Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
Updated February 3, 2008
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator,
Robert Bamberger, David M. Bearden, M. Lynne Corn,
Robert Esworthy, Ross W. Gorte, Marc Humphries,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, and David L. Whiteman
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Blake Alan Naughton and Roger Walke
Domestic Social Policy Division
R. Sam Garrett
Government and Finance Division

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation,
other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs
and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing
statutes. Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the
submission of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional
practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are
rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. It summarizes the status
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, its scope, major
issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant.
The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes
funding for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of
Reclamation, and for two agencies within other departments — the Forest Service
within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service (IHS) within the
Department of Health and Human Services. It also includes funding for arts and
cultural agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, and numerous other entities.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) included
$26.89 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2008. An
additional $500.0 million in emergency appropriations for wildfires was included in
P.L. 110-116, for an FY2008 total of $27.39 billion. This would be about the same
as enacted for FY2007 (including funds for Secure Rural Schools), $240.2 million
(0.9%) lower than passed by the House for FY2008 in H.R. 2643, and $205.0 million
(0.8%) higher than recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations for
FY2008 in S. 1696. The FY2008 level was an increase of $1.70 billion (6.6%) over
the Administration’s request for FY2008.
The FY2008 appropriations level was higher for some agencies than the FY2007
level, but lower for others. Among the FY2008 increases over FY2007 were the
following:
^!$292.6 million (6.2%) for the Forest Service (FS);
^!$185.2 million (9.9%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
^!$166.0 million (5.2%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
^!$90.4 million (3.9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
^!$47.7 million (7.5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI); and
^!$28.1 million (2.1%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Among the FY2008 decreases from FY2007 were the following:
^!-$263.6 million (3.4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA);
^!-$124.2 million (42.2%) for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM);
^!-$43.6 million (27.3%) for the Minerals Management Service
(MMS); and
^!-$33.9 million (15.2%) for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians (OST).
Congress debated a variety of funding and policy issues during consideration of
FY2008 Interior appropriations legislation. They included appropriate funding for
BIA construction, education, and housing; IHS construction and urban Indian health;
wastewater/drinking water needs; land acquisition; the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
program; the Superfund program; the Smithsonian Institution; and wildland fire
fighting. Other issues included Indian trust fund management, leasing in the Outer
Continental Shelf, and royalty relief. This report is not expected to be updated.

Key Policy Staff
^{Area of E}^x^pertis^e^N^am^e^CRS^Dⁱ^vi^sⁱ^on^a^Te^l.^E-^m^a^il
^In^t^e^ri^{or Bu}^dg^et^C^a^rol^H^a^rdy^Vⁱⁿ^cen^t^R^S^I⁷^-⁸⁶⁵¹^ch^vⁱⁿ^cen^t^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Data/Co^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^to^r
^A^r^{ts, Hu}^m^aⁿ^ities,^B^l^a^k^e^A^l^aⁿ^N^a^ught^oⁿ^D^S^P⁷^-⁰³⁷⁶^bn^a^ught^oⁿ^@c^r^s^.^l^o^c^.^g^o^v
^Sm^ith^soⁿⁱ^an
^B^u^reau^of^L^aⁿ^d^C^a^rol^H^a^rdy^Vⁱⁿ^cen^t^R^S^I^7-⁸⁶⁵¹^ch^vⁱⁿ^cen^t^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt
^E^nvi^r^o^nm^eⁿ^t^a^l^D^a^vⁱ^{d Bearden}^RSI^7-²³⁹⁰^dbearden^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^P^r^otection^A^g^en^cy^R^obert^Es^w^o^rt^h^y^RSI^7-⁷²³⁶^r^e^sw^o^r^thy^@^c^r^s.^lo^c^.^go^v
^Ev^erg^l^ades^P^e^rv^{aze A}^.^S^h^eik^h^R^S^I⁷^-⁶⁰⁷⁰^ps^h^e^ik^h^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Resto^r^atioⁿ
^Fish^an^d^W^ild^lif^e^{M. L}^yⁿⁿ^e^C^o^rn^R^S^I⁷^-⁷²⁶⁷^l^c^orn^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Ser^v^ice
^F^o^res^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^R^os^s^{W. G}^o^rt^e^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁶⁶^rg^ort^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Hⁱ^st^o^rⁱ^c^P^r^e^s^e^r^va^tⁱ^oⁿ^B^l^a^ke^A^l^aⁿ^N^a^ught^oⁿ^D^S^P⁷^-⁰³⁷⁶^bn^a^ught^oⁿ^@c^r^s^.^l^o^c^.^g^o^v
^Iⁿ^dⁱ^aⁿ^Affaⁱ^r^s^R^o^g^e^{r Wal}^k^e^D^S^P^7-⁸⁶⁴¹^rw^al^k^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Iⁿ^dⁱ^an^Health^Ser^v^ice
^In^s^u^l^a^{r A}^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^R^{. S}^a^m^G^a^rret^t^G^&^F^7-⁶⁴⁴³^rg^arret^t^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^L^aⁿ^d^A^c^qu^is^ition^C^{arol Hardy}^Vin^cen^t^R^SI^7-⁸⁶⁵¹^ch^vⁱⁿ^cen^t@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Mⁱ^ne^r^a^l^s^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^{Marc H}^u^m^p^h^rⁱ^e^s^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁶⁴^m^h^u^m^ph^ri^es^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Ser^v^ice
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Park^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^D^avⁱ^d^Whⁱ^t^e^m^aⁿ^R^S^I^7-⁷⁷⁸⁶^dw^hⁱ^t^e^m^aⁿ^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^P^a^y^m^en^{ts in}^Lⁱ^eu^o^f^{M. L}^yⁿⁿ^e^C^o^rn^R^S^I⁷^-⁷²⁶⁷^l^c^orn^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^T^a^x^e^s^P^r^og^ram^(P^IL^T⁾
^Su^rf^{ace Min}ⁱⁿ^g^an^d^R^obert^Bam^b^erg^e^r^R^S^I⁷^-⁷²⁴⁰^rbam^berg^er@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^R^eclam^ation
^{U.S. Geo}^l^o^g^ical^P^e^rv^{aze A}^.^S^h^eik^h^R^S^I⁷^-⁶⁰⁷⁰^ps^h^e^ik^h^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Sur^v^ey
a. Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance;
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
In troduction ......................................................1
FY2004-FY2008 ..............................................3
FY2008 Budget and Appropriations...................................3
Current Overview..............................................3
Major Issues..................................................6
Status of Bill.................................................7
Title I: Department of the Interior.....................................8
Bureau of Land Management.....................................8
Overview ................................................8
Management of Lands and Resources..........................9
Wildland Fire Management.................................10
Construction .............................................11
Land Acquisition.........................................11
Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................11
Endangered Species Funding................................12
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement...13
Avian Flu...............................................13
Land Acquisition.........................................14
Wildlife Refuge Fund.....................................14
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants................15
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.............................15
National Park Service.........................................16
Major NPS Issues in Appropriations..........................17
Operation of the National Park System........................18
United States Park Police (USPP)............................19
Centennial Challenge......................................19
National Recreation and Preservation.........................19
Construction .............................................20
Land Acquisition and State Assistance........................20
Historic Preservation......................................20
U.S. Geological Survey........................................21
Enterprise Information.....................................22
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing........22
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes...................23
Water Resources Investigations..............................23
Biological Research.......................................24
Science Support and Facilities...............................24
Minerals Management Service...................................24
Budget and Appropriations.................................24
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore...............................26
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement..............29
Bureau of Indian Affairs.......................................31
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs....................34
Law Enforcement Program.................................36

Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process......................38
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs...............38
Office of Insular Affairs....................................38
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT)....................39
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.................41
National Indian Gaming Commission.........................44
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency.............................45
Water Infrastructure.......................................47
Superfund ...............................................49
Brownfields .............................................49
Office of Inspector General (OIG)............................50
Scientific Research........................................50
State and Local Air Quality Management Grants................51
Proposed Commission on Climate Change.....................52
Title III: Related Agencies.........................................52
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service.........................52
Major FS Issues in Appropriations...........................53
Wildland Fire Management.................................54
State and Private Forestry..................................56
Other Programs..........................................57
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ......58
Health Services..........................................60
Facilities ................................................62
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.......................63
Smithsonian Institution........................................64
Salaries and Expenses.....................................65
Facilities Capital.........................................65
Trust Funds.............................................65
Legacy Fund.............................................66
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment
for the Humanities........................................66
NEA ...................................................67
NEH ...................................................67
Cross-Cutting Topics..............................................68
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)...................68
Overview ...............................................68
FY2008 Funding.........................................68
Everglades Restoration........................................71
FY2008 Funding.........................................72
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation........................74
List of Figures
Figure 1. FS FY2008 Appropriation..................................53

Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2008............................................3
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2008 .....................................................7
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2007-FY2008 ..............................................8
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2007-FY2008 .............................................12
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2007-FY2008 .............................................14
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2007-FY2008...15
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2007-FY2008 .............................................16
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2007-FY2008.....18
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2007-FY2008...22
Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2007-FY2008 .............................................25
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, FY2007-FY2008...............................31
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2007-FY2008..32
Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu of Taxes,
FY2000-FY2008 .............................................40
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2007-FY2008..............................41
Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2007-FY2008 .............................................46
Table 16. Appropriations for FS and BLM Wildland Fire Management,
FY2004-FY2008 .............................................55
Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry,
FY2005-FY2008 .............................................57
Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2007-FY2008 ....59
Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2007-FY2008...66
Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2007-FY2008........67
Table 21. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2008 .............................................69
Table 22. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2008 .............................................71
Table 23. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2007-FY2008 .............................................72
Table 24. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2008 .............................................75

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided
$26.89 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Another $500.0
million in emergency funds for wildfires was provided in P.L. 110-116, for an
FY2008 total of $27.39 billion.
Introduction
The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
includes funding for agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as
well as numerous related agencies and bureaus. It provides funding for Department
of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded in
Energy and Water Development appropriations laws), many of which manage land
and other natural resource or regulatory programs. The bill also provides funds for
agencies in two other departments — the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture, and the Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and
Human Services — as well as funds for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Further, the annual bill includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, such as the
Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, National Endowment for the Arts,
and National Endowment for the Humanities, and for numerous other entities and
agencies.
In recent years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies
provided funds for several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE),
including research, development, and conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum
Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, at the outset of the 109^th
Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House and Senate
Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate jurisdiction¹
over DOE. At the same time, jurisdiction over the EPA and several smaller entities
was moved to the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering Interior²
and Related Agencies. This change resulted from the abolition of the House and

¹ These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development.
² These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related
(continued...)

Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies, which previously had jurisdiction over
EPA.
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 or enacted for FY2008
that are likely to be of interest to Congress. We also address related policy issues that
occurred in the context of considering appropriations legislation. Presenting such
information in summary form is a challenge given that budget submissions for some
agencies number several hundred pages and contain innumerable funding,
programmatic, and legislative changes for congressional consideration. Similarly,
funding bills and accompanying reports contain numerous line items and discussions
of programs and issues.
This report contains final FY2007 enacted levels for agencies, programs, and
activities. The Administration did not use these figures as the basis of comparison
in agency budget submissions for FY2008, because agencies were being funded
under a short-term continuing resolution at the time of those submissions.
Accordingly, the FY2007 figures used throughout this report will differ in many
cases from those contained in the FY2008 agency budget submissions. A further
difference is that FY2007 figures in this report include supplemental funding.³
Final FY2007 funding levels, as contained in this report, were determined by
the agencies under the provisions of P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for FY2007. Continuing funding was needed to fund
agency operations and activities because Congress did not enact a regular FY2007
appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. P.L. 110-5
provided funds though September 30, 2007, which was the rest of the fiscal year. It
continued funds at the FY2006 account level, except where otherwise specified. The
law required that agencies and departments submit an allocation of funds below the
account level, for example for programs and activities, to the House and Senate

² (...continued)
Agencies.
³ In addition, final FY2007 enacted levels are not included in CRS Report RL33399,
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, because they were^th
not available until after the start of the 110 Congress and the beginning of the FY2008
appropriations cycle.

Appropriations Committees. The submissions were due within 30 days of enactment
(March 17, 2007).
In general, in this report the term appropriations represents total funds
available, including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as
rescissions, transfers, and deferrals, but excludes permanent mandatory budget
authorities. Increases and decreases generally are calculated on comparisons between
the funding levels enacted for FY2008 and those enacted for FY2007 and requested
by the President for FY2008. The House Committee on Appropriations is the
primary source of the funding figures used throughout the report. Other sources of
information include the Senate Committee on Appropriations, agency budget
justifications, and the Congressional Record. In the tables throughout this report,
some columns of funding figures do not add to the precise totals provided due to
rounding.
FY2004-FY2008
Table 1, below, shows the budget authority for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for FY2004-FY2008. Funding for earlier years is not readily
available due to the changes in the makeup of the Interior appropriations bill. The
President’s request for FY2008 ($25.69 billion), if enacted, would have been the
lowest level since FY2004. It would have been a $1.64 billion (6%) decrease in
funds from the FY2004 level in current dollars, or a 16% decrease in constant dollars
(assuming 2.24% inflation for 2007 and 2008). The House-approved funding of
$27.63 billion was slightly higher than FY2004 — a $301.8 million increase (1%)
in current dollars but a 10% decrease in constant dollars. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $27.19 billion, which was a slightly lower level than
FY2004 — a $143.3 million decrease (0.5%) in current dollars and an 11% decrease
in constant dollars. For FY2008, the $26.89 billion contained in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act was a decrease of $483.3 million (2%) in current dollars and a

12% decrease in constant dollars. The FY2008 total funding of $27.39 billion,

including the $500.0 million in emergency fire funding, would be a $61.7 million
increase (0.2%) over FY2004 in current dollars but a 10% decrease in constant
dollars. See Table 24 for a budgetary history of each agency for FY2004-FY2008.
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2008
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2006 F Y 2007 F Y 2008
$27.33 $27.02 $25.94 $27.38 $27.39
^No^te:^T^h^{ese f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{es ex}^clu^d^{e p}^e^r^m^an^en^t^b^u^d^g^et^au^th^o^r^{ities, an}^d^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly^d^oⁿ^o^{t r}^e^f^l^{ect sco}^r^ek^eepⁱⁿ^g
^ad^j^u^stm^eⁿ^t^{s. T}^h^ey^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly^r^e^f^l^{ect r}^e^scissioⁿ^{s an}^d^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^to^d^a^te,^ex^cep^{t th}^at
^th^{e FY2006 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e does}ⁿ^o^{t ref}^l^{ect s}^u^pplem^eⁿ^t^a^l^s^.^T^h^e^{FY2007 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e in}^clu^d^es^{$425.0 m}^illion^f^o^r
^S^ecu^{re R}^u^ral^S^c^h^ool^s^.
FY2008 Budget and Appropriations

Current Overview
FY2008 funding for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was included
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). The enacted bill
(H.R. 2764), providing funding for government agencies and activities except
defense, was signed into law on December 26, 2007. An explanatory statement on
the bill was printed in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2007. The
explanatory statement on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Division F
of the bill) was published in Book II of the Record, at H16122-H16178. The
explanatory statement noted that it contained “a list of congressional earmarks and
congressionally directed spending items” as defined in House and Senate rules, at
H16142-H16157. However, the amounts in the list did not reflect a 1.56% across-
the-board cut provided in H.R. 2764 for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. The explanatory statement also included a detailed funding table for
Interior, at H16158-H16178. For activities, programs, and agencies, the table
contained funding levels enacted for FY2007, requested by the Administration for
FY2008, approved by the House for FY2008, recommended by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations for FY2008, contained in H.R. 2764 for FY2008, and
reduced by a 1.56% across-the-board cut for FY2008.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided
$26.89 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2008. That
total reflects the 1.56% cut provided in the Interior portion of the act. In general,
FY2008 appropriations figures used throughout this report also reflect the cut, which
under the law was to be applied across the board to programs, projects, and activities.
An additional $500.0 million in emergency appropriations for FY2008 for wildfires
was included in an earlier law, P.L. 110-116, for an FY2008 total of $27.39 billion
for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This would be about the same as
enacted for FY2007 (including funds for Secure Rural Schools), $240.2 million
(0.9%) lower than passed by the House for FY2008 in H.R. 2643, and $205.0 million
(0.8%) higher than recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations for
FY2008 in S. 1696. The FY2008 level was an increase of $1.70 billion (6.6%) over
the Administration’s request.
Of the $500.0 million in P.L. 110-116, $329.0 million was provided to the
Forest Service for wildland fire management. The funds were divided as follows:
$110.0 million for suppression, $100.0 million for repayment of accounts from which
funds were borrowed in FY2007, $80.0 million for hazardous fuels reduction, $25.0
million for rehabilitation and restoration of federal lands, and $14.0 million for
construction and reconstruction of federal facilities. For fire fighting on DOI lands,
the law provided BLM with the remaining $171.0 million in wildland fire
management funds. The funds were apportioned as follows: $40.0 million for
suppression, $115.0 million for repayment of accounts from which funds were
borrowed in FY2007, $10.0 million for hazardous fuels reduction, and $6.0 million
for rehabilitation and restoration of federal lands.
The FY2008 appropriations level was higher for some agencies than the FY2007
level, but lower for others. Among the FY2008 increases over FY2007 were the
following:

^!$292.6 million (6.2%) for the Forest Service (FS);
^!$185.2 million (9.7%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
^!$166.0 million (5.2%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
^!$90.4 million (3.9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
^!$47.7 million (7.5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI); and
^!$28.1 million (2.1%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Among the FY2008 decreases from FY2007 were the following:
^!-$263.6 million (3.4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA);
^!-$124.2 million (42.2%) for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM);
^!-$43.6 million (27.3%) for the Minerals Management Service
(MMS); and
^!-$33.9 million (15.2%) for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians (OST).
Prior to the enactment of the consolidated bill, Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies were funded under a series of laws that generally continued funds
at FY2007 levels. Continuing funding was needed to fund ongoing projects and
activities because Congress did not enact a regular FY2008 funding bill for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies before the October 1, 2007, start of the fiscal
year.
In earlier action, the Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported a regular
annual appropriations bill, but it was not considered on the Senate floor.
Specifically, on June 26, 2007, the Senate committee reported S. 1696 (S.Rept. 110-

91), with $27.19 billion for FY2008 for all agencies included in the Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. On June 27, 2007, the
House passed H.R. 2643 with $27.63 billion for FY2008. The House-passed level
would have been an increase over the FY2007 level of $27.38 billion, including
$425.0 million for the Secure Rural Schools program (established under P.L. 106-
393). The Senate committee level would have been a decrease from FY2007. The
House and the Senate committee levels both would have been increases over the
President’s request for FY2008 of $25.69 billion.
The Senate Appropriations Committee considered several amendments during
its markup, in addition to a managers’ package of amendments. The Committee
agreed to an amendment to remove language from the bill that barred funds from
being used for new Outer Continental Shelf leases for those holding leases without
price thresholds, unless the leases were renegotiated. The Committee also agreed to
an amendment seeking to ban imports of polar bears and polar bear parts. An
amendment seeking to extend the Secure Rural Schools Act for four years was
withdrawn. The act provides a method for compensating counties for the tax exempt
status of most national forests (managed by the FS) and some public lands (managed
by the BLM). Amendments seeking to expedite the time frame for filing claims
challenging the land management plan for the Tongass National Forest (AK) also
were withdrawn.

The House considered 58 amendments to H.R. 2643 during two days of floor
debate, and adopted 18 of them before passing the bill (272-155) on June 27, 2007.
The amendments addressed an array of programs and issues. Some of them were
broad, as in those that sought to cut the total appropriation in the bill by a particular
sum or reduce each appropriation in the bill by a fixed percentage (which were not
agreed to). Others were more narrow, such as those prohibiting funds in the bill from
being used for particular programs or purposes. Many of the amendments are
discussed in the pertinent sections throughout this report.
In earlier action, on June 11, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee had
reported H.R. 2643 (H.Rept. 110-187) with a total of $27.63 billion. The House
Appropriations Committee issued a supplemental report (H.Rept. 110-187, Part II)
on June 22, 2007. The report identified projects that would be funded from various
line items in the bill, such as the construction accounts of the land management
agencies. It specified whether the Administration or a particular Member of
Congress requested the funding and the state in which the project is located.
Major Issues
Controversial funding and policy issues typically have been debated during
consideration of the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. Debate on the FY2008 funding levels encompassed a variety of
issues, many of which have been controversial in the past, including the issues listed
below.
^!Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially
the adequacy of funding to meet state and local wastewater and
drinking water needs. These state revolving funds provide seed
money for state loans to communities for wastewater and drinking
water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see the
“Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)
^!Construction of BIA Schools and IHS Health Facilities, particularly
whether to enact funding cuts proposed in the President’s FY2008
budget. (For more information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs”
and the “Indian Health Service” sections in this report.)
^!Indian Trust Funds, especially whether to enact reductions proposed
in the President’s FY2008 request and the method by which a
historical accounting will be conducted of Individual Indian Money
(IIM) accounts to determine correct balances in the class-action
lawsuit against the government. (For more information, see the
“Office of Special Trustee for American Indians” section in this
report.)
^!Land Acquisition, including the appropriate level of funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and
the state grant program, and extent to which the fund should be used
for activities not involving land acquisition. (For more information,

see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in
this report.)
^!Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly the moratoria on
preleasing and leasing activities in offshore areas, and oil and gas
leases in offshore California. (For more information, see the
“Minerals Management Service” section in this report.)
^!Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), primarily the
appropriate level of funding for compensating local governments for
federal land within their jurisdictions. (For more information, see
the “Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT)” section in this
report.)
^!Royalty Relief, especially the extent to which oil and natural gas
companies receive royalty relief for production of oil and natural gas
on federal lands. (For more information see “MMS” section of this
report.)
^!Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet
hazardous waste cleanup needs, and whether to continue using
general Treasury revenues to fund the account or reinstate a tax on
industry that originally paid for most of the program. (For more
information, see the “Environmental Protection Agency” section in
this report.)
^!Termination of BIA Education and Housing and IHS Urban Health
Programs, particularly whether to end funding for BIA’s Johnson-
O’Malley grants to schools and the Housing Improvement Program
and for IHS’s urban Indian health projects. (For more information,
see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Indian Health Service”
sections in this report.)
^!Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate
level of funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of
borrowing funds from other agency programs to fight wildfires;
implementation of a new program for wildland fire protection and
locations for fire protection treatments; and impact of environmental
analysis, public involvement, and challenges to agency decisions on
fuel reduction activities. (For more information, see the “Bureau of
Land Management” and “Forest Service” sections in this report.)
Status of Bill
Table 2, below, contains information on congressional consideration of the
FY2008 Interior appropriations bill.
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2008

committeeHouseSenate ReportSenateConf.Conference
House ReportPassagePassageReportReport ApprovalPublic Law
Senat e H ouse Senat e
H.R. 2643
H.Rept. 110-187
06/11/07;H.R. 2643S. 1696 — — — — H.R. 2764
Part II 06/27/07S.Rept. 110-91P.L. 110-161
06/19/0706/22/07272-15506/26/07 12/26/07
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Overview. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately
258 million acres of public land for diverse and sometimes conflicting uses, such as
energy and minerals development, livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation.
The agency also is responsible for about 700 million acres of federal subsurface
mineral resources throughout the nation, and supervises the mineral operations on an
estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another key BLM function is
wildland fire management on about 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, and
certain nonfederal land.
For the BLM, the FY2008 law contained $1.89 billion, including $78.0 million
in emergency appropriations for wildfire suppression contained in Title V. An
additional $171.0 million in emergency wildfire funds was provided in an earlier law,
P.L. 110-116, for a total BLM appropriation of $2.06 billion for FY2008. This level
was higher than enacted for FY2007 and had been supported for FY2008 by the
Administration, House, and Senate Appropriations Committee, primarily due to the
emergency appropriations for wildfires. See Table 3. Proposed funding for several
key activities is discussed below.
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Bureau of Land ManagementFY2007 Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
Management of Lands and Resources 866.9879.4888.6902.9853.9
Wildland Fire Management^a 853.4801.8806.6829.51,057.1
— Preparedness274.9268.3274.9286.0276.5
— Suppression^a344.2294.4294.4294.4367.8
— Other Operations234.3239.1237.4249.1241.8
— Emergency Appropriations (P.L. — — — — 171.0

110-116)

Construction 11.8 6.5 6.5 11.5 6.4
Land Acquisition 8.61.618.612.28.9
Oregon and California Grant Lands 109.0110.2110.2110.2108.5
Range Improvements10.010.010.010.010.0

F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Bureau of Land ManagementFY2007 Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
Service Charges, Deposits, and^b0.00.00.00.00.0
Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Trust Funds 12.412.412.412.412.4
Total Appropriations^a1,872.01,822.01,853.01,888.72,057.2
^{a. T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^f^o^{r FY2007 ref}^l^{ect a s}^u^pplem^en^tal^appropria^tion^of^{$95.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r w}^ildfⁱ^{re s}^u^ppres^sⁱ^on^con^t^ain^e^{d in}
^P^.^L^.^110-^{28. T}^h^e^fi^g^u^r^es^f^o^{r FY2008 appropriated ref}^l^{ect an}^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^{appropriation}^of^{$78.0 m}^illion^f^o^r
^s^u^ppres^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed in}^T^{itle V of}^th^{e FY2008 law}^.^T^h^{e FY2008 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^fi^gur^e^s^f^o^{r w}^ildlan^d^fⁱ^re
^m^aⁿ^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d B}^L^{M total}^als^oⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e $171.0 m}^illionⁱⁿ^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^{appropriation}^s^prov^{ided in}^P^.^L^.^110-^116.

^{b. T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^of^“⁰^{” are a res}^u^{lt of}^an^{appropriation}^m^a^tch^e^{d by}^of^f^s^ettin^g^f^ees^.
Management of Lands and Resources. Management of Lands and
Resources includes funds for an array of BLM land programs, including protection,
recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM
administration. For this line item, the FY2008 law contained $853.9 million, lower
than enacted for FY2007 and supported by the President, House, and Senate
Appropriations Committee for FY2008. The enacted level reflects $25.5 million in
revenues from a new oil and gas cost recovery program as an offset to the
appropriation for energy and minerals management. Many lands and resources
programs received increases relative to FY2007, while others received decreased or
level funding.
For maintenance, the FY2008 law included $74.8 million, a $4.4 million
increase over the FY2007 level. Increases were included for both annual and
deferred maintenance, with total deferred maintenance funding of $36.5 million.
BLM has estimated its deferred maintenance at between $387 million and $473
million for FY2006. Wildlife and fisheries would receive $44.3 million in FY2008,
a $3.5 million increase. For range management, the law contained $73.0 million,
$4.8 million more than appropriated for FY2007. More than half the increase for
each of wildlife and fisheries and for range management was for the healthy lands
initiative (see below). Recreation and wilderness programs received $67.9 million,
up $4.2 million.
For the healthy lands initiative, the FY2008 law provided about $5 million, an
increase above the $3.0 million appropriated for FY2007. The initiative consists of
vegetation resources enhancements to restore and improve the health and productivity
of western public lands. The House, like the Administration, had sought a large
increase — to $15.0 million — while the Senate Committee had recommended $6.0
million. The Administration had anticipated using another $8.2 million in existing
BLM funds, and leveraging $10.0 million in contributions from partners. For the
National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), which consists of 26 million acres
of BLM’s protected conservation areas, the FY2008 law provided about $5 million
over the President’s request of $49.2 million. The House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee had approved higher increases over the request. In the
explanatory statement, the appropriations committees directed BLM to present
annual NLCS reports with expenditures by unit and subactivity to enhance fiscal
accountability.

The FY2008 law included lower funding for energy and minerals, $109.9
million, than had been enacted for FY2007 — $138.1 million (including Alaska
minerals). The reduction is to be accomplished primarily through the collection of
$25.5 million in offsetting fees. These revenues are expected to be derived through
a new program requiring payment of $4,000 for each application for a permit to drill
oil and gas wells. A similar program had been requested by the Administration and
supported by the House. The FY2008 law capped the appropriation for oil and gas
management at $90.2 million, due to concerns that BLM has used conservation and
other natural resource funds for oil and gas activities (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 16).
Further, the law prohibited funds from being used to prepare final regulations
regarding a commercial leasing program for oil shale or to conduct a commercial oil
shale lease sale. In the explanatory statement, the appropriations committees
expressed that while oil shale has the potential to be an important energy resource,
there is concern that DOI “may be moving ahead before the full impacts of such a
program are known, and without full and complete cooperation of the affected States
... Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.”⁴ Current law (P.L. 109-58) requires BLM to
issue the regulations and to move to a commercial leasing program.
For management of wild horses and burros, the FY2008 law provided nearly
level funding — $36.2 million. The Administration had sought to reduce funding to
$32.1 million, but the House and the Senate Committee supported increases over
FY2007. In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee “strongly” encouraged
federal agencies that use horses to first seek to acquire a wild horse from BLM, and
encouraged BLM to expedite providing wild horses to state and local police (S.Rept.

110-91, p. 12).

Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management, the FY2008
law contained $886.1 million, including the $78.0 million in emergency
appropriations for wildfire suppression. This was an increase over the FY2007 level
and the levels supported by the President, House, and Senate Committee for FY2008.
An additional $171.0 million was provided in P.L. 110-116, for suppression,
hazardous fuels reduction, rehabilitation, and repayment of accounts from which
funds were borrowed in FY2007 for fire suppression. With these funds, the FY2008
total for wildland fire management was $1.06 billion, which is about half the overall
BLM appropriation for FY2008.
Fire suppression would increase from $344.2 million in FY2007 (including
supplemental funding) to $367.8 million in FY2008 under P.L. 110-161. This would
fund the ten-year average cost of fire suppression (about $289.8 million) and provide
additional funds ($78.0 million) if needed for an extreme fire season, according to
the explanatory statement on the FY2008 bill. Preparedness was increased from
$274.9 million in FY2007 to $276.5 million in FY2008. The Administration had
sought to reduce preparedness funding, while the House had supported level funding.
The Senate Committee had recommended an increase on the grounds that cutting
preparedness funding does not save money, but shifts expenditures to suppression

⁴ Congressional Record, v. 153, December 17, 2007, Book II, Explanatory Statement,
Division F, Sec. 433, p. H16141-H16142. Hereafter cited as “Explanatory Statement,” with
the Congressional Record page number.

(S.Rept. 110-91, p. 15). Funding for other fire operations would increase from
$234.3 million in FY2007 to $241.8 million in FY2008, primarily due to the
inclusion of $5.9 million for rural fire assistance. Most of the funding for other
operations in FY2008 was for hazardous fuels reduction — $199.6 million —
essentially level with FY2007 funding. In the explanatory statement, appropriators
directed the agencies to report on the allocation of funds for reducing hazardous
fuels.
The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all
DOI lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for wildland fire
management to the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire programs
primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments is implementing the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire Plan, which
emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to catastrophic fires. (For
additional information, see the “Forest Service” section in this report.)
Construction. For FY2008, the law contained $6.4 million for BLM
Construction, akin to the level requested by the Administration and supported by the
House. The explanatory statement expressed that the funds should be allocated as
described in the President’s budget request, which called for 12 construction projects
in five states. The FY2008 level was a decrease of $5.4 million from FY2007 ($11.8
million). The Senate Appropriations Committee had supported funding at nearly the
FY2007 level, to avoid an increase in the construction backlog, and had expressed
“disapproval” regarding DOI’s “lack of commitment to its infrastructure” (S.Rept.

110-91, p. 15-16).

Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition for FY2008, the law contained $8.9
million, a small increase over the FY2007 level of $8.6 million. The explanatory
statement specified how about two-thirds of the funds would be used for eight
acquisitions. Both the House and the Senate Committee initially had supported
higher increases for FY2008. However, the Administration had sought a reduction
to $1.6 million, with an additional $5.0 million from the proceeds of sales of the
subsurface mineral estate to the surface owners. BLM estimated that 500,000 acres
could be sold annually for approximately $10 per acre, for a total of $5.0 million per
year. Such a redirection of the proceeds of the sales to land acquisition was not
included in the FY2008 law. The appropriation for BLM acquisitions had fallen
steadily from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.6 million for FY2007. Money for land
acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more
information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this
report.)
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index .htm].
CRS Report RL33792. Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service: Issues for the 110^th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte,
Carol Hardy Vincent, and Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL33990. Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.

Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2008, the appropriation for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was
$1.37 billion. The FY2008 level was a 2% increase over the FY2007 level of $1.34
billion and a 6% increase over the President’s request of $1.29 billion. The House
had approved $1.42 billion, while the Senate Appropriations Committee had
recommended $1.38 billion.
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resource
Management account. The FY2008 appropriation for this account was $1.08 billion,
a 6% increase over the FY2007 level of $1.02 billion and a 5% increase over the
Administration’s request of $1.03 billion. The House had approved $1.10 billion;
the Senate Committee level was $1.08 billion. Among the programs included in
Resources Management are the Endangered Species program, the Refuge System,
and Law Enforcement.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The
FY2008 appropriation was $150.5 million for the Endangered Species program, a 4%
increase over FY2007. The Administration had proposed a smaller increase of 1%
— from $144.7 million in FY2007 to $146.5 million in FY2008. See Table 4. The
FY2008 law did not include language from the Senate committee bill that had sought
to limit funding for the importation of polar bear parts taken in sport hunts. The
House had rejected a similar amendment during floor debate. The House had also
rejected an amendment to prohibit use of funds for Mexican wolf recovery.
A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are
listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The President
proposed to end the Landowner Incentive Program ($23.7 million in FY2007) as well
as Stewardship Grants ($7.3 million in FY2007). The President also sought to reduce
the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and
territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) from $81.0 million to
$80.0 million. The FY2008 appropriation reflected these proposals, and included a
further reduction for the Cooperative Endangered Species program for an FY2008
appropriation of $73.8 million. However, the FY2008 law also provided for the use
of $5.0 million in prior year balances, making total FY2008 funding of $78.8 million
for the Cooperative Endangered Species program. See Table 4.
In total, the FY2008 appropriations law contained $224.3 million for
endangered species and related programs, down 13% from the FY2007 level of
$256.6 million. Under the President’s request, total FY2008 funding would have
decreased to $226.5 million, a 12% reduction.
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and
Related Programs, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)

Endangered Species and FY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008
Related ProgramsApprop.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate Conservation8,4258,6359,13510,1359,731
— Listing17,82418,26318,76318,76317,978
— Consultation49,17951,57852,57853,57851,758
— Recovery69,24468,06772,06773,06771,041
Subtotal, Endangered Species144,672146,543152,543155,543150,508
Program
Related Programs
— Landowner Incentive23,6670000
Program
— Private Stewardship Grants 7,277 0000
— Cooperative Endangered81,00180,00181,00180,00173,754^a
Species Conservation Fund
Subtotal, Related Programs111,94580,00181,00180,00173,754
Total Appropriations 256,617226,544233,544235,544224,262
^{a. A}ⁿ^addition^a^{l $5.0 m}^illionⁱⁿ^prior^y^{ear f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^a^s^prov^{ided f}^o^{r FY2008.}
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement. For
refuge operations and maintenance, the FY2008 appropriation was $434.1 million.
This was a 10% increase over the FY2007 level of $395.3 million. The President had
proposed $394.8 million, a slight decrease from FY2007. However, both the House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee had sought increases. The House had
approved $451.0 million, an increase of 14%, while the Senate committee level was
$413.8 million, up 5%.
Costs of operation have increased on many refuges, partly due to special
problems such as hurricane damage and more aggressive border enforcement.
Reductions in funding for operations in the NWRS, combined with the need to meet
fixed costs such as rent, salaries, and utilities, have led to cuts in funding for
programs to aid endangered species, reduce infestation by invasive species, protect
water supplies, address habitat restoration, and ensure staffing at the less popular
refuges. The Northeast Region (roughly Virginia to Maine, with 71 refuges) took the
lead in addressing this issue by attempting to consolidate management at refuges, and
increasing the number of refuges which are not staffed on a regular basis (termed
“de-staffing”). This region also attempted to consolidate some services in order to
spread remaining resources more effectively. Other regions have begun their own
plans to address reduced operating budgets. In the Explanatory Statement for
FY2008, 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 FY2008 appropriations law contained $59.6 million for Law Enforcement,
a 4% increase over the FY2007 level of $57.3 million. The President had proposed
$57.6 million, a modest increase over FY2007, but the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee had sought larger increases. Specifically, the House had

approved $60.1 million, up 5%, while the Senate committee recommended $61.1
million, a 7% increase.
Avian Flu. For FY2008, Congress enacted $7.3 million for the study,
monitoring, and early detection of highly pathogenic avian flu. The Administration,
House, and Senate Appropriations Committee initially approved $7.4 million. The
FY2007 appropriation was $12.4 million, including a $7.4 million supplemental
appropriation in P.L. 110-28. FWS cooperates with other federal and nonfederal
agencies in studying the spread of the virus through wild birds. Attention is on North
American species whose migratory patterns make them likely to come into contact
with infected Asian birds. The geographic focus is on Alaska, the Pacific Flyway
(along the west coast), and Pacific islands, with smaller samples in other areas. (See
CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds, by Jim Monke and
M. Lynne Corn.)
Land Acquisition. For FY2008, the appropriation for Land Acquisition was
$34.6 million. This was an increase of 92% over the Administration’s request and
23% increase over FY2007, with the increase going to the acquisition of new lands
and inholdings. The Administration had proposed $18.0 million for Land
Acquisition, $10.0 million (36%) below FY2007. See Table 5. In the past, the bulk
of this FWS program had been for acquisitions of land for specified federal refuges,
but a portion was used for closely related functions such as acquisition management,
land exchanges, emergency acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, and general
overhead (“Cost Allocation Methodology”). In recent years, less of the funding has
been reserved for traditional land acquisition. The Administration had proposed to
continue this trend for FY2008, reserving $5.5 million for specified acquisitions, and⁵
funding the remainder of the program at $12.5 million. This program is funded with
appropriations from LWCF. (For more information, see the “Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
FWS Land AcquisitionFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
Acquisitions — Federal Refuge13,6505,54428,65028,90420,676
Lands
Inholdings 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 2,953
Emergencies & Hardships1,4781,5001,4781,5000
Exchange s 1,485 1,537 1,485 1,500 1,477
Acquisition Management8,1406,4368,1408,1408,013

⁵ Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a permanently
appropriated source of mandatory funding (from the sale of duck stamps to hunters, and
import duties on certain arms and ammunition) for land acquisition. As annual
appropriations for acquisitions under LWCF have declined, the MBCA ($41.9 million in
FY2006) has become increasingly important in the protection of habitat for migratory birds,
especially waterfowl. Other species in these habitats benefit incidentally.

F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
FWS Land AcquisitionFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
Cost Allocation Methodology1,7931,4941,7931,5001,477
Total Appropriations28,04618,01143,04643,04434,596
Wildlife Refuge Fund. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates counties for the presence of the non-
taxable federal lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). A portion
of the fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of receipts from various
activities carried out on the NWRS. However, these receipts are not sufficient for
full funding of amounts authorized in the formula, and county governments have long
urged additional appropriations to make up the difference. Congress generally
provides additional appropriations. For FY2008, the appropriation was $14.0
million, a small decrease from the FY2007 level of $14.2 million. With refuge
receipts, the FY2008 level would fund about 42% of the authorized payment level,
down from 52% in FY2007. The President had requested $10.8 million for FY2008,
down $3.4 million (24%). That level, combined with expected receipts, would have
provided about 35% of the authorized full payment. The House had approved the
FY2007 level, as did the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants. The Multinational
Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) has generated considerable constituent interest
despite the small size of the program. It benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers,
rhinoceroses, great apes, and marine turtles. For FY2008, the appropriations law
contained $7.9 million for MSCF and $4.4 million for the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF), both increases over the FY2007 level and the
Administration’s request for FY2008. The President had proposed $4.3 million for⁶
the MSCF and $4.0 million for the NMBCF. The proposal would have cut each of
the MSCF programs and held funding level for NMBCF. See Table 6.
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Multinational SpeciesFY2007FY2008 FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008
Conservation FundApprop. Request PassedComm.Approp.
African Elephant1,3799902,0001,5001,477
Tiger and Rhinos1,5769902,5002,0001,969
Asian Elephant1,3799902,0001,5001,477
Great Apes1,3799902,0002,0001,969
Marine Turtles6912971,5001,000984

⁶ The President’s FY2008 budget did not propose to move funding for NMBCF into the
MSCF. Congress had rejected the Administration’s proposed transfer for the previous six
fiscal years, beginning in FY2002.

Total MSCF6,4044,25710,0008,0007,876
Appropriations
Neotropical Migratory3,9413,9605,0004,0004,430
Birds
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help
fund efforts to conserve species (including nongame species) of concern to states,
territories, and tribes. The grants have generated considerable support from these
governments. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior appropriations law
(P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior appropriations bills. (It
does not have any separate authorizing statute.) Funds may be used to develop state
conservation plans as well as to support specific practical conservation projects. A
portion of the funding is set aside for competitive grants to tribal governments or
tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining portion is for matching grants to states. A
state’s allocation is determined by formula. The appropriation for FY2008 was $73.8
million. See Table 7.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
State and Tribal WildlifeFY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008
GrantsApprop.RequestPassed Comm.Approp.
State Grants61,85259,21073,00060,58062,724
Competitive Grants for05,0005,0005,0006,184
States, Territories, & Other
Jurisdictions
Tribal Grants5,6405,2827,0006,9124,922
Total Appropriations67,49269,49285,00072,49273,830
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 110^th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL33795. Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds, by Jim Monke
and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RL33779. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 110^th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Robert Meltz, and Kristina Alexander.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
National Park Service

The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System,
currently comprising 391 separate and diverse park units covering 85 million acres.
The NPS and its more than 20,000 permanent, temporary, and seasonal employees
protect, preserve, interpret, and administer the park system’s diverse natural and
historic areas representing the cultural identity of the American people. The NPS
mission is to protect park resources and values, unimpaired, while making them
accessible to the public. Annual park visitation is now 273 million visits. The Park
System has some 20 types of area designations, including national parks, monuments,
memorials, historic sites, battlefields, seashores, recreational areas, and other
classifications. The NPS also supports and promotes some resource conservation
activities outside the Park System through limited grant and technical assistance
programs and cooperation with partners.
The FY2008 appropriations law provided $2.39 billion for the NPS, $26.6
million (1%) more than the FY2008 request and $90.3 million (4%) above the
FY2007 level, but $71.1 million (3%) below the Senate Appropriations Committee
level and $122.8 million (5%) below the House total. See Table 8. The parks
remain popular with the public and the condition of the parks and the adequacy of
their care and operating capacity continues to be of concern.
To be ready for the NPS’s 100^th anniversary in 2016, the Administration
proposed a multi-year initiative, beginning in FY2008, to strengthen visitor services
and other park programs. The National Parks Centennial Initiative, announced by
President Bush in August 2006, could add up to $3 billion in new funds for the parks
over the next 10 years through a public/private joint effort. The initiative has three
components: (1) a commitment to add $100.0 million annually in discretionary
funds; (2) a challenge for the public to donate $100.0 million annually; and (3) a
commitment to match the public donations with federal funds of up to $100.0 million
annually. The second part of the initiative — the proposed $1 billion “Centennial
Challenge” — would rely on corporate, foundation, and other private donations,
raising concerns among some park supporters about potential commercialization and
privatization influence on the parks. Many claim that the park system has long
experienced chronic budget shortfalls. Park advocacy groups have estimated that, on
average, the national parks operate with two-thirds of needed funding — a budget⁷
shortfall of more than $600 million annually.
Major NPS Issues in Appropriations. The FY2008 law included language
proposed by the House extending the authorization of the National Park System
Advisory Board until January 1, 2009. Board authority expired on January 1, 2007,
preventing statutorily required participation in some NPS programs. The law did not
include a transfer of $1.0 million from the Office of the DOI Secretary to park
operations to help fully reopen the Statue of Liberty to park visitors, as had been
approved by the House.
The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) grant program has not
been funded since FY2002. The House Appropriations Committee reminded the

⁷ See the website of the National Parks Conservation Association at [http://www.npca.org/
media_center/reports/analysis.html ].

NPS of its responsibility to enforce §1010 of the authorizing legislation (16 U.S.C.
§2509), generally prohibiting the conversion of UPARR project sites from public
recreational use to other (e.g., commercial) use, regardless of whether funding is
provided (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 46). The FY2008 law provided no administrative or
new grant monies for UPARR.
The Senate committee bill had directed the NPS to keep in force, for the 2007-
2008 winter season, the interim Yellowstone snowmobile use regulations of the past
three years. The FY2008 law did not include that language because the NPS issued
a Record of Decision (ROD) on winter use management on November 30, 2007, with
implementing regulations expected thereafter. Lawsuits challenging the ROD did not
request preliminary injunctions, allowing local operations to continue for the 2007-
2008 winter season. The Appropriations Committees expressed that this was in the
best interest of all parties (Explanatory Statement, H16130-H16131). The FY2008
law retained a provision of the Senate committee bill repealing Section 1077(c) of
P.L. 109-364 that had prohibited the NPS from complying with a court-approved
agreement to remove nonnative deer and elk from Santa Rosa Island in the Channel
Islands National Park. The provision sought to resolve a long-running hunting
concession controversy.
Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line item
is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting for more than 80%
of the total NPS budget. The FY2008 law provided $1.97 billion for park operations,
$122.2 million above the FY2007 enacted level but less than the Administration’s
request and the Senate committee and House bills. The difference was due in part
to a $44.3 million reduction in the enacted level, apparently comprised of a $19.7
million general reduction and a $24.6 million “offset” for the centennial funding
provided separately (see below) (Explanatory Statement, H16124-H16125). The
FY2008 law agreed with the House in incorporating the Park Police account into the
operations line item. See Table 8.
The majority of operations funding is provided directly to park managers. It
supports the activities, programs, and services essential to the day-to-day operations
of the park system, and covers resource protection, visitors’ services, facility
operations and maintenance, and park support programs, as well as such
administrative expenses as employee pay, benefits, and other fixed costs. The
FY2008 law provided $1.74 billion for park management, more than enacted for
FY2007 but less than the House, Senate committee, and requested levels. The
Administration, House, and Senate committee had sought relatively large increases
for maintenance, visitor services, and resource stewardship.
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008FY2008
National Park ServiceFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestFY2008HouseSenateApprop.
Comm.
Operation of the National Park System1,848.42,057.12,047.82,046.81,970.6
— Park Management1,627.61,822.31,818.11,817.11,744.5

FY2008FY2008
National Park ServiceFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestFY2008HouseSenateApprop.
Comm.
— Administrative Costs135.1146.7141.6141.6139.4
— U.S. Park Police85.288.188.188.186.7
Centennial Challenge (Matching Prog.)0.00.0^a50.00.024.6
National Recreation and Preservation^b 54.448.962.968.567.4
Historic Preservation Fund^b65.763.781.575.070.4
Construction 297.5 201.6 201.6 227.2 218.4
Land and Water Conservation Fund^c-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance 64.022.599.478.769.0
— Assistance to States29.60.050.030.024.6
— NPS Acquisition34.422.549.448.744.4
Total Appropriations2,300.0^d2,363.82,513.22,461.42,390.3
^a.^T^h^e^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^requ^es^ted^th^{e es}^tablis^h^m^en^{t of}^{a m}^aⁿ^d^atory^f^uⁿ^d^w^ith^$100.0^m^illion^a^nnua^l^l^y
^fo^r^t^eⁿ^y^e^a^r^s,^t^o^m^a^t^c^{h no}^nfe^d^e^r^a^l^c^o^nt^rⁱ^b^u^tⁱ^o^ns^{to th}^{e NP}^{S f}^o^{r certain}^pu^rpos^es^.^T^h^e^f^uⁿ^d^h^a^s
ⁿ^o^{t b}^een^au^th^o^r^ized^to^d^a^{te. T}^h^{is f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e r}^e^f^l^{ects th}^{at th}^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^dⁱ^dⁿ^o^{t seek}^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g
^t^h^r^o^{ugh a}^nnua^l^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^o^ns.
^b.^F^o^{r Pres}^erv^e^A^m^eri^{ca, t}^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^com^mⁱ^t^t^{ee an}^{d t}^h^{e F}^Y^{2008 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^ref^l^ect^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^h^e
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^R^ecreatⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d Pres}^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^lⁱⁿ^{e i}^t^e^m^.^T^h^{e F}^Y^{2007 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^F^Y²⁰⁰⁸^requ^es^t^,
^an^{d F}^Y^{2008 H}^o^u^s^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^Pres^erv^e^A^m^eri^{ca f}^uⁿ^d^sⁱⁿ^Hⁱ^s^t^ori^c^Pres^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.
^{c. Fig}^u^r^es^ref^l^{ect a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^con^t^{ract au}^th^ority^.
^d^.^Iⁿ^clu^d^{es an}^em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^o^f^$⁰^.⁵^m^illioⁿⁿ^o^{t r}^e^f^l^ectedⁱⁿ^th^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{es ab}^o^v^e.
United States Park Police (USPP). The U.S. Park Police is an urban-
oriented, full-service, uniformed law enforcement entity with primary jurisdiction at
park sites within the metropolitan areas of Washington, DC, New York City, and San
Francisco. USPP law enforcement authority extends to all NPS units and to certain
other federal and state lands. The park police provide specialized law enforcement
services to other park units when requested, through deployment of professional
police officers to support law enforcement trained and commissioned park rangers
working in park units system-wide. The FY2008 law provided $86.7 million, $1.5
million above FY2007. The House and Senate committee bills matched the request
of $88.1 million. Increased funding was proposed primarily for enhanced security
at National Mall icons, special events in Washington, DC, and at the Statue of
Liberty in New York. As noted above, the FY2008 law moved the U.S. Park Police
to the Operation of the National Park System line item.
Centennial Challenge. As discussed above, the Administration proposed a
three-part National Parks Centennial Initiative, with additional funding for park
operations (presumably included in the request for park management discussed
above), donations, and federal funds to match the donations. The FY2008 law
provided $24.6 million for a signature projects matching program. This is considered
interim funding to initiate the program in 2008, and requires a 50:50 match. The
House and Senate Appropriations Committees expressed an expectation that
authorization will be enacted during the 110^th Congress for a ten year program
(Explanatory Statement, H16125). The House had approved $50.0 million to be
available for matching donations in FY2008, while the Senate committee bill
provided no money for the program. The Senate committee expressed support for

the concept, but a preference that the authorizing committee address the issue
(S.Rept. 110-91, p. 25). The President did not seek an annual appropriation for this
purpose, but instead proposed the establishment of a mandatory program with $100.0
million annually for ten years. This program has not been authorized to date, and
legislation would be required to effect this 10-year mandatory spending program.
National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds a variety of
park system recreation, natural and cultural resource protection programs, and an
international park affairs office, as well as programs connected with state and local
community efforts to preserve natural and historic resources. The FY2008 law
provided $67.4 million, $18.5 million above the request and $13.0 million more than
FY2007. The increase was partly the result of moving funding for Preserve America
($7.4 million) to this line item from Historic Preservation. Preserve America was
funded at $4.9 million in FY2007, and the Senate committee originally supported
$5.0 million. The Administration and the House had sought $10.0 million for
FY2008.
The FY2008 appropriation included $15.3 million for the heritage partnership
program that funds National Heritage Areas (NHAs). NHA funding was $5.3 million
more than the request and $1.9 million above FY2007. For the statutory and
contractual aid programs in specific, non-NPS sites, the FY2008 law allowed $7.5
million, $4.3 million more than FY2007. The Administration had proposed
discontinuing statutory and contractual aid, as proposed (but not enacted) for
FY2005-FY2007.
Construction. The construction line item funds new construction projects,
as well as improvements, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities.
The FY2008 law provided $218.4 million for NPS construction, $79.1 million less
than FY2007 and $8.8 million less than the Senate committee bill but $16.8 million
more than the House approved and the Administration requested. Recent DOI data
(March 2007) report an NPS deferred maintenance backlog of $7.9 billion, of which
$4.3 billion is park roads, while another DOI source estimates an NPS backlog (mid-
range) of $9.1 billion for FY2006. (For information on NPS maintenance, see CRS
Report RL33484, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. FY2008 appropriations for the
NPS under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) were $69.0 million,
comprised of $44.4 million for NPS land acquisition and $24.6 million for state
assistance programs. Land acquisition funds are used to acquire lands, or interests
in lands, for inclusion within the National Park System. State assistance is for
recreation-related land acquisition and recreation planning and development by the
states, with the appropriated funds allocated by formula and states determining their
spending priorities.
The $44.4 million for NPS land acquisition was $10.0 million above the
FY2007 level and nearly double the Administration’s request of $22.5 million. The
House and Senate committee had sought higher funding levels. The Administration
did not seek funds for state assistance from LWCF, requesting $1.4 million for
program administration under National Recreation and Preservation. The $24.6
million for state assistance was $25.4 million less than the House, $5.4 million less

than the Senate, and $5.0 million below the FY2007 enacted level. (For more
information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this
report.)
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid for activities specified in the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. §470), such as restoring historic districts, sites,
buildings, and objects significant in American history and culture. NHPA
reauthorization (P.L. 109-235) was enacted on December 22, 2006, and extends
authority to fund the HPF through 2015. The Fund’s preservation grants are
normally funded on a 60% federal, 40% state matching share basis. The HPF also
includes funding for Save America’s Treasures grants.
The FY2008 law provided $70.4 million for the HPF, compared to an FY20007
amount of $65.7 million, representing a 7% increase. The FY2007 level included a
$10.0 million hurricane recovery supplemental appropriation. The House and the
Senate Appropriations Committee versions of the FY2008 funding bill would have
provided $81.5 million and $75.0 million, respectively. The largest HPF activity,
grants to state historic preservation offices, rose 6% from $37.2 million in FY2007
to $39.4 million for FY2008.
Additional funding was also provided for the Save America’s Treasures and the
Preserve America grant programs, which had been cut from $29.6 million in FY2006
to $13.0 million in FY2007. The FY2008 law provided $24.6 million for Save
America’s Treasures — triple the FY2007 level of $8.1 million, with over 55% of
these funds allocated to congressionally-directed projects. While Preserve America
funding also was increased, from $4.9 million to $7.4 million, the program was
moved from the HPF to National Recreation and Preservation.
New for FY2008, the Park Service proposed to establish a $5.0 million program
to help states and tribal governments create an integrated inventory of historic
properties. Of that amount, $4.0 million would be to fund grants through the HPF
and the balance would be provided through National Recreation and Preservation
funding. This proposal was not funded.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at
[ http://www.nps.gov/] .
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website at
[ http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/] .
CRS Report RL33617. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RL33484. National Park Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Ross
W. Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, and Susan Boren.
CRS Report RL33525. Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert
and Carol Hardy Vincent.

U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation’s premier science agency in
providing physical and biological information related to natural hazards; certain
aspects of the environment; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In
addition, it is the federal government’s principal civilian mapping agency and a
primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s water resources.
Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and
Research, for seven activities: Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote
Sensing; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water Resources
Investigations; Biological Research; Enterprise Information; Science Support; and
Facilities. The FY2008 law provided $1.01 billion for the USGS. This was the first
time the USGS budget has been over a billion dollars. This amount was $31.5
million (3%) over the Administration’s request of $975.0 million, and $18.4 million
(2%) over the FY2007 enacted level of $988.1 million. See Table 9.
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
U.S. Geological SurveyFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateEnacted
PassedComm.
Enterprise Information111.8112.1112.1112.1110.4
Geographic Research, Investigations,
and Remote Sensing80.275.080.078.577.7
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and243.5
Processes 237.0 222.1 249.8 243.3
Water Resources Investigations214.9212.5223.5224.1220.5
Biological Research175.7181.1187.1182.1179.9
Science Support67.870.7^b68.768.267.2
Facilities 95.4 101.6 101.6 101.6 100.0
Global Climate Change Research0.00.010.00.07.4
Total Appropriations988.1^a975.01,032.81,009.91,006.5
^{a. T}^h^{e FY2007 total in}^clu^d^es^{$5.3 m}^illionⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^110-^28.
^b^.^T^h^{is f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e in}^clu^d^{es $}²^.⁴^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r^th^{e Fin}^aⁿ^c^{ial an}^d^B^u^sin^e^ss^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^Sy^stem^{. T}^h^{is am}^o^uⁿ^t
^w^a^sⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2008 l}^a^w^.
The FY2008 law provided $6.3 million for water resources research institutes
and full funding for the mineral resource assessment program. Funding for these
programs was not requested by the Administration. The law included an increase of
$7.4 million for global climate change research, of which $2.5 million was directed
to establish the National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center.

Enterprise Information. In FY2005, the Administration proposed a new line
item for funding within the USGS called Enterprise Information. This program
consolidates funding of all USGS information needs including information
technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as capital asset
planning. The FY2008 law provided 110.4 million for Enterprise Information, which
was $1.7 million below the Administration’s request of $112.1 million and $1.4
million below the FY2007 level of $111.8 million.
There are three primary programs within Enterprise Information: (1) enterprise
information security and technology, which supports management and operations of
USGS telecommunications (e.g., computing infrastructure and email); (2) enterprise
information resources, which provides policy support, information management, and
oversight over information services; and (3) national geospatial program, which
provides operational support and management for the Federal Geographic Data
committee (FGDC). The FGDC is an interagency, intergovernmental committee that
encourages collaboration to make geospatial data available to state, local, and tribal
governments, as well as communities.
Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing. This
program aims to provide access to high quality geospatial information to the public.
The FY2008 law provided $77.7 million for this program, which was $2.8 million
above the Administration’s request of $75.0 million, and $2.5 million below the
FY2007 level of $80.2 million. Under the Land Remote Sensing subheading, $24.2
million was requested to support the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, also known
as Landsat 8. Landsat 8 is an upcoming satellite that is to take remotely sensed
images of the Earth’s land surface and surrounding coastal areas primarily for
environmental monitoring. The volume of data taken by Landsat 8 is to be four
times greater than its predecessor, Landsat 7, and Landsat 8 is to include additional
spectral bands and higher resolution than Landsat 7 data. The FY2008 law appeared
to support the requested funding level for Landsat 8. The Senate recommendation
for a priority ecosystem restoration program was not included in the FY2008 law.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, the FY2008 law provided $243.5 million, which
is $21.4 million above the Administration’s request, and $6.5 million about the
FY2007 level. This line item covers programs in three activities: Hazard
Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments.
The primary reduction sought by the Administration was a $20.1 million cut in
the mineral resources program. According to the Administration, universities or
other entities will undertake assessments and research that support nonfederal needs.
In previous years the Administration requested similar cuts in this program, yet each
year funding was provided. The FY2008 law reinstated funding for this program and
the Appropriations Committees referred to the Administration’s request as
irresponsible (Explanatory Statement, H16128).
The FY2008 law contained $85.7 million for the geologic hazards program, $1.6
million above the Administration’s request. Some of the funds would go towards
supporting research and monitoring on volcanoes, landslides, and earthquakes. The

joint explanatory statement states Congress’s strong support for the multi-hazard
initiative.
Water Resources Investigations. The FY2008 law provided $220.5
million for Water Resources Investigations, which was $8.1 million above the
Administration’s request of $212.5 million, and $5.6 million above the FY2007 level
of $214.9 million. As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2007 budget
requests, the FY2008 request had 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. Nevertheless, the institutes received funding from FY2002-FY2007,
with $5.4 million appropriated for FY2007. The FY2008 law provided $6.3 million.
The FY2008 law provided $20.1 million for the National Streamflow
Information Program (NSIP), an increase of $3.5 million over the FY2007 enacted
level. Funds would be used to continue the operation of the streamgage network of
7,400 streamgages. Further, they would allow for several new streamgages to be
built and maintained. Through the NSIP, the USGS collects the streamflow data
needed by federal, state, and local agencies for planning, operating water-resources
projects, and regulatory programs.
Biological Research. The Biological Research Program under the USGS
generates and distributes information related to conserving and managing the nation’s
biological resources. The FY2008 law provided 179.9 million for the program, $1.2
million below the Administration’s request of $181.1 million and $4.2 million above
the FY2007 level of $175.7 million.
In cooperation with the FWS and other federal and state agencies, the USGS is
surveying for the early detection of avian flu in wild birds, and collecting samples
from birds that are known to migrate through the Russian Far East and Southeast
Asia. For 2008, the USGS will continue sampling birds for avian flu and coordinate
with other agencies to address the potential for avian flu in North America.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for managing and disseminating
scientific information. The FY2008 law provided $67.2 million for Science Support,
a decrease of $3.5 million from the Administration’s request of $70.7 million and
decrease of $0.6 million from the FY2007 level of $67.8 million
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair. The FY2008 law
provided $100.0 million for Facilities, which is $1.6 million below the
Administration’s request and an increase of $4.5 million above the FY2007 enacted
level of $95.4 million.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at
[ http://www.usgs .gov/] .
Minerals Management Service

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the
Offshore Minerals Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue
Management (MRM) Program. OMM administers competitive leasing on Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas, other
minerals, and offshore alternative energy. MRM collects and disburses bonuses,
rents, and royalties paid on federal onshore and OCS leases and Indian mineral
leases. Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were
collected, the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues
from the offshore leases are allocated among the coastal states, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
The MMS collected and disbursed about $11.5 billion in revenue in FY2007
from mineral leases on federal and Indian lands. This amount fluctuates annually
based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas. Over the past decade, royalties
from natural gas production have accounted for 40% to 45% of annual MMS
receipts, while oil royalties have been not more than 25%. However, in FY2007, oil
royalties accounted for about 38.5% of MMS receipts. Other sources of MMS
receipts include rents and bonuses for all leaseable minerals and royalties from coal
and other minerals.
Budget and Appropriations. The FY2008 funding level for MMS was
$294.7 million, composed of: $115.9 million in appropriations; $135.7 million in
offsetting collections, which MMS has been retaining since 1994; and $43.0 million
in state cost sharing deductions, as had been proposed by the House. This would be
an increase of $6.4 million (2%) over the total funding of $288.2 million in FY2007.
The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended a total MMS budget of
$302.1 million, consisting of a $166.4 million appropriation and $135.7 million in
offsetting collections. The House had approved a total of $295.7 million, but much
less funding through the annual appropriation process. Specifically, the House had
included $67.0 million in appropriations, $135.7 million in offsetting collections, and
an “administrative provisions” section resulting in a $50.0 million deferral for ultra
deepwater research and a $43.0 million deduction for state royalty administrative
costs. See Table 10.
Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Minerals Management Service FY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
Passed Comm.
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
— OCS Lands (OMM) 152.8160.0159.0164.9160.1
— Royalty Management (MRM)80.182.482.482.481.1
— General Administration48.548.548.048.547.2
— Gross, Royalty and Offshore
Minerals Management281.3290.8289.3295.7288.4
— Use of Receipts-128.7-135.7-135.7-135.7-135.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management Appropriations152.6155.0153.6159.9152.6

F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Minerals Management Service FY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
Passed Comm.
Oil Spill Research6.96.46.46.46.3
Administrative Provisions
— Ultra Deepwater Research
Deferral — — -50.0 — — -
— State Royalty Administrative
Cost Deduction — — -43.0 — -43.0
Total Appropriations159.5161.567.0166.4115.9
The FY2008 appropriations law included House-passed language regarding state
royalty administrative costs. The law required the Secretary of the Interior to deduct

2% from the states’ 50% share of revenue from onshore federal leases for FY2008.

Congress established net receipts sharing in 1991, which required states to pay for
a portion of the administrative costs associated with managing federal leases in their
states. In 2000, P.L. 106-393 ended that requirement and allowed states to receive
their full share of revenue from federal leases within their state.
The FY2008 appropriations law did not include other House-passed language
to prevent transfers of funds into the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural
Gas and Other Petroleum Research Fund (the Fund). The Fund was created as a
mandatory program in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and was
authorized to receive $50 million each year from FY2007-FY2017 from federal oil
and gas leasing receipts. The Administration had proposed both to repeal the Fund
and reintroduce net receipts sharing among states. The House-passed bill reflected
support for the Administration’s proposals through scoring credits, resulting in a
$50.0 million deferral for ultra deepwater research as well as the $43.0 million
deduction for state royalty administrative costs. See Table 10.
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts remain controversial. Oil and gas development moratoria in the OCS along
the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, parts of Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico have been
in place since 1982, as a result of public laws and executive orders of the President.
However, Congress enacted separate legislation (P.L. 109-432) to open part of the
Gulf of Mexico (about 5.8 million acres) previously under the moratoria, but the law
places nearly all of the eastern Gulf under a leasing moratorium until 2022. The law
also contains revenue sharing provisions for selected coastal states. Two areas —
Bristol Bay (AK) and Virginia — contained in the MMS Proposed Final Five-Year
OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2007-2012) remain controversial. Bristol Bay
was removed from the congressional moratoria, while oil and gas leasing off Virginia
remains under the moratoria. The new five-year program took effect July 1, 2007.
(For more information, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate
Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries.)
The FY2008 appropriations law did not contain House-passed language barring
funds in the bill from being used for new leases for those holding leases under the
Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 without price thresholds. The
Appropriations Committees expressed continued commitment to this issue and the

expectation that the authorizing committees would complete action on this matter
(Explanatory Statement, H16130). The Senate Appropriations Committee had
rejected bill language that would have prohibited the government from issuing new
offshore leases to companies holding deepwater leases without price thresholds.
Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers also was debated during
consideration of FY2007 Interior appropriations. On February 13, 2006, the New
York Times reported that the MMS would not collect royalties on leases awarded in
1998 and 1999 because no price threshold was included in the lease agreements
during those two years. Without the price thresholds, producers may produce oil and
gas up to specified volumes without paying royalties no matter what the price. The
MMS asserts that placing price thresholds in the lease agreements is at the discretion
of the Secretary of the Interior. However, according to the MMS, the price thresholds
were omitted by mistake during 1998 and 1999.⁸
On January 18, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) that would deny new Gulf
of Mexico leases to those holding leases without price thresholds or payment or an
agreement to pay a “conservation of resources” fee that would be established by H.R.
6. DOI has asserted that the House-passed bill could lead to legal challenges which
could delay oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico. The Department also
suggested that Congress offer the lessees a three-year extension to their leases as an
incentive to amend the leases to include price thresholds. The House-passed
language was not enacted in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L.

110-140).⁹

During consideration of FY2008 Interior appropriations, the House considered
other amendments related to the OCS. An amendment which would have lifted the
OCS moratoria for natural gas leasing and development beyond 25 miles from the
coastline was defeated. Related amendments to open the OCS for oil and gas drilling
beyond 100 miles of the coastline and to open the entire OCS currently under the
moratoria were defeated.
For FY2008, the Appropriations Committees provided direction related to
drilling in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, also known as Bristol Bay
(Explanatory Statement, H16128). They expressed that drilling in that area should
be conducted only after the availability of detailed studies and information. They
directed MMS and other scientific bodies to document oil spill containment and
responses to accidents. Further, the MMS was required to complete a 2 1/2 - 3 year
pre-sale and NEPA process including the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement before proceeding with the North Aleutian Basin sale.

⁸ This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS,
during April 2006.
⁹ For more information, see CRS Report RS22567, Royalty Relief for U.S. Deepwater Oil
and Gas Leases, by Marc Humphries and CRS Report RL33974 Legal Issues Raised by
Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating Incentives for Certain OCS Leaseholders
to Accept Price Thresholds, by Robert Meltz and Adam Vann.

Another challenge confronting the MMS is to ensure that its audit and
compliance program is consistently effective. Critics contend that less auditing and
more focus on compliance review has led to a less rigorous royalty collection system
and thus a loss of revenue to the federal Treasury. DOI’s Inspector General (IG) has
made recommendations to strengthen and improve administrative controls of the
Compliance and Asset Management Program (CAM). Further, DOI established an
independent panel to review the MMS Mineral Leasing Program. The review
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 2007.¹⁰ The House Appropriations
Committee, in report language on the FY2008 bill, expressed concern about IG
reports on the need for more and better audits, and directed MMS to report on
corrective actions it is taking (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 58).
Oil and gas leasing in offshore California also has continued to be a
controversial issue. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended
(16 U.S.C. §1451-64) (CZMA), development of federal offshore leases must be
consistent with state coastal zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended the
terms of 36 leases in offshore California by granting suspensions of the leases’ five-
year terms. A suspension extends the term of the lease, to allow the lessee to
facilitate development.¹¹ The state of California sued, contending that MMS should
have made a consistency determination showing that the lease suspensions were
consistent with California’s coastal management plan before issuing the suspensions.
In June 2001, the U.S. Court for the Northern District of California agreed with the
state of California and struck down the lease suspensions.¹² 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.¹³
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.¹⁴ 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

¹⁰ 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].
¹¹ The regulations on suspension are at 30 C.F.R §250.168.
¹² California v. Norton, 150 F.Supp.2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
¹³ California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162 (9^th Cir. 2002).
¹⁴ Amber Resources Co. v. U.S., 68 Fed. Cl. 535 (2005).

amounted to breach of the leases.¹⁵ The government was ordered to repay the lessees
for all so-called “bonus payments” made to the government in exchange for the
l eases.¹⁶
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.

¹⁵ Id. at 546-48.
¹⁶ 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).

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-
87; 30 U.S.C. §1201 note) established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM) to ensure that land mined for coal would be returned to a
condition capable of supporting its pre-mining land use. However, coal mining is an
old activity in the United States, and at the time SMCRA was enacted there was a
large inventory of abandoned mine sites that no company could be held accountable
to reclaim. To address this problem, SMCRA established an Abandoned Mine Land
(AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites that
posed serious health or safety hazards. The law provided that individual states and
Indian tribes would develop their own regulatory programs incorporating minimum
standards established by law and regulations. Reclamation in states with no approved
programs is directed by OSM.
Historically, AML collections have been divided up and assigned to different
accounts, some of which fall into a federal designation allocated to individual states
based upon their ranking in historical coal production. A portion of fee collections
also has been credited to a state share account. Grants to states and tribes for
reclamation have been awarded after applying a formula to annual congressional
appropriations from the AML fund. Grants to a state or tribe would draw on both
that state’s federal-share and state-share accounts. Collections have exceeded
appropriations for a number of years. The total unappropriated balance — including
both federal and state share accounts in the AML fund — was over $1.95 billion by
the end of FY2006, of which approximately $1.2 billion was in the state-share
accounts.
As coal production has shifted westward, western states have paid more into the
fund. These states have contended that they are shouldering a disproportionate share
of the reclamation burden because the great majority of the sites requiring
remediation are in the East.¹⁷ Several states were pressing for increases in the AML
appropriations, with an eye on those unappropriated balances in the state-share
accounts.
The Tax Relief and Health Care Act (P.L. 109-432) reauthorized AML fee
collections through FY2021, and also made significant changes in the procedures for
disbursing grants. Grants will be funded by permanent appropriations from the AML
fund and the general fund of the U. S. Treasury. All the revenues paid to the fund
during a given fiscal year will be returned during the fiscal year that follows.¹⁸ Under
the restructuring, the balances in the state- and tribal-share accounts will be returned

¹⁷ 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.
¹⁸ The permanent appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that
money, which include annual payments to the United Mine Workers of America Combined
Benefit Fund, would exceed the cap, distributions will be proportional.

to all states and tribes in seven annual installments paid with general Treasury
funds.¹⁹
States and tribes are categorized as “Certified” or “Uncertified,” and
distributions to each differ. Certified states are those that have reclaimed the most
serious sites, while uncertified states have not yet done so. Beginning in FY2008,
and over a period of seven years, certified states will receive equal installments of the
unappropriated balances in their state-share accounts as of the end of FY2006.
Additionally, they will receive whatever grants they would be entitled to based upon
application of the distribution formula to both prior year collections and that state’s
entitlement based upon its historic coal production.²⁰ Beginning with fees collected
during FY2008, the amounts that would have been deposited to certified states’ state-
share accounts will instead be credited to the federal-share account representing
historical coal production. Certified states will not receive this allocation in their
annual grants after FY2008. This is intended to have the effect of increasing the pool
of money available for distribution to uncertified states in future years.
The level of grants distributed to uncertified states will be based upon their
proportionate entitlement from the historical coal production account (which, as just
noted, will hold more money than under the old system), as well as the amount that
would have otherwise been deposited to the state-share account.²¹
Owing to the establishment of the permanent appropriation, the FY2008 OSM
budget request was sharply lower than the FY2007 level. Overall, the FY2008
budget request for OSM totaled $168.3 million in discretionary spending, a reduction
of $126.3 million (43%) from the FY2007 level of $294.6 million. However, due to
the restructuring of the program to provide for repayment of the unappropriated state
balances from Treasury funds, one cannot make a direct comparison between the
FY2007 appropriated level for OSM and the FY2008 levels.
In FY2008, some activities will remain subject to annual appropriations.
Among these are the expenses of federal AML programs in states with no OSM-
approved reclamation programs, an emergency reclamation program, OSM
administrative expenses, and the Clean Streams program. The agency budget also
has an additional component — regulatory and technology programs.

¹⁹ 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.
²⁰ Payments will be ramped up. For the first three years, certified states will receive 25%,

50%, and 75% of the amount the state would receive under the restructured program.

²¹ An allocation of fee collections under the old program to the Rural Abandoned Mine
Program (RAMP) is discontinued by P.L. 109-432, which transfers the RAMP balances to
the fund pool representing state historical coal production. Whether or not fee collections
are reauthorized beyond FY2021, mandatory distributions will continue so long as money
remains in the AML fund.

The FY2008 appropriations law provided a total of $118.5 million for
Regulation and Technology and $52.0 million for the AML fund. The total
appropriation of $170.4 million for the Office of Surface Mining is roughly $2.1
million (1%) higher than the Administration’s request.
As is summarized in Table 11, there was, in fact, no wide disparity in the
funding levels recommended by the House and the Senate committee on
Appropriations. The House had approved a $1.9 million boost to Regulation and
Technology, an addition of 2%, over the Administration’s request for $115.5 million.
The additional funds were intended for environmental protection activities. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $121.5 million, an increase of $6.0
million above the Administration’s request. The increase was to include additional
funds to match state costs for the conduct of regulatory programs intended to
minimize impacts of coal extraction on local environments and populations. Both
the full House and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the
Administration request of $52.8 million for AML. In total, the House approved
$170.2 million for OSM, $1.9 million (1%) over the Administration’s request and
$124.5 million (42%) below FY2007. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended a total of $174.3 million for OSM, $6.0 million (4%) over the
Administration’s request and $120.3 million (41%) below FY2007.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
Office of Surface MiningFY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008
Reclamation and EnforcementApprop.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Regulation and Technology109.2115.5117.3121.5118.5
— Environmental Protection78.783.885.989.887.4
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund185.452.852.852.852.0
Total Appropriations294.6168.3170.2174.3170.4
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its website at [http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm].
CRS Report RL32993. Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fee on Coal, by Nonna A.
Noto.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally
recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and
historically has been the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs
provided or funded through the BIA include government operations, courts, law
enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education, roads, economic
development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection,
implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust assets (real estate
and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.

BIA’s direct appropriations were $2.31 billion in FY2007. For FY2008, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $2.29 billion for the BIA, a decrease of
$17.0 million (1%) from FY2007. The Administration had proposed $2.23 billion
for FY2008, the House had approved $2.35 billion, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee had recommended $2.27 billion. The FY2008 enacted amount for the
BIA was $62.4 million (3%) more than the Administration’s proposal, $55.7 million
(2%) less than the House amount, and $25.6 million (1%) more than the Senate
committee’s recommendation. See Table 12 for more detailed BIA appropriations
figures.
Key issues for the BIA include education programs — including the
Administration’s proposals to increase education management spending, eliminate
funding for the Johnson-O’Malley program and tribal technical colleges, and reduce
education construction — as well as BIA law enforcement and housing programs,
and the Interior Department’s process for acknowledging Indian tribes.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Bureau of Indian AffairsFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
Operation of Indian Programs
Tribal Government392,261397,698403,009406,398399,862
— Johnson-O’Malley^a7,70005,3117,700N/A
Grants
— Housing Improvement^b4,266000N/A
Program
— Contract Support143,628149,628149,628149,628147,294
Costs
Human Services144,824120,703146,548134,128139,339
— Welfare Assistance80,17974,16480,17977,16478,928
— Housing Improvement^b18,824018,8309,42513,614
Program
Trust - Natural Resources145,238141,684152,684147,489147,157
Management
Trust - Real Estate Services144,073150,722150,722151,722148,371
— Probate15,88419,88319,88319,883N/A
— Real Estate Services43,51047,96447,96448,964N/A
— Land Records7,89716,06516,06516,065N/A
Improvement
Bureau of Indian657,912660,540699,040685,540689,611
Education
— Elementary/458,310476,500487,500476,500479,895
Secondary (Forward-
Funded)
— ISEP Formula351,817364,020364,020364,020N/A

Funds

F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Bureau of Indian AffairsFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
— Elementary/60,39061,80361,80369,80374,620
Secondary [Other]
— Johnson-O’Malley^a12,000016,5008,000N/A
Grants
— Post Secondary108,61998,520109,520115,520111,749
Programs
— Tribal Colleges54,72154,72154,72159,721N/A
and Universities
— Tribal Colls. and4,5881,2921,2921,292N/A
Univs. Supplements to^c
Grants
— Tribal Technical^c2,00406,0006,000N/A
Colleges
— Education18,59323,71723,71723,71723,347
Management
Public Safety and Justice217,611233,818250,018237,818243,657
— Law Enforcement204,454221,753231,753225,753228,138
— 58,67865,03865,03867,038N/A
Detention/Corrections
— Tribal Courts12,01312,06517,06512,06514,338
Community and Economic42,23439,06147,33939,06139,436
Development
Executive Direction and244,070246,692244,185244,185240,376
Administrative Services
— Office of Federal1,9001,9002,9001,900N/A
Acknowledgment
— Information53,19953,70453,70453,704N/A
Resources Technology
Subtotal, Operation of Indian1,988,2231,990,9182,093,5452,046,3412,047,809
Programs
Construction
Education Construction204,956139,844145,200125,029142,935
— Replacement School83,89114,81514,8150N/A
Construction
— Replacement Facility26,87322,57822,57822,578N/A
Construction
— Education Facilities92,219100,834105,834100,834N/A
Improvement and Repair
Public Safety and Justice11,60511,62114,62111,62114,393
Construction
— Law Enforcement8,1038,11111,1118,111N/A
Facilities Improvement
and Repair
Resources Management45,12537,91639,91637,91638,309

Construction

F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Bureau of Indian AffairsFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
General Administration10,1378,2468,2468,246N/A
Construction and
Construction Management
Subtotal, Construction271,823197,627207,983179,012^d203,754
Land and Water Claim42,00034,06939,13634,06933,538
Settlements and Miscellaneous
Payments
Indian Guaranteed Loan6,2586,2766,2766,2766,178
Program
Total Appropriations2,308,3042,228,8902,346,9402,265,6982,291,279
^No^te:^N/A^{= No}^{t av}^ailab^l^e.
^a^.^T^h^{e J}^o^hⁿ^s^oⁿ^O’^Malley^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^{is sp}^{lit b}^e^tw^een^tw^o^b^u^d^g^{et activ}^{ities, T}^r^ib^{al Go}^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^aⁿ^d
^B^u^reau^of^In^dian^Edu^cation^.
^b^.^T^h^{e Ho}^u^sⁱⁿ^g^I^m^p^r^o^v^em^en^{t P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^{is sp}^{lit b}^e^tw^een^tw^o^b^u^d^g^et^activ^ities,^T^r^ib^al^Go^v^e^rⁿ^m^eⁿ^t^an^d
^Hu^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^.
^{c. Of}^th^{e FY2007}^am^ouⁿ^t^f^o^{r T}^r^{ibal C}^o^lleg^e^s^an^{d Un}^iv^ers^ities^Su^pplem^en^ts^{to Gran}^ts^{, $3.3 m}^illion
^{is f}^o^r^tr^ib^{al tech}ⁿⁱ^{cal co}^lleg^e^s.
^d^.^Ref^l^{ects a r}^e^scissioⁿ^o^f^$³^.⁸^m^illioⁿ^o^f^uⁿ^o^b^lig^ated^p^r^io^r^y^ear^b^a^lan^ces.
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs.²² 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 46,000 students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal
organizations, under self-determination contracts and other grants, operate 123 of
these institutions; the BIE operates the remainder. The BIE operates two
postsecondary schools and provides grants to 26 tribally controlled colleges and two
tribally controlled technical colleges. Key problems for the BIE-funded school
system are low student achievement, the high proportion of schools failing to make
adequate yearly progress (AYP), and the large number of inadequate school facilities.
Proposed Indian Education Initiative. The Administration proposed a
nearly $15-million initiative in FY2008 to enhance education at BIE-funded schools.
BIE’s forward-funded elementary and secondary budget activity would receive $9.6
million of the new program funds; these funds would be used to improve
instructional resources (especially through teacher development and principal
training) at BIE schools being restructured to meet AYP goals ($5.3 million), and to
increase operation and maintenance funds for student transportation ($4.3 million).
The remaining $5.3 million of the initiative would go to BIE’s education
management budget activity, to add education and administrative specialists at
education line offices ($4.0 million) and maintain BIE’s new student and school
information system ($1.2 million). Both the full House and the Senate

²² 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). BIE appropriations remain within BIA
appropriations.

Appropriations Committee approved these initiatives, but the House approved an
additional $7.0 million for meeting AYP goals and an additional $1.0 million for
student transportation. The amount of appropriations enacted for FY2008 for the
education initiative is being determined through the OMB report under §437 of the
Interior portion of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Program. The JOM program provides
supplementary education assistance grants for tribes and public schools to benefit
Indian students, and is funded in two budget activities, Tribal Government and BIE.
In FY2007, JOM was funded at $7.7 million in the Tribal Government activity and
$12.0 million in the BIE activity. The Administration proposed no funding for this
program in FY2008, asserting that Department of Education programs under Titles
I (education of the disadvantaged) and VII (Indian education) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act²³ provide funds for the same purposes, and that the funds
should be used for BIE-funded schools. Opponents disagree that the Education
Department programs can replace what they see as JOM’s culturally relevant
programs. The House Appropriations Committee rejected the Administration’s
proposal to end JOM funding in FY2008, stating that the Administration’s argument
has not been substantiated (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 70). For FY2008, the House
approved $5.3 million under Tribal Government and $16.5 million under BIE for
JOM. The Senate committee recommended $7.7 million under Tribal Government
and $8.0 million under BIE. The amount enacted for JOM by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, under the Tribal Government budget activity, is being
determined through the OMB report under §437. The act’s explanatory statement
specified $14.0 million for JOM under BIE, before an across-the-board rescission of

1.56% for discretionary programs.

Tribal Technical Colleges. There are two tribal technical (or vocational)
colleges, one in North Dakota (United Tribes Technical College) 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,²⁴ but the two are the only colleges receiving grants
under the Education Department’s Carl Perkins Act program for tribally controlled
vocational colleges.²⁵ The BIE has for several years sought to end its funding for the
two technical colleges, asserting that they receive adequate funding from the Perkins
Act and other Education Department higher education programs and that the funds
are needed more at the 26 tribal colleges and universities. Congress has not agreed
to the Administration’s recommendation. The tribal technical colleges received a
total of $5.3 million in FY2007, split between the BIA’s Community Development
budget activity and the BIE’s Post Secondary Programs budget subactivity. The
Administration proposed no funding for tribal technical colleges in FY2008, but
neither the full House nor the Senate committee agreed. The House approved, and

²³ These sections are contained in 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. and 20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
respectively.
²⁴ 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)).
²⁵ The provision for tribally controlled vocational institutions is at 20 U.S.C. 2327.

the Senate committee recommended, $6.0 million for tribal technical colleges, all in
the BIE Post Secondary Programs budget subactivity. The explanatory statement on
the FY2008 Act agreed, specifying $6.0 million for the two tribal technical colleges
(without the rescission).
Education Construction. Many BIE school facilities are old and
dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. BIA education construction covers
both construction of new school facilities to replace facilities that cannot be repaired,
and improvement and repair of existing facilities. Schools are replaced or repaired
according to priority lists. Table 12 shows education construction funds. For
FY2008, the Administration had proposed reducing the appropriation for education
construction by $65.1 million (32%). Included was a reduction of $69.1 million
(82%) for construction of replacement schools, leaving $14.8 million for two new
replacement schools. The Administration asserted that construction and repairs since

2001 have reduced the proportion of BIE facilities in bad condition from about 66%

to 31%, and that the BIA needed to focus on completing replacement schools funded
in prior years. Opponents of a reduction contend that a large proportion of BIA
schools still need replacement or major repairs and thus funding should not be cut.
The FY2008 appropriations law supported a significant reduction for education
construction. It contained the House-passed level of $145.2 million, reduced to
$142.9 million after the rescission. This was a reduction of $62.0 million (30%)
from the FY2007 level of $205.0 million. The amounts enacted for replacement
school construction and other education construction activities are being determined
through the OMB report under §437. The act’s explanatory statement also approved
the BIE plan to complete existing school construction and alleviate current
construction shortfalls before beginning new school construction projects. While the
House had approved $145.2 million for education construction, the Senate
Appropriations Committee had recommended $125.0 million. The Senate committee
had recommended no funding for replacement school construction, stating that the
BIA informed them that 15 replacement school construction projects (of 18 total) had
funding shortfalls, totaling $143 million overall, and that the Committee believed it
imprudent to start new projects until the BIA presented a plan to address the
shortfalls (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 39).
Law Enforcement Program. BIA and Justice Department figures show
rising crime rates, methamphetamine use, and juvenile gang activity on some Indian
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. The BIA funds most law enforcement, jails, and
courts in Indian country, whether operated by tribes or the BIA. For FY2008 the
Administration proposed a “Safe Indian Communities Initiative” involving a $17.3
million total increase (8%) in BIA law enforcement funding, to $221.8 million.
Included in the initiative were $5.4 million for additional officers, equipment, and
training; $6.4 million to increase staffing at detention and corrections facilities, a
need identified in a 2004 Interior Inspector General report; and $5.4 million for
specialized drug enforcement training, especially regarding methamphetamine.
Indian tribes and supporters, estimating a 42% shortfall in law enforcement staffing,

suggested the Administration’s initiative was insufficient for adequate policing on
reservations²⁶ and may not have been sufficient to handle the methamphetamine
problem.
For BIA law enforcement, the FY2008 appropriations law included the House-
passed level of $231.8 million, reduced to $228.1 million after the rescission. This
was a $23.7 million increase (12%) over the FY2007 level of $204.5 million. The
amounts enacted for specific activities are being determined through the OMB report
under §437. The Appropriations Committees directed the BIA to use all available
existing authorities to increase law enforcement and criminal prosecutions, and to
allocate the funding increases for tribal law enforcement outside the usual
methodology in order to serve areas with the greatest need, especially remote
reservations.
The House total of $231.8 million included $9.5 million over the
Administration’s request to combat methamphetamine abuse. The Senate
Appropriations Committee had recommended $225.8 million for BIA law
enforcement. The Committee did not include funds specifically for
methamphetamine abuse, but instead increased funding for criminal investigations
and for detention/corrections by $2.0 million each over the requested and House-
approved amounts. The Senate committee also required the BIA to report on the
needs of BIA- and tribally operated detention facilities for staffing, operation and
maintenance, and improvement and repairs (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 38).
For tribal courts, the FY2008 appropriations law provided $14.3 million, which
was a $2.3 million (19%) increase over the FY2007 level of $12.0 million. The
Administration had proposed a small increase (0.4%), to $12.1 million, while Indian
tribes and supporters urged greater funding. The House had approved $17.1 million
for tribal courts, while the Senate committee had recommended $12.1 million.
Housing Improvement Program (HIP). The major federal Indian housing
program is the Indian Housing Block Grant administered by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which funds all types of housing. BIA’s
HIP, an older and much smaller program, focuses on urgently needed repairs,
renovations, or modest new houses, on or near reservations, especially for the
neediest families. BIA has considered HIP a safety net for those not eligible for or
not served by the HUD program. Total HIP funding was $23.1 million in FY2007,
split between the Tribal Government budget activity ($4.3 million) and the Human
Services activity ($18.8 million). The Administration proposed eliminating HIP for
FY2008, contending that its recipients are not statutorily barred from the HUD
program, that it serves a limited number of tribes, and that other BIA programs are
of higher priority. Indian tribes and supporters opposed the elimination of HIP,
asserting that HIP meets a great need for rehabilitation of substandard housing, and
questioning whether the HUD program could fill the need for urgent housing repairs.

²⁶ 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].

The FY2008 appropriations law contained $13.6 million for HIP for FY2008.
The House had declined to end HIP, approving $18.8 million in FY2008 in the
Human Services budget activity only, a slight increase ($6,000, or less than 1%) from
the FY2007 Human Services portion, but a decrease of $4.3 million from total HIP
funding in FY2007. The House Appropriations Committee directed the BIA and
HUD to evaluate HIP’s effectiveness and determine whether HIP and its eligibility
criteria could be integrated into existing HUD programs (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 69).
The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended $9.4 million for HIP.
Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process. Federal recognition brings an
Indian tribe unique benefits, including partial sovereignty, jurisdictional powers, and
eligibility for federal Indian programs. Tribes have been acknowledged in many
ways, but it was not until 1978 that the Interior Department established a regulatory
process for acknowledgment decisions (25 CFR 83).²⁷ First located within the BIA,
the recognition office is now in the office of the Assistant Secretary — Indian
Affairs, as the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA). OFA employs teams of
expert ethnohistorians, genealogists, and anthropologists to consider recognition
petitions. The OFA process has been frequently criticized for taking too long, one²⁸
reason for which is a lack of resources. For FY2007, OFA received $1.9 million
within the Executive Direction budget activity, which funds the Assistant Secretary’s
office. The Administration requested, and the Senate committee recommended, the
same amount for FY2008. The House approved an amendment to designate an
additional $1.0 million for OFA in FY2008, bringing OFA’s total to $2.9 million
within the Assistant Secretary’s office. The House’s goal was to add several teams
of experts to increase the number of decisions on recognition petitions. The FY2008
appropriations law provided $240.4 million for the Executive Direction budget
activity, within which OFA is funded, but the specific amount for OFA is being
determined through the OMB report under §437.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian
Education, see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].
CRS Report RL34205. Federal Indian Education Programs: Background and Issues,
by Roger Walke.
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs²⁹

²⁷ For further information on the BIA acknowledgment process, see CRS Report RS21109,
The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Process for Recognizing Groups as Indian Tribes, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
²⁸ 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).
²⁹ This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under Departmental Offices or
(continued...)

Office of Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides
financial assistance to four insular areas — American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — as well
as three former insular areas — the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of Palau. OIA staff
manage relations between each jurisdiction and the federal government and work to
build the fiscal and governmental capacity of units of local government.
Most of OIA’s budget is not subject to the annual appropriations process.
Specifically, $324.1 million in OIA’s FY2008 budget request represented permanent
and indefinite funding required by statutes that provide various forms of financial
assistance to current and former U.S. territories. In the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, OIA received $83.1 million in annually appropriated funds.
That amount exceeded by $1.6 million (2%) the $81.5 million enacted in FY2007.
The $83.1 million is divided into 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. In FY2008, OIA will receive $77.8
million in AT funding (with the rescission), and $5.3 million in CFA appropriations
(with the rescission).
In both the AT and CFA accounts, approved funding levels remained largely
consistent across the House, Senate committee, and enacted appropriations bills for
FY2008. The FY2008 appropriations law designated $70.1 million in AT funding
(without the rescission) for technical and maintenance assistance, disaster assistance,
brown tree snake control and research, judiciary grants in American Samoa, other
grants to individual territories, and other territorial assistance. Of the remaining AT
funding, $8.5 million (without the rescission) was designated for OIA salaries and
expenses. The law specified conditions for release of AT funding, such as
Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits, and specified grants to the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Pacific Basin Development Council, and the Close Up
Foundation. OIA funding has been the subject of little congressional debate in recent
years.
For additional information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[ http://www.doi.gov/oia/index .html] .
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For FY2008, the
appropriation for PILT was $228.9 million, a drop of $3.6 million (2%) from the
FY2007 level of $232.5 million and 62.5% of the authorized amount. The
Administration had requested $190.0 million for PILT, down $42.5 million (18%)

²⁹ (...continued)
Department-Wide Programs. Total funding for these entities is identified in Table 24 at the
end of this report.

from FY2007. The Administration’s request would have provided approximately

51.9% of the authorized amount. See Table 13.

The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their
jurisdictions which cannot be taxed. Since the beginning of the program in 1976,
payments of more than $3.6 billion have been made. The PILT program has been
controversial, because in recent years the payment formula, which was indexed for
inflation in 1994, has increased authorization levels. However, appropriations have
grown less rapidly, and substantially slower than authorized amounts, ranging from

42% to 68% of authorized levels between FY2000 and FY2007.³⁰ See Table 13.

County governments claim that the program as a whole does not provide funding
comparable to property taxes, and that rural areas in particular need additional PILT
funds to provide the kinds of services that counties with more private land are able
to provide.
Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in
Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-FY2008
($ in millions)
% of
Fiscal YearAuthorizedAmountAppropriatedAmountAuthorized
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 Request366.2190.051.9
2008 House Passed366.2252.769.0
2008 Senate Committee366.2232.563.5
P.L. 110-161366.2228.962.5
^No^tes:^T^h^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰⁸^au^t^h^ori^zed^l^e^v^e^l^,ⁱⁿ^ita^lics,^is^an^estim^{ate. Calcu}^l^atioⁿ^o^f^th^{e lev}^e^{l assu}^m^e^{s (}¹⁾
^al^l^rev^eⁿ^u^e^s^f^r^om^ot^h^e^{r pay}^m^en^t^prog^ram^s^are^f^l^at^ov^er^t^h^e^peri^od;^{(2) t}^h^{e n}^u^m^{ber of}^acres^elⁱ^gⁱ^b^l^e^f^o^r
^PIL^T^pay^m^en^t^sⁱ^s^uⁿ^c^h^aⁿ^g^e^d;^{(3) al}^l^of^t^h^e^couⁿ^tⁱ^e^s^’^popu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{are u}ⁿ^c^h^aⁿ^g^e^d;^an^{d (4) n}^o^s^t^at^es
^c^h^a^nge^t^h^eⁱ^r^“p^a^ss-t^h^r^o^ugh”^l^a^w^s^.^Iⁿ^c^o^nse^q^ue^nc^e^,^oⁿ^l^y^t^h^e^c^h^a^nge^{s i}ⁿ^t^h^e^Co^nsum^e^r^P^rⁱ^c^e^Iⁿ^d^e^x
^w^o^u^l^dⁱⁿ^f^l^u^eⁿ^ce^P^I^L^T^p^a^y^m^en^{ts. Ho}^w^e^v^e^r^,^{it is lik}^ely^th^{at at least so}^m^e^o^f^th^ese^assu^m^p^tioⁿ^s^w^o^u^l^d
ⁿ^eed^to^b^e^m^o^dⁱ^fⁱ^ed^{, if}^oⁿ^ly^m^a^r^gⁱⁿ^ally^{. P}^I^L^T^p^a^y^m^en^{t lev}^e^{ls co}^u^l^d^b^eco^m^e^p^a^r^ticu^l^ar^ly^dⁱ^f^fⁱ^cu^lt^to
^p^r^ed^{ict in}^th^{e f}^u^tu^r^e^{, d}^e^p^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^oⁿ^th^{e en}^actm^eⁿ^t^o^f^legⁱ^sl^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^t^o^a^m^eⁿ^d^th^{e Secu}^r^e^Ru^r^a^{l Sch}^o^o^l^s
^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^.^So^m^e^v^e^r^s^ioⁿ^s^o^f^th^{is leg}ⁱ^slatioⁿ^w^o^u^l^d^o^f^f^e^r^co^uⁿ^{ties th}^{e ch}^oⁱ^{ce o}^f^th^{is p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^’^{s p}^a^y^m^en^ts
^or^PIL^T^pay^m^en^t^s^{. (S}^{ee C}^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^33822,^T^h^{e Secur}^e^Rur^a^l^School^s^and^Com^m^uni^t^y^Sel^f^-
^D^e^t^e^r^mⁱ^natⁱ^{on Act}^of^{2000: For}^e^s^t^Ser^vⁱ^{ce Paym}^ent^s^t^o^C^ountⁱ^e^s^{, by}^R^o^s^s^{W. Gorte.)}

³⁰ When appropriations are not sufficient to cover the authorization, each county receives
a pro rata share of the authorized amount.

For further information on the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, see the DOI
website at [http://www.doi.gov/pilt/].
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified,
by M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RL33822. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties, by Ross. W.
Gorte.
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians (OST), in the Secretary of the Interior’s office, was
authorized by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act
of 1994 (25 U.S.C. §§4001, et seq.). The OST generally oversees the reform of
Interior Department management of Indian trust assets, establishment of an adequate
trust fund management system, and support of department claims settlement
activities related to the trust funds. OST also manages Indian funds directly. Indian
trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in 1996 the Secretary transferred
trust fund management to the OST.
Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal
funds owned by about 300 tribes in approximately 1,450 accounts, with a total asset
value of about $2.9 billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual
Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 323,000 accounts with a current total asset³¹
value of about $400 million. The funds include monies received from claims
awards, land or water rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from
income from land-based trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as from
investment income.
OST’s FY2007 appropriation was $223.3 million. For FY2008, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $189.3 million for the OST, a decrease
of $33.9 million (15%) from FY2007. The Administration had proposed $196.2
million for FY2008, the House had approved $192.5 million, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee had recommended $195.9 million. See Table 14. Key
issues for the OST are an historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and
litigation involving tribal and IIM accounts.
Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Office of Special Trustee forFY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008
American IndiansApprop.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Federal Trust Programs189,251186,158182,542185,947179,487
— Historical Accounting
Office 56,384 60,000 56,384 60,000 55,504

³¹ Figures are derived from the OST FY2008 Budget Justification.

Office of Special Trustee forFY2007FY2008FY2008HouseFY2008SenateFY2008
American IndiansApprop.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Indian Land Consolidation34,00610,00010,00010,0009,844
Total Appropriations223,257196,158192,542195,947189,331
Historical Accounting. For FY2008, the Administration and the Senate
Appropriations Committee supported $60.0 million for historical accounting
activities, an increase of 5% over FY2007. The House had approved $56.4 million,
the same as FY2007 and $3.6 million (6%) below the Administration’s proposal.
The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act limited historical accounting to no
more than $56.4 million; the rescission reduced this amount to $55.5 million, $0.9
million (2%) less than FY2007. The historical accounting effort seeks to assign
correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especially because of litigation.
Because of the long historical period to be covered (some accounts date from the 19^th
century), the large number of IIM accounts, and the large number of missing account
documents, an historical accounting based on actual account transactions is expected
to be large and time-consuming. In 2003, DOI proposed an extensive, five-year,
$335 million project to reconcile IIM accounts. The plan has been revised to reflect
ongoing experience and to add additional accounts. The project seeks to reconcile
all transactions for certain types of accounts and all land-based transactions of $5,000
and over, but uses a statistical sampling approach to reconcile land-based transactions
of less than $5,000. OST continues to follow this plan, subject to court rulings (see
“Litigation,” below) or congressional actions, and now estimates its completion in
FY2011.
Plaintiffs in the Cobell litigation (discussed below) consider the statistical
sampling technique invalid. Tribal trust fund and accounting suits have been filed
for over 300 tribes. Most of the tribal suits were filed at the end of 2006, because the
statute of limitations on such claims expired then. OST has been allocating about
$40 million of its historical accounting expenditures to IIM accounts and the
remainder to tribal accounts. In the past, the House Appropriations Committee has
expressed its intent to limit expenditures for historical accounting, asserting it
reduces spending on other Indian programs.
Litigation. An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Kempthorne)
was filed in 1996, in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the
federal government by IIM account holders.³² Many OST activities are related to the
Cobell case, including litigation support activities. The most significant issue for
appropriations concerns the method for the historical accounting to estimate IIM
accounts’ proper balances. The DOI estimated its method would cost $335 million
over five years and produce a total owed to IIM accounts in the low millions. The
plaintiffs’ method, based on estimated rates of errors applied to an agreed-upon

³² Cobell v. Norton (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). Updated information is available on the
websites of the plaintiffs at [http://www.indiantrust.com], the DOI at [http://www.doi.gov/
indiantrust/], and the Justice Department at [http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/index.
htm].

figure for IIM throughput, was estimated to produce a total owed to IIM accounts of
as much as $177 billion, depending on the error rate used.
After a lengthy trial, the court, on September 25, 2003, rejected both the
plaintiffs’ and DOI’s historical accounting plans and ordered DOI to account for all
trust fund and asset transactions since 1887, without using statistical sampling. DOI
estimated that the court’s choice for historical accounting would cost $6 billion-$12
billion, and appealed the order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia temporarily stayed the September 25 order and, on December 10, 2004,
overturned much of the order. On February 23, 2005, however, the district court
issued an order on historical accounting very similar to its September 2003 order,
requiring that an accounting cover all trust fund and asset transactions since 1887 and
not use statistical sampling. The DOI, which estimated that compliance with the new
order would cost $12-$13 billion,³³ appealed the new order. The Appeals Court on
November 15, 2005, vacated the district court’s February 2005 order. The district
court has not issued another order, and the OST continues its historical accounting
under its September 2003 plan. In 2006 the D.C. Circuit assigned a new judge to the
Cobell case. In October 2007 the judge held hearings on DOI’s historical accounting
obligations, methodology, and results.
Congress has long been concerned that the current and potential costs of the
Cobell lawsuit may jeopardize DOI trust reform implementation, reduce spending on
other Indian programs, and be difficult to fund. Besides the ongoing expenses of the
litigation, possible costs include $12-$13 billion for the court-ordered historical
accounting, a Cobell settlement that might cost as much as (1) the court-ordered
historical accounting, (2) the more than $100 billion that Cobell plaintiffs estimate
their IIM accounts are owed, or (3) the $27.5 billion that the Cobell plaintiffs have
proposed as a settlement amount.³⁴ The addition of tribal trust fund and accounting
suits may greatly enlarge the potential costs of a settlement, since tribes’ funds are
far larger in size than individuals’ funds.
Among the funding sources for these large costs discussed in a 2005 House
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing were discretionary appropriations and
the Treasury Department’s “Judgment Fund,”³⁵ but some senior appropriators
consider the Fund insufficient even for a $6-$13 billion dollar settlement.³⁶ Among
other options, Congress may enact another delay to the court-ordered accounting,
direct a settlement, or delineate the department’s historical accounting obligations

³³ Testimony from the Interior Department estimated the cost at $12-$13 billion. See James
Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Statement before the House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, March 17, 2005. Previous Interior estimates of the cost were $6 billion-$12
billion.
³⁴ Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement Workgroup, “Principles for Legislation,” June 20,

2005, p. 2, at [http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20050620SettlementPrinciples.pdf].

³⁵ 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.)
³⁶ 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.

(which could limit, or increase, the size of the historical accounting). Settlement bills
in the 109^th Congress would have established in the Treasury Department’s general
fund an IIM claim settlement fund with appropriations from the Judgment Fund, but
did not specify the dollar size of the fund. The Administration, on March 1, 2007,
proposed a comprehensive settlement and a settlement amount of $7 billion, but the
proposed settlement would not only cover both IIM and tribal accounting claims but
would also settle all trust land mismanagement claims.³⁷ At a March 29, 2007,
hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, both a Cobell plaintiff and a
tribal representative opposed the Administration’s proposal, and the Committee chair
expressed numerous doubts.³⁸ No trust fund settlement legislation has been
introduced thus far in the 110^th Congress. The House Appropriations Committee
urged the parties to the litigation, and Congress, to settle trust litigation in its entirety
(H.Rept. 110-187, p. 80).
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its website at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
CRS Report RS22343. Indian Trust Fund Litigation: Legislation to Resolve
Accounting Claims in Cobell v. Norton, by M. Maureen Murphy.
CRS Report RS21738. The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v.
Norton, by M. Maureen Murphy.
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)
of 1988 (25 U.S.C. §§2701, et seq.) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of tribal bingo
and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming (e.g., casinos and
racing).³⁹ 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. Neither the Administration, the House, nor the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a direct appropriation for the NIGC
for FY2008.
The NIGC in recent years had expressed a need for additional funding because
it was experiencing increased demand for its oversight resources, especially audits
and field investigations. IGRA formerly capped NIGC fees at $8 million per year,
but Congress used appropriations act language to increase the NIGC’s fee ceiling to

³⁷ See letter to Sen. Byron Dorgan, Chairman, Senate Indian Affairs committee, from the
Secretary of the Interior and Attorney General, available at [http://www.indianz.com/docs/
cobell/bush030107.pdf].
³⁸ “Bush Administration Won’t Admit Liability on Indian Trust,” Indianz.com (March 30,

2007), available at [http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/002150.asp].

³⁹ Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but
overlapping regulatory responsibilities for each class.

$12 million for FY2004-FY2007. In the Native American Technical Corrections Act
of 2006 (P.L. 109-221), Congress amended IGRA to create a formula-based fee
ceiling — 0.08% of the gross gaming revenues of all gaming operations subject to
regulation under IGRA. This new fee ceiling applied to FY2007 and subsequent
fiscal years, superseding the previous dollar limitation for FY2007. The NIGC sets
an annual fee rate, which can be less than the ceiling rate.
For FY2007, based on the FY2007 fee rate of .059%, NIGC anticipated fee
revenues of $16 million, about a one-third increase from its FY2006 fee revenues of
$12 million. NIGC anticipates FY2008 fee revenues of about $18 million.
For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its
website at [http://www.nigc.gov].
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
EPA was established in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control
responsibilities that had been divided among several federal agencies. EPA’s
responsibilities grew significantly as Congress enacted an increasing number of
environmental laws as well as major amendments to these statutes. Among the
agency’s primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality, water quality,
pesticides, and toxic substances; the management and disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants
to assist state and local governments in controlling pollution.
EPA’s funding over time generally has reflected an increase in overall⁴⁰
appropriations to fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities. Without
adjusting for inflation, the agency’s appropriation has risen from about $1.0 billion
when the agency was established in FY1970 to a high of $8.4 billion in FY2004.
Title II of Division F of the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided a
total of $7.46 billion for EPA. Although the enacted funding level is an increase
above the President’s request of $7.20 billion, it is less than the $8.09 billion that the
House had proposed, the $7.77 billion that the Senate Appropriations Committee had
recommended, and the $7.73 billion that Congress had enacted for FY2007.
Congress allocated the FY2008 appropriation of $7.46 billion for EPA among
eight statutory accounts that fund the agency, and specified statutory funding levels
within these accounts for a relatively small number of selected programs and
activities. As in past years, Congress specified funding for most of EPA’s programs
and activities within the explanatory statement accompanying the FY2008 law,⁴¹

⁴⁰ EPA’s funding was moved to the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations. In the beginning of the first^th
session of the 109 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.
⁴¹ See Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, H16131 — H16136. The amounts in the
(continued...)

rather than in the statute itself. Among individual agency programs and activities,
there were varying decreases and increases in funding when comparing the FY2008
enacted appropriation to the amounts that the House, Senate Appropriations
Committee, and President had supported for FY2008, and Congress had enacted for
FY2007. For some activities, funding enacted for FY2008 remained relatively flat,
compared to the originally proposed amounts and the prior year appropriation.
Table 15 lists the eight statutory accounts that currently fund EPA.⁴² The table
specifies the amounts within each of these accounts that Congress enacted for
FY2008, and compares these amounts to the initial recommendations of the House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee, the President’s request, and the amounts
that Congress enacted for FY2007. The House had proposed to establish a ninth
account in FY2008 to fund a new Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation, which is reflected in the following table. The FY2008 law did not
include a new account for the House’s proposed commission, nor did the law appear
to provide funding in any of the agency’s other accounts for this purpose. However,
the law did provide funding for many other activities related to climate change.
Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency, FY2007-FY2008
($ in millions)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Environmental Protection AgencyFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
Science and Technology
— Base Appropriations733.4754.5783.3772.5760.1
— Transfer in from Superfund 30.2 26.126.126.125.7
Science and Technology Total763.6780.6809.4798.6785.8
Commission on Climate Change^a
Adaptation and Mitigation0.00.050.00.00.0
Environmental Programs and
Management 2,358.4 2,298.2 2,370.6 2,384.1 2,328.0
Office of Inspector General
— Base Appropriations37.238.043.540.041.1
— Transfer in from Superfund 13.3 7.110.013.311.5
Office of Inspector General Total50.545.153.553.352.6
Buildings & Facilities39.634.834.834.834.3
Hazardous Substance Superfund Total
(before transfers)1,255.11,244.71,272.01,274.61,254.0
— Transfer out to Office of Inspector
General (13.3) (7.1) (10.0) (13.3) (11.5)

⁴¹ (...continued)
narrative of the explanatory statement do not reflect the 1.56% across-the-board rescission
for discretionary accounts. However, the tables in the statement reflect the rescinded
amounts. See H16168 — H16171.
⁴² Congress established these accounts in FY1996 as a result of a restructuring of the
agency’s budget to more closely align the accounts with the purposes of the activities funded
within them.

F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Environmental Protection AgencyFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
— Transfer out to Science and Technology(30.2)(26.1)(26.1)(26.1)(25.7)
Hazardous Substance Superfund Net
(after transfers)1,211.61,211.51,235.91,235.21,216.8
Leaking Underground Storage Tank^b
(LUST) Program72.072.5118.072.5105.8
Oil Spill Response15.717.317.317.517.1
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
— Clean Water SRF1,083.8687.61,125.0887.0689.1
— Drinking Water SRF837.5842.2842.2842.2829.0
— Categorical Grants^b1,113.11,065.01,113.81,118.41,078.3
— Other Grants179.3149.7325.5334.3329.8
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total 3,213.72,744.53,406.53,181.92,926.2
Rescission (various EPA accounts)n/a^c(5.0)^c(5.0)^c(5.0)^c(5.0)
Total EPA Accounts 7,725.17,199.48,090.97,772.97,461.5
^Source:^P^r^{epared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^{) u}^sⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^ationⁱⁿ^th^{e Ex}^plan^atory
^S^t^atem^en^t^accom^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^F^of^th^{e C}^oⁿ^s^{olidated A}^ppropriation^s^A^c^{t f}^o^{r F}^Y^{2008 (P}^.L^{. 110-}
^{161, H}^.^R^.^{2764), as}^pu^blⁱ^s^h^e^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^e^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^{, Decem}^{ber 17, 2007.}
^{a. T}^h^{e Hou}^s^{e recom}^m^eⁿ^d^{ed a n}^e^w^accouⁿ^t^{to es}^tablis^h^{a C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^on^C^lim^{ate C}^h^an^g^e^A^d^aptation
^an^{d Mitig}^ation^.^P^.^L^.^110-^{161 did n}^o^{t f}^uⁿ^d^th^{e Hou}^s^{e propos}^{al, an}^{d n}^e^ith^{er th}^{e Sen}^a^te
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee n}^o^{r t}^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^propos^{ed f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r s}^u^ch^{a com}^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^.
^b^.^Bot^h^t^h^{e en}^act^{ed an}^{d H}^o^u^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d am}^ouⁿ^t^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2008 i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^h^e^LU^ST
^P^r^og^ram^accouⁿ^t^f^o^{r s}^p^ecifⁱ^{c activ}^ities^au^th^{orized in}^th^{e E}ⁿ^e^r^gy^P^o^lⁱ^cy^A^c^{t of}^{2005 (P}^.L^.
^109-^{58). A}^{ll oth}^e^{r am}^ouⁿ^t^s^ref^l^ect^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^th^es^{e activ}^ities^as^C^a^teg^o^{rical Gran}^ts^w^ithⁱⁿ^th^e
^ST^A^G^accouⁿ^t^{. C}^oⁿ^s^equ^eⁿ^tly^{, th}^es^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^v^a^ry^partly^becau^s^e^of^th^{e dif}^f^e^ren^{ce in}^t^h^e
^acco^uⁿ^tin^g^o^f^f^uⁿ^d^{s f}^o^{r th}^{ese En}^erg^y^P^o^licy^A^c^{t activ}^ities.
^{c. P}^.^L^.^110-^{161 in}^clu^d^{ed a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^{$5.0 m}^illionⁱⁿ^uⁿ^oblig^{ated b}^a^l^aⁿ^ces^f^r^om^{prior y}^ears^’
^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatio^ns^w^ithin^“^v^ar^io^{us E}^P^A^acco^unts.^”^A^ltho^{ugh all so}^ur^{ces p}^r^esented^this^r^e^scissioⁿ
^as^an^of^f^s^et^tⁱⁿ^g^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^F^Y^2008,^t^h^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^pres^en^t^e^{d t}^hⁱ^s^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^p^eci^fⁱ^cal^l^y
^w^ithⁱⁿ^th^{e S}^T^A^G^accouⁿ^t^{, as}^s^p^ecifⁱ^{ed in}^EP^A^’^s^F^Y^{2008 bu}^dg^{et j}^u^s^tif^ication^.
Key Funding Issues
Although there were varying levels of interest in the FY2008 debate about the
adequacy of funding for individual programs and activities administered by EPA,
much of the attention focused on funding for water infrastructure projects, the
cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund and Brownfields programs,
scientific research on human health effects upon which pollution control standards
are based, and grants to assist state and local governments in administering air quality
programs. There also was rising interest in the adequacy of funding and staffing of
EPA’s Office of Inspector General to audit and evaluate the agency’s activities.
Funding within EPA and other federal agencies to address climate change has been
another area of increasing interest within Congress. Certain EPA regulatory actions
also received attention within the funding debate. For example, §432 of Division F
of the FY2008 appropriations law prohibited the use of funds to promulgate or

implement EPA’s proposed rule⁴³ that would alter Clean Air Act regulations to
control hazardous air pollutant emissions from major sources. Selected funding
issues that received more prominent attention in the FY2008 appropriations debate
are discussed below.
Water Infrastructure. Appropriations for water infrastructure projects are
allocated within EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account. Most
of these funds are devoted to grants that support State Revolving Funds (SRFs).
These grant funds provide seed monies for states to issue loans to communities for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. The FY2008 law provided
$689.1 million for the Clean Water SRF, slightly more than the President’s request
of $687.6 million, but far less than the $1.08 billion appropriated for FY2007. The
FY2008 enacted appropriation also is much less than the $1.13 billion that the House
had proposed, and the $887.0 million that the Senate Appropriations Committee had
recommended. The FY2008 law provided another $829.0 million for the Drinking
Water SRF. The President had requested $842.2 million, which the House and the
Senate Appropriations Committee initially had approved. The FY2008 enacted
appropriation for the Drinking Water SRF also was below the prior year
appropriation of $837.5 million.
The adequacy of federal funding to assist states in capitalizing their Clean Water
SRFs has been an ongoing issue. The Clean Water Act authorized EPA to award
grants to help states capitalize these loan funds. Although appropriations for these
grants have declined in recent years, Congress still had been providing significantly
more funding than the President requested each year. This trend was due to differing
views on the extent of the role of the federal government in capitalizing these state
loan funds. Departing from this trend, the FY2008 enacted appropriation is closer
to the President’s request than the higher amounts that Congress had been providing.
Over the years, there has been less disagreement between Congress and the
Administration in regard to the adequacy of funding for Drinking Water SRF grants.
However, some Members continue to assert that more federal funds are needed to
help capitalize these loan funds, especially in light of more stringent drinking water
standards with which communities must comply.
Although grants to help states capitalize their SRFs represent the bulk of EPA
funding for water infrastructure, Congress also has supported these needs through
targeted funding for “special project grants” within EPA’s STAG account. These
grants fund a variety of wastewater, drinking water, and storm water infrastructure
projects. They are awarded on a noncompetitive basis to specific communities.
Although communities must repay the loan funds that they borrow from the SRFs,
special project grants do not require repayment. However, each recipient of these
grants must provide 45% of a project’s cost in matching funds, unless EPA approves
a waiver due to financial hardship.
The FY2008 law provided $132.9 million within the STAG account for 280
special project grants for FY2008, and identified the intended recipients in the

⁴³ 72 Federal Register 69, Jan. 3, 2007.

explanatory statement accompanying the law.⁴⁴ As in past years, the Administration
did not request funding for these congressionally designated projects. Total funding
for special project grants has declined in the past few years; Congress provided
$197.1 million for FY2006. However, Congress did not provide any funding for
special project grants in FY2007, as the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5) specifically prohibited the funding of these types
of grants.
Superfund. The FY2008 law provided $1.22 billion for the Hazardous
Substance Superfund account to fund the cleanup of hazardous substances under the
Superfund program. This funding level is the net amount available for the program,
after a combined transfer of $37.2 million to the S&T account and the Office of the
Inspector General account. The President had requested a slightly lower net amount
of $1.21 billion for the Superfund account, nearly the same as enacted for FY2007.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee initially had recommended a
greater net amount of $1.24 billion. Funding for the Superfund account has remained
relatively close to these amounts over the past decade.
The adequacy of funding for the Superfund program to clean up the nation’s
most contaminated and threatening sites has been a long-standing issue. The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) established the Superfund program to fund the cleanup of contamination
when responsible parties cannot be found or cannot pay. Some Members of
Congress and the Bush Administration continue to assert that a steady level of federal
funding is sufficient to maintain a constant pace of cleanup, considering the costs
borne by responsible parties that supplement these funds. Other Members, states,
environmental organizations, and communities counter that more federal funds are
necessary to expedite the pace of cleanup to address human health and environmental
risks more quickly, and that the effect of inflation over time has reduced available
resources.
The availability of funds within the Superfund account for “physical” cleanup
of sites has been a perennial issue, in light of public concerns about health risks from
potential exposure to contamination. Although the primary purpose of the Superfund
program is to clean up contaminated sites, the program does fund many “indirect”
activities that support cleanup, such as enforcement against responsible parties, and
research of more effective cleanup methods with funds transferred to the S&T
account. In recent years, about 2/3 of annual funding has been devoted to physical
cleanup of sites, including both short-term removal actions to address immediate
risks and long-term remedial actions intended to provide a more permanent means
to prevent exposure.
The FY2008 law provided a total of $827.5 million for activities related to the
physical cleanup of sites, an increase above the President’s request of $824.5 million

⁴⁴ See Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, House, H16133 — H16136. The dollar
amounts indicated for each grant do not reflect the 1.56% across-the-board rescission. The
disbursed amount of each grant also will depend on the amount of matching funds from the
recipient.

and the FY2007 appropriation of $816.9 million. Funding for long-term remedial
actions accounted for most of the increase. The FY2008 enacted appropriation is less
than the $839.7 million that the House had proposed, and the $843.2 million that the
Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended, with the difference again being
primarily due to funding for long-term remediation.
In the funding debate, concerns about the sufficiency of cleanup actions to
protect human health and the environment also motivated questions about program
performance. Staffing and funding of EPA’s Office of Inspector General to audit and
evaluate the Superfund program were particularly controversial, as discussed in the
“Office of Inspector General” section below.
Brownfields. In addition to the Superfund program, amendments to CERCLA
in 2002 established a separate program to clean up contaminated “brownfields.” The
FY2008 appropriations law provided a combined total of $165.8 million for EPA’s
Brownfields Program. The House initially had proposed a higher amount of $172.9
million. The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended $162.5 million,
closer to the President’s request of $162.2 million and the FY2007 appropriation of
$163.0 million. Total funding for the Brownfields Program consists of three
amounts. The STAG account funds Brownfields “infrastructure” grants to assist
communities with cleanup at individual sites, and Brownfields “categorical” grants
to assist states with their own Brownfields programs. The Environmental Programs
and Management account funds the administrative expenses of the Brownfields
Program.
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 for brownfields cleanup grants to states and local areas. In
response to these needs, the FY2008 enacted appropriation included an increase for
Brownfields infrastructure grants to assist communities with the cleanup of
individual sites, but not as much as the House initially had approved. The enacted
amounts for Brownfields categorical grants and administrative expenses of the
program are roughly similar to the recommendations of the House, the Senate
Appropriations Committee, the President, and the FY2007 appropriation.
Office of Inspector General (OIG). The Office of Inspector General (OIG)
is an independent office within EPA that conducts and supervises audits, evaluations,
inspections, and investigations of the agency’s programs and operations. The OIG
also performs audits and evaluations specifically requested by Congress. The office
is funded by a “base” appropriation and a transfer of appropriations from the
Superfund account. Historically, Congress has transferred these funds to the OIG
because a significant portion of its funding and staffing has been devoted to oversight
of EPA’s cleanup efforts under the Superfund program. Including the transfer from
Superfund, the FY2008 law provided $52.6 million for the OIG, an increase above
the President’s request of $45.1 million and the FY2007 appropriation of $50.5
million. The House had proposed $53.5 million for FY2008, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee had recommended $53.3 million.

In the funding debate, some Members had expressed concern that the
President’s request would not have been sufficient to support adequate staffing to
audit and evaluate Superfund cleanup activities. The explanatory statement
accompanying the FY2008 law indicated that the increase in enacted funding above
the request and the FY2007 appropriation was intended to ensure consistent staffing
levels within the OIG, and was not to be used for buyouts associated with reductions
in staff. EPA had reported that the President’s proposed decrease in funding for the
OIG would have resulted in a reduction of 30 workyears (full time equivalent
employees or FTEs), and a reassignment of 20 FTEs from the oversight of Superfund
cleanups to oversight of a broader array of agency activities.
Scientific Research. Most of EPA’s scientific research activities are funded
within the Science and Technology (S&T) account, including the agency’s
laboratories and research grants. Similar to the OIG account, the S&T account is
funded by a base appropriation and a transfer from Superfund. These transferred
funds are dedicated to research of more effective methods to clean up contaminated
sites. Including the transfer from the Superfund account, the FY2008 law provided
$785.8 million for the S&T account, an increase above the President’s request of
$780.6 million and the FY2007 appropriation of $763.6 million. The House had
proposed $809.4 million for this account in FY2008, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee had recommended $798.6 million.
Most of the S&T account funds “actual” research activities, but the operational
and administrative expenses of agency research facilities, such as rent, utilities, and
security, are also funded within this account. The increase above FY2007 was
mostly due to a continued shift in funds from the Environmental Programs and
Management account to pay these operational and administrative expenses.
Consequently, funding enacted for FY2008 for many of EPA’s research areas
decreased, or remained relatively flat, relative to FY2007. However, funding for
certain areas rose above the President’s request for FY2008 and the prior year
appropriation, such as Climate Protection and Global Change research areas, but not
to the level that the House or the Senate Appropriations Committee had proposed for
FY2008 in some cases.
The funding debate for FY2008 took place within the context of a larger
discussion about the adequacy of federal funding for many “core” scientific research
activities administered by multiple federal agencies, including EPA. 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.
State and Local Air Quality Management Grants. The FY2008 law
provided $216.8 million for state and local air quality management categorical grants
within EPA’s STAG account, an increase above the President’s request of $185.2
million and the FY2007 appropriation of $199.8 million. Some Members and state
and local air pollution control officials have continued to express that even greater
funds are needed for these grants, as a result of increasing Clean Air Act
responsibilities imposed upon state and local governments to regulate air pollution.

The FY2008 enacted appropriation for these grants was less than the $220.2 million
that the House had proposed and the $220.3 million that the Senate Appropriations
Committee had recommended.
According to EPA, the President’s requested decrease for state and local air
quality management grants was primarily because of the agency’s use of different
authorities in the Clean Air Act to administer these grants. EPA originally proposed
this change in authorities in its FY2007 budget justification. These different grant
authorities require matching funds from recipients, rather than the federal
government bearing the full cost. EPA based this proposed shift in authorities on its
assertion that the monitoring network for particulate matter is beyond the
demonstration phase, and that the network should now be considered an operational
system in the implementation phase. Authorities for demonstration grants do not
require matching funds, but those for implementation do require a match, thereby
reducing the federal role in funding these activities.
In its initial report on the FY2008 Interior appropriations bill, the Senate
Appropriations Committee had “strongly” disagreed with the President’s proposed
shift in grant authorities to require matching funds of recipients (S.Rept. 110-91, p.
69). The FY2008 law and the explanatory statement accompanying the law did not
explicitly address this issue. However, the statement did specify that House or
Senate report language that was not changed by the explanatory statement “should
be treated as approved when administering the appropriations” (Explanatory
Statement, H16122). Presumably, EPA would be subject to the language in the
original Senate report, expressing the intention of the committee not to require
matching funds for these air quality grants.
Proposed Commission on Climate Change. The FY2008 law did not
include a new account, or funding in any other existing account, to establish a new
Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. The House had
proposed $50.0 million for a new account for this purpose. The commission would
have been temporary and would have served for two years. Neither the Senate
Appropriations Committee, nor the President, recommended funding for such a
commission.
Of the $50.0 million that the House had proposed, $5.0 million was to have been
used to establish and operate the commission, analyze scientific questions related to
climate change adaptation and mitigation, and recommend research priorities to
better understand climate change. The remaining $45.0 million was to have been
distributed to various federal agencies to conduct this research, based on the
commission’s recommended priorities. The agencies that would have received this
funding would not have been limited to those funded in the Interior appropriations
bill. The commission would have been made up of individuals inside and outside of
government, and the President of the National Academy of Sciences would have
served as the chairman.
For further information on the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget and
activities, see its websites [http://www.epa.gov] and [http://epa.gov/ocfo/budget/].

Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
For the Forest Service (FS), the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act
contained $4.67 billion, including $222.0 million in emergency appropriations for
wildfire suppression in Title V. An additional $329.0 million in emergency wildfire
funds was provided in an earlier law, P.L. 110-116, for a total FS appropriation of
$5.0 billion for FY2008. This total was higher than enacted for FY2007 and
supported by the President, House, and Senate Appropriations Committee for
FY2008, primarily due to the emergency fire money. In general, Congress rejected
the decreases that the Administration had proposed across a range of line items and
programs, as an offset to recent increases for fire suppression. The Senate
Appropriations Committee expressed that “[f]orcing the Forest Service to absorb
rapid increases in firefighting costs within discretionary funds shortchanges vital fire
preparedness and natural resource programs and undermines the agency’s multiple-
use mission” (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 79).
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. For FY2008, about
half of the total FS appropriation — $2.49 billion of the $5.0 billion — was provided
for wildland fire management. The Senate Appropriations Committee was
“disturbed that the proportion of Forest Service budget that is devoted to fire
activities is growing rapidly while the overall budget declines” (S.Rept. 110-91, p.
79). The committee noted that in 2000 fire programs accounted for 21% of the FS
budget, whereas in the FY2008 budget request they represented 45%.

Figure 1. FS FY2008 Appropriation

⁽^$ⁱⁿ^mi^lli^oⁿ^s⁾
^Capi^t^a^l^FS^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^$286^S^t^at^{e &}^P^r^iv^at^e
^$434^Fo^r^e^s^t^r^y
^$263
^N^a^tⁱ^{onal F}^o^r^e^s^t
^Sy^s^t^e^m
^$1,⁴⁷⁰
^O^t^her
^$10^Wⁱ^ldand^Fⁱ^r^e
^$2,⁴⁹⁴
^La^{nd A}^c^qui^sⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ
^$42
Major FS Issues in Appropriations. Significant FS issues have been raised
during consideration of the annual Interior appropriations bills. In the FS budget
proposals for FY2007 and FY2008, the President proposed selling about 300,000
acres of national forest lands. In the FY2007 request, the proceeds would have paid
for a five-year extension of FS payments under the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393). In the FY2008 request,
the proceeds were proposed to be split, with half for a four-year phase-out of
payments under P.L. 106-393 and the other half for habitat improvement and land
acquisition. Legislation would be needed to authorize the proposed land sale, but
such legislation has not been enacted. The House Appropriations Committee
“strongly encourage[d] the Administration to permanently abandon this notion” of
“selling off national forest system lands to generate funds for rural schools” (H.Rept.
110-187, p. 120). A one-year extension of payments under P.L. 106-393 was
included in P.L. 110-28. On the House floor, an amendment was offered to the
FY2008 Interior appropriations bill to add $425.0 million for another year’s
payments under the program, but the amendment was not in order. Reauthorization
of Secure Rural Schools — without land sales — is still being debated.
The FY2008 law did not include House-passed language that would have
limited funds for timber harvesting in the Tongass (AK) National Forest. 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.
Wildland Fire Management. Fire funding and fire protection programs
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
challenges to decisions hinder fuel reduction and post-fire rehabilitation activities.
(For historical background, descriptions of activities, and analysis of wildfire
expenditures, see CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)
The FS and BLM wildfire line items include funds for fire suppression (fighting
fires), preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention, and
detection), and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel reduction, research, and state and
private assistance). The FY2008 appropriations law contained $3.05 billion for these
line items. Another $0.5 billion in emergency funds for wildfires was included in
P.L. 110-116, for an FY2008 total of $3.55 billion for FS and BLM wildfire funding
combined. As shown in Table 16, this would be the highest level in at least five
years. About 30% of the FY2008 total ($1.06 billion) was provided to the BLM; this
funding is discussed in the “Bureau of Land Management” section in this report.
About 70% of the FY2008 total ($2.49 billion) was provided to the FS.
Of the FS fire funds, the largest portion was for fire suppression — $1,067.6
million. This would fund the ten-year average of fire suppression and provide
additional funds ($222.0 million in Title V) if needed for an extreme fire season
(Explanatory Statement, H16139). 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.
For FS preparedness, the FY2008 law contained $665.8 million, essentially level
with FY2007 but a large increase over the Administration’s request for FY2008.
Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees rejected the
Administration’s cut as “irresponsible.” The House Committee asserted that it would
“impair the ability of the Forest Service and its partners to launch successful initial
attacks, thereby making more destructive and expensive fires not just possible, but
inevitable.” (H.Rept 110-187, p. 137; S.Rept. 110-91 p. 79). Both Committees
expressed dissatisfaction that the FS and DOI have not deployed the Fire Program
Analysis system as an “urgently needed fire preparedness planning tool,” and
provided direction for doing so (Explanatory Statement, p. H16138).
For other fire programs, the FY2008 law provided $432.0 million for the FS.
The Administration had sought to reduce funding for other operations through cuts
for hazardous fuels and state fire assistance and eliminating funds for post-fire site
rehabilitation. The FY2008 law did not reflect these proposals. Most of the FY2008
appropriation for other programs was for hazardous fuels reduction — $310.1
million, or 72%. The Appropriations Committees provided direction regarding these
funds, such as their allocation based on a model that prioritizes fuels treatments in

the wildland-urban interface and gives greater weight to areas with high fuel loads,
population, and values at risk.
P.L. 110-116 provided $329.0 million in emergency fire funds for the FS for
FY2008. The appropriation was for several purposes: $110.0 million for emergency
wildfire suppression; $100.0 million for repayment of accounts from which funds
were borrowed during FY2007 for wildfire suppression; $80.0 million for hazardous
fuels reduction and hazard mitigation activities; $25.0 million for rehabilitation and
restoration of lands; and $14.0 million for reconstruction/construction of facilities.
Table 16. Appropriations for FS and BLM Wildland Fire
Management, FY2004-FY2008
($ in millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁸
^N^a^ti^on^al^Fi^{re Pl}^an^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁸^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Appro^p^.
^P^a^sse^d^C^o^mm.
^Fores^{t Service}
^{— Fi}^r^e^s^uppr^es^sⁱ^on^a^1,296.0¹^,044.4^790.2¹^,111.⁵^911.0^859.0^859.0¹^,067.6
^{— Pr}^epar^ednes^s^671.6^676.5^660.7^665.4^568.8^675.4^676.4^665.8
^{— O}^t^her^oper^a^tⁱ^ons^b^379.0^407.7^395.2^416.7^388.8^440.2^447.1^432.0
^{— Em}^er^{gency Appr}^ops^.^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^329.0
⁽^P^.L^{. 110-116)}
^S^u^bt^ot^al^{, F}^S^2,346.6²^,128.6¹^,846.1²^,193.6¹^,868.6¹^,974.6¹^,982.5²^,494.5
^BL^M
^{— Fi}^r^e^s^uppr^es^sⁱ^on^a^391.3^317.0^330.7^344.2^294.4^294.4^294.4^367.8
^{— Pr}^epar^ednes^s^c^254.2^258.9^268.8^274.9^268.3^274.9^286.0^276.5
^{— O}^t^her^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^238.1^255.3^255.7^234.3^239.1^237.4^249.1^241.8
^{— Em}^er^{gency Appr}^ops^.^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^171.0
⁽^P^.L^{. 110-116)}
^S^u^bt^ot^al^{, BL}^M^883.6^831.3^855.3^853.4^801.8^806.6^829.5¹^,057.1
^F^S^a^{nd B}^L^M
^{— Fi}^r^e^s^uppr^es^sⁱ^on^a^1,687.3¹^,361.4¹^,120.9¹^,455.7¹^,205.4¹^,153.4¹^,153.4¹^,435.4
^{— Pr}^epar^ednes^s^925.8^935.4^929.5^940.3^837.1^950.2^962.4^942.3
^{— O}^t^her^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^617.1^663.0^650.9^651.0^627.9^677.6^696.2^673.8
^{— Em}^er^{gency Appr}^ops^.^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^500.0
⁽^P^.L^{. 110-116)}
^T^o^{tal Funding}^3,230.2²^,^959.8²^,701.3³^,047.0²^,670.⁴²^,781.3²^,812.0³^,551.5
^No^tes:^In^clu^d^es^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^on^ly^f^r^om^B^L^{M an}^{d FS W}^ildlan^d^{Fire Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^accouⁿ^t^s^.
^T^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^{e di}^f^f^e^rs^f^r^om^t^h^{e det}^aⁱ^l^e^d^t^a^b^l^esⁱⁿ^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^L^33990,^Wⁱ^l^d^fⁱ^r^{e Fundi}^ng^,^b^y^Ro^{ss W}^.
^Go^r^t^e,^b^ecause^{that r}^e^p^o^r^{t r}^ear^r^a^{nges d}^a^{ta to}^dⁱ^sti^nguish^f^und^{ing f}^o^r^p^r^o^t^ecting^f^e^d^e^r^a^{l land}^s,^assisting
ⁱⁿⁿ^oⁿ^f^ed^er^{al lan}^d^p^r^o^t^ectioⁿ^,^an^d^fⁱ^r^e^r^e^sear^ch^an^d^o^t^h^e^r^activ^ities.
^{a. In}^cl^u^d^es^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^an^{d con}^tⁱⁿ^g^eⁿ^t^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2004 —}^F^Y^2008.
^{b. Ex}^clu^d^es^fⁱ^{re as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^uⁿ^d^{er th}^{e State &}^P^r^iv^{ate Fores}^t^ry^lin^{e item}^.
^{c. Fire res}^earch^an^{d f}^u^{el redu}^ction^f^uⁿ^d^s^{are in}^clu^d^{ed u}ⁿ^d^{er Oth}^e^{r Operation}^s^.

State and Private Forestry. State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs
provide financial and technical assistance to states and to private forest owners. For
FY2008, the law contained $262.7 million for S&PF, a decrease of $17.3 million
(6%) from FY2007 but an increase of $60.2 million (30%) over the Administration’s
FY2008 request. See Table 17. The request had included relatively large cuts for
cooperative lands forest health management, forest stewardship, forest legacy, and
urban and community forestry. The FY2008 law reduced appropriations for all four
programs from FY2007, but not to the degree sought by the Administration.
Forest health management programs provide insect and disease control on
federal and cooperative (nonfederal) lands. The FY2008 appropriation of $44.5
million for cooperative lands was a 5% reduction from FY2007, but an increase of
17% over the Administration’s request. The other three programs are funded under
Cooperative Forestry. For the forest stewardship program, which assists private
landowners, the FY2008 appropriation was $29.5 million — 30% lower than FY2007
but 48% higher than the request. The forest legacy program assists states and private
landowners through purchase of title or easements for lands threatened with
conversion to nonforest uses, such as for residences. The FY2008 appropriation of
$52.2 million was 8% lower than FY2007, but 78% higher than the request. Another
$7.5 million in prior year funds was provided for FY2008, making $59.7 million in
available funding. The urban and community forestry programs provides financial
and technical assistance to localities. The FY2008 appropriation of $27.7 million
was a reduction of 8% from FY2007 but an increase of 59% over the request.

Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry,
FY2005-FY2008
($ in millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁸
^{State and Private Fores}^try^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁸^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Appro^p^.
^P^a^sse^d^C^o^mm.
^F^o^res^t^H^eal^t^h^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^101.9^100.1^101.1^91.1^101.1^102.2^98.7
^{— Feder}^a^l^L^ands^54.2^53.2^54.0^53.0^54.0^55.0^54.1
^{— C}^ooper^a^tⁱ^{ve L}^ands^47.6^46.9^47.1^38.1^47.1^47.2^44.5
^C^ooperatⁱ^v^{e F}ⁱ^{re A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^38.8^38.8^38.8^42.1^42.1^39.0^38.5
^{— St}^at^{e As}^sⁱ^s^t^ance^32.9^32.9^32.9^33.1^33.1^33.1^32.6
^{— Volunteer}^As^s^t^.⁵^.9^5.9⁵^.9^9.0⁹^.0^5.9⁵^.9
^C^ooperatⁱ^v^{e F}^o^res^t^ry^145.4^133.²^133.2^66.7^129.4^124.3^118.1
^{— For}^e^s^t^St^ew^ar^ds^hi^p^32.3^34.1^41.9^20.0^36.9^34.3^29.5
^—^F^o^re^{st Le}^g^a^c^y^a^57.1^56.5^56.5^29.3^56.3^48.1^52.2
^{— U}^r^{ban &}^C^o^m^m^.^For^e^s^t^r^y^32.0^28.4^30.1^17.4^31.1^30.8^27.7
^{— Econom}ⁱ^c^Actⁱ^{on Pr}^og.^19.0⁹^.5^0.0⁰^.0^0.0⁶^.5^4.2
^{— For}^e^s^t^Res^.^{Info. &}^Anal.⁵^.0^4.6⁴^.6^0.0⁵^.0^4.6⁴^.5
^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Prog^ram^s^6.4⁶^.9^6.9²^.5^8.0⁷^.0^7.4
^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^49.1^30.0⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0
^T^o^{tal State &}^P^r^iv^{ate Fores}^t^ry^341.6^309.0^280.0^202.5^280.6^272.5^262.7
^{a. For FY2008, th}^{e Hou}^s^e^an^d^th^e^Sen^a^te^A^ppropr^iation^s^C^o^m^m^{ittee both}^prov^{ided an}^addition^a^{l $6.5}
^m^illion^{to be av}^{ailable f}^r^om^{prior y}^{ear balan}^ces^{, w}^h^{ile th}^{e FY2008}^law^prov^ided^an^addition^a^l
^$⁷^.⁵^m^illioⁿⁱⁿ^p^r^io^r^y^ear^b^a^lan^ces.
Other Programs. For the National Forest System, the FY2008 law provided
nearly level funding — $1.47 billion. Each of the major activities received level or
increased funding relative to FY2007, except that there was a 15% reduction for land
management planning (to $48.8 million). The largest increase was for law
enforcement — from $115.0 million in FY2007 to $131.9 million in FY2008. The
President had sought a decrease for the National Forest System to $1.34 billion (8%),
with the decrease spread among many programs. The President had sought an
increase only for law enforcement (to $123.8 million).
For Capital Improvement and Maintenance (infrastructure), the FY2008 law
provided slightly reduced appropriations — $434.4 million. However, it contained
an additional $40.0 million, comprised of transfers of $25.0 million from the
purchaser elect road fund and $15.0 million from the road and trails fund. Similar
transfers had been supported by the House. The FY2008 appropriation included
$48.3 million for deferred maintenance, to reduce the agency’s backlog (estimated
at $5.6 billion). This was a large increase over the $9.1 million appropriated for
FY2007 and supported by the Administration and the Senate committee for FY2008.
The deferred maintenance appropriation contained $39.4 million for “legacy road
remediation,” to decommission roads, repair and maintain roads and trails, remove
fish passage barriers, and protect community water resources (Explanatory Statement,
H16138). The House had approved a larger amount for legacy road remediation.
For FY2008, the law also provided level funding for Land Acquisition — $41.8
million. Funds were provided for 25 specific acquisitions in 20 states, with amounts

ranging from less than $0.2 million to approximately $4.5 million. The
Administration had sought to cut the appropriation to $15.7 million.
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its website at
[ h ttp://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome] .
For further information on the U.S. Forest Service, see its website at
[ http://www.fs.fed.us/] .
CRS Report RL33792. Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service: Issues for the 110^th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte,
Carol Hardy Vincent, and Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30647. National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by Pamela
Baldwin and Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL33990. Wildfire Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
Department of Health and Human Services:
Indian Health Service
The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) is responsible for providing comprehensive medical and
environmental health services for approximately 1.9 million American Indians and
Alaska Natives (AI/AN) who belong to 561 federally recognized tribes located in 35
states. Health care is provided through a system of federal, tribal, and urban Indian-
operated programs and facilities. IHS provides direct health care services through
33 hospitals, 52 health centers, 2 school health centers, 38 health stations, and 5
residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribal groups, through IHS contracts and
compacts, operate another 15 hospitals, 220 health centers, 9 school health centers,
116 health stations, 166 Alaska Native village clinics, and 28 residential treatment
centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also operate 11 regional youth substance abuse
treatment centers and 2,252 units of residential quarters for staff working in the
clinics.
The FY2008 appropriations law contained $3.35 billion for the IHS, an increase
of $166.0 million (5%) over FY2007 ($3.18 billion). The Administration had
proposed $3.27 billion for FY2008, the House had approved $3.38 billion, and the
Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended $3.37 billion. IHS also
receives funding through reimbursements and a special Indian diabetes program (see
“Health Services” below). The sum of direct appropriations, reimbursements, and
diabetes is IHS’s “program level” total. See Table 18.
IHS funding is separated into two budget categories: Health Services, and
Facilities. Of total IHS appropriations enacted for FY2008, 89% will be used for
Health Services and 11% for the Facilities program. The most significant issues in
the FY2008 IHS budget concern the urban Indian health program, in Health Services,
and the health care facilities construction program in Facilities.

Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
FY2007-FY2008
($ millions)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Indian Health ServiceFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health Clinics1,442.51,493.51,493.51,503.81,470.2
— Dental Health126.9135.8135.8135.8133.6
— Mental Health61.764.564.567.063.5
— Alcohol and Substance Abuse150.5162.0162.0164.5159.5
— Contract Health Care517.3569.5579.5579.5579.3
—— Catastrophic Health Emergency17.718.018.028.026.6
Fund
— Methamphetamine treatment &N/A015.00.013.8
prevention
— Indian Health Care ImprovementN/A025.00.013.8
Fund
Subtotal, Clinical Services2,298.82,425.32,475.32,450.62,433.8
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health Nursing53.056.856.856.855.9
— Health Education14.515.215.215.215.0
— Community Health Representatives55.755.855.855.854.9
— Immunization (Alaska)1.71.81.81.81.7
Subtotal, Preventive Health Services124.9129.6129.6129.6127.6
Other Services
— Urban Health Projects34.0034.035.134.5
— Indian Health Professions31.731.936.931.936.3
— Tribal Management2.52.52.52.52.5
— Direct Operations63.864.664.664.663.6
— Self-Governance5.85.95.95.95.8
— Contract Support Costs 264.7271.6274.6271.6267.4
Subtotal, Other Services402.5376.6418.6411.7410.2
Subtotal, Indian Health Services2,826.22,931.53,023.52,991.92,971.5
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and Improvement52.751.952.753.752.9
— Sanitation Facilities Construction 94.088.594.095.794.3
— Health Care Facilities Construction24.312.720.333.036.6
— Facilities and Environmental Health161.3164.8172.3170.6169.6
Support
— Equipment21.621.321.622.421.3
Subtotal, Indian Health Facilities353.9339.2360.9375.5374.6
Total Appropriations3,180.13,270.73,384.43,367.43,346.2
Medicare/Medicaid Reimbursements and648.2700.3700.3700.3700.3
Other Collections
Special Diabetes Program for Indians^a150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0
Total Program Level3,978.44,121.04,234.74,217.74,196.5

^No^te:^N/A^{= No}^{t av}^ailab^l^e.
^{a. T}^h^{e Special Diabetes}^P^r^og^ram^f^o^{r In}^dian^s^h^a^s^{a direct appropriatio}ⁿ^of^{$150 m}^illioⁿ^f^o^{r each}^of
^fⁱ^s^cal^y^ears^F^Y²⁰⁰⁴^t^h^ro^{ugh FY}²⁰⁰⁸^(P.L^{. 107-}^{360). F}^uⁿ^d^{ed t}^h^ro^{ugh t}^h^e^G^e^ne^r^a^l^T^r^e^a^s^ur^y^,
^t^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^cos^tⁱ^sⁿ^o^t^{a part}^of^IH^S^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^.
Health Services. IHS Health Services are funded not only through
congressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from private health
insurance and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Estimated total reimbursements are expected
to be $700.3 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 after FY2008.
The IHS Health Services budget has three subcategories: clinical services,
preventive health services, and other services.
Clinical Services. The clinical services budget includes most of IHS Health
Services funding. The FY2008 appropriations law contained $2.43 billion for
clinical services, an increase of $135.0 million (6%) over FY2007 ($2.30 billion) and
of $8.4 million (<1%) over the Administration’s request for FY2008. The House had
approved $2.48 billion, and the Senate committee had recommended $2.45 billion.
Clinical services include primary care at IHS- and tribally run hospitals and
clinics. For hospital and health clinic programs, which make up 60% of the FY2008
clinical services budget, the FY2008 appropriation was $1.47 billion. This was an
increase of $27.8 million (2%) over the FY2007 level of $1.44 billion but a decrease
of $23.3 million (2%) from the Administration’s request. The Administration and
the House had both supported $1.49 billion, while the Senate committee had
recommended $1.50 billion.
Contract health care is a significant clinical service that funds the purchase of
health services from local and community health care providers when IHS cannot
provide medical care and specific services through its own system. It is especially
important in IHS regions that have fewer direct-care facilities or no inpatient
facilities. The FY2008 law appropriated $579.3 million for contract health care,
including $26.6 million for the Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF). This
was a $62.0 million (12%) increase over the FY2007 appropriation ($517.3 million)
and $9.8 million (2%) higher than the level requested by the Administration for
FY2008 ($569.5 million). The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee had
both approved $579.5 million, nearly the level that was appropriated. However, the
Senate committee had recommended increasing CHEF to $28.0 million, an increase
of 58% over the FY2007 level of $17.7 million. Both the Administration and House
had supported relatively level funding for CHEF — $18.0 million. CHEF is used to
pay contract health care costs in critical, high-cost cases (above $25,000), such as
disaster victims or catastrophic illnesses.
For other programs within clinical services, the FY2008 appropriations law
contained $133.6 million for dental programs, $63.5 million for mental health, and
$159.5 million for alcohol and substance abuse. The law provided a separate $13.8
million for methamphetamine treatment and prevention and authorized its

distribution to areas with greatest need. It also provided $13.8 million for the Indian
Health Care Improvement Fund (IHCIF), and the explanatory statement directed that
it be allocated first to 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).
The IHCIF is authorized to be allocated among IHS service units to reduce health
status and resources deficiencies and shortfalls; it is allocated according to a formula
that measures the percentage of health care funding needs met in each operating unit.
The Administration had proposed that dental programs receive $135.8 million,
mental health programs $64.5 million, and alcohol and substance abuse programs
$162.0 million. The House had approved these proposals, but separately added $15.0
million for methamphetamine treatment and prevention and $25.0 million for IHCIF.
The Senate committee had recommended the same amount as the House for dental
health but disagreed with the House on other programs. The Committee had
recommended adding $2.5 million for methamphetamine programs to the
Administration/House amount for alcohol and substance abuse programs (instead of
a separate appropriation), adding $2.5 million for suicide prevention to the
Administration/House amount for mental health programs, and no funding for IHCIF.
Preventive Health Services. For preventive health services, the FY2008
appropriations law contained $127.6 million, a $2.6 million (2%) increase over
FY2007 ($124.9 million). Included 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 program, which supports tribal community members who work
to prevent illness and disease in their communities. The Administration, House, and
Senate Appropriations Committee had supported $129.6 million for preventive health
services, a 4% increase over FY2007.
Other Health Services. The FY2008 appropriations law contained $410.2
million for other health services for FY2008. This was an increase of $7.7 million
(2%) over the FY2007 level of $402.5 million and of $33.6 million (9%) over the
President’s request of $376.6 million. The House had approved $418.6 million for
these services, and the Senate committee had recommended $411.7 million.
The FY2008 law appropriated $267.4 million for contract support costs (CSC),
the largest item in this category. Contract support costs are provided to tribes to help
pay the costs of administering IHS-funded programs under self-determination
contracts or self-governance compacts authorized by the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended). CSC pays for costs that
tribes incur for such items as financial management, accounting, training, and
program start-up. The Administration and the Senate Appropriations Committee had
supported a higher funding level ($271.6 million) as had the House ($274.6 million.)
Besides urban Indian health programs (discussed below), other health services
include Indian health professions scholarships and other support, for which the
FY2008 law appropriated $36.3 million; tribal management grants ($2.5 million);
direct IHS operation of facilities ($63.6 million); and self-governance technical
assistance ($5.8 million).

Urban Indian Health Program. The FY2008 appropriations law contained
$34.5 million for the urban Indian health program, a 2% increase over the FY2007
level of $34.0 million. The Administration had proposed no FY2008 funding for the
program, but the House and Senate Appropriations Committee had disagreed; they
approved $34.0 million and $35.1 million respectively.
The 28-year-old program helps fund preventive and primary health services for
eligible urban Indians through contracts and grants with 34 urban Indian
organizations at 41 urban sites. The specific services vary from site to site, and may
include direct clinical care, alcohol and substance abuse care, referrals, and health
information. The Administration contends that IHS must target funding and services
towards Indians on or near reservations, to serve those who do not have access to
health care other than IHS, and that urban Indians can be served through other federal
and local health programs, such as HHS’s Health Centers program. Opponents assert
that the Administration has not provided evidence that alternative programs can
replace the urban Indian health program and that it has not studied the impact of the
loss of IHS funding on health care for urban Indians who annually receive services
through this program. The House Appropriations Committee made similar assertions
and added that the urban Indian health program “provides vital, culturally sensitive
health care” (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 146).
Facilities. The IHS’s Facilities category includes money for the equipment,
construction, maintenance, and improvement of both health-care and sanitation
facilities, as well as environmental health support programs. The FY2008
appropriations law contained $374.6 million for FY2008, an increase of $20.7
million (6%) over the FY2007 level of $353.9 million and of $35.5 million (10%)
over the Administration’s request of $339.2 million. The House had approved
$360.9 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended
$375.5 million. Included in the facilities total for FY2008 was $52.9 million for
maintenance and improvement, $94.3 million for sanitation facilities construction,
$21.3 million for equipment, $169.6 million for facilities and environmental health
support, and $36.6 million for health care facilities construction (discussed below).
See Table 18.
Health Care Facilities Construction. The $36.6 million in the FY2008
appropriations law for health facilities construction was 51% more than FY2007 and
189% more than the Administration’s proposal. The act’s explanatory statement
specified amounts (without the rescission) for construction of hospitals and clinics
($32.7 million), small ambulatory facilities ($2.5 million), and dental units ($2.0
million). Instead of recommending specific projects (as the House and Senate
committees had done earlier), the explanatory statement expressed the expectation
that the IHS would allocate funding to the highest-priority projects on which
construction had begun but for which additional funding was needed to keep the
project on schedule.
The FY2007 level for health care facilities construction had been a 36%
reduction from the FY2006 level of $37.8 million, which itself had been a 57%
reduction from the FY2005 level of $88.6 million. The Administration had proposed
$12.7 million for construction of new health care facilities in FY2008, a 48%
reduction from the FY2007 level of $24.3 million. The Administration had asserted

that its cut was part of an HHS-wide emphasis on maintenance of existing facilities,
and that it helped fund the increasing costs of health care services and the staffing of
several recently completed facilities. Opponents had contended that the IHS has
reported a $1.5 billion backlog in unmet health-facility needs and that the need was
too great for a reduction in new construction. The House approved $20.3 million for
FY2008, while the Senate committee recommended $33.0 million.
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.
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) and its predecessor
were created pursuant to a 1974 act (P.L. 93-531, as amended) to resolve a lengthy
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originally set aside by
the federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, the lands
were partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe living on land
partitioned to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes, and
bonuses, at federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary.
ONHIR’s chief activities consist of land acquisition, housing acquisition or
construction, infrastructure construction, and post-move support, all for families
being relocated, as well as certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.
The FY2008 appropriations law contained $8.9 million for ONHIR, a 4% increase
over FY2007 ($8.5 million). The Administration, House, and Senate Appropriations
Committee had supported $9.0 million.
Navajo-Hopi relocation began in 1977 and is now nearing completion. ONHIR
has a backlog of relocatees who are approved for replacement homes but have not yet
received them. Most families subject to relocation were Navajo. Originally, an
estimated 3,600 eligible Navajo families resided on land partitioned (or judicially
confirmed) to the Hopi, while only 26 eligible Hopi families lived on Navajo
partitioned land, according to ONHIR data. By the end of FY2005, according to
ONHIR, 98% of the currently eligible Navajo families and 100% of the Hopi families
had completed relocation. In addition, however, ONHIR estimates that about half of
roughly 250 Navajo families (not all of them eligible families) who live on Hopi land
and signed “accommodation agreements” (under P.L. 104-301) that allow them to
stay on Hopi land, under Hopi law, may wish to opt out of these agreements and
relocate using ONHIR benefits.
ONHIR estimated that, as of the end of FY2005, 83 eligible Navajo families
were awaiting relocation. Eight of these 83 families still resided on Hopi partitioned
land; one of these families was seeking a relocation home and the other seven refused
to relocate or sign an accommodation agreement. ONHIR and the U.S. Department
of Justice were negotiating with the Hopi Tribe to allow the seven families to stay on
Hopi land, as autonomous families, in return for ONHIR’s relocating off Hopi land

those families who had signed accommodation agreements but later decided to opt
out and accept relocation.
In its FY2007 budget justification ONHIR had estimated that relocation moves
for currently eligible families would be completed by the end of FY2006. However,
the addition of Navajo families who opt out of accommodation agreements and of
Navajo families who filed late applications or appeals (but whom ONHIR proposes
to accommodate to avoid litigation),⁴⁵ would mean that all relocation moves would
not be completed until the end of FY2008, according to ONHIR. This schedule for
completion of relocations would depend on infrastructure needs and relocatees’
decisions. In addition, required post-move assistance to relocatees would necessitate
another two years of expenditures after the last relocation move (whether in FY2006
or FY2008).
Congress has been concerned, at times, about the speed of the relocation process
and about avoiding forced relocations or evictions. In the 109^th Congress, legislation
passed the Senate, but not the House, to sunset ONHIR in 2008 and transfer any
remaining duties to the Secretary of the Interior. Further, a long-standing proviso in
ONHIR appropriations language, retained for FY2008, prohibits ONHIR from
evicting any Navajo family from Hopi partitioned lands unless a replacement home
were provided. This language appears to prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating
Navajo families, because of ONHIR’s backlog of approved relocatees awaiting
replacement homes. As the backlog is reduced, however, forced eviction may
become an issue, if any remaining Navajo families were to refuse relocation and if
the Hopi Tribe were to exercise a right under P.L. 104-301 to begin legal action
against the United States for failure to give the Hopi Tribe “quiet possession” of all
Hopi partitioned lands. The purpose of the negotiations among ONHIR, the Justice
Department, and the Hopi Tribe, mentioned above, was to avoid this.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum and research complex consisting
of 19 museums and galleries and the National Zoo in addition to 9 research facilities
throughout the United States and around the world. Smithsonian facilities logged
nearly 23 million visitors in 2006. Established by federal legislation in 1846 in
acceptance of a trust donation by the Institution’s namesake benefactor, SI is funded
by both federal appropriations and a private trust, with over $979 million in revenue
for FY2006.⁴⁶ The FY2008 appropriations law provided $682.6 million for SI, an
increase of $47.7 million (8%) over the FY2007 level of $634.9 million and of $4.2
million (<1%) over the Administration’s request of $678.4 million. See Table 19.
Funding was provided for three main line items: Salaries and Expenses, Facilities
Capital, and a new Legacy Fund.

⁴⁵ The number of families is estimated altogether at around 75; they overlap to an
unpredicted extent with the 83 eligible Navajo families
⁴⁶ Smithsonian Institution, Illumination: Annual Report 2006. This and earlier annual
reports are available online at [http://www.si.edu/opa/annualrpts/].

Salaries and Expenses. For FY2008, the Smithsonian was appropriated
$562.4 million to fund Salaries and Expenses for its museums, research centers, and
administration. FY2008 funding represented a $26.1 million (5%) increase over
FY2007 ($536.3 million) but an $8.9 million (2%) decrease from the President’s
requested level ($571.3 million). The growth over FY2007 in staff and expenditures
would primarily be for the National Museum of African American History and
Culture (established by P.L. 108-184), which is under development. Federal
appropriations fund salaries of over 4,200 employees.
During consideration of FY2008 Interior appropriations legislation, concerns
were raised by the Appropriations Committees and other Members over governance⁴⁷
and fiscal management at the Smithsonian. Questions over the salary and other
compensation for Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence M. Small led to his resignation
in March 2007. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary also resigned in 2007, as did the
chief executive officer of Smithsonian Business Ventures amid an investigation of
his expenses. In addition to the changes in senior leadership, the Smithsonian Board
of Regents began an effort to reform governance and oversight at the Institution. In
the explanatory statement accompanying the FY2008 funding act, the Appropriations
Committees expressed “increased confidence” in SI for these efforts, but noted that
the Committees will continue to carefully monitor progress (Explanatory Statement,
H16140).
Facilities Capital. The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with
approximately 8 million square feet of space. Recent external studies⁴⁸ and the SI
estimate that an investment of $2.3 billion over ten years is needed to address
advanced facilities deterioration. Recent appropriations and fundraising fall far short
of this level. The FY2008 law provided $105.4 million for Facilities Capital, with
the bulk of the funds for renovations and the balance for security and health and
safety improvements. This was an increase over FY2007 of $6.8 million (7%) but
a decrease of $1.7 million (2%) from the Administration’s request. No funds for
construction were appropriated for FY2008.
Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian
Institution receives income from trust funds which support salaries for some
employees, donor-designated capital projects and exhibits, and operations. At the
end of FY2006, the SI trust funds endowment was valued at over $2.2 billion. Non-
appropriated revenues fund over a third of SI operations and include income from the
trusts, contributions from private sources, competitive government grants and
contracts from other agencies, and the profits from the Smithsonian Business
Ventures division. For FY2008, the SI estimates $284.1 million will be available for
Institution operations from these sources.

⁴⁷ Secretary Small was to receive $915,698 in 2007 (compared to the President’s salary of
$400,000). Some Members and others have questioned whether Congress should begin to
limit the salaries and expenses of certain Smithsonian officials who are often compensated
well over comparable federal levels because they are paid from private trust funds.
⁴⁸ For further information, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Smithsonian
Institution: Facilities Management is Progressing, but Funding Remains a Challenge,
GAO-05-369 (April 2005).

Legacy Fund. The FY2008 law included a new account — not provided for
by either the House or Senate Appropriations Committee bills — called the Legacy
Fund. The Fund’s purpose is to address the backlog of facilities capital repairs. For
FY2008, up to $14.8 million in federal funding was provided for the initiative, with
a requirement that private dollars match each federal dollar two to one.
Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Smithsonian InstitutionFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
Salaries and Expenses536,295571,347536,295571,705562,434
— Museums & Research Institutes215,195231,541231,541231,541227,929
— Program Support and Outreach37,56738,20538,20538,20537,609
— Administration64,11066,74066,74066,99165,699
— Inspector General1,8341,9771,97720841,946
— Facilities Services217,589232,884232,884232,884229,251
— General Reduction^a — — -35,052 — —
Facilities Capital98,600107,100116,100125,000105,429
— Revitalization82,70091,400100,400109,00089,974
— Construction5,4000000
— Facilities Planning and Design10,50015,70015,70016,00015,455
Legacy Fund — — — 15,00014,766
Total Appropriations634,895678,447652,395696,705682,629
^{a. T}^h^{e allo}^catioⁿ^o^f^th^{e r}^eco^m^m^eⁿ^d^ed^“^g^en^er^{al r}^e^d^u^ctioⁿ^”^w^ithⁱⁿ^activ^{ities co}^v^e^r^e^d^b^y^Salarⁱ^{es an}^d
^Ex^pen^s^es^w^a^sⁿ^o^{t s}^p^ecifⁱ^ed.

For further information on the Smithsonian Institution, see its website at
[ http://www.si.edu/] .
National Endowment for the Arts and
National Endowment for the Humanities
One of the primary vehicles for federal support for the arts and the humanities is
the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, composed of the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH),
the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and⁴⁹
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. The FY2008 law provided a total of
$289.4 million to the arts and humanities — an increase of $23.7 million (9%) over
FY2007. The Administration had requested $269.8 million, and the FY2008
appropriation was an increase of $19.6 million (7%) over that amount.

⁴⁹ IMLS receives funding through the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts.

NEA. The NEA is a major federal source of support for all arts disciplines. Since
1965 it has provided over 120,000 grants that have been distributed to all states. For
FY2008, the NEA was funded at $144.7 million, an increase of $20.1 million (16%)
over FY2007, as shown in Table 20. The House bill had included a substantial
increase for the agency (28%); the House had considered, but did not agree to, several
floor amendments to cut or eliminate funding for the arts. Floor amendments to
increase or decrease arts funding similarly have been raised for many years. The
Senate committee recommendation for FY2008 would have provided a smaller
increase over FY2007 of 7%. Within NEA grants, the final law included $9.3 million
to fund Challenge America — a program of matching grants for arts education,
outreach, and community arts activities for rural and under-served areas. The FY2008
law also provided $13.3 million in grants for American Masterpieces — touring
programs, local presentations, and arts education in the fields of dance, visual arts, and
music.
Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities,
FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Arts and HumanitiesFY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
National Endowment for the Arts
Grants 100,319 102,942 133,500 107,942 119,604
Program Support1,6721,6362,0001,6361,673
Admi nistration 22,571 23,834 24,500 23,834 23,429
Subtotal, NEA124,562128,412160,000133,412144,706
National Endowment for the Humanities
Grants 102,247 101,807 119,900 106,807 105,731
Matching Grants15,22114,51014,50014,51014,284
Admi nistration 23,637 25,038 25,600 25,038 24,692
Subtotal, NEH141,105141,355160,000146,355144,707
Total NEA & NEH265,667269,767320,000279,767289,413
NEH. The NEH generally supports grants for humanities education, research,
preservation and public humanities programs; the creation of regional humanities
centers; and development of humanities programs under the jurisdiction of the 56 state
humanities councils. Since 1965, NEH has provided approximately 61,000 grants.
NEH also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match private
donations in support of humanities institutions. For FY2008, NEH requested $141.4
million, essentially level with FY2007. The FY2008 law provided $144.7 million, an
increase of $3.6 million (3%) above FY2007. Both the House and the Senate
committee bills had supported larger increases over FY2007 — 13% and 4%
respectively. The two largest grant programs funded by NEH are federal/state
partnership grants and the We the People Initiative grants, funded at $31.7 million and
$15.0 million in the FY2008 law, respectively. We the People grants include model
curriculum projects for schools to improve course offerings in the humanities. FY2007

program funding was $30.9 million for federal/state partnerships and $15.2 million for
We the People.
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its website
at [http://arts.endow.gov/].
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
website at [http://www.neh.gov/].
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
Cross-Cutting Topics
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
Overview. The LWCF (16 U.S.C. §§460l-4, et seq.) is authorized at $900
million annually through FY2015. However, these funds may not be spent without an
appropriation. The LWCF is used for three purposes. First, the four principal federal
land management agencies — Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service, and Forest Service — draw primarily on the LWCF to acquire
lands. The sections on each of those agencies earlier in this report identify funding
levels and other details for their land acquisition activities. Second, the LWCF funds
acquisition and recreational development by state and local governments through a
grant program administered by the NPS, sometimes referred to as stateside funding.
Third, Administrations have requested, and Congress has appropriated, money from
the LWCF to fund some related activities. This third use is relatively recent, starting
with the FY1998 appropriation. Programs funded have varied from year to year. Most
of the appropriations for federal acquisitions generally are specified for management
units, such as a specific National Wildlife Refuge. The appropriations for the state
grant program and other related activities rarely have been specified for individual
projects or areas.
From FY1965 through FY2007, about $30 billion was credited to the LWCF.
About half that amount — $15 billion — has been appropriated. Throughout history,
annual appropriations from LWCF have fluctuated considerably. Until FY1998,
LWCF funding did not exceed $400 million, except from FY1977-FY1980, when
funding was between $509 million and $805 million. In FY1998, LWCF
appropriations exceeded the authorized level for the first time, spiking to $969 million
from the FY1997 level of $159 million. A record level of funding was provided in
FY2001, when appropriations reached $1.0 billion, partly in response to President
Clinton’s Lands Legacy Initiative and some interest in increased and more certain
funding for LWCF.
FY2008 Funding. For FY2008, the total LWCF appropriation was $255.5
million. This was a $110.4 million (30%) reduction from FY2007 ($365.9 million),
as well as a $123.2 million (33%) reduction from the Administration’s request for
FY2008 ($378.7 million). Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
had supported decreases from the FY2007 level. The Senate committee had
recommended $292.9 million for LWCF, while the House had approved $261.9

million. The FY2008 law included an additional $7.7 million for land appraisals
related to federal land acquisitions, but it did not appear that this amount would be
derived from LWCF. The FY2008 appropriated level included funds for federal land
acquisition, the stateside program, and other purposes as described below.
Land Acquisition. For land acquisition, the FY2008 law contained $129.7
million for land acquisition, a $16.7 million (15%) increase over FY2007 ($113.0
million) and more than double the Administration’s request for FY2008. The House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee had supported higher funding. The House
had approved $155.6 million, with an additional $7.8 million for land appraisals
apparently not derived from LWCF. The Senate Appropriations Committee had
recommended $152.2 million for land acquisition, and $7.8 million for land appraisals
with funds derived from LWCF.
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 $129.7 million for FY2008. The decline may be
attributed in part to increased interest in allocating funding to lands already in federal
ownership, reducing the federal budget deficit, and funding other national priorities,
such as the war on terrorism. Table 21 shows recent funding for LWCF.
Table 21. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, FY2004-FY2008
($ in millions)
FY2008FY2008
Land and WaterFY2004FY2005FY2006FY2007FY2008HouseSenateFY2008
Conservation FundApprop.Approp.Approp.Approp.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Federal Acquisition
— BLM18.411.28.68.61.618.612.28.9
— FWS 38.137.028.028.018.043.043.034.6
— NPS 41.755.117.4^a34.422.549.448.744.4
— FS 66.461.041.941.915.744.548.241.8
Subtotal, Federal164.6164.395.8113.057.9155.6152.2129.7
Acquisition
Appraisal Services^c0.00.07.37.47.80.07.80.0
Grants to States93.891.229.629.60.0^b50.030.024.6
Other Programs229.7203.4213.1215.9313.156.3102.9101.1
Total Appropriations488.1458.9345.9365.9378.7261.9292.9255.5
^Source:^Data^are^f^r^om^th^e^Hou^s^e^an^d^Sen^a^{te A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^ittees^{, th}^{e DOI B}^u^dg^{et Of}^fⁱ^{ce, an}^d
^T^h^{e Int}^e^rⁱ^or^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f^f^o^{r each}^fⁱ^s^{cal y}^ear.
^{a. T}^h^is^fⁱ^g^u^r^{e does}ⁿ^o^{t ref}^l^{ect th}^{e av}^ailability^of^an^addition^a^{l $26.8 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{prior y}^{ear f}^uⁿ^d^s^.
^{b. T}^h^{e P}^r^es^iden^{t propos}^{ed $1.4 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^of^s^t^{ate g}^r^an^tsⁱⁿ^{FY2008, to be}^deriv^e^d
^f^r^o^m^th^{e ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^f^o^r^Natioⁿ^a^{l R}^e^cr^eatioⁿ^an^d^P^r^eser^v^a^tioⁿ^r^a^th^er^th^an^th^{e L}^W^CF.
^A^ccordin^g^l^y^,^th^is^am^ouⁿ^t^isⁿ^o^{t ref}^l^{ected h}^e^re.
^{c. For FY2008, f}^o^{r apprais}^a^{l s}^e^rv^ices^th^{e Hou}^s^e^approv^{ed $7.8 m}^illion^,^an^{d th}^{e law}^co^ntain^e^{d $7.7}
^m^illioⁿ^,^b^u^{t it d}^o^e^{s n}^o^{t ap}^p^ear^th^{at th}^{ese am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s w}^e^r^e^to^b^e^d^e^rⁱ^v^e^d^f^r^o^m^L^W^CF.^A^cco^r^dⁱⁿ^g^l^y^,
^th^ey^{are n}^o^{t ref}^l^{ected h}^e^re.

Grants to States. For FY2008, $24.6 million was appropriated for the
stateside program, comprised of $23.1 million for new stateside grants and $1.5 million
for administrative expenses. That figure was $5.0 million (17%) less than appropriated
for FY2007 ($29.6 million). The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended
funding at about the FY2007 level ($30.0 million), but the House had approved a
substantial increase (to $50.0 million).
The Administration did not request funds for new stateside grants in FY2008, as
in FY2006 and FY2007. The Administration has asserted that state and local
governments have alternative sources of funding for parkland acquisition and
development, and that the current program could not adequately measure performance
or demonstrate results. As for FY2006 and FY2007, for FY2008 the Administration
did request a relatively small amount of funding for administration of the grant
program. Specifically, the Administration supported $1.4 million for program
administration in FY2008, but in a break from the past, the Administration asked that
the funds be derived from the National Recreation and Preservation line item rather
than the LWCF. Seeking to eliminate funds for new stateside grants is not a new
phenomenon. For example, for several years the Clinton Administration proposed
eliminating stateside funding, and Congress concurred. In the last seven years,
stateside funding has fallen 83%, from $143.9 million in FY2002 to $24.6 million in
FY2007.
Through provisions of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-
432), a portion of revenues from certain OCS leasing will be provided in future years
(without further appropriation) to the stateside grant program. No money is expected
to be available under these provisions for FY2008. An estimated $6.4 million in
revenue from such OCS leasing is projected to be collected in FY2008 and disbursed
to the stateside program in FY2009. Preliminary estimates of disbursements through
FY2017 total approximately $21.8 million, according to the DOI Budget Office.
Other Purposes. The FY2008 law provided funding from LWCF for two other
programs, for a total of $101.1 million. Of the total, $48.9 million was provided for
Cooperative Endangered Species Grants and $52.2 million was for the Forest Legacy
Program. The Senate Appropriations Committee also had sought funding for these two
programs from LWCF, for a total of $102.9 million. The House had approved funding
only for Forest Legacy — $56.3 million. By contrast, the President had sought funding
for 11 other programs in the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service. The
largest portion of the President’s FY2008 LWCF request — $313.1 million — was for
these other programs. The FY2008 appropriation for other programs was less than half
that provided in FY2007, when $215.9 million was appropriated for five programs.
Table 21 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
Administration had requested a much larger amount than was appropriated for each
year for other programs, for instance requesting $440.6 million for FY2007.
Table 22 shows the other programs for which Congress appropriated funds for
FY2006 through FY2008. In some cases, Congress provided these programs with non-
LWCF funding, which is not reflected here.

Table 22. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2008
($ in millions)
F Y 2008 F Y 2008 F Y 2008
Other ProgramsFY2006Approp.FY2007Approp.FY2008RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedComm.
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
— Challenge Cost Share0.00.09.40.00.00.0
Fish and Wildlife Service
— Refuge Challenge Cost Share0.00.06.70.00.00.0
— Partners for Fish and Wildlife0.00.048.40.00.00.0
— Coastal Programs0.00.013.30.00.00.0
— Migratory Bird Joint Ventures0.00.011.10.00.00.0
— State and Tribal Wildlife67.567.569.50.00.00.0
Grants
— Landowner Incentive Grants21.723.70.00.00.00.0
— Private Stewardship Grants7.37.30.00.00.00.0
— Cooperative Endangered60.161.180.00.054.848.9
Species Grants
— North American Wetlands0.00.042.60.00.00.0
Conservation Fund Grants
National Park Service
— Challenge Cost Share0.00.02.40.00.00.0
Departmental Management
— Take Pride in America0.00.00.50.00.00.0
Forest Service (USDA)
— Forest Legacy Program56.556.329.356.348.152.2
Total Appropriations213.1215.9313.156.3102.9101.1
^No^tes:^T^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^{e i}^d^en^tⁱ^fⁱ^e^s^“^o^t^h^{er” prog}^ram^s^f^o^{r w}^hⁱ^c^h^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^a^ppropri^a^t^e^{d f}^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r F}^Y²⁰⁰⁶
^t^h^r^o^{ugh FY}²⁰⁰⁸^.^I^t^e^x^c^l^u^d^e^s^f^e^d^e^r^a^l^l^aⁿ^d^a^c^q^uⁱ^s^itioⁿ^an^d^th^{e statesid}^{e p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^.^Fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^v^id^ed
^ou^ts^{ide of}^L^W^C^F^isⁿ^o^{t ref}^l^{ected. In}^f^o^rm^ation^is^fr^o^m^th^{e DOI B}^u^dg^{et Of}^fⁱ^{ce an}^{d Hou}^s^{e an}^{d Sen}^a^te
^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittees.
CRS Report RL33531. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding
History, and Current Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Everglades Restoration
Altered natural flows of water by a series of canals, levees, and pumping stations,
combined with agricultural and urban development, are thought to be the leading
causes of environmental deterioration in South Florida. In 1996, Congress authorized
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to create a comprehensive plan to restore,
protect, and preserve the entire South Florida ecosystem, which includes the
Everglades (P.L. 104-303). A portion of this plan, the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP), was completed in 1999, and provides for federal
involvement in restoring the ecosystem. Congress authorized the Corps to implement

CERP in Title IV of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000,
P.L. 106-541). While restoration activities in the South Florida ecosystem are
conducted under several federal laws, WRDA 2000 is considered the seminal law for
Everglades restoration. (See CRS Report RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.)
Appropriations for restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem have been
provided to various agencies as part of several annual appropriations bills. The
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws have provided funds
to several DOI agencies for restoration projects. Specifically, DOI conducts CERP and
non-CERP activities in southern Florida through the National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. (For more on
Everglades funding, see CRS Report RS22048, Everglades Restoration: The Federal
Role in Funding, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.)
From FY1993 to FY2007, federal appropriations for projects and services related
to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem exceeded $2.8 billion, and state
funding topped $4.8 billion.⁵⁰ 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.⁵¹ For FY2008, the Administration requested $235.0 million for DOI and the
Corps for restoration efforts in the Everglades.
FY2008 Funding. It is generally not possible to identify specific funding
amounts for Everglades restoration activities from enacted appropriations laws and
their explanatory statements. Accordingly, they are not reflected for FY2008 in Table
23. However, funds for the Modified Water Deliveries Project were specified in the
FY2008 law, and are discussed below. Other specific funding amounts for Everglades
restoration under DOI will be available in the FY2009 Administration’s request.
Table 23. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget, FY2007-FY2008
($ in thousands)
Everglades Restoration in DOIFY2007Approp.FY2008Request
National Park Service
— CERP4,6584,731
— Park Operations^a 26,35028,991
— Land Acquisition (use of prior year balances)00
— Everglades Acquisitions Management500500
— Modified Water Delivery13,33014,526
— Everglades Research3,8633,910

⁵⁰ These figures represent an estimate of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
⁵¹ This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.

Everglades Restoration in DOIFY2007Approp.FY2008Request
— South Florida Ecosystem Task Force1,3081,324
— GSA Space554554
Subtotal, NPS 50,56354,536
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP3,2693,269
— Land Acquisition01,044
— Ecological Services2,5162,516
— Refuges and Wildlife4,0864,086
— Migratory Birds101101
— Law Enforcement619619
— Fisheries9595
Subtotal, FWS 10,68611,730
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and Coordination 7,7715,771
Subtotal, USGS 7,7715,771
Bureau of Indian Affairs
— Seminole, Miccosukee Tribe Water Studies and382382
Restoration
Subtotal, BIA382382
Total Appropriations69,40272,419
^Source:^U.S^.^Depart^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e In}^t^e^ri^or,^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar^{2008, T}^h^{e Int}^e^rⁱ^or^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f⁽^W^a^s^hi^ngt^oⁿ^,
^D^C^:^F^e^bru^a^ry^2007).

^{a. T}^h^{is in}^clu^d^{es to}^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^p^a^r^k^o^p^e^r^a^tioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^Ev^er^g^l^ad^{es Natio}ⁿ^a^{l P}^a^r^k^{, Dr}^y^T^o^r^t^u^g^a^{s Natio}ⁿ^a^l
^P^a^r^k^{, B}ⁱ^scayⁿ^e^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^a^r^k^{, an}^d^Bⁱ^g^Cy^p^r^{ess Natio}ⁿ^a^{l P}^r^eser^v^e^.
The FY2008 law provided $14.3 million for Mod Waters under NPS
construction. This project is designed to improve water deliveries to Everglades
National Park, and to the extent possible, restore the natural hydrological conditions
within the Park. The completion of this project is required prior to the construction of
certain projects under CERP. For FY2007, $13.3 million in new funds were
appropriated for Mod Waters. For FY2008, $14.5 million was requested and provided
in the House and the Senate committee bills. The House Appropriations Committee
noted that it intends to monitor the progress of restoring the Everglades and requested
that the DOI submit a progress report on the status of restoration (H.Rept. 110-187, p.
44). The FY2008 law provided funds for Mod Waters under NPS construction only
if matching amounts are appropriated for similar purposes to the Corps. Further, the
FY2008 law prohibited funding for Mod Waters under NPS Construction if any Corps
matching funds for Mod Waters become unavailable, including funds for design
analysis of the Tamiami Trail (a component of Mod Waters). Funds for evaluating
Tamiami Trail were provided to the Corps in the FY2008 law. Also, the law provided
$9.8 million to the Corps for Mod Waters. Because this is less than the level
appropriated to the NPS, it is uncertain if NPS funding will be decreased to match
Corps funding.

A funding issue receiving broad attention is the level of commitment by the
federal government to implement restoration activities in the Everglades. Some
observers measure commitment by the frequency and number of projects authorized
under CERP, and the appropriations they receive. Because no restoration projects have
been authorized since WRDA 2000, these observers are concerned that federal
commitment to CERP implementation is waning. Others assert that the federal
commitment will be measurable by the amount of federal funding for construction,
expected when the first projects break ground in the next few years. Some state and
federal officials contend that federal funding will increase compared to state funding
as CERP projects move beyond design into construction. Still others question whether
the federal government should maintain the current level of funding, or increase its
commitment, because of escalating costs and project delays.
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation. Since FY2004, Interior
appropriations laws have conditioned funding for the Modified Water Deliveries
Project based on meeting state water quality standards. Funds appropriated in the laws
and any prior laws for Mod Waters would be provided unless administrators of four
federal departments/agencies (Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of the Army,
Administrator of the EPA, and the Attorney General) indicate in their joint report that
water entering the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades
National Park do not meet state water quality standards, and the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations respond in writing disapproving the further expenditure
of funds. These provisions were enacted based on concerns regarding a Florida state
law (Chapter 2003-12, enacted on May 20, 2003) that amended the Everglades Forever
Act of 1994 (Florida Statutes §373.4592) by authorizing a new plan to mitigate
phosphorus pollution in the Everglades. Phosphorus is one of the primary water
pollutants in the Everglades and a primary cause for ecosystem degradation. Provisions
conditioning funds on the achievement of water quality standards are included in the
FY2008 appropriations law.
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.

ppropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, FY2004-FY2008
($ in thousands)
^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁸
^B^u^{reau or Agency}^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Appro^p^.^g^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁸^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Appro^p^.
^P^a^sse^d^C^o^mm.
^e^{nt of the I}ⁿ^terior
^L^aⁿ^d^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^1,893,233^1,816,⁹¹⁰^1,757,188^1,872,047^1,822,029^1,853,029^1,888,736^1,808,245ⁿ
^h^an^{d Wi}^l^d^lⁱ^f^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹^,308,405^1,^332,591^1,307,639^1,338,109^1,286,⁷⁶⁹^1,417,120^1,380,857^1,366,226
^l^Park^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,258,581^2,365,683^2,^255,768^2,299,960^2,363,784^2,^513,172^2,461,419^2,390,359
^ol^ogⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^937,985^944,564^961,675^988,050^974,952^1,032,⁷⁶⁴^1,009,933^1,006,482
^s^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^170,²⁹⁷^173,826^158,294^159,515^161,451^66,955^166,351^115,933
^Su^rf^{ace Min}ⁱⁿ^g^R^eclam^ation
^o^rcem^en^t^295,975^296,573^294,228^294,591^168,295^170,211^174,295^170,411
^In^di^an^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s²^,300,814^2,295,⁷⁰²^2,274,270^2,308,304^2,228,890^2,346,940^2,265,698^2,291,279
^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^ces^a^460,859^496,837^527,656^514,873^478,657^486,681^486,302^474,232
^eⁿ^t^-^Wⁱ^d^{e Prog}^ram^s^b^221,815^232,542^248,254^248,286^228,418^268,854^285,851^284,994
ⁱ^tl^{e I}⁹^,847,964^9,955,228^9,784,972^10,023,735^9,713,245^10,155,⁷²⁶^10,119,442^9,908,161
^Eⁿ^vironm^{ental Protection}^d
^8,365,817^8,026,485^7,617,416^7,725,130^7,199,⁴⁰⁰^8,090,915^7,772,928^7,461,494
^Re^la^t^e^{d Ag}^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s
^r^e^{st Ser}^v^ice^e^4,939,899^4,770,598^4,200,762^4,706,349^4,126,873^4,577,514^4,549,543^4,447,921
^eal^t^h^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,921,715^2,985,066^3,045,310^3,180,148^3,270,726^3,384,427^3,367,399^3,346,182
^{l I}ⁿ^stitu^{te o}^f^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^tal
^cⁱ^eⁿ^ces^78,309^79,842^79,108^79,117^78,434^79,117^78,434^77,546
^f^o^{r T}^o^xⁱ^{c Su}^bs^tan^ces^an^d
^e^gⁱ^s^t^ry^73,034^76,041^74,905^75,212^75,004^75,212^75,004^74,039
ⁿ^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^{tal Qu}^ality^an^d
^f^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^{tal Qu}^ality³^,²¹⁹³^,²⁵⁸²^,⁶⁷⁷²^,⁶⁹⁸²^,⁷⁰³²^,⁷⁰³²^,⁷⁰³²^,⁶⁶¹
^e^ty^an^{d Hazard}
^atioⁿ^B^o^ar^d⁸^,6⁴⁸⁹^,⁴²⁴^9,064^9,113^9,049^9,549^9,049^9,263
^N^a^v^a^j^o^an^{d H}^opi^In^di^an
^oⁿ^13,366^4,930^8,474^8,509^9,000^9,000^9,000^8,860
^f^A^m^er^ican^Iⁿ^dⁱ^an^an^d
^{e Cu}^ltu^r^e^an^d^A^r^ts
^en^t⁶^,173^5,916^6,207^6,207^7,297^7,297^7,297^7,183
ⁿⁱ^an^In^s^titu^tion^596,279^615,¹⁵⁸^615,097^634,895^678,447^652,395^696,705^682,629
^l^G^a^l^l^e^ry^of^A^r^t^98,225^102,654^111,141^111,729^116,000^119,867^119,735^117,866
^e^nne^d^y^Ce^nt^e^r^fo^r^t^h^e
ⁱⁿ^g^A^r^t^s^32,159^33,021^30,³⁴⁷^30,389^39,350^43,350^43,350^42,674
^Wi^l^s^on^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^eⁿ^t^er
^l^a^rs^8,498^8,863^9,065^9,100^8,857^10,000^9,718^9,844
^l^En^dow^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r t}^h^{e A}^r^t^s^120,972^121,264^124,406^124,562^128,412^160,000^133,412^144,706
^{l En}^d^o^w^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^r^th^e
^135,310^138,054^140,949^141,105^141,355^160,000^146,355^144,707
^sⁱ^on^of^Fⁱⁿ^e^A^r^t^s^1,405^1,768^1,865^1,873^2,092^2,092^2,192^2,059
^{l Cap}^{ital A}^r^{ts an}^d^Cu^ltu^r^a^l
⁶^,914^6,902^7,143^7,143^—^10,000^7,200^8,367
^y^Co^uncⁱ^l^oⁿ^Hⁱ^st^o^rⁱ^c
^tⁱ^oⁿ³^,951^4,536^4,789^4,828^5,348^5,348^5,348^5,265
^{l Cap}^{ital P}^l^anⁿⁱⁿ^g
^sⁱ^on^7,635^7,888^8,123^8,168^8,265^8,265^8,265^8,136
^l^o^cau^s^t^Mem^o^ri^al^Mu^s^e^u^m^39,505^40,858^42,150^42,349^44,996^44,996^45,496^44,786
^T^r^u^s^t^20,445^19,722^19,706^19,706^18,450^22,400^18,450^22,051

^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁸
^B^u^{reau or Agency}^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Appro^p^.^g^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁸^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Appro^p^.
^P^a^sse^d^C^o^mm.
^u^s^{e Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^oⁿ^th^{e Natl.}
^t^of^R^e^m^e^m^b^ran^c^e^—²⁴⁸²⁴⁷²⁴⁷²⁰⁰²⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹⁹⁷
^.^Eⁱ^se^nho^w^e^r^M^e^m^o^rⁱ^a^l
^—^—^—^—⁵^,⁰⁰⁰^—^—¹^,⁹⁶⁹
ⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^I^9,115,661^9,036,011^8,541,535^9,203,447^8,775,858^9,383,⁷³²^9,334,855^9,208,911
^{: V}^e^ter^a^ns^{’ Health]}^—^—^[1,500,000]^—^—^—^—^—
^{: S}^ecu^{re R}^u^ral^S^c^h^ool^s^—^—^—^425,000^—^—^—^—
^Wildfⁱ^{re Suppressio}ⁿ^l
^{cy A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^300,000
^(P.L^.^m
^—^—^—^—^—^—^—^500,000
^t^a^{l (}ⁱ^{n B}^ill)^c^27,329,442^27,017,724^25,942,155^f^27,377,312^h^25,688,503^27,631,373ⁱ^27,186,125^j^27,391,125^k
^Ho^u^s^{e an}^d^Sen^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittees.
^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^ces^fⁱ^g^u^r^{e cu}^rren^tlyⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Secretary}^,^In^s^u^{lar A}^f^f^a^irs^,^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Solicitor, O}^f^fⁱ^ce^of^In^s^p^{ector Gen}^e^ral,
^{d Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^{Special T}^r^u^s^{tee f}^o^{r A}^m^erican^In^dian^s^.
^eⁿ^t^-^W^ide^P^r^og^ram^s^fⁱ^g^u^r^{e cu}^rren^tlyⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^th^{e P}^a^y^m^en^tsⁱⁿ^Lⁱ^eu^of^T^a^x^e^s^P^r^og^ram^(P^IL^T⁾^,^C^eⁿ^t^ral^Hazardou^s^Mater^{ials Fu}ⁿ^d^,
^t^u^r^a^l^Re^so^ur^c^e^D^a^m^a^ge^A^sse^ssm^eⁿ^t^Fund^,^aⁿ^d^W^o^r^kⁱ^{ng Ca}^pⁱ^t^a^l^Fund^.
^es^g^eⁿ^e^rally^{do n}^o^{t ref}^l^{ect s}^c^orek^eepin^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^.
^e^{d f}^r^om^t^h^{e report}^of^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^H^.^R^.^{5041 (H}^.R^ept^.^108-^674).
ⁱ^g^u^r^{e ex}^clu^d^es^{$40.0 m}^illionⁱⁿ^tran^s^f^{erred f}^uⁿ^d^s^f^r^om^t^h^e^D^e^p^a^r^t^m^e^nt^o^f^Def^eⁿ^s^{e (§8098, P}^.^L^.^108-^{287). T}^h^{e FY}^{2008 t}^o^t^a^l
^clu^d^es^{appropriation}^sⁱⁿ^T^{itle V of}^P^.^L^.^110-^{161, an}^{d appropr}^iation^sⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^110-^{116. W}^ith^th^es^{e addition}^a^{l appropriation}^s^,^th^{e FS to}^tal
^s^{$5.0 billio}ⁿ^f^o^{r FY2008.}
^tal^d^o^e^sⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^e^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^o^r^$¹^.⁵⁰^b^illioⁿⁱⁿ^em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^f^o^r^v^e^ter^aⁿ^’^{s h}^ealth^.^I^t^r^e^f^l^{ects $}¹^.⁸^m^illioⁿ
ⁿ^d^istr^ib^u^t^ed^r^e^d^u^ctioⁿ^s^w^h^ich^ar^{e n}^o^{t r}^e^f^l^ectedⁱⁿ^th^{e in}^divⁱ^du^{al ag}^en^cy^fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^th^{e colu}^mⁿ^.
^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^ar^{e n}^o^{t r}^e^f^l^ectedⁱⁿ^th^{is co}^lu^mⁿ^.
^clu^d^es^{$425.0 m}^illionⁱⁿ^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^{appropriation}^s^f^o^{r Secu}^{re R}^u^{ral Sch}^ools^.
^{tal r}^e^f^l^{ects a $}¹^.⁰^m^illioⁿⁱⁿ^cr^{ease f}^r^o^m^Fo^r^e^{st Ser}^v^{ice r}ⁱ^g^h^t^{s o}^f^w^a^y^.
^{tal r}^e^f^l^{ects a r}^e^d^u^ctioⁿ^f^o^r^Min^e^r^a^{ls Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^Ser^vⁱ^{ce s}^t^{ate roy}^a^lty^cos^t^s^,^an^{d in}^creas^es^f^r^om^Fores^t^Serv^ice^m^a^rin^{a f}^ees^an^{d rig}^h^t^s^-^of^-
^y^.
^l^ects^an^{appropriation}^of^{$26.89 billion}ⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^110-^{161, th}^{e C}^oⁿ^s^{olidated A}^ppropriation^s^A^c^{t f}^o^{r FY2008, an}^d^an^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of
ⁱⁿ^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^110-^116.^{It f}^u^rth^e^{r ref}^l^ects^s^e^v^e^{ral adj}^u^s^t^m^e^nt^s^t^o^t^a^lⁱⁿ^g^{$12.6 m}^illion^th^{at are n}^o^t
^l^{ected in}^th^{e in}^divⁱ^du^{al ag}^en^cy^fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^th^is^colu^mⁿ^.
^{total, $78.0 m}^illion^w^a^s^appropriated^to^th^e^B^u^reau^of^L^aⁿ^d^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d $222.0}^m^illion^w^a^s^{appropriated to th}^{e F}^ores^{t Serv}^ice.
^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^e^{re pro}^vⁱ^d^e^d^f^o^{r em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^w^ildlan^d^fⁱ^{re m}^aⁿ^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^{. Of}^th^is^{total, $171.0 m}^illion^w^a^s^{appropriated to th}^{e B}^u^reau^of^L^aⁿ^d
^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d $329.0 m}^illion^w^a^s^{appropriated to th}^{e Fores}^t^Serv^ice.
^clu^d^es^{appropriation}^sⁱⁿ^T^{itle V of}^P^.^L^.^110-^161,^an^d^{appropriation}^sⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^110-^{116. W}^ith^th^es^e^additi^on^al^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,
^L^{M total w}^a^s^{$2.06 billion}^f^o^{r FY2008.}