ȱ
—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱ
ŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
Š›˜•ȱ Š›¢ȱ’—ŒŽ—ǰȱ˜˜›’—Š˜›ȱ
™ŽŒ’Š•’œȱ’—ȱŠž›Š•ȱŽœ˜ž›ŒŽœȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ
Ž‹›žŠ›¢ȱŘřǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
   ǯŒ›œǯ˜Ÿȱ
řŚŚŜŗȱ
ȱŽ™˜›ȱ˜›ȱ˜—›Žœœ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
ž––Š›¢ȱ
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.
On February 17, 2009, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5, H.R. 1). This broad economic stimulus legislation contained $10.95 billion in
emergency funds for FY2009 for some of the accounts within agencies typically funded by the
annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws. In general, the funds are
available for obligation until September 30, 2010 (the end of FY2010).
No regular, annual appropriations bill for FY2009 has been enacted to date. Instead, agencies are
receiving funds under the terms of a continuing funding resolution—Division A, Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (P.L. 110-329, FY2009 CR). The measure generally extended
funding for accounts in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill at the
amounts provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations law. Funds are available under the terms
and conditions provided in that FY2008 law, except where otherwise specified. A notable
exception is that the FY2009 CR removed the prohibitions on spending funds for oil and gas
leasing activities in certain regions of the Outer Continental Shelf. The law provides
appropriations from October 1, 2008, through March 6, 2009, unless a regular appropriation bill
for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies is enacted earlier.
President Bush had requested $25.81 billion for FY2009 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, a $2.61 billion (9%) reduction from the FY2008 level of $28.42 (including emergency
appropriations). While the President sought to increase funds for some agencies, he requested
reduced funds for most agencies.
No bills providing regular appropriations for FY2009 for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies were reported by the House or Senate Appropriations Committees or considered on the
House or Senate floor during the 110th Congress. Perhaps the biggest impediment to developing
and considering an Interior bill was divisiveness over whether to retain long-standing prohibitions
on funding for oil and gas leasing in the OCS. Other issues that have been controversial in
Interior deliberations have included funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs construction, education,
and housing; Indian Health Service 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, in addition to Indian trust fund management and royalty relief.
This report will be updated to reflect major congressional action.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
˜—Ž—œȱ
Most Recent Developments............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
FY2004-FY2009 ....................................................................................................................... 2
FY2009 Budget and Appropriations................................................................................................ 3
Current Overview...................................................................................................................... 3
Economic Stimulus Legislation, P.L. 111-5 .............................................................................. 4
Major Issues .............................................................................................................................. 8
Status of Bill.............................................................................................................................. 9
Title I: Department of the Interior ................................................................................................. 10
Bureau of Land Management.................................................................................................. 10
Overview........................................................................................................................... 10
Management of Lands and Resources ...............................................................................11
Construction...................................................................................................................... 12
Land Acquisition............................................................................................................... 13
Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 13
Endangered Species Funding ............................................................................................ 13
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement.................................. 14
Avian Flu........................................................................................................................... 15
Land Acquisition............................................................................................................... 15
Wildlife Refuge Fund........................................................................................................ 16
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants.............................................................. 16
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants........................................................................................ 17
National Park Service.............................................................................................................. 18
Operation of the National Park System............................................................................. 19
United States Park Police (USPP)..................................................................................... 19
Centennial Challenge ........................................................................................................ 20
National Recreation and Preservation............................................................................... 20
Historic Preservation......................................................................................................... 21
Construction...................................................................................................................... 21
Land Acquisition and State Assistance ............................................................................. 21
U.S. Geological Survey........................................................................................................... 22
Enterprise Information ...................................................................................................... 23
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing ............................................. 23
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes ................................................................... 24
Water Resources Investigations ........................................................................................ 24
Biological Research .......................................................................................................... 24
Science Support and Facilities .......................................................................................... 25
Global Climate Change Research ..................................................................................... 25
Minerals Management Service................................................................................................ 26
Budget and Appropriations ............................................................................................... 26
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore........................................................................................... 27
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement....................................................... 29
Bureau of Indian Affairs.......................................................................................................... 32
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs ................................................................... 34
Law Enforcement Program ............................................................................................... 36
Housing Improvement Program (HIP).............................................................................. 37
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Road Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 37
Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process.......................................................................... 38
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs.......................................................... 38
Office of Insular Affairs ................................................................................................... 38
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT)...................................................................... 40
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians ............................................................... 41
National Indian Gaming Commission .............................................................................. 45
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency.................................................................................... 46
Key Funding Issues ................................................................................................................. 48
Water Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 48
Superfund.......................................................................................................................... 49
Brownfields....................................................................................................................... 50
Scientific Research............................................................................................................ 51
Title III: Related Agencies............................................................................................................. 52
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service ............................................................................. 52
Major FS Issues in Appropriations ................................................................................... 53
State and Private Forestry ................................................................................................. 54
FS Research ...................................................................................................................... 55
National Forest System ..................................................................................................... 55
Capital Improvement and Maintenance ............................................................................ 55
Land Acquisition............................................................................................................... 56
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ...................................... 56
Health Services ................................................................................................................. 58
Facilities............................................................................................................................ 61
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation......................................................................... 61
Smithsonian Institution ........................................................................................................... 63
Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................................................... 63
Facilities Capital ............................................................................................................... 63
Legacy Fund ..................................................................................................................... 63
Trust Funds ....................................................................................................................... 64
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities.................. 64
NEA .................................................................................................................................. 65
NEH .................................................................................................................................. 65
Cross-Cutting Topics ..................................................................................................................... 66
Everglades Restoration............................................................................................................ 66
FY2009 Request ............................................................................................................... 67
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation ............................................................................. 68
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) .................................................................. 69
Overview........................................................................................................................... 69
FY2009 Funding ............................................................................................................... 70
Wildland Fire Management..................................................................................................... 72
Wildfire Suppression......................................................................................................... 74
Fire Preparedness .............................................................................................................. 74
Other Operations............................................................................................................... 74
Emergency Supplemental and Contingent Appropriations ............................................... 75

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
’ž›Žœȱ
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Appropriation.............................................................................................. 53

Š‹•Žœȱ
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2009.......... 3
Table 2. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in P.L.
111-5............................................................................................................................................. 6
Table 3. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2009 .......... 10
Table 4. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2008-FY2009 .........................11
Table 5. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs, FY2008-FY2009........ 14
Table 6. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2008-FY2009.......................... 16
Table 7. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2008-FY2009............................................................... 16
Table 8. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2008-FY2009 .......................... 17
Table 9. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2008-FY2009 .................................... 19
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2008-FY2009................................ 23
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2008-FY2009 .................... 26
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
FY2008-FY2009 ........................................................................................................................ 32
Table 13. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2008-FY2009 .............................. 33
Table 14. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-
FY2009....................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, FY2008-
FY2009....................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 16. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2008-FY2009 ............... 47
Table 17. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program, FY2008-FY2009 .............................. 51
Table 18. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry, FY2005-FY2009............................. 54
Table 19. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2008-FY2009 .................................. 57
Table 20. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2008-FY2009 ................................ 64
Table 21. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2008-FY2009 .......................................... 65
Table 22. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget, FY2008-FY2009........ 67
Table 23. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, FY2004-FY2009 ......... 71
Table 24. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF, FY2006-FY2009........................ 72
Table 25. Appropriations for FS and DOI Wildland Fire Management, FY2004-FY2009 ........... 73
Table 26. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2009 ........................................................................................................................ 77

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
˜—ŠŒœȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 79
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................ 79

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
˜œȱŽŒŽ—ȱŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—œȱ
On February 17, 2009, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5, H.R. 1). This broad economic stimulus legislation contained $10.95 billion in
emergency funds for FY2009 for some of the accounts within agencies typically funded by the
annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws. In general, the funds are
available for obligation until September 30, 2010 (the end of FY2010).
In earlier action, on September 30, 2008, President Bush signed the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (FY2009 CR, P.L. 110-329).
Division A, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009, generally extended funding for
accounts in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill at the amounts
provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations act. Funds are available under the terms and
conditions provided in the FY2008 law, except where otherwise specified. The FY2009 CR
provides appropriations through March 6, 2009. Continuing funding was needed because a
regular FY2009 appropriations bill was not enacted before the start of the fiscal year (October 1,
2008).
—›˜žŒ’˜—ȱ
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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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 by the Bush Administration for FY2009 that are likely to be of interest to
Congress. We also address related policy issues that tend to 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
President Bush for FY2009. Emergency funding for FY2009 provided in broad economic
stimulus legislation (P.L. 111-5, H.R. 1) currently is discussed in the introduction of this report,
rather than in sections throughout the report. When annual funding for Interior agencies for
FY2009 is determined, sections throughout this report will be updated to reflect FY2009 annual
and stimulus funding.
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.
ŘŖŖŚȬŘŖŖşȱ
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, President Bush’s request for FY2009
(shown below) would be the lowest level since at least FY2004. It would be a $1.52 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 2.3% for 2008 and
2.6% for 2009). See Table 26 for a budgetary history of each agency for FY2004-FY2009.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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 $28.42 25.81
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 Bush Administration’s request; it does not reflect enactment of $10.95 billion in emergency
appropriations in P.L. 111-5.
ŘŖŖşȱžŽȱŠ—ȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ž››Ž—ȱŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ
On September 30, 2008, President Bush signed the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance,
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (FY2009 CR, P.L. 110-329).3 Division A, Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2009, generally extended funding for accounts in the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill at the amounts provided in the FY2008
regular appropriations law. Funds are available under the terms and conditions provided in the
FY2008 law, except where otherwise specified. The FY2009 CR provides appropriations from
October 1, 2008 through March 6, 2009, unless a regular appropriations bill for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies is enacted earlier. Continuing funding was needed because a
regular FY2009 appropriations bill was not enacted before the start of the fiscal year (October 1,
2008).4
The FY2009 CR contained additional provisions related to Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. For instance, the law provided an additional $2.0 million to the National Park Service
for Inaugural security (see the “National Park Service” section). It removed the prohibitions on
spending funds for oil and gas leasing activities in certain regions of the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS), which had been controversial (see the “Minerals Management Service” section). The law
also removed the prohibition on using funds to prepare final regulations regarding a commercial
leasing program for oil shale or to conduct a commercial oil shale lease sale (see the “Bureau of
Land Management” section). Further, the law contained provisions on funding for the Modified
Water Deliveries Project, which pertains to water deliveries to Everglades National Park (see the
“Everglades Restoration” section).
President Bush had requested $25.81 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for
FY2009, a $2.61 billion (9%) reduction from the FY2008 level of $28.42 billion (including
emergency appropriations). While the President sought to increase funds for some agencies, he

3 Information on the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, is contained
in CRS Report RL34711, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329): An Overview, by Robert Keith.
4 Information on continuing resolutions is contained in CRS reports including the following: CRS Report RL30343,
Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter; CRS Report
RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years, by Robert Keith; and CRS Report RL34700, Interim
Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential Impacts on Agency Operations
, by Clinton T. Brass.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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:
• -$1.69 billion (29%) for the Forest Service (FS);
• -$341.9 million (29%) for DOI Wildland Fire Management;
• -$284.2 million (4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
• -$139.6 million (10%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and
• -$99.9 million (4%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies held hearings on agency budget requests, and the House Subcommittee marked up a
draft appropriations bill. However, no bills providing regular appropriations for FY2009 for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies were reported by the House or Senate
Appropriations Committees or considered on the House or Senate floor. Divisiveness over
whether to retain long-standing prohibitions on funding for oil and gas leasing in regions of the
Outer Continental Shelf was perhaps the biggest impediment to developing and considering an
Interior appropriations bill.
Œ˜—˜–’Œȱ’–ž•žœȱŽ’œ•Š’˜—ǰȱǯǯȱŗŗŗȬśȱ
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5, H.R. 1) is a $787 billion
broad economic stimulus package that contains tax cuts and spending.5 Among the purposes of
the economic stimulus law are preserving and creating jobs; promoting economic recovery; and
making investments in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will
provide long-term economic benefits.
The law included funds for certain agencies and activities typically funded by the annual Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law. In total, the law contained $10.95 billion
for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.6 This amount is 39% of the total appropriation
for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2008 ($28.42 billion).
Not every agency typically funded through the Interior bill received funding in the economic
stimulus law. Moreover, the agencies that were funded received widely varying dollar amounts. In
turn, these amounts constituted widely varying percentages of each agency’s most recent annual
appropriations (FY2008). Table 2, below, identifies the agencies and accounts that were funded
by P.L. 111-5. For general information on the agencies and the purposes of these accounts, see the
pertinent sections in the balance of this report.

5 For an overview of the law and a discussion of stimulus issues and policies, see CRS Report R40104, Economic
Stimulus: Issues and Policies
, by Jane G. Gravelle, Thomas L. Hungerford, and Marc Labonte.
6 These funds were contained in Division A, Title VII.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Of the $10.95 billion total in the economic stimulus law, $7.22 billion (66%) was provided to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The majority of EPA funding was for clean water ($4.0
billion) and drinking water ($2.0 billion) state revolving fund grants.7 The remainder of the funds
was primarily for cleanup projects, specifically Superfund remediation, grants for cleanup of
Brownfields and leaking underground storage tanks, and diesel emission reduction grants.
Another portion of the funds was for the Office of Inspector General. EPA funding in the
economic stimulus law nearly equaled the agency’s total FY2008 appropriations of $7.46 billion.
Another $2.50 billion (23%) of the $10.95 billion total was provided to the four federal land
management agencies: the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, and Forest Service. These funds were provided for construction; wildfire management;
and maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of facilities and trails, among other purposes.8
Of the $10.95 billion, a total of $1.0 billion (9%) was provided to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
activities including repair and restoration of roads, construction and improvement of schools, and
maintenance and repair of detention centers ($500.0 million) and to the Indian Health Service for
facilities construction, deferred maintenance, sanitation projects, and equipment purchases
($500.0 million), among other activities. The remaining $230.0 million (2%) of the $10.95 billion
was provided to several other agencies for purposes including deferred maintenance of the U.S.
Geological Survey, salaries and expenses of the DOI Inspector General, repair of Smithsonian
facilities, and grants for the arts.
In earlier action on the economic stimulus legislation (H.R. 1), the Senate had approved a slightly
higher total—$11.11 billion—while the House had passed a still larger one—$14.81 billion. As
shown in Table 2, there were a number of significant differences between the House- and Senate-
passed versions of the bill. In general, the enacted appropriations for the various agencies and
accounts were closer to the Senate’s version of the measure.
Among the general provisions of the law,9 agencies are to begin spending the funds “as quickly as
possible consistent with prudent management.”10 With regard to funds for infrastructure,
recipients are to give preference to activities “that can be started and completed expeditiously,”
with a goal of using at least 50% of the monies for activities that can be started within 120 days of
enactment.11
P.L. 111-5 provided emergency funding for FY2009, with the monies available for obligation
until September 30, 2010 (the end of FY2010), unless otherwise specified.12 In general, the
accounts funded in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations title of P.L.
111-5 did not contain different periods of obligation, although there were exceptions (e.g. funding
for the DOI and EPA Inspectors General). By comparison, the regular, annual Interior

7 For information on these grants and other water infrastructure funding in the economic stimulus law, see CRS Report
R40216, Water Infrastructure Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by Claudia Copeland
and Nicole T. Carter.
8 For more information on funds for these agencies in the economic stimulus law, see CRS Report R40217, Federal
Lands Provisions of Economic Stimulus Legislation (H.R. 1)
, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Ross W. Gorte.
9 The law contains other provisions on the allocation of appropriations that are beyond the scope of this discussion.
10 Sec. 3, “Purposes and Principles.”
11 Sec. 1602, Division A.
12 Sec. 1603, Division A.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
appropriations laws generally do not limit obligations to two years. For instance, in the FY2008
Interior appropriations law, some of the accounts that are funded by P.L. 111-5 received
appropriations that would be available until expended, while others received appropriations only
for one or two fiscal years.
The economic stimulus law also stated that it shall have no effect on the availability of funds
under the FY2009 continuing appropriations resolution, and that appropriations are in addition to
amounts otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year involved.13 A regular, annual appropriations
bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies has not been enacted to date, as discussed
above, but is proceeding on a separate track.
The law required that each agency receiving funding in the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies title is to notify the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as to how the monies
are to be spent. Specifically, it provided that each such agency is to submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, within 30 days of enactment, a general plan for the
expenditure of the funds. Each agency also is to submit to the committees, within 90 days of
enactment, a report “containing detailed project level information associated with the general
plan.”14
The law authorized each agency receiving funding in the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies title to transfer up to 10% of the funds in any account to other accounts within the
agency, if certain conditions were met. The conditions are that the agency head “determines that
the transfer will enhance the efficiency or effectiveness of the use of the funds without changing
the intended purpose,” and notifies the House and Senate Appropriations Committees “10 days
prior to the transfer.”15
Table 2. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies in P.L. 111-5
(in millions of dollars)
Agency and Account
House
Senate
Passed
Passed
Enacted
Department of the Interior
BLM, Management of Lands and Resources

135.0
125.0
BLM, Construction
325.0
180.0
180.0
BLM, Wildland Fire Management

15.0
15.0
—Total BLM
325.0
330.0
320.0
FWS, Resource Management

165.0
165.0
FWS, Construction
300.0
110.0
115.0
—Total FWS
300.0
275.0
280.0
NPS, Operation of the National Park System

158.0
146.0

13 Sec. 1601, Division A.
14 Sec. 701, Division A.
15 Sec. 703, Division A.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Agency and Account
House
Senate
Passed
Passed
Enacted
NPS, Historic Preservation Funda —

15.0
NPS, Construction
1,700.0
589.0
589.0
—Historical and Cultural Resources
200.0


—Historic Preservation Funda
15.0 — —
NPS, Centennial Challenge
100.0


—Total NPS
1,800.0
747.0
750.0
USGS, Surveys, Investigations, and Research
200.0
135.0
140.0
—Total USGS
200.0
135.0
140.0
BIA, Operation of Indian Programs

40.0
40.0
—Housing Improvement Program

20.0

BIA, Construction
500.0
522.0
450.0
—Schools and Detention Centers
250.0


BIA, Indian Guaranteed Loan Program Account

10.0
10.0
—Total BIA
500.0
572.0
500.0
DOI, Departmental Offices, Insular Affairs, Assistance to Territories

62.0

DOI, Departmental Offices, Office of Inspector General, Salaries and
Expenses
15.0b
15.0 15.0
DOI, Department-Wide Programs, Central Hazardous Materials Fund

20.0

—Total DOI
3,140.0
2,156.0
2,005.0
EPA, Office of Inspector General
20.0

20.0
EPA, Hazardous Substance Superfund
800.0
600.0
600.0
EPA, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program
200.0
200.0
200.0
EPA, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
8,400.0
6,400.0
6,400.0
—Clean Water State Revolving Fund Grants
6,000.0
4,000.0
4,000.0
—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Grants
2,000.0
2,000.0
2,000.0
—Brownfields projects (grants for site assessment and cleanup under
§104(k) of CERCLA)c
100.0 100.0
100.0
—Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants (Title VII, Subtitle G, Energy Policy
Act of 2005)
300.0 300.0
300.0
—Total EPA
9,420.0
7,200.0
7,220.0
FS, Capital Improvement and Maintenance
650.0
650.0
650.0
FS, Wildland Fire Management
850.0
485.0
500.0
—Federal Lands
300.0

250.0
—State/Private Forestry
550.0
260.0
250.0
—Grants for Using Biomassd
— 50.0
50.0
—Total FS
1,500.0
1,135.0
1,150.0
IHS, Indian Health Services

135.0
85.0
—Contract Health Services

50.0

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Agency and Account
House
Senate
Passed
Passed
Enacted
—Health Information Technology

85.0

IHS, Indian Health Facilities
550.0
410.0
415.0
—Completion of Two Facilities


227.0
—Total IHS
550.0
545.0
500.0
Smithsonian Institution, Facilities Capital
150.0
75.0
25.0
—Total Smithsonian Institution
150.0
75.0
25.0
NEA, Grants and Administration
50.0

50.0
—Total NEA
50.0

50.0
Total Appropriations for Interior Environment, and Related
Agencies
14,810.0 11,111.0 10,950.0
Source: The primary source of this information is the Congressional Record, February 13, 2009 p. H1546-H1548.
Note: The following agency acronyms are used in this table: BLM, Bureau of Land Management; FWS, Fish and
Wildlife Service; NPS, National Park Service; USGS, United States Geological Survey; BIA, Bureau of Indian
Affairs; DOI, Department of the Interior; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; FS, Forest Service; IHS, Indian
Health Service; NEA, National Endowment for the Arts.
a. The House-passed bill provided that $15.0 million of the funds provided for construction were to be
transferred to the Historic Preservation Fund. This appropriation is reflected in the table under the NPS
construction account for the House-passed bill.
b. The House-passed bill included these funds in Title I (General Provisions) of the bill, rather than in the title
for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
c. CERCLA is the acronym for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980.
d. In the Senate-passed bill, it appears that these funds were to be derived from the state/private forestry
amount. In the enacted bill, these funds were to be derived from the total for wildland fire management;
therefore, the $50.0 million is a subamount within the other line items.
Š“˜›ȱ œœžŽœȱ
Controversial funding and policy issues typically have been debated during consideration of the
annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Issues that have tended
to be controversial, that are discussed in subsequent sections of this report, include those listed
below.
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially the adequacy
of funding to meet state and local wastewater and drinking water needs. These
state revolving funds provide seed money for state loans to communities for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see
the “Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)
Construction of BIA Schools and IHS Health Facilities, particularly whether to
enact funding cuts proposed in President Bush’s budget. (For more information,
see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Indian Health Service” sections in
this report.)
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Şȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Indian Trust Funds, especially whether to enact reductions proposed in President
Bush’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 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 the “Minerals Management Service” section of this report.)
Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet hazardous waste
cleanup needs, and whether to continue using general Treasury revenues to fund
the account or reinstate a tax on industry that originally paid for most of the
program. (For more information, see the “Environmental Protection Agency”
section in this report.)
Termination of BIA Education and Housing and IHS Urban Health Programs,
particularly whether to end funding for BIA’s Johnson-O’Malley grants to
schools and the Housing Improvement Program and for IHS’s urban Indian
health projects. (For more information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the
“Indian Health Service” sections in this report.)
Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate level of
funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of borrowing funds from other
agency programs to fight wildfires; implementation of a 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.)
Šžœȱ˜ȱ’••ȱ
Table 3, below, will contain information on congressional consideration of the FY2009 Interior
appropriations bill as it occurs.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
şȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Table 3. Status of Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2009
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
H. Comm. House S. Comm. Senate
Conf.
Approval
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage Report
Law
House Senate
House Senate
6/11/08 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Note: The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A of P.L. 110-329), generally extended funding
for accounts in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (among other appropriations
bills) at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations law.
’•Žȱ DZȱŽ™Š›–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ —Ž›’˜›ȱ
ž›ŽŠžȱ˜ȱŠ—ȱŠ—ŠŽ–Ž—ŗŜȱ
ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ
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 Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for BLM accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008
regular appropriations act. The Bush Administration had requested a total of $999.1 million for
BLM for FY2009. This would be a reduction of $8.8 million (1%) from the FY2008 level of
$1.01 billion. See Table 4. 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 Bush Administration proposed funding for DOI fire fighting as a
department-wide program, rather than through the BLM. The Bush Administration sought $850.1
million for DOI wildland fire management, a reduction of $341.9 million (29%) from the $1.19
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 Bush Administration’s FY2009 budget included several suggested changes in law. For
instance, the Bush 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. President Bush’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 Bush

16 For more information on BLM funding, contact Carol Hardy Vincent at 7-8651.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŖȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Administration supported 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 Bush
Administration made similar proposals in earlier budget requests, which were not enacted.
The Bush Administration also proposed to eliminate the Range Improvements Fund, and
consequently did not request an appropriation from the fund. The Administration sought 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 advocated 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 4, below, shows a request of $10.0 million because under current law a portion
of the grazing fees collected are deposited in the fund.
Š—ŠŽ–Ž—ȱ˜ȱŠ—œȱŠ—ȱŽœ˜ž›ŒŽœȱ
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 Bush 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 $49.9 million for the NLCS, from multiple accounts, compared with an
appropriation of $54.2 million for FY2008.
Table 4. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
Bureau of Land Management
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 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 Forfeituresa 0.0
0.0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds and Permanent Operating Funds
20.1
7.1
—Current Appropriations
20.1
20.1
—Naval Oil Shale Reserves, Mineral Leasing Receipts

-13.0
Total Appropriationsb
1,007.9 999.1
a. The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
b. The figures do not reflect funds for DOI wildland fire management. For FY2008, $1.19 billion was
appropriated to the BLM for DOI wildland fire management. For FY2009, the Bush Administration sought
to fund wildland fire management as a department-wide program, with a request for $850.1 million.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŗȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
In general, the Bush 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 Bush Administration sought a legislative change to make
permanent the cost recovery fee, with the hope of generating $34.0 million for FY2009.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009, removed the prohibition on using funds to
prepare final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale or to conduct a
commercial oil shale lease sale. The funding prohibition had been included in the FY2008
appropriations law. According to the Department of the Interior and the oil industry, final
regulations are important for giving the industry greater certainty, regarding access to federal
lands, for near-term investment decisions. Final regulations were subsequently issued.
For the healthy lands initiative for FY2009, the Bush Administration requested $14.9 million, an
increase above the $4.9 million appropriated for FY2008. The Administration anticipated 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 was 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.
˜—œ›žŒ’˜—ȱ
For FY2009, the Bush 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
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŘȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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).
Š—ȱŒšž’œ’’˜—ȱ
For Land Acquisition for FY2009, the Bush 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 R40237, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 111th Congress
, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol
Hardy Vincent
’œ‘ȱŠ—ȱ’••’ŽȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽŗŝȱ
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts
provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations act. For FY2009, President Bush had requested
$1.30 billion for FWS, down 10% from the FY2008 level of $1.44 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. Among the programs included
in Resources Management are the Endangered Species program, the Refuge System, and Law
Enforcement.
—Š—Ž›Žȱ™ŽŒ’Žœȱž—’—ȱ
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 5.
A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are listed, or proposed for
listing, under the Endangered Species Act. For FY2008, President Bush 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, President Bush proposed to increase the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund (for grants to states and territories to conserve threatened and endangered

17 For more information on FWS funding, contact M. Lynne Corn at 7-7267.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗřȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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 5.
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 $256.6 million.
Table 5. Appropriations for Endangered Species and
Related Programs, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
Endangered Species and Related Programs
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 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.
Š’˜—Š•ȱ’••’ŽȱŽžŽȱ¢œŽ–ȱǻǼȱŠ—ȱŠ ȱ—˜›ŒŽ–Ž—ȱ
For refuge operations and maintenance, the FY2008 appropriation was $434.1 million; President
Bush 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 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
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŚȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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.
Ÿ’Š—ȱ•žȱ
For FY2009, President Bush’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.)
Š—ȱŒšž’œ’’˜—ȱ
For FY2009, President Bush’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 through
additional acquisitions.18 See Table 6. 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.)
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, President Bush 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. President Bush’s budget
assumed that Congress will enact an increase in the price of duck stamps, and that as a result

18 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year FY2009: The Interior Budget in Brief, February 2008, p. DO-21.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗśȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
MBCA revenues for FY2009 will increase 35% to $54.0 million. The MBCA would rise from
54% of the agency’s land acquisition budget to 84%, if both the reduction in the basic land
acquisition account and the increase in the duck stamp price are enacted.
Table 6. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FWS Land Acquisition
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 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

’••’ŽȱŽžŽȱž—ȱ
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, President Bush requested $10.8 million, down 23% from the
FY2008 level of $14.0 million. With refuge receipts, the FY2009 level would fund about 40% of
the authorized payment level, down from 51% in FY2008.
ž•’—Š’˜—Š•ȱ™ŽŒ’ŽœȱŠ—ȱŽ˜›˜™’ŒŠ•ȱ’›Š—œȱ
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, President Bush 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 $4.4 million. See Table 7.
Table 7. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 Request
African Elephant
1,477
990
Tiger and Rhinos
1,969
990
Asian Elephant
1,477
990
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŜȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 Request
Great Apes
1,969
990
Marine Turtles
983
296
Total MSCF Appropriations
7,875
4,256
Neotropical Migratory Birds
4,430
3,960

ŠŽȱŠ—ȱ›’‹Š•ȱ’••’Žȱ ›Š—œȱ
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 $73.8 million, and the FY2009 request was identical. See Table 8.
Table 8. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 Request
State Grants
62,724
62,724
Competitive Grants for States, Territories, & Other Jurisdictions
4,922
4,922
Tribal Grants
6,184
6,184
Total Appropriations
73,830
73,830

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 Kristina Alexander.
CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds, by Jim Monke and M. Lynne
Corn.
CRS Report R40185, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 111th Congress: Conflicting
Values and Difficult Choices
, by Eugene H. Buck et al.
CRS Report RS21157, Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and M.
Lynne Corn.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŝȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Š’˜—Š•ȱŠ›”ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽŗşȱ
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.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for NPS accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008
regular appropriations act. However, §151 added $2.0 million to NPS operations for “security and
visitor safety activities related to the Presidential Inaugural Ceremonies” in January 2009.
For FY2009, President Bush had 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 9. The request
would have provided a major boost in funding for the park operations account, but sought to
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 parks operate with two-thirds of needed
funding—a budget shortfall of more than $600 million annually.20
To be ready for the NPS’s 100th anniversary in 2016, the Bush 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, seeks to 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.)

19 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.
20 See the website of the National Parks Conservation Association at http://www.npca.org/media_center/reports/
analysis.html.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŞȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Table 9. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
National Park Service
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 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 the fact that the Bush 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.
™Ž›Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŠ’˜—Š•ȱŠ›”ȱ¢œŽ–ȱ
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 9. 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.
—’ŽȱŠŽœȱŠ›”ȱ˜•’ŒŽȱǻǼȱ
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 system-wide.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗşȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
The FY2009 request was $93.6 million (including a cancellation of $0.8 million in prior year
funds). This would have been an increase of $6.8 million (8%) above the FY2008 enacted level.
The proposed increase was 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.21 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.
Ž—Ž——’Š•ȱ‘Š••Ž—Žȱ
As discussed above, the Bush 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. President
Bush’s FY2009 budget proposed to establish $100.0 million in mandatory spending to provide
the federal match. Related legislative proposals were introduced in the House and Senate.
Congress provided $24.6 million as seed money for the Centennial Challenge in the FY2008
appropriations law, to be matched by equal private contributions. The FY2008 appropriations law,
and language in the House Appropriations Committee report on the FY2008 Interior
Appropriations bill (H.Rept. 110-187), directed 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. The Park Service has announced the first projects funded through the
Centennial Challenge.
Š’˜—Š•ȱŽŒ›ŽŠ’˜—ȱŠ—ȱ›ŽœŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ
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 was $21.9 million (33%) less than the FY2008 appropriation of $67.4
million. The proposed reduction in funding drew criticism from some Members of Congress and
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 Bush Administration
again proposed discontinuing statutory and contractual aid; the program was funded at $7.5
million in FY2008.

21 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).
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŖȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
’œ˜›’Œȱ›ŽœŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱ
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 was reauthorized (P.L. 109-453) on December 22, 2006, extending the funding
authority 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 Bush Administration requested $66.1 million for the HPF, a decrease of $4.2
million (6%) from the funding level for FY2008. See Table 9. The request proposed canceling
$0.5 million in unobligated balances appropriated in prior years. The request would have reduced
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. 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 have
funded grants through the HPF and the balance would have been provided through the National
Recreation and Preservation account. A $5.0 million proposal for a similar program was included
in the Bush Administration’s FY2008 request, but was not funded.
˜—œ›žŒ’˜—ȱ
The Construction line item funds new construction projects, as well as improvements, repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. The FY2009 request would have reduced 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 have affected 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.)
Š—ȱŒšž’œ’’˜—ȱŠ—ȱŠŽȱœœ’œŠ—ŒŽȱ
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 have reduced 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řŗȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
The $21.8 million proposed for NPS land acquisition was $22.5 million (51%) below the FY2008
level. The Bush 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, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL33525, Recreation on Federal Lands, by Kori Calvert et al.
ǯǯȱ Ž˜•˜’ŒŠ•ȱž›ŸŽ¢ŘŘȱ
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 Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended funding for
USGS accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular
appropriations act. 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 10.
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.23 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 Research” section below.) The FY2009 request proposed to eliminate funding for
the Water Resources Research Institutes, which the Bush Administration contended 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.

22 For more information on USGS funding, contact Pervaze A. Sheikh at 7-6070.
23 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŘȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
U.S. Geological Survey
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 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

—Ž›™›’œŽȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱ
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.
Ž˜›Š™‘’ŒȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ǰȱ —ŸŽœ’Š’˜—œǰȱŠ—ȱŽ–˜ŽȱŽ—œ’—ȱ
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 Bush 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řřȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Ž˜•˜’Œȱ Š£Š›œǰȱŽœ˜ž›ŒŽœǰȱŠ—ȱ›˜ŒŽœœŽœȱ
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 Bush 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 Bush
Administration requested similar cuts in this program, which Congress rejected. The
Appropriations Committees expressed full support for the program for FY2008, and referred to
the Administration’s requested cut for FY2008 as “irresponsible” (Explanatory Statement, H
16128).
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 2009.24
ŠŽ›ȱŽœ˜ž›ŒŽœȱ —ŸŽœ’Š’˜—œȱ
For this program, the Bush 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.
’˜•˜’ŒŠ•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱ
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

24 For more information see http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/oceanfr.html, accessed March 13, 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŚȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
areas include research on effects of climate change on wildfires and ecosystems, large river
ecosystem processes and habitat, vertebrate diseases and impacts, gap analysis25 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
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.
Œ’Ž—ŒŽȱž™™˜›ȱŠ—ȱŠŒ’•’’Žœȱ
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.
•˜‹Š•ȱ•’–ŠŽȱ‘Š—ŽȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱ
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/.

25 Gap analysis identifies the degree to which native animal species and plant communities are represented in federal
lands.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řśȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
’—Ž›Š•œȱŠ—ŠŽ–Ž—ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽŘŜȱ
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. MMS
recently published its proposed regulations for the administration of alternative energy leases in
the OCS (73 Fed. Reg. 39376, July 9, 2008). 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 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.
žŽȱŠ—ȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for MMS accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008
regular appropriations act. The Bush Administration had submitted an FY2009 total MMS budget
of $307.1 million. See Table 11. 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 Bush 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 $43.0
million deduction for royalty cost-sharing with the states for FY2008.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
Minerals Management Service
FY2008 Approp. FY2009 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

26 For more information on MMS funding, contact Marc Humphries at 7-7264.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŜȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Minerals Management Service
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 Request
—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

’•ȱŠ—ȱ ŠœȱŽŠœ’—ȱœ‘˜›Žȱ
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 had been in place since 1982, as a result of public laws and executive orders of
the President. On July 14, 2008, President Bush lifted the executive moratoria, which included
MMS Planning areas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2009, Congress removed its annual moratoria provisions that included the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts; these coastal areas could now be made available for future oil and gas
development. Whether to remove the moratoria has been highly controversial. Their removal was
supported in an attempt to increase domestic oil and gas supply. Others favored continuing the
moratoria due to concerns about adverse economic and environmental impacts of development. In
earlier action, Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 109-432) to open part of the Gulf of Mexico
(about 5.8 million acres), but the law placed nearly all of the eastern Gulf under a leasing
moratorium until 2022. The law also contained revenue sharing provisions for selected coastal
states. The MMS’s new five-year leasing 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 has been debated during consideration of Interior
appropriations bills. 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 1999.27
The 110th Congress considered, but has not enacted, royalty relief legislation. On September 16,
2008, the House passed H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer
Protection Act. Under Title I, this legislation would require the Secretary of the Interior to accept
a lessee’s request to modify those leases without price thresholds (“covered leases”) to include
price thresholds. The bill would not make available to lessees holding “covered leases” new oil
and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico unless current leases include price thresholds or the lessee

27 This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS, during April 2006.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řŝȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
pays a proposed “conservation of resources fee”28 or enters an agreement to pay such fees. The
bill also would reaffirm the Secretary’s authority to impose a price threshold in certain leases.
Earlier in the 110th Congress, the House had passed H.R. 6 with similar language on royalty
relief, but the provisions were not enacted as part of P.L. 110-140.
In addition, the authority of the Secretary to impose price thresholds has come into question in a
lawsuit filed by Kerr-McGee.29 The U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana issued a
ruling on October 18, 2007, in favor of Kerr-McGee,30 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.31
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 2007.32 The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on September 26, 2008, concluding
that the Royalty-in-Kind Program could be improved.33
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.34 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.

28 The fee would be $9/barrel oil and $1.25/million Btu natural gas on covered producing leases and $3.75/acre
annually on non-producing leases.
29 For more details on this case, see CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by
Adam Vann.
30 Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. v. Allred, No. 2:06-CV-0439 (W.D. La. October 30, 2007).
31 See 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 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.
32 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.
33 The report is available at U.S. Government Accountability Office, Oil and Gas Royalties: MMS’s Oversight of Its
Royalty-in-Kind Program Can Be Improved through Additional Use of Production Verification Data and Enhanced
Reporting of Financial Benefits and Costs
, GAO-08-942R, September 26, 2008.
34 The regulations on suspension are at 30 C.F.R §250.168.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŞȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Court for the Northern District of California agreed with the state of California and struck down
the lease suspensions.35 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.36
Following this ruling, nine oil company lessees brought breach of contract claims against MMS
seeking restitution for “bonus payments” made to MMS in order to obtain and suspend their
leases in offshore California. In November 2005, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the
federal government breached its contract with the lessees when it enacted the amendments to the
CZMA in 1990 that, according to the decisions described above, required lease suspensions to be
evaluated for consistency with a state’s coastal management plan.37 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.38 The government was ordered
to repay the lessees for all so-called “bonus payments” (about $1.1 billion) made to the
government in exchange for the leases.39
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.
’ŒŽȱ˜ȱž›ŠŒŽȱ’—’—ȱŽŒ•Š–Š’˜—ȱŠ—ȱ—˜›ŒŽ–Ž—ŚŖȱ
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
Reclamation Fund,41 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

35 California v. Norton, 150 F.Supp.2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
36 California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2002).
37 Amber Resources Co. v. U.S., 68 Fed. Cl. 535 (2005).
38 Id. at 546-48.
39 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).
40 For more information on OSM funding, contact Robert Bamberger at 7-7240.
41 Hereafter this fund is referred to as the AML fund.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řşȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
determined strictly by annual appropriations. The law provided that individual states and Indian
tribes would develop their own regulatory programs incorporating minimum standards estab-
lished by law and regulations. Reclamation in states with no approved programs is directed by
OSM.
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.42 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.43
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.44 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.45 These states and tribes, referred to

42 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.
43 As is subsequently discussed in greater detail, on August 1, 2008, President Bush submitted an amendment to his
FY2009 budget request to cancel $11.7 million of AML funds that otherwise would have been available for
discretionary and federally managed programs.
44 The permanent appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that money would exceed the
cap, distributions will be proportional.
45 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŖȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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.
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.46
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.47
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.48 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
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for OSM accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008
regular appropriations act.
The Bush Administration’s original request for FY2009 had been $118.5 million for Regulation
and Technology, and $30.8 million for the AML fund. Total spending under the original request
for OSM would have been $149.3 million for FY2009, a reduction of roughly $21.1 million

46 Whether or not fee collections are reauthorized beyond FY2021, mandatory distributions will continue as long as
money remains in the AML fund.
47 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Budget Justifications and
Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2009
, p. 148.
48 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŗȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
(12%) from FY2008. However, the reduction would have been more than offset by the permanent
appropriation under the restructured AML program.
On August 1, 2008, President Bush submitted an amendment to his budget request to cancel $11.7
million of unobligated balances in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. The effect of the
amendment would be to reduce President Bush’s request for AML funds to $19.1 million. See
Table 12. The Administration asserted that this level would be sufficient to meet the needs of
discretionary reclamation as the discretionary grant program is phased out, and these needs are
met by funds in the mandatory appropriation. The reduction from the AML request was proposed
as an offset to an increase for the Bureau of Land Management to fund the cost of environmental
investigation and restoration at Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 3 in Colorado.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
FY2008 Approp. FY2009 Request
Regulation and Technology
118.5
118.5
—Environmental Protection
87.4 86.9
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
52.0
19.1
Total Appropriations
170.4
137.6

For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, see its
website at http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm.
ž›ŽŠžȱ˜ȱ —’Š—ȱŠ’›œŚşȱ
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. The Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended funding for BIA accounts,
through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations act. For
FY2009, the Bush Administration had proposed $2.19 billion, a decrease of $99.9 million (4%)
below FY2008. Table 13 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.

49 For more information on BIA funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŘȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Key issues for BIA include education programs—such as the Bush 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.
Table 13. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FY2009 Request
Percent
FY2008
Change
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Approp.
Total TPAa
FY08-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-Funded)
479,895
475,594
0
-1%



—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 Universities
56,821
56,821
0
0%



—Tribal Colls. and Univs. Supplements to
Grants
1,272 1,272 0 0%



—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%
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řřȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
FY2009 Request
Percent
FY2008
Change
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Approp.
Total TPAa
FY08-FY09


—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%
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 and Repair
84,529
74,363
N/A
-12%

Public Safety and Justice Construction
14,393
11,433
N/A
-21%


—Law Enforcement Facilities Improvement and
Repair
10,938 7,975 N/A -27%

Resources Management Construction
38,309
37,306
N/A
-3%

General Administration Construction and Construction
Management
8,117 9,146 N/A 13%
Subtotal, Construction
203,754 173,261 N/A
-15%
Land and Water Claim Settlements and
Miscellaneous Payments
33,538 21,627 N/A -36%
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.
ž›ŽŠžȱ˜ȱ —’Š—ȱžŒŠ’˜—ȱǻ Ǽȱ›˜›Š–œȱśŖȱ
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

50 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŚȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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) program,
tribal technical colleges, and the large number of inadequate school facilities.
—’Š—ȱžŒŠ’˜—ȱ —’’Š’ŸŽȱ
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 Bush Administration
proposed $5.2 million for education program enhancements for FY2009, a decrease of $6.9
million (57%) from FY2008.
˜‘—œ˜—ȬȂŠ••Ž¢ȱǻ Ǽȱ›˜›Š–ȱ
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 Bush 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 Act51 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.
›’‹Š•ȱŽŒ‘—’ŒŠ•ȱ˜••ŽŽœȱ
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,52 but the two are the only
colleges receiving grants under the Education Department’s Carl Perkins Act program for tribally
controlled vocational colleges.53 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

51 This program is contained in 20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
52 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)).
53 The provision for tribally controlled career and technical institutions is at 20 U.S.C. 2327.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řśȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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 for FY2009 the Bush Administration
proposed no funding for the Perkins Act program and reduced other Education Department higher
education programs from which the tribal technical colleges benefit.54
žŒŠ’˜—ȱ˜—œ›žŒ’˜—ȱ
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 13
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 Bush 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.
Š ȱ—˜›ŒŽ–Ž—ȱ›˜›Š–ȱ
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 Bush 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,

54 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŜȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
BIA is in the process of calculating tribes’ law enforcement needs and anticipates allocating the
funding increase in April 2008.55
For FY2009, the Bush 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%).56
For tribal courts, FY2008 appropriations were $14.3 million. For FY2009, the Bush
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.
˜žœ’—ȱ –™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—ȱ›˜›Š–ȱǻ Ǽȱ
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 Bush 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.
˜ŠȱŠ’—Ž—Š—ŒŽȱ
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 access
to, Indian reservations and trust lands and Alaska Native villages. IRR funds are jointly managed

55 Information obtained from the BIA, personal communication, March 14, 2008.
56 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŝȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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 Bush 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.
ŽŽ›Š•ȱ›’‹Š•ȱŒ”—˜ •Ž–Ž—ȱ›˜ŒŽœœȱ
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).57 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.58 For FY2008, OFA received $2.4
million within the Executive Direction budget activity, which funds the Assistant Secretary’s
office. For FY2009, the Bush 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.
Ž™Š›–Ž—Š•ȱ’ŒŽœȱŠ—ȱŽ™Š›–Ž—Ȭ’Žȱ›˜›Š–œśşȱ
’ŒŽȱ˜ȱ —œž•Š›ȱŠ’›œȱŜŖȱ
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 associated states in the Western Pacific—the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM),
the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of Palau.61 OIA staff manage

57 For further information on the BIA acknowledgment process, see CRS Report RS21109, The Bureau of Indian
Affairs's Process for Recognizing Groups as Indian Tribes
, by M. Maureen Murphy.
58 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).
59 This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under Departmental Offices or Department-Wide Programs.
Total funding for these entities is identified in Table 26 at the end of this report.
60 For more information on OIA funding, contact R. Sam Garrett at 7-6443.
61 On behalf of the United Nations, the U.S. government formerly administered these areas as the Trust Territories of
the Pacific Islands (TTPI).
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŞȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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.62
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).63 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;64 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 services, such as U.S. mail, was $4.8 million. This was 9% below the FY2008
appropriation of $5.3 million.65 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.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for insular affairs accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the
FY2008 regular appropriations act.
For additional information on Insular Affairs, see its website at http://www.doi.gov/oia/
index.html.

62 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.
63 On permanent funding, see U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year FY2009: The Interior Budget in Brief, February
2008, p. BH-91.
64 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.
65 For additional information about the CFA account, see the OIA Budget Justification, pp. 79-91.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řşȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Š¢–Ž—œȱ’—ȱ’Žžȱ˜ȱŠ¡Žœȱ›˜›Š–ȱǻ ǼŜŜȱ
For FY2009, President Bush requested an appropriation of $195.0 million for PILT. This would
have been a decrease of 15% from the FY2008 enacted level of $228.9 million, and would have
constituted roughly 52% of the authorized amount. See Table 14. The Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2009, provided the FY2008 level through March 6, 2009; if this were the full year
appropriation, it would constitute roughly 61% of the estimated FY2009 level for full payment.
However, §601(c) of Division C of P.L. 110-343 (the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008) provided for mandatory spending of the full authorized level for five years—FY2008-
FY2012. This means that an additional payment is to be made to raise the FY2008 level to the
fully authorized amount, and for FY2009-FY2012, the payments are to be at the fully authorized
amount. Therefore, the table below shows the FY2009 enacted appropriation at the estimated
authorized amount for that year.
Table 14. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for
Payments in Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-FY2009
($ in millions)
Fiscal Year
Authorized Amount Appropriated Amount % of Authorized 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 367.2
228.9
62.3
2009 (requested approp.)
374.2
195.0
52.1
2009 (enacted approp.)
374.2 374.2 100.0
Notes: The FY2009 levels, in italics, are estimates. The actual amounts depend on (1) revenues from other
payment programs that offset PILT payments; (2) the number of acres eligible for PILT payments; (3) the
counties’ populations; (4) state “pass-through” laws for granting federal funds to counties; and (5) changes in the
Consumer Price Index. (See CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by M.
Lynne Corn.)
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 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 FY2008.67 See Table 14. County governments claim that the program as a whole does not

66 For more information on PILT funding, contact M. Lynne Corn at 7-7267.
67 Where appropriations were not sufficient to cover the authorization, each county was to receive a pro rata share of
(continued...)
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŖȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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. However, as noted above, mandatory spending of the fully authorized amount has been
enacted for FY2008-FY2012.
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.
’ŒŽȱ˜ȱ™ŽŒ’Š•ȱ›žœŽŽȱ˜›ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—ȱ —’Š—œȱŜŞȱ
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.69 The funds include monies received
from claims awards, land or water rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from
income from land-based trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as from investment
income.
OST’s FY2008 appropriation was $189.3 million. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended funding for OST accounts, through March 6,
2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations act. For FY2009, the Bush
Administration had proposed $181.6 million. See Table 15. 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.

(...continued)
the authorized amount.
68 For more information on OST funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
69 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
.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śŗȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
Office of Special Trustee for
FY2008
FY2009
Percent Change
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%

’œ˜›’ŒŠ•ȱŒŒ˜ž—’—ȱ
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 Bush 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 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 Bush Administration
asserted that historical accounting should continue, for purposes of tribal suits and other possible
claims, as well as for its utility in IIM settlement discussions.70

70 Testimony of Ross Swimmer, Special Trustee for American Indians, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, before the House
(continued...)
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŘȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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.
’’Š’˜—ȱ
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.71 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.72
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. 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,73 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

(...continued)
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, April 3, 2008.
71 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.
72 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.
73 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śřȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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 hearings on an appropriate remedy. On August 7,
2008, the court ruled that the remedy should be $455.6 million in restitution to the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs, who had sought $27-$100 billion, appealed the decision on September 9, 2008.
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 in the past estimated 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, (4) the $58 billion that the plaintiffs asked from the
district court in March 2008,74 or (5) the $46 billion plaintiffs sought in June 2008.75 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,”76 but some senior appropriators considered the
Judgment Fund insufficient for a settlement in the $6-$13 billion range.77
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 bills were introduced in
the 109th Congress, and the Bush Administration in March 2007 proposed a comprehensive
settlement, but tribes and Cobell plaintiffs opposed the proposals.78 No trust fund settlement
legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress, and none has been introduced thus far in the
111th Congress.
—’Š—ȱŠ—ȱ˜—œ˜•’Š’˜—ȱ
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

74 “Cobell Plaintiffs Seek $58B for Indian Trust Beneficiaries,” Indianz.com (March 21, 2008), available at
http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/007757.asp.
75 “Cobell Headed to Resolution in Appeals Court,” Indianz.com (Aug. 29, 2008), available at http://www.indianz.com/
News/2008/010577.asp.
76 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.)
77 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.
78 “Bush Administration Won’t Admit Liability on Indian Trust,” Indianz.com (March 30, 2007), available at
http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/002150.asp.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŚȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
holder of a large interest in the land). For FY2008, appropriations for Indian land consolidation
were $9.8 million. The Bush 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 Bush 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.79 The Administration said it was 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 Bush 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 RL34628, The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v. Kempthorne,
by M. Maureen Murphy.
Š’˜—Š•ȱ —’Š—ȱ Š–’—ȱ˜––’œœ’˜—ȱŞŖȱ
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988 (25 U.S.C. §§2701, et seq.) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of
tribal bingo and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming (e.g., casinos and
racing).81 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
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), also provided no direct
appropriations. Similarly, the Bush Administration had not proposed 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

79 “Bush Administration Seeks Another Cut in BIA Budget,” Indianz.com (Feb. 5, 2008), available at
http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/006991.asp.
80 For more information on NIGC funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
81 Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but overlapping regulatory
responsibilities for each class.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śśȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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.
’•Žȱ DZȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—Š•ȱ›˜ŽŒ’˜—ȱŽ—Œ¢ŞŘȱ
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. EPA’s
funding over time generally has reflected an increase in overall appropriations to fulfill a rising
number of statutory responsibilities.83 Without adjusting for inflation, appropriations for EPA
have 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 Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for EPA accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular
appropriations act. As submitted on February 4, 2008, President Bush’s initial FY2009 budget
request had included $7.14 billion for EPA. On August 1, 2008, the President submitted
amendments to his original request affecting multiple agencies. Specific to EPA, the budget
amendments proposed an additional $10.6 million within the agency’s Science and Technology
account and a $24.2 million increase within its Hazardous Substance Superfund account.84
Including these additional funds, President Bush requested a total of $7.18 billion for EPA for
FY2009. The amended request was $284.2 million less than the FY2008 enacted appropriation of
$7.46 billion. The proposed budget amendments for EPA would have increased funding for
homeland security activities to enhance the agency’s ability to respond to possible incidents

82 For more information on EPA funding, contact David Bearden at 7-2390 or Robert Esworthy at 7-7236.
83 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.
84 White House, Office of Management and Budget, Estimate #7—FY 2009 Budget Amendments: Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, and State,
and the Environmental Protection Agency
. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments.htm.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŜȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
involving anthrax. President Bush’s budget amendments included offsets in the form of decreases
for activities of other agencies that did not alter the President’s original total discretionary budget
request.
Most of President Bush’s overall FY2009 requested decrease for EPA was for Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (SRF) grants and congressionally designated “special project grants.” The Clean
Water SRF grants support state loan funds for local wastewater infrastructure projects. Special
project grants support a greater variety of wastewater, drinking water, and storm water
infrastructure projects. Although President Bush requested an overall reduction for EPA, proposed
funding for certain activities was higher than the FY2008 enacted appropriation. Among the more
significant requested increases were those for EPA’s homeland security activities within various
accounts, such as the Science and Technology and Superfund accounts mentioned above.
Table 16 lists the eight statutory accounts that currently fund EPA.85 The table specifies the
amounts within each account that Congress enacted for FY2008, and compares these amounts to
President Bush’s FY2009 amended budget request.
Table 16. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
EPA Accounts
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 Request
Science and Technology


—Base Appropriations
760.1
774.1
—Transfer in from Superfund
25.7
26.4
Science and Technology Total
785.8
800.5
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
46.7
Buildings & Facilities
34.3
35.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund Total (before transfers)
1,254.0
1,288.4
—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
1,254.8
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Programa 105.8
92.6
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

85 Congress established these accounts in FY1996 as part of a restructuring of EPA’s budget to more closely align the
accounts with the purposes of the activities funded within them.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śŝȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
EPA Accounts
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 Request
—Special Project Grants
132.9
0.0
—Categorical Grantsa
1,078.3 1,036.2
—Other Grants
196.9
168.3
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
2,926.2
2,601.7
Rescissions (various EPA accounts)b
5.0 10.0
Total EPA Accounts
7,461.5
7,177.3
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using information from the House Appropriations
Committee, as provided October 16, 2008. FY2009 requested amounts reflect increases to the Science and
Technology ($10.6 million) and Superfund ($24.2 million) accounts included in President Bush’s August 1, 2008
amendments to his original FY2009 request.
a. Rather than the $92.6 million indicated, President Bush’s FY2009 budget request included $72.3 million for
the LUST Program account. This is due to a difference in the accounting of funds for certain activities
authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). President Bush’s request reflected funding for
these activities within the amount for Underground Storage Tank Categorical Grants under the STAG
account. Consistent with the enactment of appropriations for FY2008, the House Appropriations
Committee included these requested funds within the LUST Program account and adjusted the President’s
request to $92.6 million for comparative purposes. Accordingly, the Committee also adjusted the
President’s request for the STAG account downward by the same amount to reflect this accounting
difference.
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. President Bush’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.
Ž¢ȱž—’—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
There have been varying levels of interest in President Bush’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.
ŠŽ›ȱ —›Šœ›žŒž›Žȱ
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 monies for states to issue loans to
communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. President Bush’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
FY2009 request for the Drinking Water SRF was $842.2 million, a $13.1 million increase above
the FY2008 appropriation of $829.0 million.
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
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŞȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
had been providing significantly more funding than President Bush requested. This stemmed
from differing views on the extent of the federal role 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. President Bush’s FY2009 request would have further reduced 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 congressionally directed funding for “special project
grants” within the agency’s STAG account. As in past budget requests, President Bush’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 FY2008 appropriations law. Each recipient generally is
required to provide 45% of a project’s cost in matching funds, but the grants do not require
repayment, as do loan funds from the SRFs.
Funding for EPA’s water infrastructure grants also has been an issue within the context of
economic stimulus legislation. As passed by the House on September 26, 2008, the Job Creation
and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008 (H.R. 7110) would provide emergency supplemental
appropriations for FY2009 for many federal programs and activities. These funds are intended to
stimulate the economy through various means. The bill would provide a total of $7.5 billion in
emergency supplemental appropriations for EPA in FY2009. This additional amount would
double the agency’s funding level relative to the FY2008 enacted appropriation of nearly $7.5
billion. Of the $7.5 billion proposed in H.R. 7110, $6.5 billion would be allocated to the Clean
Water SRF to support wastewater infrastructure projects. The remaining $1.0 billion would be
allocated to the Drinking Water SRF. Municipal water agencies have questioned the greater
funding priority in the bill for the Clean Water SRF, noting that funding needs for wastewater and
drinking water infrastructure are comparable based on some estimates.
ž™Ž›ž—ȱ
President Bush’s FY2009 amended budget request included $1.29 billion for the Hazardous
Substance Superfund account, $34.4 million more than the FY2008 appropriation of $1.25
billion. This account primarily funds the cleanup of contaminated sites on the National Priorities
List (NPL) of the nation’s most hazardous waste sites, and supports numerous activities related to
that effort. These amounts indicated for the FY2009 request and the FY2008 enacted
appropriation are the total amounts for the Superfund account, prior to 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. See the breakout of the Superfund account in Table 16 for the net funds available
after transfers.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śşȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA)86 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 fewer resources to maintain a consistent 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 the actual cleanup of sites also has been
an issue. President Bush proposed $780.0 million for actual cleanup activities in FY2009, $3.4
million less than the FY2008 enacted appropriation of $783.4 million. Funding for site cleanup
includes support for both short-term removal actions to address immediate risks of exposure to
contamination and long-term remedial actions intended to provide a more permanent means to
prevent exposure. The balance of the Superfund account funds numerous activities not directly
involved in the physical cleanup of contaminated sites per se, but that support this goal in some
way. In terms of funding, some of the major cleanup-related activities 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.
The growth of funding within the Superfund account for homeland security activities also has
been an issue among those concerned about the availability of resources to clean up existing sites.
Superfund homeland security activities support EPA’s preparedness to respond to threatened
releases of contaminants, rather than cleanup of existing contamination at NPL sites across the
nation. President Bush’s FY2009 amended budget request included an additional $24.2 million
within the Superfund account to enhance the capacity of EPA’s laboratories and equipment to
respond to contamination that could result in the event of a release of anthrax. Including these
additional funds, the President proposed $83.7 million for homeland security activities within
EPA’s Superfund account for FY2009, $36.9 million more than the FY2008 enacted appropriation
of $46.8 million.
›˜ —’Ž•œȱ
In addition to Superfund, amendments to CERCLA in 2002 established a separate program to
clean up contaminated “brownfields.”87 President Bush’s FY2009 budget request included a total
of $165.8 million for EPA’s Brownfields Program,88 nearly $100,000 more than the FY2008

86 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
87 Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act (P.L. 107-118, Title II).
88 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
(continued...)
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŖȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
appropriation of $165.7 million. Typically, brownfields are abandoned, idled, or underutilized
commercial and industrial properties with levels of contamination less hazardous than a
Superfund site, but that still warrant cleanup before the land can be safe for reuse. The desire to
redevelop these properties for economic benefit has generated interest in the adequacy of funding
to assist states and communities. Funding for EPA’s Brownfields Program consists of amounts for
the three following activities: brownfields project grants to assist communities in cleaning up
contaminated sites, brownfields categorical grants to assist states in administering their own
brownfields programs, and administration of these grants by EPA. Table 17 presents the FY2008
appropriation and the FY2009 request for each program activity by account.
Table 17. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program, FY2008-FY2009
($ in millions)
Account and Activity
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 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
23.4
22.7
EPA Brownfields Program Total
165.7
165.8
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using information from the House Appropriations
Committee, as provided October 16, 2008.
Œ’Ž—’’ŒȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱ
Most of EPA’s scientific research activities are funded within the agency’s Science and
Technology account. As presented in Table 16, President Bush’s FY2009 amended budget
request included $800.5 million for the Science and Technology account, a $14.7 million increase
above the FY2008 enacted appropriation of $785.8 million. These amounts are the total funds
available to the account after transfers from Superfund. As discussed earlier, these transferred
funds are dedicated to research of more effective methods to clean up contaminated sites.
The activities funded within the Science and Technology account include a broad range of
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.
At the activity level, President Bush’s request for EPA’s Science and Technology account
included a mix of increases for some research areas and decreases for others. The President
proposed the largest single increase within this account for homeland security research activities,

(...continued)
the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriations laws.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŗȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
from $54.5 million appropriated for FY2008 to $84.5 million requested for FY2009. Of this
$30.0 million increase, President Bush’s August budget amendment included $10.6 million for
research of methods to assess the potential risks of contamination in the event of a release of
anthrax, sample contaminated media to measure levels of anthrax, and decontaminate outdoor
areas if a release were to occur. The President’s request also included smaller increases in other
EPA research areas, including Air Toxics and Quality, Land Protection, and Pesticides and Toxics.
President Bush proposed to decrease funding for some of the agency’s other core scientific
research areas, 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 Report MM70108, EPA: President's FY2009 Budget Request. Online Video. DVD., by David
M. Bearden and Robert Esworthy.
’•Žȱ DZȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’Žœȱ
Ž™Š›–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ›’Œž•ž›ŽDZȱ˜›ŽœȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽŞşȱ
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for Forest Service (FS) accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the
FY2008 regular appropriations act. For the FS for FY2009, President Bush had requested $4.11
billion, $1.69 billion (29%) less than the FY2008 appropriations of $5.80 billion ($4.45 billion in
regular appropriations and $1.36 billion 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.

89 For more information on FS funding, contact Ross W. Gorte at 7-7266.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŘȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Appropriation
($ in m illions)
FS Research
Capital
State & Private
$286
$435
Forestry
$263
National Forest
System
$1,470
Other
$10
W ildland Fire
$2,494
Land Acquisition
$42


Š“˜›ȱȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
Significant FS issues have been raised during consideration of the annual appropriations. For the
FY2009 request, one issue was the proposed decline in State and Private Forestry (described
below)—58% below FY2008 appropriations. Most FS programs were 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). In the FS budget proposals for FY2007 and FY2008, President Bush 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 was not introduced. The FY2009
request noted that the Bush 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. No such legislation was introduced. The program
was modified and extended for four years, with declining payments, in the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343, Title VI of Division C).
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
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śřȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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.
ŠŽȱŠ—ȱ›’ŸŠŽȱ˜›Žœ›¢ȱ
State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs provide financial and technical assistance to states
and to private forest owners. For FY2009, President Bush requested $109.5 million for S&PF, a
decrease of $153.3 million (58%) from FY2008. See Table 18. The request included relatively
large cuts for cooperative lands forest health management, forest stewardship, forest legacy, and
urban and community forestry. The Bush Administration proposed terminating funds for
economic action programs and forest resource information and analysis.
Table 18. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry, FY2005-FY2009
($ in millions)
State and Private Forestry
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
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
Legacy
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

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 emergency supplemental funding (in P.L. 110-116 and P.L. 110-329) also made
$155.0 million available for fuel reduction activities on non-federal lands, although how much
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŚȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
might be spent through these programs appears to be within the agency’s discretion. 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 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%).
ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱ
The FY2009 request included $263.0 million for FS Research, a decline of $22.9 million (8%)
from FY2008. However, this understates the proposed 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%).
Š’˜—Š•ȱ˜›Žœȱ¢œŽ–ȱ
The National Forest System (NFS) includes many sub-accounts, most of which were proposed to
decline in FY2009. Total NFS funding was proposed at $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.
Š™’Š•ȱ –™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—ȱŠ—ȱŠ’—Ž—Š—ŒŽȱ
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, President Bush
requested $405.8 million, $59.0 million (13%) below FY2008 appropriations, including
emergency supplemental funds of $30.0 million in P.L. 110-329. 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 $99.0 million (20%).
The FY2009 request sought to increase some sub-accounts while reducing others.
One sub-account proposed to decline was deferred maintenance. 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
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śśȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
(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.
Š—ȱŒšž’œ’’˜—ȱ
The FY2009 budget request included $5.0 million for acquisition management, with no funding
for new land acquisition. This was 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 R40237, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 111th Congress
, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol
Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties
, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30647, National Forest System Roadless Area Initiatives, by Kristina Alexander
and Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL34772, Proposals to Merge the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management: Issues and Approaches
, by Ross W. Gorte.
Ž™Š›–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ ŽŠ•‘ȱŠ—ȱ ž–Š—ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœDZȱȱ
—’Š—ȱ ŽŠ•‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽşŖȱ
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.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for IHS accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular
appropriations act. IHS total appropriations for FY2008 were $3.35 billion. For FY2009, the
Bush Administration proposed $3.32 billion, a decrease of $21.3 million (0.6%) from FY2008.

90 For more information on IHS funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŜȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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 19.
Table 19. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2008-FY2009
($ millions)
Indian Health Service
FY2008
FY2009
Percent Change
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%
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŝȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Indian Health Service
FY2008
FY2009
Percent Change
Approp.
Request
FY08-FY09
Subtotal, Indian Health Facilities
374.6
353.3
-6%
Total Appropriations
3,346.2
3,324.9
-1%
Medicare/Medicaid Reimbursements and Other
Collections
779.7 779.7
0%
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.
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.
ŽŠ•‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ
IHS Health Services appropriations for FY2008 were $2.97 billion. For FY2009, the Bush
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.
•’—’ŒŠ•ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ
The clinical services budget includes most of IHS Health Services funding. The FY2008
appropriations for clinical services were $2.43 billion, and the Bush 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 Bush 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
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŞȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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 Bush 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 Bush
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 Bush 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).
›ŽŸŽ—’ŸŽȱ ŽŠ•‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ
For preventive health services, FY2008 appropriations were $127.6 million. The Bush
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 members who work to prevent
illness and disease in their communities. The Bush 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%).
‘Ž›ȱ ŽŠ•‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ
FY2008 appropriations for other health services totaled $410.2 million. The Bush 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,
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śşȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
accounting, training, and program start-up. For FY2009, the Bush 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 Bush 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.
›‹Š—ȱ —’Š—ȱ ŽŠ•‘ȱ›˜›Š–ȱ
FY2008 appropriations for the urban Indian health program were $34.5 million. As in the two
preceding years, the Bush 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 Bush Administration contended 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 did
not provide evidence that alternative programs can replace the urban Indian health program and
that it did not study the impact of the loss of IHS funding on health care for urban Indians who
annually receive services through this program.
—’Š—ȱ ŽŠ•‘ȱ›˜Žœœ’˜—œȱ›˜›Š–ȱ
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 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.91 FY2008 appropriations for Indian
Health Professions were $36.3 million. For FY2009, the Bush 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.

91 Randy Grinnell, IHS, “Indian Health: Challenges and Changes,” PowerPoint presentation at National Combined
Councils Meeting, February 4, 2008, pp. 12-13. According to this source, IHS vacancy rates in January 2008 were:
dentists, 31%; physicians, 17%; nurses, 18%; optometrists, 13%; and pharmacists, 11%.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŜŖȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
ŠŒ’•’’Žœȱ
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 Bush 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 19.
ŽŠ•‘ȱŠ›ŽȱŠŒ’•’’Žœȱ˜—œ›žŒ’˜—ȱ
The Bush Administration’s FY2009 proposal of $15.8 million was $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 Bush 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.
’ŒŽȱ˜ȱŠŸŠ“˜ȱŠ—ȱ ˜™’ȱ —’Š—ȱŽ•˜ŒŠ’˜—şŘȱ
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 Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329),
generally extended funding for ONHIR accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts
provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations act. The Bush Administration had proposed $7.5
million for FY2009, a decrease of 15% below the FY2008 level of $8.9 million.

92 For more information on ONHIR funding, contact Roger Walke at 7-8641.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝŗȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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),93 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 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.

93 The number of families was estimated altogether at over 110; they overlap to an unpredicted extent with the 76
eligible Navajo families.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŜŘȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
–’‘œ˜—’Š—ȱ —œ’ž’˜—şŚȱ
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 FY2007.95
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for SI accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular
appropriations act. The total request for appropriations for FY2009 was $716.4 million, a $33.8
million (5%) increase over the FY2008 level of $682.6 million. The request consisted of funding
for two main line items: (1) salaries and expenses and (2) facilities capital.
Š•Š›’ŽœȱŠ—ȱ¡™Ž—œŽœȱ
For FY2009, the SI requested $588.4 million to fund salaries and expenses for museums, research
centers, and administration, as shown in Table 20. 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 for SI’s facilities maintenance program.
ŠŒ’•’’ŽœȱŠ™’Š•ȱ
For FY2009, the SI requested $128.0 million for facilities capital, as shown in Table 20. This
represented a $22.6 million (21%) increase over FY2008 and $29.4 million (30%) more than
FY2007. Recent external studies96 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.
ŽŠŒ¢ȱž—ȱ
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.

94 For more information on SI funding, contact Shannon Loane at 7-6223.
95 Smithsonian Institution, Explore Globally, Engage Locally: 2007 Annual Report. This and older annual reports are
available online at http://www.si.edu/opa/annualrpts/.
96 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝřȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Table 20. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
Smithsonian Institution
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 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

›žœȱž—œȱ
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 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/.
Š’˜—Š•ȱ—˜ –Ž—ȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱ›œȱŠ—ȱȱ
Š’˜—Š•ȱ—˜ –Ž—ȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱ ž–Š—’’Žœşŝȱ
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.

97 For more information on NEA/NEH funding, contact Shannon Loane at 7-6223.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŜŚȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
ȱ
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. The Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended funding for NEA accounts,
through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations act. For
FY2009, NEA had requested $128.4 million, a decrease of $16.3 million (11%) from FY2008, as
shown below in Table 21.
Table 21. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
Arts and Humanities
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 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

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.
 ȱ
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.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for NEH accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the FY2008
regular appropriations act. For FY2008, a total of $144.7 million was appropriated. For FY2009,
NEH requested $144.4 million, nearly 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
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝśȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
partnership grants and the We the People initiative. They were requested to be funded at $31.7
million and $20.0 million, respectively.
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.
›˜œœȬž’—ȱ˜™’Œœȱ
ŸŽ›•ŠŽœȱŽœ˜›Š’˜—şŞȱ
Altered natural flows of water by a series of canals, levees, and pumping stations, combined with
agricultural and urban development, are thought to be the leading causes of environmental
deterioration in South Florida. In 1996, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) to create a comprehensive plan to restore, protect, and preserve the entire South Florida
ecosystem, which includes the Everglades (P.L. 104-303). A portion of this plan, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), was completed in 1999, and provides for
federal involvement in restoring the ecosystem. Congress authorized the Corps to implement
CERP in Title IV of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000, P.L. 106-541).
While restoration activities in the South Florida ecosystem are conducted under several federal
laws, WRDA 2000 is considered the seminal law for Everglades restoration. (See CRS Report
RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan
, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.)
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.99 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.100 For FY2008, $204.0 million
was provided to DOI and the Corps for restoration efforts in the Everglades.

98 For more information on funding for Everglades restoration, contact Pervaze A. Sheikh at 7-6070.
99 These figures represent an estimate of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for restoration in the South Florida
ecosystem.
100 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South Florida.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŜŜȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
ŘŖŖşȱŽšžŽœȱ
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for DOI accounts that fund Everglades restoration, through March 6, 2009, at the
amounts provided in the FY2008 regular appropriations act. The FY2009 request for funding DOI
restoration activities in the Everglades was $69.4 million, a decrease of $3.5 million from the
FY2008 enacted level. See Table 22.
Table 22. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2008-FY2009
($ in thousands)
Everglades Restoration in DOI
FY2008 Approp.
FY2009 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
—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 Restoration
390
390
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).
a. This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park,
Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝŝȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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 were 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 became unavailable, including funds for design analysis of the Tamiami
Trail (a component of Mod Waters). Tamiami Trail is a U.S. highway that cuts across the
Everglades in southern Florida.
Funding and planning for the Tamiami Trail portion of the project is being conducted by the
Corps. In the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009, funding for Mod Waters is made
available to the Corps at a rate for operations as provided for Mod Waters in the FY2008
appropriations law. The funding is to be used to implement Alternative 3.2.2.a regarding the
Tamiami Trail, as described in the Limited Reevaluation Report with Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Addendum.101 This report details a project to increase water flows southward to
Everglades National Park by creating a 1-mile bridge on Tamiami Trail and increasing the height
of a canal by one foot. The project is expected to cost $212 million.
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. 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.
˜—ŒŽ›—œȱŸŽ›ȱ‘˜œ™‘˜›žœȱ’’Š’˜—ȱ
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

101 The report is available at http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/dp/mwdenp-c111/docs/ttm-LLR_Final20080620/MWD-
TTM_Final_LRR_MainDoc.pdf.
The addendum is available at http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/dp/mwdenp-c111/docs/
20080728_TTM_LRR_EA_Addendum_Final.pdf.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŜŞȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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. It appears that these provisions would remain in effect under the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2009. The Bush Administration’s 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.
‘ŽȱŠ—ȱŠ—ȱŠŽ›ȱ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’˜—ȱž—ȱǻǼŗŖŘȱ
ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ
The LWCF (16 U.S.C. §§460l-4, et seq.) is authorized at $900 million annually through FY2015.
However, these funds may not be spent without an appropriation. The LWCF is used for three
purposes. First, the four principal federal land management agencies—Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest Service—draw
primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The sections on each of those agencies earlier in this
report identify funding levels and other details for their land acquisition activities. Second, the
LWCF funds acquisition and recreational development by state and local governments through a
grant program administered by the NPS, sometimes referred to as stateside funding. Third, 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

102 For more information on LWCF funding, contact Carol Hardy Vincent at 7-8651.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝşȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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.
ŘŖŖşȱž—’—ȱ
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for land acquisition accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided in the
FY2008 regular appropriations act. For FY2009, the Bush Administration had 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.
Š—ȱŒšž’œ’’˜—ȱ
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 23 shows recent funding for
LWCF.
›Š—œȱ˜ȱŠŽœȱ
The Bush 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 Bush
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 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝŖȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Table 23. 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
Acquisition
164.6 164.3 95.8 113.0 129.7 41.5
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
Appropriations
488.1 458.9 345.9 365.9 255.7 348.7d
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. President Bush 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. Further, the President proposed canceling $1.0 million in prior year state
assistance balances, which 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 was expected to be available under these provisions for
FY2008. An estimated $8.2 million in revenue from such OCS leasing was projected to be
collected in FY2008 and disbursed to the stateside program in FY2009.
‘Ž›ȱž›™˜œŽœȱ
The largest portion of President Bush’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 23 shows that for each year from FY2004 through FY2007, the 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 Bush Administration had requested a
much larger amount than was appropriated for each year for other programs, for instance
requesting $313.1 million for FY2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝŗȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Table 24 shows the other programs for which Congress appropriated funds for FY2006 through
FY2008 or for which President Bush requested funds for FY2009. Any non-LWCF funds
provided to these programs is not reflected here.
Table 24. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF, FY2006-FY2009
($ in millions)
Other Programs
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
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 Grants
60.1
61.1
49.0
75.5a
—North American Wetlands Conservation
Fund Grants
0.0 0.0 0.0 42.6
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 Bush 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.
’••Š—ȱ’›ŽȱŠ—ŠŽ–Ž—ŗŖřȱ
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.

103 For more information on funding for Wildland Fire Management, contact Ross W. Gorte at 7-7266 or Carol Hardy
Vincent at 7-8651.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝŘȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (Division A, P.L. 110-329), generally extended
funding for wildland fire management accounts, through March 6, 2009, at the amounts provided
in the FY2008 regular appropriations act. For FY2009, the Bush 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 $1.63 billion (37%) from FY2008 appropriations of $4.46 billion
(including $1.71 billion of emergency appropriations). The FY2009 request for wildland fire
management funds for the FS was $1.98 billion, $1.29 billion (40%) below FY2008 (including
$1.33 billion of emergency funding). For DOI, the request was $850.1 million, $342.0 million
(29%) 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 $1.71 billion in emergency funds for wildfire
management in FY2008 was enacted: $500.0 million in P.L. 110-116 ($329.0 million for the FS
and $171.0 million for DOI), $300.0 million in Title V of P.L. 110-161 ($222.0 million for the FS
and $78.0 million for DOI), and $910.0 million in P.L. 110-329 ($775.0 million for the FS and
$135 million for DOI). The FY2008 total of $4.46 billion for FS and DOI total wildfire funding
combined was the highest level ever. See Table 25. About 27% of the FY2008 total ($1.19
billion) was provided to DOI, while the other 73% of the FY2008 total ($3.27 billion) was
provided to the FS. (For historical background, descriptions of activities, and analysis of wildfire
expenditures, see CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)
Table 25. Appropriations for FS and DOI Wildland Fire Management,
FY2004-FY2009
($ in millions)
National Fire Plan
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
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 operationsa
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 supplemental
and contingent
724.0 425.5 100.0 370.0 1,326.0 0.0
Total,
FS
2,347.0 2,128.5 1,846.1 2,193.6 3,269.4 1,976.6
DOI
—Fire
suppression
192.9 218.4 230.7 249.2 289.8 335.2
—Preparednessb
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 supplemental
and contingent
198.4 98.6 100.0 95.0 384.0 0.0
Total,
DOI
883.6 831.3 855.3 853.4 1,192.1 850.1
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝřȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
National Fire Plan
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
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 supplemental
and contingent
922.5 524.1 200.0 465.0 1,710.0 0.0
Total
Funding

3,230.6 2,959.8 2,701.4 3,047.0 4,461.4 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.
’•’›Žȱž™™›Žœœ’˜—ȱ
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 included 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.
’›Žȱ›Ž™Š›Ž—Žœœȱ
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 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).
‘Ž›ȱ™Ž›Š’˜—œȱ
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 million, a decrease of $42.3 million (6%) from FY2008 regular
appropriations. However, the declines were not spread evenly among the activities.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝŚȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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. Emergency funds totaling $131.0 million
($100.0 million for the FS and $31.0 million for DOI) also were enacted for FY2008 to
supplement burned area rehabilitation.
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. Emergency funds totaling $265.0 million ($255.0 million for the FS and $10.0 million for
DOI) also were enacted for FY2008 for fuel reduction, with as much as $155.0 million of the FS
funds available for fuel reduction on nonfederal lands.
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 under President Bush’s request—by
$18.4 million (21%). This included 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; see State and Private Forestry under
“U.S. Department of Agriculture: Forest Service,” above.) DOI funding for community assistance
($5.9 million in FY2008) would be terminated.
–Ž›Ž—Œ¢ȱž™™•Ž–Ž—Š•ȱŠ—ȱ˜—’—Ž—ȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
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 (including
$30.0 million available for activities on nonfederal lands) 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝśȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
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.
Finally, P.L. 110-329 (the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009) provided $910.0 million in emergency wildfire appropriations for
FY2008—$775.0 million for the FS and $135.0 million for DOI. As with P.L. 110-116 emergency
funding, the money was directed for several purposes:
• $500.0 million for FS emergency wildfire suppression (including at least $300.0
million to repay FY2008 borrowings and at least $100.0 million to repay
previous borrowings) and $110.0 million for DOI emergency wildfire
suppression and repayment of borrowed funds;
• $75.0 million for FS rehabilitation and restoration of burned lands and $25.0
million for DOI burned area rehabilitation;
• $175.0 million for FS fuels reduction (including $125.0 million available for
activities on nonfederal lands); and
• $25.0 million for FS preparedness for retention initiatives for high risk areas with
recurrent staffing shortages.
For further information on wildfires, see the National Interagency Fire Center website at
http://www.nifc.gov.
CRS Experts List WE04003, Wildfires, 2008: CRS Experts, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30755, Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL34517, Wildfire Damages to Homes and Resources: Understanding Causes and
Reducing Losses
, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by Ross W. Gorte.





˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝŜȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Table 26. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2009
($ in thousands)
FY2007 FY2008
FY2009
Bureau or Agency
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.a
Approp. Approp. Requested
Title I: Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Managementb 1,009,640 985,615 1,001,902 1,029,498 1,007,897 999,119
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1,308,405 1,332,591 1,307,639
1,340,989 1,441,301
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 295,975 296,573 294,228 294,654 170,411 137,559
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,300,814 2,295,702 2,274,270
2,308,304 2,291,279
2,191,364
Departmental Officesc 460,859
496,837
527,656
514,913
474,236
474,180
Department-Wide Programsd — — 1,003,540
1,101,911
1,477,066
1,135,064
Total Title I
9,847,964 9,955,228 9,784,972 10,037,808 10,377,211 9,772,282
Title II: Environmental
Protection Agency
8,365,817f 8,026,485 7,617,416 7,723,948 7,461,496 7,177,285
Title III: Related Agencies

U.S. Forest Serviceg 4,939,899
4,770,598
4,200,762
4,706,349
5,804,428
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
3,219 3,258 2,677 2,698 2,661 2,703
Environmental Quality
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
6,173 5,916 6,207 6,207 7,183 7,900
Arts Development
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
8,498 8,863 9,065 9,100 9,844 8,857
Scholars
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝŝȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Bureau or Agency
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.a
Approp.
Approp.
Requested
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
— 248 247 247 197 —
Remembrance
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Memorial Comm.
— — — — 1,969
19,000
Total Title III
9,115,661 9,036,011 8,541,535 9,214,385 10,565,417 8,865,962
[Title IV: Veterans’ Health]


[1,500,000]



Title IV: Secure Rural
Schools
— — —
425,000
— —
Grand Total (in Bill)e
27,329,442 27,017,724 25,942,155h 27,401,141i 28,416,852j 25,810,529k
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
a. Supplemental appropriations are not reflected in this column.
b. 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 Bush Administration’s request to fund DOI firefighting from this account beginning with FY2009.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. Figures generally do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments.
f. Derived from the report of the House Appropriations Committee on H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674).
g. The FY2005 figure excludes $40.0 million in transferred funds from the Department of Defense (§8098, P.L.
108-287).
h. 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝŞȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
i. 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.
j. The total reflects appropriations of $26.64 billion, emergency appropriations of $1.82 billion, and rescissions
of $35.0 million.
k. The total includes a requested appropriation of $25.86 billion and rescissions of $54.4 million.


ž‘˜›ȱ˜—ŠŒȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱ

Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator
Marc Humphries
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Energy Policy
chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov, 7-7264
Robert Bamberger
Pervaze A. Sheikh
Specialist in Energy Policy
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
rbamberger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7240
psheikh@crs.loc.gov, 7-6070
David M. Bearden
David L. Whiteman
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390
dwhiteman@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
M. Lynne Corn
Roger Walke
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in American Indian Policy
lcorn@crs.loc.gov, 7-7267
rwalke@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
Robert Esworthy
R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Analyst in American National Government
resworthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7236
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov, 7-6443
Ross W. Gorte
Shannon S. Loane
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Information Research Specialist
rgorte@crs.loc.gov, 7-7266
sloane@crs.loc.gov, 7-6223


Ž¢ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱŠȱ

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone E-mail
Interior Budget Data/Coordinator
Carol Hardy Vincent
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Arts, Humanities, Smithsonian
Shannon Loane
7-6223
sloane@crs.loc.gov
Bureau of Land Management
Carol Hardy Vincent
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Environmental Protection Agency
David Bearden,
7-2390, dbearden@crs.loc.gov,
Robert Esworthy
7-7236
resworthy@crs.loc.gov
Everglades Restoration
Pervaze A. Sheikh
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Fish and Wildlife Service
M. Lynne Corn
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Forest Service
Ross W. Gorte
7-7266
rgorte@crs.loc.gov
Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service
Roger Walke
7-8641
rwalke@crs.loc.gov
Insular Affairs
R. Sam Garrett
7-6443
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov
Land Acquisition
Carol Hardy Vincent
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝşȱ

—Ž›’˜›ǰȱ—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽ•ŠŽȱŽ—Œ’ŽœDZȱŘŖŖşȱ™™›˜™›’Š’˜—œȱ
ȱ
Area of Expertise
Name
Phone E-mail
Minerals Management Service
Marc Humphries
7-7264
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
National Park Service
David Whiteman
7-7786
dwhiteman@crs.loc.gov
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program
M. Lynne Corn
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
(PILT)
Surface Mining and Reclamation
Robert Bamberger
7-7240
rbamberger@crs.loc.gov
U.S. Geological Survey
Pervaze A. Sheikh
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Wildland Fire Management
Ross W. Gorte
7-7266
rgorte@crs.loc.gov





˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŞŖȱ