to the
public. The FY2009 request would provide $73.1 million to this program, $4.6
million below the FY2008 level.
The Administration’s request would provide a programmatic increase of $2.0
million to develop a National Land Imaging Program. This program will plan the
collection of remotely sensed imagery of the Earth’s land surfaces, and assess the
societal and economic benefits of satellite land imaging. Under the Land Remote
Sensing subheading, the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, also known as Landsat 8,
was proposed to be continued in FY2009. 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.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, the FY2009 request was $208.0 million, $35.5
million below the FY2008 level. 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 $24.6 million net
reduction to mineral resource assessments, which would result in $26.3 million for
the mineral resources program. According to the Administration, universities or
other entities will undertake assessments and research that support nonfederal needs.
In previous years, the Administration requested similar cuts in this program, which
Congress rejected. The Appropriations Committees expressed full support for the
CRS-20
program for FY2008, and referred to the Administration’s requested cut for FY2008
as “irresponsible” (Explanatory Statement, H16128).
Under this activity, for FY2009 there was a requested increase of $7.0 million
for ocean science in support of the DOI initiative on Oceans and Coastal Frontiers.
The funds would be used to conserve coral reefs, improve ocean science, and map
areas of the U.S. extended continental shelf. This is one component of DOI’s overall
contribution of $956 million to implement the Ocean Action Plan in 2009.11
Water Resources Investigations. For this program, the Administration
requested $203.0 million for FY2009, $17.5 million below the FY2008 level. As
with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2008 budget requests, the FY2009
request sought to 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. Each
year the program has been funded; in FY2008, $6.3 million was provided.
The FY2009 request would reduce funding for the National Water Quality
Assessment by $9.8 million from the FY2008 level of $63.9 million. The reduction
would result in the suspension of source-water and ground-water monitoring studies
and affect data collection in 28 states. Further, work on topical studies would be
reduced. These studies address issues such as the sources and transport of
contaminants, and the effect of contaminants on human and natural systems. There
was an increase of $3.0 million requested for the Ground Water Resources Program,
which brings its total requested funding to $10.6 million. This program will support
the DOI’s Water for America Initiative by helping to assess water availability and
water quality, and conducting region-specific assessments of ground water.
Biological Research. The Biological Research Program under the USGS
generates and distributes information related to conserving and managing the nation’s
biological resources. The FY2009 request for this program was $180.3 million, a
$0.5 million increase over FY2008. The Biological Research Program would fund
work in five focal areas that will support DOI’s science strategies. These areas
include research on effects of climate change on wildfires and ecosystems, large river
ecosystem processes and habitat, vertebrate diseases and impacts, gap analysis12 and
taxonomic research, and adaptive management.
Under this program, $8.0 million was requested for studies on priority
ecosystems located in the Greater Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay,
and Mojave Desert. The total requested funding for this program under USGS was
$10.4 million, with $2.4 million requested under the Water Resources Program.
Under DOI’s Birds Forever Initiative, there was a $1.0 million increase for USGS to
extend monitoring and surveillance of migratory birds. The USGS will expand both
the number of migration routes surveyed annually and the geographic scope of
11 For more information see [http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/oceanfr.html], accessed March
13, 2008.
12 Gap analysis identifies the degree to which native animal species and plant communities
are represented in federal lands.
CRS-21
monitoring into Mexico. 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. In 2009, 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 FY2009 request would provide $67.2 million, similar to
the FY2008 enacted level. Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair.
The FY2009 request would provide $98.1 million, approximately $1.8 million below
the FY2008 level.
Global Climate Change Research. The FY2009 request combined most
of the climate change activities of the USGS into one integrated program. It provided
$26.6 million for this program, an increase of $19.2 million over FY2008.
Work under this program seeks to provide science, monitoring, and predictive
modeling to generate information on climate changes and their effect on the resources
and landscape of the United States. Specifically, scientists will continue to track
indicators of climate change and link them to effects. Further, work is planned to
develop decision support tools for policy makers and resource managers to develop
and implement adaptation strategies. Some specific projects will concentrate on the
effects of climate change on forest carbon storage, the use of glaciers as indicators
of climate change, ecosystem modeling, and the effects of climate change on the
Yukon River Basin.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at
[http://www.usgs.gov/].
Minerals Management Service13
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the
Offshore Energy and Minerals Management (OEMM) Program and the Minerals
Revenue Management (MRM) Program. OEMM administers competitive leasing on
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas,
other minerals, and offshore alternative energy. MRM collects and disburses
bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal onshore and OCS leases and Indian
mineral leases. Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they
were collected, the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and designated programs.
Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated among the coastal states, the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
MMS is currently developing regulations for the administration of alternative energy
leases in the OCS.
13 For more information on MMS funding, contact Marc Humphries at 7-7264.
CRS-22
MMS collected and disbursed about $11.5 billion in revenue in FY2007 from
mineral leases on federal and Indian lands. This amount fluctuates annually 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%. However, in FY2007, oil royalties
accounted for about 38.5% of MMS receipts. 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 FY2009
total MMS budget of $307.1 million. (See Table 10.) This included $6.1 million for
Oil Spill Research and $301.0 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management. The total FY2009 request reflected $160.4 million in appropriations
and an additional $146.7 million from offsetting collections. MMS has been
retaining a portion of the OCS revenues and using them as offsetting collections
since 1994. The Administration’s total request was $10.3 million (3%) above the
$296.8 million enacted for FY2008. The net appropriation request for FY2009, of
$160.4 million, was significantly higher than the $118.1 million enacted for FY2008.
This was because of the $43.0 million deduction for royalty cost-sharing with the
states for FY2008.
Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2009
Minerals Management Service
Approp.
Request
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
— OCS Lands (OEMM)
161.3
164.0
— Royalty Management (MRM)
81.7
86.0
— General Administration
47.5
51.0
— Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
290.5
301.0
— Use of Receipts and Cost Recovery Fees
-135.7
-146.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
Appropriations
154.8
154.3
Oil Spill Research
6.3
6.1
Administrative Provisions
— State Royalty Administrative Cost Deduction
-43.0
Total Appropriations
118.1
160.4
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.
In 2006, 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 five-year OCS Oil and Gas
CRS-23
Leasing Program (2007-2012) remain controversial. Bristol Bay was removed from
the congressional moratoria, 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 also was debated during
consideration of FY2008 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 1999.14
On January 18, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) that would have denied
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 had asserted that the House-passed bill could lead to
legal challenges which could delay oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Department also suggested that Congress offer the lessees a three-year extension
to their leases as an incentive to amend the leases to include price thresholds. The
House-passed language was not enacted in the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (P.L. 110-140).15 Similarly, the final FY2008 Interior appropriations law did
not contain House-passed 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
(DWRRA) without price thresholds.
In addition, the authority of the Secretary to impose price thresholds has come
into question in a lawsuit filed by Kerr-McGee.16 The U.S. District Court, Western
District of Louisiana issued a ruling on October 18, 2007, in favor of Kerr-McGee,17
meaning that the Secretary of the Interior did not have authority to impose price
threshold levels in leases issued under DWRRA (1996-2000). The ruling could
apply to potentially $23-$31 billion in future OCS royalties according to the MMS,
but may not affect congressional efforts to impose new fees or establish new lease
eligibility criteria discussed above.18
14 This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS,
during April 2006.
15 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.
16 For more details on this case, see CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas
Development: Legal Framework, by Adam Vann.
17 Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. v. Allred, No. 2:06-CV-0439 (W.D. La. October 30, 2007).
18 See CRS Report RL33974, Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R.
(continued...)
CRS-24
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 (the Royalty Policy Committee — RPC) to review the MMS
Mineral Leasing Program. The RPC offered over 100 recommendations to the MMS
for improving its leasing program and auditing function. The review included 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 2007.19 The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
concluded in testimony on March 11, 2008, that the DOI cannot be assured it is
receiving the appropriate revenues from its oil and gas leasing program.20
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-
year terms. A suspension extends the term of the lease, to allow the lessee to
facilitate development.21 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.22 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.23
Following this ruling, nine oil company lessees brought breach of contract
claims against MMS seeking restitution for “bonus payments” made to MMS in order
18 (...continued)
6) Creating Incentives for Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price Thresholds, by Robert
Meltz and Adam Vann and CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum: Impact of the
Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corp. v. Allred Ruling on the Proposed Royalty Relief for
American Consumers Act of 2007, by Adam Vann.
19 The report of the panel, Mineral Revenue Collection from Federal and Indian Lands and
the Outer Continental Shelf, is available on the MMS website at [http://www.mrm.mms.gov/
Laws_R_D/RoyPC/PdFDocs/RPCRMS1207.pdf].
20 Mineral Revenues: Data Management Problems and Reliance on Self-Reported Data for
Compliance Efforts Put MMS Royalty Collections at Risk, Government Accountability
Office, testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Committee
on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Frank Rusco, Acting Director, Natural
Resources and Environment, March 11, 2008.
21 The regulations on suspension are at 30 C.F.R §250.168.
22 California v. Norton, 150 F.Supp.2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
23 California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2002).
CRS-25
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.24 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.25 The government was ordered to repay the lessees
for all so-called “bonus payments” made to the government in exchange for the
leases.26
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.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement27
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. Until FY2008, disbursements from the AML
fund were determined strictly by annual appropriations. 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.
24 Amber Resources Co. v. U.S., 68 Fed. Cl. 535 (2005).
25 Id. at 546-48.
26 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).
27 For more information on OSM funding, contact Robert Bamberger at 7-7240.
CRS-26
Historically, AML collections were divided up and assigned to different
accounts, some of which were designated to a federal share account that partly
funded reclamation based upon a state’s historical coal production. A portion of fee
collections also was also credited to a state share account. Application of a complex
formula — and other considerations — determined what portion of the annual
appropriation each state with an approved program would receive. Grants from the
appropriation to a state or tribe were drawn on both a state’s federal-share and state-
share accounts.
Fee 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 $2.07 billion by the end of FY2007, of which approximately
$1.3 billion was 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. As coal production has shifted westward, western states have paid
more into the fund. These states 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.28 Noting, in particular, the steadily
increasing unappropriated balances in their state share accounts, Western states
pressed for increases in the annual AML appropriations to return more of the
unappropriated balances to them.
These concerns were addressed by several changes to the program included in
P.L. 109-432. Beginning in FY2008, state and tribal grants are funded by mandatory
appropriation from general U.S. Treasury funds. Only discretionary programs,
including funding OSM operations, and federally managed reclamation programs, are
funded by annual appropriations in Interior appropriations bills.
Annual collections deposited to the AML fund will be included in the
calculation of total funds to be distributed to states and tribes during the fiscal year
that follows.29 Additionally, under the restructuring, the balances in the state- and
tribal-share accounts of states and tribes that have completed remediation of the
highest priority sites, are to be returned to the states or tribes in seven annual
installments paid from general Treasury funds.30 These states and tribes, referred to
as “certified,” will also receive whatever grants they would be entitled to based upon
application of the distribution formula to both prior year collections and the
entitlement based upon its historic coal production.
28 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.
29 The permanent appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that
money would exceed the cap, distributions will be proportional.
30 Added to these totals will be any money needed to fund minimum program states. These
states have sites remaining with serious problems. However, these states also have
insufficient levels of current coal production to generate significant fees to the AML fund.
Each minimum program state is to receive $1.5 million annually.
CRS-27
Other changes enacted in P.L. 109-432 are designed to make more funds
available on an annual basis to states with significant reclamation work yet to be
done. The portion of AML collections from certified states that, under the old
program, would have been deposited to those states’ state-share accounts will instead
be credited to the federal-share account, the state balances of which represented
historical coal production. The allocation of a portion of AML fee collections under
the old program to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) was also
discontinued by P.L. 109-432. The unappropriated balances in the RAMP account
were also transferred to the pool of funds representing state historical coal
production. These changes were made with the intention of increasing the pool of
money available for distribution to “uncertified states” (those states that have not
reclaimed the most serious sites). Disbursements to uncertified states will be based
upon their proportionate entitlement from the historical coal production account as
well as the amount that otherwise would have been deposited to the state-share
account.31
Under P.L. 109-432, distributions to uncertified states will be 50% of the
designated amount in FY2009, and 75% in FY2010 and FY2011, before reaching
100% beginning FY2012. Certified states will receive 50% of their designated
amount in FY2009, 75% in FY2010, and the full amount beginning in FY2011. Once
fully in place, OSM estimates that 83% of annual fee collections will be distributed
to states and tribes outside the appropriation process.32
Some activities 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. However, the FY2009 request does not include new
funding for State Emergency Grants and Federal Emergency Projects owing to a
sufficient carryover of funds from FY2008. Funding of this program will cease when
these funds are exhausted because the changes to the AML program are making
additional funds available to states and tribes to manage their own AML emergency
programs.33 The agency budget also has an additional component — regulatory and
technology programs.
Owing to the establishment of the permanent appropriation, the FY2008 OSM
appropriation was sharply lower than the FY2007 level. It included a total of $118.5
million for Regulation and Technology and $52.0 million for the AML fund, for a
total of $170.4 million for FY2008. The Administration request for FY2009 was
$118.5 million for Regulation and Technology, and $30.8 million for the AML fund.
Total spending for OSM would be $149.3 million for FY2009, a reduction of roughly
$21.1 million (12%) from FY2008. (See Table 11.) However, this reduction would
31 Whether or not fee collections are reauthorized beyond FY2021, mandatory distributions
will continue as long as money remains in the AML fund.
32 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2009, p. 148.
33 Fifteen states manage their own emergency programs: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
CRS-28
be more than offset by the permanent appropriation under the restructured AML
program.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2009
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Approp.
Request
Regulation and Technology
118.5
118.5
— Environmental Protection
87.4
86.9
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
52.0
30.8
Total Appropriations
170.4
149.3
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its website at [http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm].
Bureau of Indian Affairs34
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, and management of trust assets (real
estate and natural resources).
BIA’s direct appropriations were $2.29 billion in FY2008. For FY2009, the
Administration proposed $2.19 billion, a decrease of $99.9 million (4%) below
FY2008. Table 12 presents funding figures for FY2008 and FY2009. The
percentages of change are from the appropriated levels for FY2008 to the requested
levels for FY2009. Decreases are shown with minuses.
Key issues for BIA include education programs — such as the Administration’s
proposals to increase education management spending, reduce education construction
funding, and eliminate funding for the Johnson-O’Malley program and for tribal
technical colleges. Other key issues involve BIA’s law enforcement, welfare
assistance, housing, and road maintenance programs, and the Interior Department’s
process for acknowledging Indian tribes.
34 For more information on BIA funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
CRS-29
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
Percent
FY2009 Request
FY2008
Change
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Approp.
FY08-
Total
TPAa
FY09
Operation of Indian Programs
Tribal Government
399,863
389,703 381,966
-3%
— Johnson-O’Malley Grantsb
7,565
0
0
-100%
— Welfare Assistancec
7,549
0
0
-100%
— Housing Improvement Programd
37
0
0
-100%
— Contract Support Costs
147,294
147,294 147,294
0%
Human Services
139,339
112,426 108,287
-19%
— Welfare Assistancec
78,928
64,491
64,491
-18%
— Housing Improvement Programd
13,614
0
0
-100%
Trust - Natural Resources Management
147,158
141,822
65,739
-4%
Trust - Real Estate Services
148,370
150,087
63,539
1%
— Probate
19,573
20,334
12,952
4%
— Real Estate Services
47,216
48,140
33,828
2%
— Land Records Improvement
15,814
15,659
0
-1%
Bureau of Indian Education
689,612
663,980
24,935
-4%
— Elementary/ Secondary (Forward-
479,895
475,594
0
-1%
Funded)
— ISEP Formula Funds
358,341
364,556
0
2%
— Elementary/ Secondary [Other]
74,621
61,329
0
-18%
— Johnson-O’Malley Grantsb
13,782
0
0
-100%
— Post Secondary Programs
111,749
100,772
24,935
-10%
— Tribal Colleges and
56,821
56,821
0
0%
Universities
— Tribal Colls. and Univs.
1,272
1,272
0
0%
Supplements to Grants
— Tribal Technical Colleges
5,906
0
0
-100%
— Education Management
23,347
26,285
0
13%
Public Safety and Justice
243,656
242,774
13,197
-<1%
— Law Enforcement
228,137
229,577
0
1%
— Detention/ Corrections
64,023
64,648
0
1%
— Tribal Courts
14,338
12,047
12,047
-16%
Community and Economic Development
39,436
27,171
25,385
-31%
— Road Maintenance
25,576
13,028
13,028
-49%
Executive Direction Administrative Services
240,375
260,327
27,145
8%
— Office of Federal Acknowledgment
2,432
2,468
0
2%
— Information Resources Technology
52,866
59,735
0
13%
Subtotal, Operation of Indian Programs
2,047,809 1,988,290 710,193
-3%
CRS-30
Percent
FY2009 Request
FY2008
Change
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Approp.
FY08-
Total
TPAa
FY09
Construction
Education Construction
142,935
115,376
N/A
-19%
— Replacement School Construction
46,716
22,405
N/A
-52%
— Replacement Facility Construction
9,748
17,013
N/A
75%
— Education Facilities Improvement
84,529
74,363
N/A
-12%
and Repair
Public Safety and Justice Construction
14,393
11,433
N/A
-21%
— Law Enforcement Facilities
10,938
7,975
N/A
-27%
Improvement and Repair
Resources Management Construction
38,309
37,306
N/A
-3%
General Administration Construction and
8,117
9,146
N/A
13%
Construction Management
Subtotal, Construction
203,754
173,261
N/A
-15%
Land and Water Claim Settlements and
33,538
21,627
N/A
-36%
Miscellaneous Payments
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
6,178
8,186
N/A
33%
Total Appropriations
2,291,279 2,191,364 710,193
-4%
a. Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) are a subset of funds for BIA Operation of Indian Programs. Thus, N/A
is provided for other accounts where TPA does not apply. Further, the amounts in this column are
included in the “FY2009 Request — Total” column in the table. Tribes may apply their own priorities
to TPA programs, moving funds among programs without prior BIA approval and without triggering
congressional Appropriation Committees’ requirements for approval of reprogramming.
b. The Johnson O’Malley program is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and Bureau of
Indian Education.
c. Welfare Assistance is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and Human Services.
d. The Housing Improvement Program is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and Human
Services.
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs.35 BIE funds an elementary-
secondary school system and higher education programs. The BIE school system
comprises 184 BIE-funded schools and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000
structures, educating about 44,000 students in 23 states. In school year 2006-2007,
tribes and tribal organizations, under grants for tribally controlled schools and self-
determination contracts, operated 123 of these institutions; BIE operated the
remainder. BIE also 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 and the high
proportion of schools failing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP). Key
appropriations issues include initiatives to meet AYP, the Johnson-O’Malley (JOM)
35 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). The BIE appropriations request remains
within DOI’s Indian Affairs appropriations request.
CRS-31
program, tribal technical colleges, and the large number of inadequate school
facilities.
Indian Education Initiative. In school years 2003-2006, 69%-70% of BIE-
funded schools failed to make AYP, according to BIE. In FY2008, under a new
“education program enhancements” initiative, BIE’s forward-funded elementary and
secondary budget activity received $12.1 million to improve instructional resources
at BIE schools targeted for restructuring or corrective action to meet AYP goals.
Among the activities funded are teacher development, principal training, intensive
reading and math programs, and tutoring and mentoring for high school students.
The Administration proposed $5.2 million for education program enhancements for
FY2009, a decrease of $6.9 million (57%) from FY2008.
Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Program. The JOM program provides
supplementary education assistance grants for tribes and public schools to benefit the
majority of Indian students who attend public schools. JOM is funded in two budget
activities, Tribal Government and BIE. In FY2008, JOM was funded at $7.6 million
in the Tribal Government activity and $13.8 million in the BIE activity, for a total of
$21.3 million. For several years, including FY2009, the Administration has proposed
no funding for this program, contending that JOM’s funding of public school
programs reduces BIE’s commitment to its school system, JOM does not address a
focused academic achievement goal, and Department of Education programs under
Title VII (Indian education) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act36
provide funds for the same purposes. JOM proponents support continued JOM
funding for FY2009. They assert that JOM serves students in tribally operated as
well as public schools and that Education Department programs cannot replace what
they see as JOM’s culturally relevant programs.
Tribal Technical Colleges. There are two tribal career and technical (or
vocational) colleges, one in North Dakota (United Tribes Technical College, or
UTTC) and one on the Navajo Reservation (Navajo Technical College, formerly
Crownpoint Institute of Technology). Both colleges are statutorily excluded from the
BIE tribal colleges and universities assistance program,37 but the two are the only
colleges receiving grants under the Education Department’s Carl Perkins Act
program for tribally controlled vocational colleges.38 The tribal technical colleges
received a total of $5.9 million in FY2008. BIE has for several years, including
FY2009, sought to end 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. Tribal technical college proponents disagree, asserting that
they provide unique culturally appropriate career and technical education programs
and campus services, and that BIE funding provides a very large proportion of their
operating budgets (over half at UTTC, for instance). The proponents also note that
36 This program is contained in 20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
37 The tribal colleges and universities assistance statute limits the number of eligible tribally
controlled colleges to one per tribe (25 U.S.C. 1801(a)(4)).
38 The provision for tribally controlled career and technical institutions is at 20 U.S.C. 2327.
CRS-32
for FY2009 the Administration proposed no funding for the Perkins Act program and
reduced other Education Department higher education programs from which the
tribal technical colleges benefit.39
Education Construction. Many BIE school facilities are old and
dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. BIA education construction covers
replacement of all of a school’s facilities, replacement of individual facilities at
schools, improvement and repair of existing school facilities, and repair of education
employee housing. School facilities are replaced or repaired according to priority
lists. Table 12 shows education construction funds. For FY2008, education
construction appropriations totaled $142.9 million. Congress approved BIA’s
FY2008 plan to complete existing replacement school construction projects.
For FY2009, the Administration proposed reducing the total education
construction appropriation by 19%, to $115.4 million. Included was a reduction of
$24.3 million (52%) for construction of replacement schools, leaving $22.4 million
to fund one replacement school construction project. The Administration asserted
that construction and repairs since 2001 have reduced the proportion of BIE facilities
in bad condition, and that the BIA needed to focus on completing replacement school
construction projects funded in prior years. Opponents of reductions contend that a
large proportion of BIE schools still need replacement or major repairs and thus
funding should not be cut.
Law Enforcement Program. BIA and Justice Department figures show
rising crime rates, methamphetamine use, and juvenile gang activity on some Indian
reservations. The federal government has lead jurisdiction over major criminal
offenses on most Indian reservations, although in some states federal law has
transferred criminal jurisdiction to the state. Tribes share jurisdiction but under
federal law tribal courts have limited sentencing options. In general, tribes have
fewer law enforcement resources than state and local jurisdictions. BIA funds most
law enforcement, jails, and courts in Indian country, whether operated by tribes or the
BIA. For FY2008 law enforcement appropriations totaled $228.1 million. Included
was funding for the Administration’s “Safe Indian Communities Initiative” to
provide additional officers, equipment, and training; increase staffing at detention
and corrections facilities (a need identified in a 2004 Interior Inspector General
report); and provide specialized drug enforcement training, especially regarding
methamphetamine. The House Appropriations Committee directed BIA to allocate
the FY2008 funding increases for tribal law enforcement outside the usual
methodology in order to serve areas with the greatest need, especially remote
reservations (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 6). Currently, BIA is in the process of calculating
39 For the FY2009 proposals for the Perkins Act and tribal college programs, see U.S.
Department of Education, FY 2009 Department of Education Justifications of Appropriation
Estimates to the Congress: Higher Education ([Washington]: U.S. Department of Education,
Feb. 2008), pp. S-12 — S-13, S-25 — S-31, and S-95 — S-S-99; available online at
[http://www. ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget09/justifications/s-highered.pdf].
CRS-33
tribes’ law enforcement needs and anticipates allocating the funding increase in April
2008.40
For FY2009, the Administration proposed $229.6 million for law enforcement,
an increase of $1.4 million (1%). Of the increase, $1.0 million is part of a proposed
Department-wide increase in law enforcement on tribal and Department lands on the
southwest border. Indian tribes and supporters have suggested the Administration’s
initiatives were insufficient for adequate policing on reservations and may not be
sufficient to handle the methamphetamine problem. One witness noted a BIA gap
analysis conducted in 2006, which determined that there were 2,555 law enforcement
officers on Indian lands although 4,409 would be needed, for a gap of 1,854 officers
(42%).41
For tribal courts, FY2008 appropriations were $14.3 million. For FY2009, the
Administration proposed a 16% decrease, to $12.0 million. Proponents of tribal
courts oppose the reduction, asserting that tribal courts are underfunded and
necessary to law enforcement and justice on reservations.
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 considers HIP a safety net for needy Indians who cannot meet
criteria set by tribes administering the HUD program. Total HIP funding was $13.7
million in FY2008, most in the Human Services budget activity ($13.6 million) and
a small amount in the Tribal Government activity ($40,000).
For FY2009, as in FY2008, the Administration proposed eliminating HIP,
contending that it is not cost effective and serves a limited number of tribes, that
tribes administering the HUD program are not statutorily barred from altering criteria
in order to serve HIP recipients, that the HUD program can meet the needs, and that
other BIA programs are of higher priority. Indian tribes and supporters opposed the
elimination of HIP. They asserted that HIP meets a great need for rehabilitation of
substandard housing, and questioned whether the HUD program could fill the need
for urgent housing repairs.
Road Maintenance. BIA’s Road Maintenance program is the primary source
of funds to maintain BIA-owned roads and bridges, including those constructed
under the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program funded through the Highway
Trust Fund in the Department of Transportation. The IRR program (authorized at
$410 million in FY2008 and $450 million in FY2009) is the largest source of federal
funds for design and construction of public roads and bridges within, or providing
40 Information obtained from the BIA, personal communication, March 14, 2008.
41 Testimony of Jefferson Keel, National Congress of American Indians, “NCAI Testimony
on the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request for Indian Programs,” presented
at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Feb. 15, 2007, p. 3; available at
[http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Keel021507.pdf].
CRS-34
access to, Indian reservations and trust lands and Alaska Native villages. IRR funds
are jointly managed by the Transportation Department and BIA, and are allocated
both to BIA, for allocation to tribal projects, and to tribes directly. BIA-owned roads
account for about half the total mileage of IRR roads. For FY2008, Road
Maintenance appropriations were $25.6 million.
For FY2009, the Administration proposed to reduce BIA Road Maintenance
appropriations by 49%, to $13.0 million. The Administration noted that tribes can
use up to 25% of their IRR funds for maintenance activities. Tribes oppose the
reduction, contending that funding for maintaining roads is inadequate even with
25% of IRR funds.
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).42 First located within 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 criticized frequently for taking too long, one reason for
which is a lack of resources.43 For FY2008, OFA received $2.4 million within the
Executive Direction budget activity, which funds the Assistant Secretary’s office.
For FY2009, the Administration requested $2.5 million, a 2% increase.
For further information on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, see its website at
[http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html].
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian
Education, see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs44
Office of Insular Affairs.45 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 (USVI) — as well as three freely
42 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.
43 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).
44 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.
45 For more information on OIA funding, contact R. Sam Garrett at 7-6443.
CRS-35
associated states in the Western Pacific — the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM),
the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of Palau.46 OIA staff
manage relations between each jurisdiction and the federal government and work to
build the fiscal and governmental capacity of local governments. OIA aid may be
particularly important for American Samoa, CNMI, and the USVI, all of which have
experienced recent fiscal challenges.47
OIA funding consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite appropriations
and (2) funds provided in the annual appropriations process (discretionary and
current mandatory funds).48 The latter comes from two accounts: Assistance to
Territories (AT) and Compact of Free Association (CFA). AT funding provides
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. The AT and CFA accounts, however, provide a relatively small portion
of the office’s overall budget; permanent and indefinite funds provide the bulk of
U.S. financial assistance to U.S. insular areas, FSM, RMI, and Palau.
The total OIA request (including permanent and indefinite annual
appropriations) for FY2009 was $401.6 million. Of the total request for FY2009,
$321.7 million (80.1%) in permanent and indefinite funding is required through
statutes, as follows:
! $208.7 million under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts
of Free Association;49 and
! $113.0 million in fiscal assistance through payments to territories,
divided between the USVI for estimated rum excise and income tax
collections, and Guam for income tax collections.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds in the AT and CFA accounts require
annual appropriations that constitute the remaining 19.9% of the OIA budget request.
The FY2009 request included $75.1 million in AT funding to provide technical
assistance to territories (e.g., for water treatment projects and various environmental
programs). That amount was 4% less than the FY2008 appropriation of $77.8
million. The FY2009 CFA request, which provides funding for certain federal
46 On behalf of the United Nations, the U.S. government formerly administered these
areas as the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands (TTPI).
47 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal
Year 2009, Office of Insular Affairs, p. 1. Hereafter referred to as OIA Budget Justification.
48 On permanent funding, see U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year FY2009: The Interior
Budget in Brief, February 2008, p. BH-91.
49 Legislation to approve the amended compacts was enacted in the 108th Congress (P.L. 108-
188). For additional information, see CRS Report RL31737, The Marshall Islands and
Micronesia: Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the United States, by Thomas
Lum. The Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994 and will terminate in FY2009.
CRS-36
services, such as U.S. mail, was $4.8 million. This was 9% below the FY2008
appropriation of $5.3 million.50 Total requested appropriations for FY2009 (the
aggregate of the AT and CFA requests) was $79.9 million, 4% below the $83.1
million appropriated for FY2008.
For additional information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html].
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT).51 For FY2009, the President
proposed $195.0 million for PILT. This would be a decrease of 15% from the
FY2008 level of $228.9 million, and would constitute roughly 52% of the authorized
amount. See Table 13.
Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in
Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-FY2009
($ 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
2006
344.4
232.5
67.5
2007
358.3
232.5
64.9
2008
368.3
228.9
62.1
2009 (request)
375.3
195.0
52.0
Notes: The FY2008 and FY2009 authorized levels, in italics, are estimates; an actual figure for the
FY2008 authorization will be available from DOI in June 2008. Calculation of the estimates 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 a change in the Consumer Price Index would
influence PILT payments. For FY2008 and FY2009, CBO estimates the CPI at 2.8% and 1.9%
respectively, and the figures shown here are based on these CPI levels. However, DOI has
traditionally assumed a 3% CPI for each year. If that assumption were used, the figures for the
FY2008 and FY2009 authorization levels would be $369.0 million and $380.1 million respectively.
It is likely that at least some of the four assumptions would need to be modified, if only marginally.
PILT payment levels could become particularly difficult to predict in the future, depending on any
amendments to the Secure Rural Schools program. (See CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties, by
Ross W. Gorte.)
50 For additional information about the CFA account, see the OIA Budget Justification, pp.
79-91.
51 For more information on PILT funding, contact M. Lynne Corn at 7-7267.
CRS-37
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 $3.8 billion have been made. The PILT program has been
controversial, because in recent years the payment formula, which was indexed for
inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index) in 1994, has increased
authorization levels. However, in recent years appropriations have been substantially
less than the authorized amounts, ranging from 42% to 68% of authorized levels
between FY2000 and FY2008.52 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.
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.53 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 OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds
owned by about 300 tribes in approximately 1,800 accounts, with a total asset value
over $2.9 billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual Indian
Money (IIM) accounts, in about 370,000 accounts with a current total asset value
over $420 million.54 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.
52 When appropriations are not sufficient to cover the authorization, each county receives
a pro rata share of the authorized amount.
53 For more information on OST funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
54 Figures were taken from: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Budget Justifications and
Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2009, Office of the Special Trustee for American
Indians.
CRS-38
OST’s FY2008 appropriation was $189.3 million. For FY2009, the
Administration proposed $181.6 million. See Table 14. Key issues for OST are a
historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, litigation involving IIM and tribal
accounts, and proposed cessation of the Indian land consolidation program.
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
Percent
FY2008
FY2009
Change
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians
Approp.
Request
FY08-
FY09
Federal Trust Programs
179,487
181,648
1%
— Historical Accounting Office
55,504
56,445
2%
Indian Land Consolidation
9,844
0
-100%
Total Appropriations
189,331
181,648
-4%
Historical Accounting. The historical accounting effort seeks to assign
correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especially because of litigation.
Historical accounting activities are carried out through the Office of Historical Trust
Accounting, which was transferred from the Interior Secretary’s office to OST in July
2007. Appropriations for historical accounting have usually been made through
OST. For FY2008, Congress limited appropriations for historical accounting to no
more than $55.5 million. The Administration’s request for FY2009 was $56.4
million.
A historical accounting based on every single account transaction is expected
to be large and time-consuming, because of the large number of IIM accounts, the
long historical period to be covered (some accounts date well back into the 19th
century), and the large number of missing account documents. IIM accounts are of
three types: land-based (i.e., derived from real assets), judgment and per-capita
accounts, and temporary special deposit accounts. In 2003, DOI proposed an
extensive, five-year, $335-million project to reconcile IIM accounts within the time
period 1938-2000. The 2003 plan was to reconcile all transactions for the judgment
and per-capita accounts, reconcile all transactions of $5,000 and over for land-based
accounts, and use statistical sampling techniques to reconcile land-based transactions
of less than $5,000. The plan was revised in 2007 to reflect ongoing experience
(including a large increase in the estimated cost), reduce the number of transactions
reconciled, and change sampling strategies. In addition, special deposit accounts
were no longer included in the plan because they are being distributed to other
accounts.
OST continues to follow its 2007 historical accounting plan, subject to court
rulings (see the “Litigation” section, below) and congressional actions, and now
estimates a total cost of $271 million and completion in FY2011. Plaintiffs in the
IIM litigation (discussed below) considered the statistical sampling technique invalid
and the time period too short. On January 30, 2008, the judge in the IIM litigation
rejected the OST historical accounting plan, but ordered neither a new or revised
historical accounting process nor a cessation of historical accounting. The effect of
CRS-39
this decision on historical accounting activities is as yet unclear. At a hearing on BIA
and OST appropriations, the chair of the House Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee questioned why historical accounting should continue, in light of the
judge’s rejection. The Administration argued that historical accounting should
continue, for purposes of tribal suits and other possible claims, as well as for its
utility in IIM settlement discussions.55
Tribal trust fund and accounting suits have been filed by over 100 tribes, in
addition to the IIM suit. Further, one tribal suit seeks certification as a class action
suit for over 250 tribes, according to OST. For FY2009, OST proposed to continue
allocating about $40 million of historical accounting expenditures to IIM accounts
and the remainder to tribal accounts. In the past, the House Appropriations
Committee has expressed its intent to limit expenditures for historical accounting,
asserting it reduces spending on other Indian programs.
Litigation. An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Kempthorne)
was filed against the federal government in 1996, by IIM account holders, in the
Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.56 Many OST activities are related
to the Cobell case, including litigation support activities. The most significant issues
for appropriations concern the methods for a historical accounting to estimate IIM
accounts’ proper balances, and the amount the federal government would need to pay
to settle the litigation and bring IIM accounts to their proper balances. As mentioned
above, in January 2003 DOI submitted a proposed historical accounting plan to the
district court handling the Cobell case, and estimated it would cost $335 million over
five years. After the 2007 changes in methods (described above), DOI estimated the
revised plan would cost $271 million overall and be finished by the end of FY2011.
DOI expected a historical accounting to show the total owed to IIM accounts to be
in the low millions. The plaintiffs have advocated different methods, based on
estimates of revenues produced from IIM lands, or on applying estimated error rates
to an estimate for IIM throughput (i.e., the total amount that has passed through IIM
accounts). Different methods produced varying estimates of a total owed to IIM
accounts, the highest of which was $176 billion.57
The Cobell district court held a lengthy trial on the question of correct historical
accounting methods. The court in its September 2003 decision rejected both
plaintiffs’ and DOI’s historical accounting plans and instead ordered DOI to account
for all trust fund and asset transactions since 1887, without using statistical sampling.
55 Testimony of Ross Swimmer, Special Trustee for American Indians, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies, April 3, 2008.
56 Cobell v. Kempthorne (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 of the Justice Department at [http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/
cobell/index.htm]. Note that the name of the defendant changes to match the current
Secretary of the Interior.
57 Testimony of Eloise Cobell, in U.S. Congress, House Resources Committee, H.R. 4322,
the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005, hearing Dec. 8, 2005, 109th Congress, 1st session, Serial
No. 109-38 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 39.
CRS-40
DOI estimated then that the court’s order for historical accounting would cost $6-$12
billion and appealed the order. Following a stay and an appeals court ruling, the
district court in February 2005 issued a new historical accounting order again
requiring that the historical accounting cover all trust fund and asset transactions
since 1887 and not use statistical sampling. DOI, which estimated that compliance
with the new order would cost $12-$13 billion,58 again appealed. The Appeals Court
for the D.C. Circuit in November 2005 vacated the district court’s February 2005
order, and in 2006 the Appeals Court assigned a new judge to the Cobell case. OST
meanwhile continued its historical accounting under its 2003 (now 2007) plan. In
October 2007 the new district court judge held hearings on DOI’s historical
accounting obligations, methodology, and results. On January 30, 2008, the district
court rejected the OST historical accounting plan. The court found that the DOI was
unable to perform an adequate historical accounting and that such an accounting was
impossible, given the great expense and past congressional funding. Instead of
ordering a new or revised historical accounting process, the district court ordered a
court hearing on a process to determine an appropriate remedy.
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 and of the historical accounting, possible costs for a Cobell settlement now
might be as much as (1) the more than $100 billion that Cobell plaintiffs have
estimate their IIM accounts are owed, (2) the $27.5 billion that the Cobell plaintiffs
proposed as a settlement amount in 2005, (3) the $8 billion proposed by Members of
Congress in the 109th Congress, or (4) the $58 billion that the plaintiffs asked from
the district court in March 2008.59 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.
Also of concern to Congress at times is the source of funds for any large federal
payments that might have to be made to IIM accounts. Among the funding sources
for these costs discussed in a 2005 House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
hearing were discretionary appropriations and the Treasury Department’s “Judgment
Fund,”60 but some senior appropriators considered the Judgment Fund insufficient
for even a $6-$13 billion settlement.61
The House Appropriations Committee has urged the parties to the litigation, and
Congress, to settle trust litigation in its entirety (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 80). Settlement
58 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.
59 “Cobell Plaintiffs Seek $58B for Indian Trust Beneficiaries,” Indianz.com (March 21,
2008), available at [http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/007757.asp].
60 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.)
61 Matt Spangler, “Treasury Fund May Be Short of Cash Needed to Settle Indian Royalty
Case,” Inside Energy with Federal Lands (March 21, 2005), p. 6.
CRS-41
bills were introduced in the 109th Congress, and the Administration in March 2007
proposed a comprehensive settlement, but tribes and Cobell plaintiffs opposed the
proposals.62 No trust fund settlement legislation has been introduced thus far in the
110th Congress.
Indian Land Consolidation. The purpose of the Indian land consolidation
program, first funded by Congress in FY1999, is to reduce the fractionation of
ownership of individual Indian trust lands — and the consequent multiplication of
IIM accounts that OST must administer — by purchasing small ownership interests
in individual trust lands and transferring the interest to the relevant Indian tribe (or
to a holder of a large interest in the land). For FY2008, appropriations for Indian
land consolidation were $9.8 million. The Administration requested no funds for this
program for FY2009.
Fractionation results most frequently from the death of a holder of an ownership
interest and inheritance of the interest by multiple heirs. The lands involved were
allotted in trust to individual Indians, pursuant to various federal laws or treaties
(mostly under the General Allotment Act of 1887), and have stayed in trust. At
inheritance, the ownership interest, not the plot of allotted land, is subdivided (i.e.,
fractionated).
The Administration contended that the land consolidation program has reduced
neither the fractionation of ownership nor the costs of trust management. Even
though over 360,000 interests have been acquired since 1999, about 1.5 million new
fractionated interests were created during the same time period, the Administration
claimed.63 The Administration said it is establishing a working group to explore
other options for land consolidation. Opponents of the cut assert that the land
consolidation program is necessary and fault the Administration for not consulting
with tribes before requesting no funds for the program.
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.64 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
62 “Bush Administration Won’t Admit Liability on Indian Trust,” Indianz.com (March 30,
2007), available at [http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/002150.asp].
63 “Bush Administration Seeks Another Cut in BIA Budget,” Indianz.com (Feb. 5, 2008),
available at [http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/006991.asp].
64 For more information on NIGC funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
CRS-42
and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming (e.g., casinos and
racing).65 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-FY2008, all NIGC activities have been funded from
fees, with no direct appropriations. The Administration did not propose a direct
appropriation for the NIGC for FY2009.
IGRA as enacted in 1988 capped NIGC fees at $1.5 million per year. In the
1990s, as Indian gaming grew rapidly, the NIGC began to express a need for
additional funding because it was experiencing increased demand for its oversight
resources, especially audits and field investigations. In 1998 Congress amended
IGRA to raise the fee cap to $8 million. For FY2004-FY2007, annual appropriations
acts raised the ceiling for each fiscal year to $12 million. Then, 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. This new fee ceiling
applied to FY2007 and subsequent fiscal years. The NIGC sets an annual fee rate,
which can be less than the ceiling rate.
For FY2008, based on the preliminary fee rate for calendar year 2008 of
0.057%, NIGC anticipated fee revenues of $15.5 million. This would be a 19%
increase from its FY2007 fee revenues of $13 million. NIGC anticipates FY2009 fee
revenues of about $17 million.
For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its
website at [http://www.nigc.gov].
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency66
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 states and local governments in complying with federal requirements to
control pollution.
65 Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but
overlapping regulatory responsibilities for each class.
66 For more information on EPA funding, contact David Bearden at 7-2390 or Robert
Esworthy at 7-7236.
CRS-43
EPA’s funding over time generally has reflected an increase in overall
appropriations to fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities.67 Without
adjusting for inflation, the agency’s funding has risen from about $1.0 billion when
the agency was established in FY1970 to a high of $8.4 billion in FY2004. Funding
for the agency has declined since then. The President’s FY2009 budget request
included $7.14 billion for EPA, $319.0 million less than the FY2008 appropriation
of $7.46 billion. Most of the requested decrease was for Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (SRF) grants that assist states in supporting local wastewater
infrastructure projects. Although the President has requested an overall reduction for
EPA, funding for certain activities would rise above the FY2008 appropriation.
Among the more significant increases were those for the agency’s homeland security
activities, funded in various accounts.
Table 15 lists the eight statutory accounts that currently fund EPA.68 The table
specifies the amounts within each account that Congress enacted for FY2008, and
compares these amounts to the President’s FY2009 budget request.
Key Funding Issues
There have been varying levels of interest in the President’s FY2009 budget
request 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, and scientific
research on human health effects upon which pollution control standards are based.
Selected funding issues receiving more prominent attention are discussed below.
Water Infrastructure. Appropriations for water infrastructure projects are
allocated within EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account. Most
of these funds are devoted to grants that support State Revolving Funds (SRFs).
These grant funds provide seed money for states to issue loans to communities for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. The President’s FY2009
budget request included $555.0 million for the Clean Water SRF to support local
wastewater infrastructure needs, $134.1 million less than the FY2008 appropriation
of $689.1 million. The request for the Drinking Water SRF was $842.2 million, a
$13.1 million increase above the FY2008 appropriation of $829.0 million.
67 EPA’s funding was moved to the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations. In the beginning of the first
session of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees abolished
their respective Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies, which previously had jurisdiction over EPA.
68 Congress established these accounts in FY1996 as a result of a restructuring of the
agency’s budget to more closely align the accounts with the purposes of the activities funded
within them.
CRS-44
Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency, FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2009
EPA Accounts
Approp.
Request
Science and Technology
— Base Appropriations
760.1
763.5
— Transfer in from Superfund
25.7
26.4
Science and Technology Total
785.8
789.9
Environmental Programs and Management
2,328.0
2,338.4
Office of Inspector General
— Base Appropriations
41.1
39.5
— Transfer in from Superfund
11.5
7.2
Office of Inspector General Total
52.6
46.6
Buildings & Facilities
34.3
35.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund Total (before transfers)
1,254.0
1,264.2
— Transfer out to Office of Inspector General
11.5
7.2
— Transfer out to Science and Technology
25.7
26.4
Hazardous Substance Superfund Net (after transfers)
1,216.8
1,230.7
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program a
105.8
72.3
Oil Spill Response
17.1
17.7
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
— Clean Water State Revolving Fund
689.1
555.0
— Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
829.0
842.2
— Special Project Grants
132.9
0.0
— Categorical Grants a
1,078.3
1,056.5
— Other Grants
196.9
168.3
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
2,926.2
2,622.0
Rescissions (various EPA accounts) b
5.0
10.0
Total EPA Accounts
7,461.5
7,142.5
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using information from the House
Appropriations Committee.
a Congress included funding within the FY2008 appropriation for the LUST Program account to
support certain activities authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The President’s
FY2009 budget request included funding for these activities (although at a reduced level) as
Underground Storage Tank Categorical Grants within the STAG account. Most of the requested
reduction for the LUST Program account results from this difference in the accounting of funds for
Energy Policy Act activities.
b The rescissions are from unobligated balances from funds appropriated in prior years, and made
available for expenditure in a later year. They include $5.0 million rescinded from prior years and
made available in FY2008. The President’s budget request included $10.0 million that would be
rescinded from prior years and be made available in FY2009. In effect, these “rescissions” increase
the availability of funds for expenditure by the agency in the years in which they are applied,
functioning as an offset to new appropriations by Congress.
CRS-45
The adequacy of federal funding to assist states in capitalizing their Clean Water
SRFs is a perennial issue. Although appropriations for these grants have declined in
recent years, Congress had been providing significantly more funding than the
President requested. This stems from differing views on the extent of the role of the
federal government in capitalizing these state loan funds. Departing from this trend,
the FY2008 enacted appropriation was closer to the President’s request than in past
years. The President’s FY2009 request would further reduce the federal role in
capitalizing these loan funds. There generally has been less disagreement between
Congress and the Administration about the federal role in capitalizing the Drinking
Water SRFs. However, some Members continue to assert that more federal funds are
needed to help capitalize these latter loan funds, noting more stringent federal
drinking water standards with which communities must comply.
Although the SRF grants represent the bulk of EPA funding for water
infrastructure, Congress also has supported these needs through targeted funding for
“special project grants”within EPA’s STAG account. As in past Administration
budget requests, the President’s FY2009 request did not include funding for these
special projects, as the Administration views them solely to be the priorities of
Congress. For FY2008, Congress appropriated $132.9 million within the STAG
account for 280 special project grants, and identified the intended recipients in the
explanatory statement accompanying the law. Although each recipient is required
to provide 45% of a project’s cost in matching funds, the grants do not require
repayment, as do loan funds from the SRFs.
Superfund. The President’s FY2009 budget request included $1.23 billion for
the Hazardous Substance Superfund account, $13.9 million more than the FY2008
appropriation of nearly $1.22 billion. This account primarily funds the cleanup of
contaminated sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) of the nation’s most
hazardous sites, and supports numerous activities related to that effort. As presented
in Table 15, the above amounts are the net amounts after transfers to the Science and
Technology account to support research of more effective cleanup methods, and to
the Office of the Inspector General account for investigation, audit, and evaluation
of the program’s performance.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA)69 established the Superfund program to fund the cleanup of
contamination when responsible parties cannot be found or cannot pay. Total
funding for the Superfund account has remained relatively flat over the past decade.
Some Members of Congress and the Bush Administration continue to assert that
steady funding is sufficient to maintain a constant pace and adequate degree of
cleanup, considering the costs borne by responsible parties that supplement these
funds. Other Members, states, communities, and environmental organizations
counter that more federal funds are necessary to expedite the pace of cleanup, and to
clean up sites more thoroughly.
Some also have observed that funding has declined over time in real dollar
values when accounting for inflation, resulting in less resources to maintain an
69 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
CRS-46
adequate pace of cleanup. Concern about the availability of resources has renewed
interest among some as to whether Superfund taxes on industry should be reinstated.
The authority to collect these taxes expired on December 31, 1995. The remaining
revenues were essentially expended by the end of FY2003. Since that time, Congress
has funded the Superfund account with general Treasury revenues.
The allocation of funds within the Superfund account for physical cleanup of
sites also has been an issue. The account funds numerous activities not directly
involved in cleanup, but that support this effort. They include enforcement against
responsible parties to require payment of their shares of cleanup costs, and research
of more effective cleanup methods with funds transferred to the Science and
Technology account. Funding for homeland security activities within the Superfund
account also has grown to support EPA’s preparedness to respond to threatened
releases, not just physical cleanup of contamination from releases that have occurred.
Of the President’s FY2009 request for the Superfund account, a total of $780.0
million would be allocated to the physical cleanup of sites in FY2009. This funding
would support both short-term removal actions to address immediate risks and long-
term remedial actions intended to provide a more permanent means to prevent
exposure. The President’s request for these activities is $1.1 million less than the
FY2008 appropriation of $781.1 million.
Brownfields. In addition to the Superfund program, amendments to CERCLA
in 2002 established a separate program to clean up contaminated “brownfields.”70
The President’s FY2009 budget request included a total of $165.8 million for EPA’s
Brownfields Program,71 $121,000 less than the FY2008 appropriation of $165.9
million. Typically, brownfields are abandoned, idled, or underutilized commercial
and industrial properties with levels of contamination less hazardous than a
Superfund site, but that still warrant cleanup before the land can be safe for reuse.
The desire to redevelop these properties for economic benefit has generated interest
in the adequacy of funding to assist states and communities. Funding for EPA’s
Brownfields Program consists of amounts for the three following activities:
brownfields project grants to assist communities in cleaning up contaminated sites,
brownfields categorical grants to assist states in administering their own brownfields
programs, and administration of these grants by EPA. Table 16 presents the FY2008
appropriation and the FY2009 request for each program activity.
70 Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act (P.L. 107-118, Title II).
71 The Department of Housing and Urban Development also has awarded grants to assist
communities in redeveloping brownfields sites, once they are cleaned up and deemed
suitable for their intended land use. These grants are funded in the Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriations laws.
CRS-47
Table 16. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2009
Account and Activity
Approp.
Request
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account
Project Grants
93.5
93.6
Categorical Grants
48.7
49.5
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Subtotal
142.2
143.1
Environmental Programs and Management Account
Administrative Expenses
23.7
22.7
EPA Brownfields Program Total
165.9
165.8
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using information from the House
Appropriations Committee.
Scientific Research. Most of EPA’s scientific research activities are funded
within the agency’s Science and Technology account. This account is funded by a
“base” appropriation and a transfer from Superfund. As discussed earlier, these
transferred funds are dedicated to research of more effective methods to clean up
contaminated sites. Including the transfer from the Superfund account, the
President’s FY2009 budget request included $789.9 million for the Science and
Technology account, a $4.1 million increase above the FY2008 appropriation of
$785.8 million. The activities funded within this account include research
conducted by universities, foundations, and other non-federal entities with grants
awarded by EPA, and research conducted by the agency at its own laboratories and
facilities. The operation and administration of the agency’s laboratories and facilities
necessitate significant expenditures for rent, utilities, and security. Funding for these
latter expenses now represents approximately 10% of the S&T account.
The request for EPA’s Science and Technology account includes a mix of
increases for some research activities and decreases for others. Homeland security
research activities would receive the largest single increase, with smaller increases
occurring in other research areas, including Air Toxics and Quality, Land Protection,
and Pesticides and Toxics. Funding for some of the agency’s other core scientific
research areas would decline, such as Clean Air, Clean Water, Human Health and
Ecosystems, and Sustainability.
The adequacy of funding for EPA’s scientific research activities has been part
of a broader question about the adequacy of overall federal funding for a broad range
of scientific research activities administered by multiple federal agencies. Some
Members of Congress, scientists, and environmental organizations have expressed
concern about the downward trend in federal resources for scientific research over
time. The debate continues to center around the question of whether the regulatory
actions of federal agencies are based on “sound science,” and how scientific research
is applied in developing federal policy.
For further information on the budget and activities of the Environmental
Protection Agency, see its websites, [http://www.epa.gov] and [http://www.epa.gov/
ocfo/budget].
CRS-48
CRS Multimedia Product MM70108, EPA: President’s FY2009 Budget Request, by
David M. Bearden and Robert Esworthy.
Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service72
For the Forest Service (FS) for FY2009, the President requested $4.11 billion,
$885.1 million (18%) less than the FY2008 appropriations of $5.00 billion ($4.45
billion in regular appropriations and $551.0 million in emergency appropriations.
Excluding emergency funding, the request was $334.1 million (8%) below FY2008.
As shown in Figure 1, FS appropriations are provided in several major
accounts: Forest and Rangeland Research (FS Research); State and Private Forestry;
National Forest System; Wildland Fire Management; Capital Improvement and
Maintenance (Capital); Land Acquisition; and Other programs. Wildland fire
management, nearly half of the FS budget request, is discussed with DOI wildland
fire management under “Cross-Cutting Topics,” below.
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Appropriation
($ in millions)
FS Research
Capital
State & Private
$286
$435
Forestry
$263
National Forest
System
$1,470
Other
$10
Wildland Fire
$2,494
Land Acquisition
$42
72 For more information on FS funding, contact Ross W. Gorte at 7-7266.
CRS-49
Major FS Issues in Appropriations. Significant FS issues have been raised
during consideration of the annual appropriations. For the FY2009 request, one
major issue may be the proposed decline in State and Private Forestry (described
below) — 58% below FY2008 appropriations. Most FS programs are proposed to
be cut for FY2009, but none as much as the State and Private Forestry programs.
FS Payments to States also have been an issue in the appropriations debates.
Payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act
of 2000 (P.L. 106-393) expired at the end of FY2006, and were extended for FY2007
in the emergency supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 110-28). The FY2009
request noted that the Administration intended to propose legislation on the issue,
with $200 million above the baseline for a four-year extension targeted to the most
affected areas, capped, adjusted downward annually, and phased out. To date, no
such legislation has been introduced. In the FS budget proposals for FY2007 and
FY2008, the President had proposed selling about 300,000 acres of national forest
lands to extend payments under the program, but legislation necessary to authorize
FS land sales has not been introduced.
Another issue that has arisen during consideration of recent appropriations bills
is timber harvesting in the Tongass (AK) National Forest. The final FY2008
appropriations law did not include House-passed language that would have limited
funds for timber harvesting in the Tongass. The House had agreed to an amendment
to prohibit funds to plan, design, study, or build forest development roads in the
Tongass for timber harvesting by private entities or individuals (§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.
State and Private Forestry. State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs
provide financial and technical assistance to states and to private forest owners. For
FY2009, the President requested $109.5 million for S&PF, a decrease of $153.3
million (58%) from FY2008. See Table 17. The request included relatively large
cuts for cooperative lands forest health management, forest stewardship, forest
legacy, and urban and community forestry. The Administration proposed terminating
funds for economic action programs and forest resource information and analysis.
Forest health management programs provide insect and disease control on
federal and cooperative (nonfederal) lands. The FY2009 request was $45.0 million
for federal lands, a 17% decline from FY2008, and $10.0 million for cooperative
lands, a 78% decline from FY2008. Cooperative fire programs had proposed
declines of 23% for state fire assistance and 15% for volunteer fire assistance. The
FY2009 request included substantial declines in all the cooperative forestry
programs. Forest stewardship, which assists private landowners through state
agencies, would be cut by $24.5 million (83%). Forest legacy, which purchases title
or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses (such as for
residences), would be cut by $39.8 million (76%). Urban and community forestry,
which provides financial and technical assistance to localities, would be cut by $22.7
million (82%). The other cooperative forestry programs — economic action (for
CRS-50
assisting economic diversification in forest-dependent communities) and forest
resource information and analysis (for forest inventories; see the “FS Research,”
section below) — would be terminated. Finally, international forestry would be cut
by $5.4 million (73%).
Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry,
FY2005-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
State and Private Forestry
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Forest Health Management
101.9
100.1
101.1
98.7
55.0
— Federal Lands
54.2
53.2
54.0
54.1
45.0
— Cooperative Lands
47.6
46.9
47.1
44.5
10.0
Cooperative Fire Assistance
38.8
38.8
38.8
38.5
30.0
— State Assistance
32.9
32.9
32.9
32.6
25.0
— Volunteer Asst.
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.0
Cooperative Forestry
145.4
133.2
133.2
118.3
22.5
— Forest Stewardship
32.3
34.1
41.9
29.5
5.0
— Forest Legacya
57.1
56.5
56.5
52.3
12.5
— Urban & Comm. Forestry
32.0
28.4
30.1
27.7
5.0
— Economic Action Prog.
19.0
9.5
0.0
4.2
0.0
— Forest Res. Info. & Anal.
5.0
4.6
4.6
4.5
0.0
International Programs
6.4
6.9
6.9
7.4
2.0
Emergency Appropriations
49.1
30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total State & Private Forestry
341.6
309.0
280.0
262.8
109.5
FS Research. The FY2009 request included $263.0 million for FS Research,
a decline of $22.9 million (8%) from FY2008. However, this understates the decline
for research. Forest inventory and analysis funded in FS Research would increase by
$1.9 million, while comparable funding in S&PF ($4.5 million for FY2008) would
be terminated. Thus, total forest inventory and analysis funding would decline by
$2.6 million (4%), and total FS Research funding would effectively decline by $27.4
million (9%).
National Forest System. The National Forest System (NFS) includes many
sub-accounts, most of which were proposed to decline in FY2009. Total NFS
funding would be $1.35 billion, $120.0 million (8%) below FY2008 appropriations.
Two programs would receive increases — 8% for land management planning and
less than 1% for forest products (timber sales). All other NFS programs would
decline under the FY2009 request: 18% for landownership management (boundary
surveying); 16% for minerals and geology management; 13% for law enforcement
operations; 12% for inventory and monitoring; 11% for wildlife and fish habitat
management; 10% for recreation, heritage, and wilderness; 7% for vegetation and
watershed management; and 2% for grazing management. In addition, funding for
the Valles Caldera National Preserve would be terminated.
Capital Improvement and Maintenance. This account includes funding
for the construction and maintenance of facilities, roads, and trails, as well as for
deferred maintenance (i.e., the maintenance backlog). For FY2009, the President
CRS-51
requested $405.8 million, $29.0 million (7%) below FY2008 appropriations.
However, the program decline would be larger, because an additional $40.0 million
was provided for FY2008 from two sources — $25.0 million of excess purchaser
elect road funds and $15.0 million of deferred road and trail fund payments. Thus,
the proposed programmatic decline would be $69.0 million (15%). The FY2009
request would increase some sub-accounts while reducing others. Facility
maintenance would increase by 12%, while facility construction would decrease by
17%; in total, facilities funding would decline by $2.1 million (2%). For roads, the
pattern is reversed — a 17% increase in road construction and a 13% decline in road
maintenance, with an overall decline of $0.9 million (less than 1%). Total trail
funding would decline by $26.3 million (34%), with maintenance declining by 24%
and construction declining by 49%.
Deferred maintenance also would decline. While the request proposed to
increase infrastructure improvement by $0.1 million (2%), it would terminate funding
for legacy road remediation. This program, to decommission roads, repair and
maintain roads and trails, remove fish passage barriers, and protect community water
resources, was funded at $39.8 million in FY2008. Thus, in total, deferred
maintenance to reduce the agency’s backlog (estimated at $5.7 billion as of
September 30, 2007) would be $9.1 million, $39.6 million (81%) below the FY2008
total of $48.7 million.
Land Acquisition. The FY2009 budget request included $5.0 million for
acquisition management, with no funding for new land acquisition. This is a decline
of $4.8 million (49%) from FY2008 for acquisition management and elimination of
the $32.0 million for land acquisition. Total land acquisition funding would decline
by $36.8 million (88%).
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.
CRS-52
Department of Health and Human Services:
Indian Health Service73
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 562 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
31 hospitals, 50 health centers, 2 school health centers, and 31 health stations. Tribes
and tribal groups, through IHS contracts and compacts, operate another 15 hospitals,
254 health centers, 18 school health centers, 112 health stations, and 166 Alaska
Native village clinics. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also operate 12 regional youth
substance abuse treatment centers and over 2,200 units of residential quarters for staff
working in the clinics.
IHS total appropriations for FY2008 were $3.35 billion. For FY2009, the
Administration proposed $3.32 billion, a decrease of $21.3 million (0.6%) from
FY2008. IHS also receives funding through reimbursements and a special Indian
diabetes program (see the “Health Services” section 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 FY2008, 89% will be used for
Health Services and 11% for the Facilities program. The most significant issues in
the FY2009 IHS budget concern the urban Indian health and Indian health
professions programs, in Health Services, and the health care facilities construction
program in Facilities.
Health Services. IHS Health Services appropriations for FY2008 were $2.97
billion. For FY2009, the Administration proposed essentially level funding (a
decrease of $2,000 from FY2008). 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 $779.7 million in FY2008. Another $150.0 million per year is expended
through IHS for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians under a separate
appropriation that expires at the end of FY2009.
The IHS Health Services budget has three subcategories: clinical services,
preventive health services, and other services.
73 For more information on IHS funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
CRS-53
Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
FY2008-FY2009
($
millions)
Percent
FY2008
FY2009
Change
Indian Health Service
Approp. Request
FY08-
FY09
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health Clinics
1,484.0
1,521.9
3%
—— Indian Health Care Improvement Fund
13.8
24.0
74%
— Dental Health
133.6
137.9
3%
— Mental Health
63.5
65.8
4%
— Alcohol and Substance Abuse
173.2
162.0
-6%
— Contract Health Services
579.3
588.2
2%
—— Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund
26.6
25.0
-6%
Subtotal, Clinical Services
2,433.8
2,475.9
2%
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health Nursing
55.9
58.3
4%
— Health Education
15.0
15.2
2%
— Community Health Representatives
54.9
55.8
2%
— Immunization (Alaska)
1.7
1.8
2%
Subtotal, Preventive Health Services
127.6
131.1
3%
Other Services
— Urban Health Projects
34.5
0
-100%
— Indian Health Professions
36.3
21.9
-40%
— Tribal Management
2.5
2.5
2%
— Direct Operations
63.6
62.6
-2%
— Self-Governance
5.8
5.9
2%
— Contract Support Costs
267.4
271.6
2%
Subtotal, Other Services
410.2
364.6
-11%
Subtotal, Indian Health Services
2,971.5
2,971.5
-<1%
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and Improvement
52.9
52.9
0%
— Sanitation Facilities Construction
94.3
94.3
0%
— Health Care Facilities Construction
36.6
15.8
-57%
— Facilities and Environmental Health Support
169.6
169.1
-<1%
— Equipment
21.3
21.3
0%
Subtotal, Indian Health Facilities
374.6
353.3
-6%
Total Appropriations
3,346.2
3,324.9
-1%
Medicare/Medicaid Reimbursements and Other
779.7
779.7
0%
Collections
Special Diabetes Program for Indiansa
150.0
150.0
0%
Total Program Level
4,275.9
4,254.6
-<1%
a. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians has a direct appropriation of $150 million for each of
fiscal years FY2004 through FY2009 (P.L. 110-173). Funded through the General Treasury,
this program cost is not a part of IHS appropriations.
CRS-54
Clinical Services. The clinical services budget includes most of IHS Health
Services funding. The FY2008 appropriations for clinical services were $2.43
billion, and the Administration proposed $2.48 billion for FY2009, an increase of
$42.1 million (2%) over FY2008.
Clinical services include primary care at IHS- and tribally-run hospitals and
clinics. For hospital and health clinic programs, which make up 61% of the FY2008
clinical services budget, the FY2008 appropriation was $1.48 billion. The
Administration requested $1.52 billion, an increase of $37.9 million (3%), for
FY2009.
Within the hospitals and health clinics budget activity is the Indian Health Care
Improvement Fund (IHCIF), which is authorized to be allocated among IHS service
units to reduce health status and resources deficiencies and shortfalls. IHCIF is
allocated according to a formula that measures the percentage of health care funding
needs met in each operating unit. IHCIF appropriations for FY2008 were $13.8
million; the explanatory statement for the appropriations act directed that IHCIF
funds were to be allocated first to operating units with the greatest level of health care
funding needs so as to bring their funding up to 40% of the funding needed (as
measured by the formula). For FY2009, the Administration proposed a 74% increase
for IHCIF, to $24.0 million.
Contract Health Services (CHS) is a program 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. CHS is especially
important in IHS regions that have fewer direct-care facilities or no inpatient
facilities. Included in the CHS program is the Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund
(CHEF), which is used to pay contract health care costs in critical, high-cost cases
(above $25,000), such as disaster victims or catastrophic illnesses. FY2008
appropriations for CHS totaled $579.3 million, including $26.6 million for CHEF.
For FY2009 the Administration proposed $588.2 million for CHS (an increase of
$8.8 million, or 2%), including $25.0 million for CHEF (a decrease of $1.6 million,
or 6%).
For other programs within clinical services, the FY2008 appropriations were
$133.6 million for dental programs, $63.5 million for mental health, and $173.2
million for alcohol and substance abuse (which included $13.8 million for
methamphetamine treatment and prevention, to be distributed to areas with greatest
need). For FY2009 the Administration proposed $137.9 million for dental programs
(a 3% increase), $65.8 million for mental health programs (a 4% increase), and
$162.0 million for alcohol and substance abuse programs (a reduction of 6%, or
$11.3 million).
Preventive Health Services. For preventive health services, FY2008
appropriations were $127.6 million. The Administration proposed $131.1 million
for FY2009, a $3.5 million (3%) increase over FY2008. Included in preventive
health services appropriations for FY2008 were $55.9 million for public health
nursing; $15.0 million for health education in schools and communities; $1.7 million
for immunizations in Alaska; and $54.9 million for the tribally administered
community health representatives (CHR) program, which supports tribal community
CRS-55
members who work to prevent illness and disease in their communities. The
Administration’s proposal for FY2009 was $58.3 million for public health nursing
(an increase of $2.4 million, or 4%); $15.2 million for health education (up $0.2
million, or 2%); $1.7 million for Alaska immunizations (up $27,000, or 2%); and
$55.8 million for the CHR program (up $0.9 million, or 2%).
Other Health Services. FY2008 appropriations for other health services
totaled $410.2 million. The Administration requested $364.6 million for FY2009,
a reduction of $45.6 million (11%) from FY2008. Other health services include
urban Indian health programs and Indian health professions support (both discussed
below), contract support costs, tribal management grants, direct IHS operation of
facilities, and self-governance technical assistance.
Contract support costs (CSC), the largest item in other health services, received
appropriations of $267.4 million in FY2008. CSC funds 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. For FY2009, the Administration proposed $271.6 million, an
increase of $4.2 million (2%) over FY2008.
Tribal management grants received $2.49 million in FY2008, and the
Administration proposed $2.53 million for FY2009, an increase of 2%. Direct IHS
operations appropriations were $63.6 million in FY2008, and the amount proposed
by the Administration for FY2009 was $62.6 million, a 2% decrease. Self-
governance assistance received FY2008 appropriations of $5.8 million, and the
Administration proposed a 2% increase to $5.9 million for FY2009.
Urban Indian Health Program. FY2008 appropriations for the urban Indian
health program were $34.5 million. As in the two preceding years, the
Administration proposed no FY2009 funding for the program.
The 32-year-old program helps fund preventive and primary health services for
eligible urban Indians through contracts and grants with urban Indian organizations.
Currently there are 35 urban Indian health programs serving 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.
Indian Health Professions Program. IHS’s Indian Health Professions
program comprises three scholarship programs for Indians, a loan repayment program
for health professionals’ student loans, and multiple recruitment and retention
activities. Several additional grant programs support the scholarship, loan
CRS-56
repayment, and recruitment and retention programs. The purposes of the Indian
Health Professions programs are to increase the number of Indians in health
professions and to fill vacancies in IHS-funded health care facilities. Vacancies at
IHS-funded facilities decrease access to health care and increase CHS expenditures,
according to an IHS official.74 FY2008 appropriations for Indian Health Professions
were $36.3 million. For FY2009, the Administration proposed appropriations of
$21.9 million, a decrease of $14.4 million (40%). The Administration contended
that, in a tight budget year, IHS funding had to be concentrated on clinical and
preventive health care, and not on non-clinical programs like Indian Health
Professions. Indian health proponents oppose the reduction, asserting that it will
sharply cut scholarships and loan repayment awards and that the program needs to
be increased.
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. FY2008 appropriations
for Facilities were $374.6 million. The Administration requested $353.3 million for
FY2009. Included in the Administration’s FY2009 proposal were $52.9 million for
maintenance and improvement, $94.3 million for sanitation facilities construction,
$21.3 million for equipment, $169.1 million for facilities and environmental health
support, and $15.8 million for health care facilities construction. Except for health
care facilities construction (discussed below), all the FY2009 proposed amounts are
the same, or nearly so, as FY2008 appropriations. See Table 18.
Health Care Facilities Construction. The Administration’s FY2009
proposal of $15.8 million is $20.8 million (57%) below the FY2008 appropriation
for health care facilities construction. The amount proposed would all be used to
continue construction on one project, a replacement hospital in Barrow, AK.
The Administration stated that instead of providing additional funds for facility
construction, the budget emphasized providing staff and operating support at new
facilities and at other sites experiencing overcrowding. Opponents of the reduction
contended that the IHS has a large backlog in unmet health-facility needs and that
increasing patient needs were too great for a reduction in new construction.
For further information on the Indian Health Service, see its website at
[http://www.ihs.gov/].
CRS Report RL33022. Indian Health Service: Health Care Delivery, Status,
Funding, and Legislative Issues, by Roger Walke.
74 Randy Grinnell, IHS, “Indian Health: Challenges and Changes,” PowerPoint presentation
at National Combined Councils Meeting, Feb. 4, 2008, pp. 12-13; available at
[http://www.ihs.gov/MedicalPrograms/ClinicalSupportCenter/docs/2008NCCGrinnell. pdf],
last accessed April 1, 2008. According to this source, IHS vacancy rates in January 2008
were: dentists, 31%; physicians, 17%; nurses, 18%; optometrists, 13%; and pharmacists,
11%.
CRS-57
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation75
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) and its predecessor
were created pursuant to a 1974 act (P.L. 93-531, as amended) to resolve a lengthy
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originally set aside by
the federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, the lands
were partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe living on land
partitioned to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes, and
bonuses, at federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary.
ONHIR’s chief activities consist of land acquisition, housing acquisition or
construction, infrastructure construction, and post-move support, all for families
being relocated, as well as certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.
ONHIR appropriations for FY2008 were $8.9 million. The Administration proposed
$7.5 million for FY2009, a decrease of $1.3 million (15%) below FY2008.
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 estimated 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, might wish to opt out of these agreements and
relocate using ONHIR benefits.
ONHIR estimated that, as of the end of FY2006, 76 eligible Navajo families
were awaiting relocation. Eight of these 76 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 FY2008 budget justification, ONHIR had estimated that relocation moves
for currently eligible families would be completed during FY2009-FY2010. ONHIR
also had estimated that the addition of Navajo families who opt out of
accommodation agreements and of Navajo families who filed late applications or
appeals (but whom ONHIR is accommodating to avoid litigation),76 and who are
certified by ONHIR, would not extend relocation moves beyond FY2010. ONHIR
noted, however, that this schedule for completion of relocations would depend on
75 For more information on ONHIR funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
76 The number of families was estimated altogether at over 110; they overlap to an
unpredicted extent with the 76 eligible Navajo families.
CRS-58
infrastructure needs and relocatees’ decisions. In addition, according to ONHIR, any
required post-move assistance to relocatees would necessitate another two years of
expenditures after the last relocation move.
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, prohibits ONHIR from
evicting any Navajo family from Hopi partitioned lands unless a replacement home
were provided. This language appears to prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating
Navajo families, 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 Institution77
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum and research complex consisting
of 19 museums and galleries and the National Zoo in addition to nine research
facilities throughout the United States and around the world. Smithsonian facilities
logged more than 24.5 million visitors in FY2007. 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 $989 million in
revenue for FY2007.78 The total request for appropriations for FY2009 was $716.4
million, a $33.8 million (5%) increase over FY2008. The request consisted of
funding for two main line items: (1) salaries and expenses and (2) facilities capital.
Salaries and Expenses. For FY2009, the SI requested $588.4 million to
fund salaries and expenses for its museums, research centers, and administration, as
shown in Table 19 below. This represents a $26.0 million (5%) increase over
FY2008 funding and $52.1 million (10%) more than FY2007. The requested
increase in federal funding would primarily be for mandatory costs, such as salaries,
utilities, and rent. The remainder would fund operating priorities, including
improved governance procedures, security/anti-terrorism enhancements, and critical
staffing required for SI’s facilities maintenance program.
Facilities Capital. For FY2009, the SI requested $128.0 million for facilities
capital, as shown in Table 19, below. This represented a $22.6 million (21%)
increase over FY2008 and $29.4 million (30%) more than FY2007. Recent external
77 For more information on SI funding, contact Blake Alan Naughton at 7-0376.
78 Smithsonian Institution, Explore Globally, Engage Locally: 2007 Annual Report. This
and older annual reports are available online at [http://www.si.edu/opa/annualrpts/].
CRS-59
studies79 and the SI estimate that an investment of $2.5 billion over ten years is
needed to address advanced facilities deterioration. Recent appropriations and
fundraising fall far short of this level. Of the FY2009 request for facilities capital,
$102.3 million would fund these renovations, with the balance toward security and
health and safety improvements. No major capital construction funds were requested
for FY2009. The request included funds for planning and design for renovations and
new construction, including final planning and initial design work for the National
Museum of African American History and Culture.
Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2009
Smithsonian Institution
Approp.
Request
Salaries and Expenses
562,434
588,400
— Museums and Research Centers
227,995
224,052
— Program Support and Outreach
38,169
39,806
— Administration
65,509
69,229
— Inspector General
2,052
2,422
— Facilities Services
228,709
252,891
Facilities Capital
105,429
128,000
— Revitalization
90,900
104,500
— Construction
0
0
— Facilities Planning and Design
14,529
23,500
Legacy Fund
14,766
0
Total Appropriations
682,629
716,400
Legacy Fund. Established by Congress in 2008 (P.L. 110-161), the Legacy
Fund’s purpose is to address the backlog of facilities capital repairs. For FY2008,
up to $14.8 million in federal funding was provided for the initiative, with a
requirement that private dollars match each federal dollar two to one. The SI is
developing plans to raise the matching private funds and no new federal funds were
requested for FY2009.
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. In
FY2007, the SI’s net assets increased by almost 10 percent to a total of just under
$2.5 billion. Non-appropriated revenues fund more than forty percent of SI
operations and include income from the trusts, contributions from private sources,
competitive government grants and contracts from other agencies, and the profits
79 For further information, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Smithsonian
Institution: Funding Challenges Affect Facilities’ Conditions and Security, Endangering
Collections, GAO-07-1127, September 2007.
CRS-60
from the Smithsonian Business Ventures division. For FY2008, the SI estimates
$279.8 million will be available for Institution operations from these sources.
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 Humanities80
One of the primary vehicles for federal support for the arts and the humanities
is the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, composed of the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH),
the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS). The NEA and NEH authorization (P.L. 89-209; 20 U.S.C.
§951) expired at the end of FY1993, but the agencies have been operating on
temporary authority through appropriations law. IMLS receives funding through the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Acts.
NEA. The NEA is a major federal source of support for all arts disciplines.
Since 1965 it has provided over 120,000 grants that have been distributed to all
states. For FY2009, NEA requested $128.4 million, a decrease of $16.3 million
(11%) from FY2008, as shown below in Table 20. Of the $101.6 million requested
for grants, the NEA proposed allocating $39.2 million for direct grants and $32.0
million for state/regional partnership grants — the two largest programs funded by
the agency. An additional $8.5 million would fund Challenge America — a program
of matching grants for arts education, outreach, and community arts activities for
rural and under-served areas. Another $13.3 million would fund American
Masterpieces — touring programs, local presentations, and arts education in the
fields of dance, visual arts, and music.
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 over 61,000 grants. NEH
also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match private donations
in support of humanities institutions. For FY2009, NEH requested $144.4 million,
essentially level with FY2008. The two largest programs that would be funded from
the NEH request for $106.2 million in non-matching grants are federal/state
partnership grants and the We the People initiative. They were requested to be
funded at $31.7 million and $20.0 million, respectively.
80 For more information on NEA/NEH funding, contact Blake Alan Naughton at 7-0376.
CRS-61
Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2009
Arts and Humanities
Approp.
Request
National Endowment for the Arts
Grants
119,604
101,632
Program Support
1,673
1,700
Administration
23,429
25,080
Subtotal, NEA
144,706
128,412
National Endowment for the Humanities
Grants
105,731
106,242
Matching Grants
14,284
12,113
Administration
24,692
26,000
Subtotal, NEH
144,707
144,355
Total NEA & NEH
289,413
272,767
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its website
at [http://arts.endow.gov/].
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
website at [http://www.neh.gov/].
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by
Susan Boren.
Cross-Cutting Topics
Everglades Restoration81
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
81 For more information on funding for Everglades restoration, contact Pervaze A. Sheikh
at 7-6070.
CRS-62
Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by
Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.)
Appropriations for restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem have
been provided to various agencies as part of several annual appropriations bills. The
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws have provided
funds to several DOI agencies for restoration projects. Specifically, DOI conducts
CERP and non-CERP activities in southern Florida through the National Park
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Indian
Affairs. (For more on Everglades funding, see CRS Report RS22048, Everglades
Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T.
Carter.)
From FY1993 to FY2008, federal appropriations for projects and services
related to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem exceeded $3.0 billion, and
state funding topped $5.0 billion.82 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.83 For FY2008, $204.0 million was provided to DOI and the
Corps for restoration efforts in the Everglades.
FY2009 Request. The FY2009 request for funding DOI restoration activities
in the Everglades was $69.4 million, a decrease of $3.5 million from the FY2008
enacted level. See Table 21.
Table 21. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FY2008
FY2009
Everglades Restoration in DOI
Approp.
Request
National Park Service
— CERP
4,657
4,699
— Park Operationsa 28,481
30,210
— Everglades Acquisitions Management
750
800
— Modified Water Delivery
14,299
10,000
— Everglades Research
3,849
3,849
— South Florida Ecosystem Task Force
1,303
1,303
— GSA Space
554
554
Subtotal, NPS
53,893
51,415
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP
3,250
3,250
82 These figures represent an estimate of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
83 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.
CRS-63
FY2008
FY2009
Everglades Restoration in DOI
Approp.
Request
— Land Acquisition
1,028
0
— Ecological Services
2,482
2,443
— Refuges and Wildlife
4,315
4,315
— Migratory Birds
99
99
— Law Enforcement
609
609
— Fisheries
94
94
Subtotal, FWS
11,877
10,810
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and Coordination
6,800
6,800
Subtotal, USGS
6,800
6,800
Bureau of Indian Affairs
— Seminole, Miccosukee Tribe Water Studies and
390
390
Restoration
Subtotal, BIA
390
390
Total Appropriations
72,960
69,415
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2009, The Interior Budget in Brief (Washington,
DC: February 2008).
The FY2009 request provided $10.0 million for the Modified Water Deliveries
Project (Mod Waters), a $4.3 million decrease from the FY2008 enacted level. This
project is designed to improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park, and to
the extent possible, restore the natural hydrological conditions within the Park. The
completion of this project is required prior to the construction of certain projects
under CERP. The FY2008 appropriations law provided funds for Mod Waters under
NPS construction only if matching amounts are appropriated for similar purposes to
the Corps. The FY2008 law also provided $9.8 million to the Corps for Mod Waters.
Further, it prohibited 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). Funding and planning
for the Tamiami Trail portion of the project is being conducted by the Corps. The
FY2009 request did not contain these conditions on funding for Mod Waters.
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 only two 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.
CRS-64
Much of the concern over funding is focused on the requested appropriations for two
newly authorized restoration projects, the Indian River Lagoon and Picayune Strand,
which are expected to be implemented by the Corps.
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 included in the FY2008 appropriations law. The FY2009 request did
not contain these provisions.
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 RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole
T. Carter.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)84
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
84 For more information on LWCF funding, contact Carol Hardy Vincent at 7-8651.
CRS-65
to as stateside funding. Third, the Clinton and Bush 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 FY2008, about $31 billion was credited to the LWCF.
Roughly half that amount 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.
FY2009 Funding. For FY2009, the Administration requested a total of
$348.7 million for LWCF, an increase of $93.1 million (36%) over the FY2008
appropriation of $255.7 million. The request included funds for federal land
acquisition and other purposes, but not the stateside program, as discussed below.
Land Acquisition. Of the total request for FY2009, $41.5 million was for
federal land acquisition. If enacted, this would be an $88.3 million (68%) reduction
from the FY2008 level of $129.7 million. An additional $8.0 million was requested
for land appraisals related to federal land acquisition.
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. The appropriation for land acquisition has subsequently declined
to roughly the FY1996 level — to $129.7 million for FY2008. 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 22 shows recent funding for LWCF.
Grants to States. The Administration did not request funds for new stateside
grants in FY2009; similarly, there was no Administration request for stateside grants
for FY2006 through FY2008. The Administration has asserted that state and local
governments have alternative sources of funding for parkland acquisition and
development. The Administration also concluded that the current program could not
adequately measure performance or demonstrate results, and is not central to NPS’s
core functions. For FY2009, the Administration did request a relatively small
amount of funding for administration of the grant program. Specifically, the
Administration supported $1.4 million for program administration in FY2009, but
the funds would not be derived from LWCF. Instead, the funds would come from the
National Recreation and Preservation line item, which funds administration of other
grants. Seeking to eliminate funds for new stateside grants is not a new phenomenon.
For example, for several years the Clinton Administration proposed eliminating
CRS-66
stateside funding, and Congress concurred. Over the past several years, stateside
funding has fallen 83%, from $143.9 million in FY2002 to $24.6 million in FY2008.
Of the $24.6 million appropriated for the stateside program for FY2008, $23.1
million was for new stateside grants and $1.5 million was for administrative
expenses.
Table 22. Appropriations from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, FY2004-FY2009
($ in millions)
Land and Water
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Conservation Fund Approp. Approp.
Approp.
Approp. Approp. Request
Federal Acquisition
— BLM
18.4
11.2
8.6
8.6
8.9
4.5
— FWS
38.1
37.0
28.0
28.0
34.6
10.2
— NPS
41.7
55.1
17.4a
34.4
44.4
21.8
— FS
66.4
61.0
41.9
41.9
41.8
5.0
Subtotal, Federal
164.6
164.3
95.8
113.0
129.7
41.5
Acquisition
Appraisal Servicesc
0.0
0.0
7.3
7.4
0.0
8.0
Grants to States
93.8
91.2
29.6
29.6
24.6
0.0b
Other Programs
229.7
203.4
213.1
215.9
101.3
299.2d
Total
488.1
458.9
345.9
365.9
255.7
348.7d
Appropriations
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 FY2009, to be derived
from the appropriation for National Recreation and Preservation rather than the LWCF.
Accordingly, this amount is not reflected here.
c. For FY2008, for appraisal services the appropriations law contained $7.7 million, but it does not
appear that this amount was to be derived from LWCF. Accordingly, it is not reflected here.
d. This figure reflects the cancellation of $4.5 million in prior year funds for the FWS Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund.
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 (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 FY2009 request —
$299.2 million — was for several other programs within the Department of the
Interior and the Forest Service. This would be nearly triple the amount enacted for
FY2008. The FY2008 law provided funding from LWCF for two other programs,
for a total of $101.3 million. Of the total, $49.0 million was provided for
Cooperative Endangered Species Grants and $52.3 million was for the Forest Legacy
Program. Table 22 shows that for each year from FY2004 through FY2007, the
CRS-67
largest portion of the LWCF appropriation was for other programs. This changed in
FY2008, when the largest portion of the LWCF appropriation was for land
acquisition. The Administration had requested a much larger amount than was
appropriated for each year for other programs, for instance requesting $313.1 million
for FY2008.
Table 23 shows the other programs for which Congress appropriated funds for
FY2006 through FY2008 or for which the President requested funds for FY2009.
Any non-LWCF funds provided to these programs is not reflected here.
Table 23. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Other Programs
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
— Challenge Cost Share
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
Fish and Wildlife Service
— Resource Management
0.0
0.0
0.0
82.7
— State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
67.5
67.5
0.0
73.8
— Landowner Incentive Grants
21.7
23.7
0.0
0.0
— Private Stewardship Grants
7.3
7.3
0.0
0.0
— Cooperative Endangered Species
60.1
61.1
49.0
75.5a
Grants
— North American Wetlands
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.6
Conservation Fund Grants
National Park Service
— Challenge Cost Share
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
Departmental Management
— Take Pride in America
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
Forest Service (USDA)
— Forest Legacy Program
56.5
56.3
52.3
12.5
Total Appropriations
213.1
215.9
101.3
299.2
Notes: This table identifies “other” programs for which Congress appropriated funds for FY2006
through FY2008 or for which the Administration requested funds for FY2009. 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.
a. Reflects a request for $80.0 million and the cancellation of $4.5 million in prior year funds for a
total of $75.5 million for FY2009.
CRS-68
Wildland Fire Management85
Wildfire protection programs and funding continue to be controversial.
Ongoing discussions include questions about the high cost of fire suppression efforts;
locations for various fire protection treatments; and whether, and to what extent,
environmental analysis, public involvement, and legal challenges to administrative
decisions hinder fuel reduction and post-fire rehabilitation activities.
For FY2009, the Administration requested $2.83 billion for wildland fire
management of the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. This would
be a decline of $724.8 million (20%) from FY2008 appropriations of $3.55 billion
(including $800.0 million of emergency funding). Requested wildland fire
management funds for the FS were $1.98 billion, $517.9 million (21%) below
FY2008. For DOI, the request was $850.1 million, $207.0 million (20%) below
FY2008. The FY2009 budget request also proposed transferring the DOI wildfire
appropriation from the Bureau of Land Management, which traditionally had
transferred wildfire funds to the other DOI agencies, to the Office of the Secretary
— Department-Wide Programs.
The FS and DOI wildfire line items include funds for fire suppression,
preparedness, and other operations. The FY2008 appropriations law (P.L. 110-161)
contained $2.75 billion in regular, annual funding for these line items. Another
$800.0 million in emergency funds for wildfires was enacted: $500.0 million in P.L.
110-116 ($329.0 million for the FS and $171.0 million for DOI), and $300.0 million
in Title V of the FY2008 Interior appropriations act ($222.0 million for the FS and
$78.0 million for DOI). The FY2008 total of $3.55 billion for FS and DOI wildfire
funding combined was the highest level in at least the past five years, as shown in
Table 24. About 30% of the FY2008 total ($1.06 billion) was provided to DOI,
while the other 70% of the FY2008 total ($2.49 billion) was provided to the FS. (For
historical background, descriptions of activities, and analysis of wildfire
expenditures, see CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)
Wildfire Suppression. The FY2009 request for wildfire suppression — for
fighting wildfires — was $1.33 billion, an increase of $193.7 million (17%) over the
FY2008 regular appropriations. This includes an increase of $148.3 million (18%)
for the FS and of $45.4 million (16%) for DOI. The requests were calculated using
the 10-year average of suppression obligations, adjusted for inflation. However, the
requests were less than the total of fire suppression plus emergency and contingent
funding in four of the past five years. In its report on the FY2008 act, the House
Appropriations Committee expressed continued concern with the high costs of large
fires, and provided direction to the FS and DOI on examining, reducing, and
reporting on the costs of large fire incidences.
Fire Preparedness. The FY2009 request for preparedness — equipment,
training, baseline personnel, prevention, and detection — was $866.1 million, a
decline of $76.2 million (8%) from FY2008. This included a decrease of $77.4
85 For more information on funding for Wildland Fire Management, contact Ross W. Gorte
at 7-7266 or Carol Hardy Vincent at 7-8651.
CRS-69
million (12%) for the FS and an increase of $1.2 million (less than 1%) for DOI. In
their reports on the FY2008 appropriations bill, the Appropriations Committees
recommended an increase in preparedness funding. For instance, the Senate
Committee asserted that cutting preparedness funds would not save money, but rather
shift expenditures to suppression (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 15).
Table 24. Appropriations for FS and DOI Wildland Fire
Management, FY2004-FY2009
($ in millions)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
National Fire Plan
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Forest Service
— Fire suppression
597.1
648.9
690.2
741.5
845.6
993.9
— Preparedness
671.6
676.5
660.7
665.4
665.8
588.4
— Other operations a
354.2
377.7
395.2
416.7
431.9
394.3
Subtotal, FS
1,623.0
1,703.0
1,746.1
1,823.6
1,943.4
1,976.6
— Emergency supple-
724.0
425.5
100.0
370.0
551.0
0.0
mental and contingent
Total, FS
2,347.0
2,128.5
1,846.1
2,193.6
2,494.4
1,976.6
DOI
— Fire suppression
192.9
218.4
230.7
249.2
289.8
335.2
— Preparedness b
254.2
258.9
268.8
274.9
276.5
277.7
— Other Operations
238.1
255.3
255.7
234.3
241.8
237.2
Subtotal, DOI
685.2
732.7
755.3
758.4
808.1
850.1
— Emergency supple-
198.4
98.6
100.0
95.0
249.0
0.0
mental and contingent
Total, DOI
883.6
831.3
855.3
853.4
1,057.1
850.1
FS and DOI
— Fire suppression
790.0
867.3
920.9
990.7
1,135.4
1,329.1
— Preparedness
925.8
935.4
929.5
940.3
942.3
866.1
— Other Operations
592.3
633.0
650.9
651.1
673.7
631.5
Subtotal Funding
2,308.1
2,435.7
2,501.4
2,582.0
2,751.4
2,826.7
— Emergency supple-
922.5
524.1
200.0
465.0
800.0
0.0
mental and contingent
Total Funding
3,230.6
2,959.8
2,701.4
3,047.0
3,551.4
2,826.7
Notes: Includes funding only from DOI 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, assisting in nonfederal
land protection, and fire research and other activities.
a. Excludes fire assistance funding under the State & Private Forestry line item.
b. Fire research and fuel reduction funds are included under Other Operations.
Other Operations. Other wildland fire operations include funds for an array
of activities — burned area rehabilitation, fuel reduction, research, and assistance to
states and private entities. The FY2009 request for other operations was $631.5
CRS-70
million, a decrease of $42.3 million (6%) from FY2008 regular appropriations.
However, the declines were not spread evenly among the activities.
The FY2009 request for burned area rehabilitation was $24.3 million, a decline
of $10.7 million (31%) from FY2008 regular appropriations. This included an
increase of $0.1 million (less than 1%) for DOI, and no funds for the FS. FS funds
for emergency burned area rehabilitation can be drawn from suppression funding,
while additional funds to restore burned areas are provided in the various accounts
for the National Forest System.
Fuel reduction has been an Administration focus, to implement the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire Plan. The
FY2009 request for fuel reduction was $499.8 million, a decline of $9.9 million (2%)
from FY2008 regular appropriations. This included a decrease of $13.1 million (4%)
for the FS and an increase of $3.2 million (2%) for DOI.
Wildfire appropriations for fire research in FY2009 would be cut by $3.3
million (9%). DOI funding for the Joint Fire Science Program would be cut by $1.9
million (32%). FS funding for the Joint Fire Science Program would be increased
slightly, while funding for other FS fire research would be cut by $1.5 million (6%).
The FS also funds fire research in its research line item, but the amount of general
forestry research for fire is not distinguished in the budget documents.
FY2009 fire assistance funding would be cut substantially — by $18.4 million
(21%). This includes modest (2%) increases for FS forest health management on
federal and nonfederal lands and for FS volunteer fire assistance and a significant
decrease ($13.0 million, 27%) for FS state fire assistance. (The FY2009 budget for
the Forest Service included cuts in State and Private Forestry funding for these
programs.) DOI funding for community assistance ($5.9 million in FY2008) would
be terminated.
Emergency Supplemental and Contingent Appropriations. P.L. 110-
116 provided $500.0 million in emergency wildfire appropriations for FY2008, with
$329.0 million for the FS and $171.0 million for DOI. The funds were for several
purposes:
! $110.0 million for FS emergency wildfire suppression and $40.0
million for DOI emergency wildfire suppression;
! $100.0 million for repayment of FS accounts and $115.0 million for
repayment of DOI accounts from which funds were borrowed during
FY2007 for wildfire suppression;
! $80.0 million for FS fuels reduction and hazard mitigation activities
and $10.0 million for DOI fuels reduction;
! $25.0 million for FS rehabilitation and restoration of lands and $6.0
million for DOI rehabilitation and restoration of lands; and
! $14.0 million for reconstruction/construction of FS facilities.
In addition, Title V of the FY2008 Interior appropriations act (Division F of P.L.
110-161) provided another $300.0 million for emergency wildfire suppression —
$222.0 million for the FS and $78.0 million for DOI.
CRS-71
Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, FY2004-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Bureau or Agency
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.g
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Managementk
1,009,640
985,615 1,001,902
1,029,498
1,007,897
987,415
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,308,405
1,332,591
1,307,639
1,340,989
1,366,301
1,301,745
National Park Service
2,258,581
2,365,683
2,255,768
2,299,959
2,390,488
2,404,342
U.S. Geological Survey
937,985
944,564
961,675
988,050
1,006,480
968,516
Minerals Management Service
170,297
173,826
158,294
159,530
118,053
160,393
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
295,975
296,573
294,228
294,654
170,411
149,263
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,300,814
2,295,702
2,274,270
2,308,304
2,291,279
2,191,364
Departmental Officesa
460,859
496,837
527,656
514,913
474,236
474,180
Department-Wide Programsb
—
—
1,003,540
1,101,911
1,342,066
1,135,064
Total Title I
9,847,964
9,955,228
9,784,972
10,037,808
10,167,211
9,772,282
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
8,365,817d
8,026,485
7,617,416
7,723,948
7,461,496
7,142,520
Title III: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Servicee
4,939,899
4,770,598
4,200,762
4,706,349
4,999,428
4,114,367
Indian Health Service
2,921,715
2,985,066
3,045,310
3,180,148
3,346,181
3,324,862
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
78,309
79,842
79,108
79,117
77,546
77,546
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
73,034
76,041
74,905
75,212
74,039
72,882
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality
3,219
3,258
2,677
2,698
2,661
2,703
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
8,648
9,424
9,064
9,113
9,263
9,499
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
13,366
4,930
8,474
8,509
8,860
7,530
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture
and Arts Development
6,173
5,916
6,207
6,207
7,183
7,900
Smithsonian Institution
596,279
615,158
615,097
634,895
682,629
716,400
National Gallery of Art
98,225
102,654
111,141
111,729
117,866
118,000
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
32,159
33,021
30,347
30,389
42,674
33,300
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
8,498
8,863
9,065
9,100
9,844
8,657
National Endowment for the Arts
120,972
121,264
124,406
135,500
144,706
128,412
National Endowment for the Humanities
135,310
138,054
140,949
141,105
144,707
144,355
Commission of Fine Arts
1,405
1,768
1,865
1,873
2,059
2,234
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
6,914
6,902
7,143
7,143
8,367
—
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
3,951
4,536
4,789
4,828
5,265
5,498
National Capital Planning Commission
7,635
7,888
8,123
8,168
8,136
8,328
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
39,505
40,858
42,150
42,349
44,786
46,839
Presidio Trust
20,445
19,722
19,706
19,706
22,051
17,450
White House Commission on the Natl. Moment of
Remembrance
—
248
247
247
197
—
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Comm.
—
—
—
—
1,969
19,000
Total Title III
9,115,661
9,036,011
8,541,535
9,214,385
9,760,417
8,865,962
[Title IV: Veterans’ Health]
—
—
[1,500,000]
—
—
—
Title IV: Secure Rural Schools
—
—
—
425,000
—
—
Grand Total (in Bill)c
27,329,442 27,017,724
25,942,155 f 27,401,141 h
27,401,852i 25,775,764j
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
CRS-72
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 Department-Wide Programs figures include Wildland Fire Management, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), Central Hazardous
Materials Fund, Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fund, and Working Capital Fund. Figures for FY2006 through FY2009 reflect the
proposed transfer of DOI Wildland Fire Management from the Bureau of Land Management to Department-Wide Programs. Comparable
figures for earlier years are not readily available.
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 include supplemental appropriations or $1.50 billion in emergency appropriations for veteran’s health. It reflects $1.8 million
in undistributed reductions which are not reflected in the individual agency figures in the column.
g. Supplemental appropriations are not reflected in this column.
h. The total reflects appropriations of $26.51 billion; emergency appropriations of $925.2 million, including $425.0 million for Secure Rural
Schools; and rescissions of $30.0 million.
i. The total reflects appropriations of $26.64 billion, emergency appropriations of $800.0 million, and rescissions of $35.0 million.
j. The total includes a requested appropriation of $25.83 billion and rescissions of $49.9 million.
k. Figures do not reflect funding appropriated to BLM for Wildland Fire Management for FY2004 through FY2008. These fire funds are included
under Department-Wide Programs beginning in FY2006, consistent with the Administration’s request to fund DOI firefighting from this
account beginning with FY2009.