Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Updated March 7, 2007
Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator,
David M. Bearden, M. Lynne Corn, Ross W. Gorte,
Marc Humphries, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and David L. Whiteman
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Susan Boren and Roger Walke
Domestic Social Policy Division
Keith Bea
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
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. It summarizes the
status of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, its scope,
major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events
warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS
products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.aspx?P RDS_CLI _ITEM_ID=73].



Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
The FY2007 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
includes funding for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of
Reclamation, and for two agencies within other departments — the Forest Service
within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the
Department of Health and Human Services. It also includes funding for arts and
cultural agencies; the Environmental Protection Agency, which was recently
transferred to the appropriations subcommittees that deal with Interior and Related
Agencies; and numerous other entities and agencies.
On June 29, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5386
(S.Rept. 109-275), providing $26.05 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies for FY2007, $110.8 million (0.4%) above the House-passed level ($25.94
billion). The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported level would have been a
$384.0 million (1%) decrease from the FY2006 enacted level of $26.44 billion, but
a $522.8 million (2%) increase over the President’s request for FY2007 of $25.53
billion. Among the proposed decreases in the Senate Appropriations Committee-
reported bill for FY2007, from the FY2006 level, were the following:
!$-209.5 million (9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
!$-153.5 million (10%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
!$-123.6 million (3%) for the Forest Service (FS); and
!$-108.5 million (1%) for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Among the increases for FY2007 were the following:
!$147.5 million (5%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
!$50.2 million (3%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and
!$29.3 million (5%) for the Smithsonian Institution.
The Senate Appropriations Committee adopted a few amendments in addition
to a Manager’s package. One sought to require the Secretary of the Interior to re-
negotiate leases for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sales where no
royalties are currently being paid, and to include the price thresholds that were
inadvertently left out of leases from 1998 and 1999. A second amendment, similar
to House-passed language, would have prohibited funds in the bill from being used
to issue new lease sales to current OCS oil and gas lessees who do not have price
thresholds in their leases.
The Senate did not consider H.R. 5386, and Congress did not enact a regular
annual appropriations law for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for
FY2007. Instead, funds were included in P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for FY2007. The law provides funding for FY2007
essentially at the FY2006 account levels, except where otherwise stated. Funding
below the account level is being determined by the agencies.



Area of ExpertiseNameCRS DivisionaTel.E-mail
Interior BudgetCarol Hardy Vincent RSI7-8651chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Data/Co o r d ina to r
Arts, Humanities, Blake NaughtonDSP7-0376bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
Smithso ni an
Bureau of LandCarol Hardy VincentRSI7-8651chvincent@crs.loc.gov
M a na ge me nt
EnvironmentalDavid BeardenRSI7-2390dbearden@crs.loc.gov
Protection AgencyRobert Esworthy RSI7-7236resworthy@crs.loc.gov
EvergladesPervaze A. SheikhRSI7-6070psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Resto r atio n
Fish and WildlifeM. Lynne CornRSI7-7267lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Ser vice
Forest ServiceRoss W. GorteRSI7-7266rgorte@crs.loc.gov
Historic PreservationBlake NaughtonDSP7-0376bnaughton@crs.loc.gov
Indian AffairsRoger WalkeDSP7-8641rwalke@crs.loc.gov
Indian Health Service
Insular AffairsKeith BeaG&F7-8672kbea@crs.loc.gov
Land AcquisitionCarol Hardy VincentRSI7-8651chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Minerals ManagementMarc HumphriesRSI7-7264mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
Ser vice
National Park ServiceDavid WhitemanRSI7-7786dwhiteman@crs.loc.gov
Payments in Lieu ofM. Lynne CornRSI7-7267lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Taxes Program (PILT)
Surface Mining andMarc HumphriesRSI7-7264mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
Reclamation
U.S. GeologicalPervaze A. SheikhRSI7-6070psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Sur vey
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
FY2007 Budget and Appropriations...................................2
Current Overview..............................................2
Major Issues..................................................4
Status of Bill.................................................6
Title I: Department of the Interior.....................................7
Bureau of Land Management.....................................7
Overview ................................................7
Management of Lands and Resources..........................7
Wildland Fire Management..................................8
Construction and Land Acquisition............................9
Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................10
Endangered Species Funding................................11
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement..........12
Avian Flu...............................................12
Land Acquisition.........................................13
Wildlife Refuge Fund.....................................14
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF)...............14
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.............................14
National Park Service.........................................16
Operation of the National Park System........................17
United States Park Police (USPP)............................18
National Recreation and Preservation.........................18
Construction .............................................19
Land Acquisition and State Assistance........................19
Historic Preservation......................................20
U.S. Geological Survey........................................22
Enterprise Information.....................................23
National Mapping Program.................................23
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes...................24
Water Resources Investigations..............................24
Biological Research.......................................25
Science Support and Facilities...............................26
Minerals Management Service...................................26
Budget and Appropriations.................................27
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore...............................27
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement..............30
Bureau of Indian Affairs.......................................32
BIA Reorganization.......................................34
BIA School System.......................................36
Departmental Offices..........................................37
Insular Affairs...........................................37
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT)....................38
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.................39



Title II: Environmental Protection Agency.............................44
Water Infrastructure.......................................46
Superfund and Brownfields.................................47
EPA’s Homeland Security Activities..........................48
Scientific Research........................................49
Clean Air Act Implementation and Research...................51
Title III: Related Agencies.........................................53
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service.........................53
Major FS Issues in Appropriations...........................53
Wildland Fire Management.................................54
State and Private Forestry..................................56
Infrastructure ............................................58
Other FS Accounts........................................58
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ......59
Health Services..........................................61
Facilities ................................................63
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.......................64
Smithsonian Institution........................................65
FY2007 Actions..........................................65
Facilities Capital.........................................66
National Museum of African American History and Culture.......66
National Zoo............................................66
Trust Funds.............................................67
Business Ventures........................................67
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for
the Humanities...........................................68
NEA ...................................................69
NEH ...................................................69
Cross-Cutting Topics..............................................71
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)...................71
Overview ...............................................71
FY2007 Funding.........................................72
Everglades Restoration........................................74
FY2007 Funding.........................................75
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation........................77
For Additional Reading............................................81
Title I: Department of the Interior................................81
Land Management Agencies Generally............................82
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency.........................82
Title III: Related Agencies.....................................83
List of Figures
Figure 1. Forest Service FY2007 Budget Request.......................53



Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2006............................................4
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2007........................................6
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2006-FY2007 .............................................10
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2007 .............................................12
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2007 .............................................13
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2007..............14
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2007 .............................................15
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2005-FY2007.....17
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2007 .............................................21
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2005-FY2007..26
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2006-FY2007 .............................................27
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, FY2006-FY2007...............................31
Table 13. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2006-FY2007..33
Table 14. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu
of Taxes, FY2000-FY2007.....................................39
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2006-FY2007..............................40
Table 16. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2006-FY2007 .............................................45
Table 17. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2003-FY2007.......55
Table 18. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry, FY2004-FY2007.57
Table 19. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2006-FY2007 ....60
Table 20. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2005-FY2007...68
Table 21. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2005-FY2007........70
Table 22. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2007 .............................................71
Table 23. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2007 .............................................73
Table 24. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2005-FY2007 .............................................75
Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2007 .............................................79



Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies are being funded by P.L. 110-5,
the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007. The law continues
funds at the FY2006 account level, unless otherwise specified. The law, enacted on
February 15, 2007, required that agencies and departments submit an allocation of
funds below the account level within 30 days of enactment. The submissions are to
be sent to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Introduction
The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
includes funding for agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as
well as numerous related agencies and bureaus. It provides funding for Department
of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded in
Energy and Water Development appropriations laws), many of which manage land
and other natural resource or regulatory programs. The bill also provides funds for
agencies in two other departments: the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture, and the Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human
Services, as well as funds for the Environmental Protection Agency. Further, the
annual bill includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, such as the Smithsonian
Institution, National Gallery of Art, National Endowment for the Arts, and National
Endowment for the Humanities, and for numerous other entities and agencies.
In recent years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies
provided funds for several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE),
including research, development, and conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum
Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, at the outset of the 109th
Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House and Senate
Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate jurisdiction1
over DOE. At the same time, jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and several smaller entities, was moved to the House and Senate2
Appropriations subcommittees covering Interior and Related Agencies. This change


1 The House panel is called the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies. The Senate panel is entitled the Subcommittee on Energy and Water.
2 The House panel is called the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
(continued...)

resulted from the abolition of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees
on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies,
which previously had jurisdiction over EPA.
The FY2006 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law
contained three primary titles providing funding. The regular, annual FY2007
legislation (H.R. 5386) followed a similar organization, and 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.
The report does not contain FY2007 enacted levels for agencies, programs, and
activities because these funding levels are being determined by the agencies, as
provided under P.L. 110-5. 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 budget authorities. Increases and decreases generally are calculated on
comparisons between FY2007 funding levels for the most recent action on H.R.

5386, and those requested by the President for FY2007 and appropriated for FY2006.


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.
FY2007 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
Funds for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007 are
contained in P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for
FY2007. Continuing funding is 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 provides funds though September
30, 2007, which is the rest of the fiscal year. It continues funds at the FY2006
account level, except where otherwise specified. The law requires that agencies and
departments submit an allocation of funds below the account level, for example for
programs and activities, to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The
submissions are due within 30 days of enactment, which occurred on February 15,

2007.


Prior to the enactment of P.L. 110-5, continuing funds were provided to Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies through a series of laws to continue funds at the
lower of either the FY2006 level or the House-passed level for FY2007. However,


2 (...continued)
Agencies. The Senate panel is entitled the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.

projects and activities that were included in the FY2006 appropriations law, but not
in the FY2007 House-passed bill, were funded at a level not to exceed the FY2006
rate.
The last action on the FY2007 regular annual appropriations bill, H.R. 5386,
occurred on June 29, 2006, when the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported
the bill (S.Rept. 109-275). The bill provided $26.05 billion for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007, $110.8 million (0.4%) above the
House-passed level ($25.94 billion). The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported
level would have been a $384.0 million (1%) decrease from the FY2006 enacted
level of $26.44 billion, but a $522.8 million (2%) increase over the President’s
request for FY2007 of $25.53 billion. Among the proposed decreases in the Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill for FY2007, from the FY2006 level, were
the following:
!$-209.5 million (9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
!$-153.5 million (10%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
!$-123.6 million (3%) for the Forest Service (FS); and
!$-108.5 million (1%) for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Among the increases for FY2007 were the following:
!$147.5 million (5%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
!$50.2 million (3%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and
!$29.3 million (5%) for the Smithsonian Institution.
The Senate Appropriations Committee adopted a few amendments in addition
to a Manager’s package. One sought to require the Secretary of the Interior to re-
negotiate leases for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sales where no
royalties are currently being paid, and to include the price thresholds that were
inadvertently left out of leases from 1998 and 1999. A second amendment, similar
to House-passed language, prohibited funds in the bill from being used to issue new
lease sales to current OCS oil and gas lessees who do not have price thresholds in
their leases. In earlier action, on June 27, 2006, the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee marked up and agreed to H.R. 5386, without amendment.
On May 18, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5386, providing $25.94 billion for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007. The House-passed level
would have been a $494.8 million (2%) decrease from the FY2006 enacted level of
$26.44 billion, but a $412.0 million (2%) increase over the President’s request for
FY2007 of $25.53 billion.
The House had considered many amendments to H.R. 5386, and agreed to a
number of them. They included amendments to prohibit funds in the bill from being
used for the sale or slaughter of wild horses and burros, building roads in the Tongass
National Forest in Alaska for harvesting timber, limiting the outreach programs of
the Smithsonian Institution, and issuing new lease sales to current Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lessees who do not have price thresholds in their leases. The



House also retained the moratoria on OCS leasing, and increased funds for the NEA,
NEH, and Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, among other changes.
Previously, on May 15, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee reported
H.R. 5386 (H.Rept. 109-465), also with $25.94 billion for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for FY2007. The House Appropriations Committee adopted a
number of amendments during its markup before ordering the bill reported.
Table 1 below shows the budget authority for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for FY2004-2006. See Table 25 for a budgetary history of each
agency for FY2004-FY2007.
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2006
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2006
$27.33 $27.02 $26.44
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. They generally reflect rescissions and supplemental appropriations to date.
Major Issues
One issue debated in this appropriations cycle was the distribution of proceeds
from land sales under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA). This
issue is covered briefly in the “Bureau of Land Management” section, below. Also
debated was the sale of certain National Forest System lands. This issue is covered
briefly in the “Forest Service” section, below. The President’s FY2007 budget
assumed enactment of legislation to open part of the Coastal Plain in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development. This issue is
covered briefly in the “Fish and Wildlife Service” section, below. (For more
information, see CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
New Directions in the 110th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and
Pamela Baldwin.)
Controversial policy and funding issues typically have been debated during
consideration of the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. Debate on FY2007 funding levels encompassed a variety of
issues, many of which have been controversial in the past, including the issues listed
below.
!BIA Schools and IHS Hospitals, particularly whether to enact
funding cuts proposed in the President’s FY2007 budget. (For more
information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Indian
Health Service” sections in this report.)
!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.)
!Indian Trust Funds, especially 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 involving tribal and IIM accounts. (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.)
!Smithsonian Institution, in particular its contract with
CBS/Showtime that gives certain rights to Showtime in accessing
the Smithsonian’s collection. (For more information see the
“Smithsonian Institution” 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.)
!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
FY2007 Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 5386) and the FY2007 Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5).
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2007
Subcom m i t t e e Conf erenceRe por t
MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.ApprovalPublic Law
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t
H ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
H.R. 5386,H.R. 5386,
H.Rept.H.R. 5386, S.Rept. — — — — —
109-465 (293-128) 109-275
5/04/06 6/27/06 5/15/06 5/18/06 6/29/06
— — — H.J.Res. 20 — H.J.Res. 20 — — — P.L. 110-5
(286-140) (81-15)

1/31/07 2/14/072/15/07



Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Overview. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately
261 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 for FY2007, the House approved $1.79 billion and the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported $1.80 billion. The House bill would have been
an increase of $31.2 million (2%) from the FY2006 enacted level of $1.75 billion,
while the Senate committee bill would have been an increase of $50.2 million (3%).
See Table 3 below.
The Administration’s FY2007 budget suggested amending the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) to alter the distribution of proceeds from land
sales. Under current law, proceeds are deposited into a separate Treasury account
and are available primarily for land acquisition. The President’s proposal directed

70% of the proceeds to the general fund of the Treasury to help reduce the deficit.


Legislation would be needed to make this change. Neither the House nor the Senate
Appropriations Committee included such a proposal in its FY2007 bill.
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the House approved $867.7 million, a $20.1 million (2%) increase over
the FY2006 enacted level of $847.6 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee
reported $876.9 million, a $29.2 million (3%) increase over FY2006. This line item
includes funds for an array of BLM land programs, including protection, recreational
use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM administration.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the
Administration’s approach to decrease funds for some programs from FY2006,
including deferred maintenance and management of soil, air, and water. The House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee also agreed with the Administration’s
approach to increase funds for some programs over FY2006. For instance, for
cultural resources, the request and the Senate committee level were $18.1 million,
up $3.1 million (21%) from the FY2006 enacted level of $15.0 million, while the
House approved $16.6 million. The increase was for a long-term initiative to
inventory, monitor, stabilize, and protect cultural resources. For energy and
minerals, the request was $134.7 million, an increase of $24.3 million (22%) over
FY2006 ($110.4 million, including Alaska minerals). The House supported $133.0
million and the Senate Appropriations Committee reported $138.0 million. The
overall increase was intended to foster access to energy resources on federal lands.
A portion was to process the growing number of Applications for Permits to Drill,
and for related inspection, enforcement, and monitoring. Another portion was to



accelerate implementation of an oil shale development program. Further, the budget
assumed that Congress would enact legislation in 2006 to open the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to development. Thus, an increase was sought for
preparing and implementing an ANWR leasing program and for management of
energy development activities in the National Petroleum Reserve — Alaska.
In other cases, the House, Senate Appropriations Committee, and
Administration took differing approaches relative to FY2006 levels. For instance,
the House approved $67.0 million for recreation management, a 3% increase over
FY2006, while the Administration proposed a 2% cut and the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended nearly level funding. The House also included $20.1
million for resource protection and law enforcement, a 6% increase over FY2006,
in part for law enforcement along the southwest border. By contrast, the
Administration and the Senate Appropriations Committee supported $18.6 million,
a 2% cut from FY2006. For conveyance of lands in Alaska, the Administration and
House sought $35.2 million, a 12% cut, but the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended level funding at $40.0 million.
Both the House-passed and Senate committee-reported bills continued to bar
funds from being used for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of national
monuments, as they were on January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the
presidential proclamations that created the monuments. The bills also continued the
moratorium on accepting and processing applications for patents for mining and mill
site claims on federal lands. However, applications meeting certain requirements
that were filed on or before September 30, 1994, would be allowed to proceed, and
third party contractors would be authorized to process the mineral examinations on
those applications.
The House agreed to an amendment to prohibit funds in the bill from being
used for the sale or slaughter of wild horses and burros (as defined in P.L. 92-195).
Amendment proponents seek to prevent BLM from selling, during FY2007, excess
wild horses and burros under authority enacted in P.L. 108-447. According to BLM,

41 animals that were sold under that authority were subsequently resold or traded,


and then sent to slaughterhouses by the new owners. Advocates of the amendment
assert that there are alternatives for controlling populations of wild horses on federal
lands, such as fertility control. Opponents of a similar amendment to the previous
year’s appropriations bill contended that BLM’s changes to the sale procedure
would prevent animals from being slaughtered. They maintained that sale authority
was needed because adoptions and other efforts to reduce herd sizes have been
insufficient. Further, they asserted that significant funds used for caring for animals
in holding facilities could be redirected to other government priorities. Although
the House passed a similar amendment to the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill,
the provision was not enacted.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2007,
the House approved $769.3 million, a $14.0 million increase (2%) over the $755.3
million enacted for FY2006 and nearly identical ($0.3 million less) to the
Administration’s request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$776.6 million, a $21.4 million (3%) increase over FY2006 and $7.1 million (1%)
over the Administration’s request. The House, Senate Appropriations Committee,



and Administration levels were similar in many respects. They provided $274.8
million for fire preparedness, an increase of $6.0 million (2%) over FY2006. They
also provided $257.0 million for fire suppression, an increase of $26.3 million
(11%) from FY2006 to fund the 10-year average cost of fire suppression. In report
language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed continued concern with
the high costs of fire suppression, and directed DOI and the FS to examine fires with
suppression costs exceeding $10.0 million. The increases for preparedness and
suppression were partially offset by reductions in other areas. For instance, the
Administration, House, and Senate Appropriations Committee sought a decrease of
$8.3 million (4%, to $199.8 million) for hazardous fuels reduction. The
Administration and House also sought to eliminate funds for state and local fire
assistance, on the grounds that assistance for local fire departments will be provided
through other programs. The Senate Appropriations Committee included $5.0
million for state and local fire assistance, asserting that rural and volunteer fire
departments are effective in responding to fires and saving the federal government
money, and that the Administration also has proposed cuts in related programs. The
FY2006 funding level for state and local fire assistance was $9.9 million.
The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all
Interior Department lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for
wildland fire management to the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire
programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments is implementing the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire Plan,
which emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to catastrophic
fires. In report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed that the
FS and DOI “do not have a suitable or comprehensive plan and strategy to deal with
the Nation’s wildfire management needs,” and directed the development and
implementation of a comprehensive and cohesive strategy (H.Rept. 109-465, p. 18).
The committee also stated that it is still not clear that hazardous fuels funding is
being used for priority projects and asked that DOI provide a report on how funding
is to be prioritized and allocated. Report and bill language sought to address other
concerns. (For additional information on wildland fires, see the “Forest Service”
section in this report.)
Construction and Land Acquisition. For FY2007, the House approved
$11.5 million for BLM construction, a decrease of 2% relative to the FY2006 level.
The Senate Appropriations Committee and the Administration supported more
substantial cuts — of 42% and 45%, respectively. For Land Acquisition for
FY2007, the Administration and Senate Appropriations Committee sought increases
of 2% and 7%, respectively, over the FY2006 level. The House approved a 64%
decrease. In report language, the House Appropriations Committee stated that new
land acquisition is a low priority. The appropriation for BLM acquisitions has fallen
steadily from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.6 million for FY2006. 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.)



Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007FY2007
Bureau of Land ManagementFY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
Management of Lands and$847.6$863.2$867.7$876.9
Resources
Wildland Fire Management 755.3769.6769.3776.6
— Preparedness268.8274.8274.8274.8
— Suppression230.7257.0257.0257.0
— Other Operations255.7237.7237.4244.8
Construction 11.8 6.5 11.5 6.8
Land Acquisition 8.68.83.19.2
Oregon and California Grant108.5112.4111.4112.4
Lands
Range Improvements10.010.010.010.0
Service Charges, Deposits, anda0.00.00.00.0
Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Trust Funds 12.412.412.412.4
Total Appropriations$1,754.1$1,782.9$1,785.3$1,804.4
a. The figures of0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its website at
[ http://www.doi.gov] .
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index .htm].
CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public
Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL33792. Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Forest Service: Issues for the 110th Congress, by
Ross W. Gorte, Carol Hardy Vincent, and Marc Humphries.
Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2007, the President requested $1.29 billion for the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), 13% less than FY2006 ($1.48 billion, including emergency
appropriations). The House approved $1.9 million less than the request, and the
Senate Appropriations Committee approved $32.4 million more than the request.
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources
Management account. The President’s FY2007 request was $995.6 million, a 1%
decrease from the FY2006 level of $1.00 billion. The House approved $1.017
billion, while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $1.024 billion.
Among the programs included in Resources Management are the Endangered
Species program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement.



In addition, the President’s FY2007 budget proposed enacting legislation to
open part of the Coastal Plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to
oil and gas exploration and development.3 The budget proposed that the first lease
sale would be held in FY2008. Under the proposal, this and subsequent sales were
estimated to generate $4.0 billion in federal revenues over the next five years. For
information on the debate over whether to approve energy development in the
Refuge, see CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New
Directions in the 110th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela
Baldwin.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The
Administration proposed to reduce the program from $147.8 million in FY2006 to
$141.0 million in FY2007 (5%), with the bulk of the reduction in the recovery
subprogram. For FY2007, the House approved $146.6 million, $1.2 million below
FY2006 and $5.6 million above the request, while the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved $152.0 million. See Table 4, below.
A number of other related programs also benefit conservation of species that
are listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The
President’s request would have increased the Landowner Incentive Program from
$21.7 million in FY2006 (including a $2.0 million rescission) to $24.4 million in
FY2007. Stewardship Grants would rise from $7.3 million in FY2006 to $9.4
million. The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to
states and territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) would remain
at $80.0 million. Within that figure, the Administration proposed to earmark $5.1
million in FY2007 for the Idaho Salmon and Clearwater River Basins Habitat
Account. The House approved cuts in the Landowner Incentive Program and
Private Stewardship Grants, but a modest increase in the Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved cuts
in the Landowner Incentive Program, but otherwise supported the requests. See
Table 4, below.
Under the President’s request, total FY2007 funding for the Endangered
Species program and related programs would have decreased from $256.8 million
to $254.8 million (1%). The House approved a 3% decrease, as did the Senate
Appropriations Committee.


3 The proposed authorization for exploration and development would be separate legislation,
rather than part of the Interior appropriations bill. The proposal does not appear in the FWS
Budget Justification for FY2007.

Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and
Related Programs, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
Endangered Species and FY2005FY2006FY2007FY2007HouseFY2007Senate
Related ProgramsApprop.Approp.RequestPassedComm.
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate Conservation$9,255 $8,619$8,063$8,163$10,045
— Listing15,96017,63017,75917,75917,859
— Consultation48,12947,99749,33750,01850,018
— Recovery69,87073,56265,87970,67074,028
Subtotal, Endangered Species143,214147,808141,038146,610151,950
Program
Related Programs
— Landowner Incentive Program 21,69421,66724,40015,00010,000
— Private Stewardship Grants 6,9037,2779,4007,0007,277
— Cooperative Endangered80,46280,00180,00180,507a80,001
Species Conservation Fund
Subtotal, Related Programs109,059108,945b113,801102,50797,278
Total Appropriations $252,273$256,753b$254,839$249,117$249,228
a. The Presidents request for FY2007 called for the entire amount to be derived from LWCF. The
House approved $60.3 million from LWCF, an amount the report of the House Committee on
Appropriations identifies as equal to species recovery, land acquisition, and acquisition for
Habitat Conservation Plans.
b. Reflects a $2.0 million rescission in the Landowner Incentive Program and a $1.0 million
rescission in the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund in P.L. 109-148.
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement. For refuge
operations and maintenance in FY2007, the President proposed $381.7 million, a
decrease from $382.5 million in FY2006. The House approved $388.7 million,
while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $391.2 million. The
President proposed $57.3 million for Law Enforcement — an increase of $1.2
million from the FY2006 level ($56.1 million). The House-passed bill contained
$57.5 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $57.9 million.
Avian Flu. For FY2007, the Administration proposed to continue the special
supplemental funding Congress provided in FY2006 for the study, monitoring, and
early detection of highly pathogenic avian flu, through a virus strain known as
H5N1. The FY2006 level was $7.4 million. The same was proposed by the
Administration for FY2007, and this amount was passed by the full House and
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. FWS will cooperate with other
federal and non-federal agencies in studying the spread of the virus through wild
birds. Attention will be focused on the North American species whose migratory
patterns make them likely to come into contact with infected Asian birds. The
geographic focus will be on Alaska, the Pacific Flyway (along the west coast), and
Pacific islands. The House Appropriations Committee report also directed that the
funds be used not only for monitoring and testing in Alaska, but also for “vector
control efforts in other areas,” but did not elaborate on the efforts intended nor the



geographic areas to be given additional emphasis. The Senate Appropriations
Committee report did not discuss the program.
Land Acquisition. For FY2007, the Administration proposed $27.1 million
for Land Acquisition, 3% below FY2006. The House approved $19.8 million, a
decrease of 29%. (See Table 5.) The House Appropriations Committee report
earmarked acquisition funding for six refuges in the northeast. The Senate
Appropriations Committee approved $42.3 million, with a more scattered list of
acquisitions. This program is funded from appropriations from LWCF. In the past,
the bulk of this FWS program had been for specified acquisitions of federal refuge
land, but a portion was used for closely related functions such as acquisition
management, land exchanges, emergency acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, and
general overhead (“Cost Allocation Methodology”). In recent years, less of the
funding has been reserved for traditional land acquisition. The Administration
continued this trend for FY2007, reserving $13.7 million for specified acquisitions,
and funding the remainder of the program at $13.4 million.4 The House-passed bill
would allocate a smaller fraction to acquisition than the President’s proposal. While
the Senate Appropriations Committee supported an increase to $42.3 million, it took
the unusual step of earmarking some $500,000 of the $28.2 million in Acquisition
funds for an EIS for an Alaskan land exchange, rather than deriving the expenses
from Exchanges or Acquisition Management. (See Table 5, below.) (For more
information, see “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FWS LandFY2005FY2006FY2007FY2007HouseFY2007Senate
Acqui si t i on Approp. Approp. Re que s t P assed Comm.
Acquisitions — $22,593$13,494$13,672$8,800$28,242
Federal Refuge Lands
Inholdings 1,479 1,478 1,478 478 1,500
Emergencies &9861,4781,4781,5001,500
Hardships
Exchange s 1,726 1,478 1,478 0 1,500
Acquisition 8,249 8,269 7,171 7,171 7,720
Management
Cost Allocation1,9721,7931,8021,8021,802
Methodology
Total$37,005 $27,079$19,751$42,264


Appropriations $27,990
4 Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a permanently
appropriated source of 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.

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
does provide additional appropriations. The President requested $10.8 million for
FY2007, down from $14.2 million in FY2006. This FY2007 level, combined with
expected receipts, would provide about 30% of the authorized full payment, down
from 40% in FY2006. The House-passed figure was $14.2 million, as in FY2006,
which the Senate Appropriations Committee also approved.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The 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. The President’s FY2007 budget again proposed to move funding for the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF.
Congress has rejected the proposed transfer annually from FY2002 to FY2006, and
the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee again rejected the proposal for
FY2007. For FY2007, the President proposed $8.2 million for the MSCF (including
the proposed transfer of the NMBCF to this program). The proposal would cut
programs for great apes, rhinos, tigers, African and Asian elephants, and marine
turtles, but would increase funding for neotropical migratory birds. The House
passed smaller reductions, while the Senate Appropriations Committee added funds
over FY2006 levels. See Table 6, below.
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
Multinational SpeciesFY2005FY2006FY2007FY2007HouseFY2007Senate
Conservation FundApprop.Approp.RequestPassedComm.
African Elephant$1,381$1,379$990$1,290$1,400
Tiger and Rhinos1,4771,5769901,4901,600
Asian Elephant1,3811,3799901,2901,400
Great Apes1,3811,3799901,2901,400
Marine Turtles996912976971,000
[Neotropical Migratory[3,944][3,941][3,960][4,000][4,000]
Birds]
Total Appropriations$5,719$6,404$4,257$6,057$6,800
Note: The Neotropical Migratory Bird program was first authorized in FY2002, and is not part of
the MSCF, although the transfer has been proposed in the Presidents budgets from FY2002-FY2007.
Congress has rejected the proposal five times, and the program is not included in the column totals.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help
fund efforts to conserve species (including non-game species) of concern to states,
territories, and tribes and has 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
lacks any separate authorizing statute.) Funds may be used to develop conservation
plans as well as to support specific practical conservation projects. A portion of the
funding is set aside for competitive grants to tribal governments or tribal wildlife
agencies. The remaining state portion is for matching grants to states. A state’s
allocation is determined by formula. The President proposed $74.7 million, an
increase from $67.5 million in FY2006. The House approved a decrease to $50.0
million. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the FY2006 funding level,
and set aside $5.9 million for tribal grants. Like the House, it did not specify what
fraction of the state share was to be used for administrative expenses. Both the
House and the Senate Appropriations Committee rejected the President’s proposal
to set aside $5 million for competitive grants to the same jurisdictions. See Table

7, below.


Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
State and Tribal WildlifeFY2005FY2006FY2007FY2007HouseFY2007Senate
Gr a n t s Approp. Approp. Request P assed Comm.
State Grants$61,040$59,556$61,486$45,000$61,580
Competitive Grants for005,00000
States, Territories, & Other
Jurisdictions
Tribal Grants5,9175,9125,9405,0005,912
Admi nistrationa 1,947 2,024 2,240 n/a n/a
Cost Allocationb124 — — — —
Methodology (CAM)
Total Appropriations$69,028$67,492$74,666$50,000$67,492
Note: n/a = not available.
a. In FY2006 and earlier, administrative costs were limited to 3%, after tribal grants are deducted
from the total. Committee reports and the conference report did not specify a dollar figure for
allocation to administration or to the cost allocation methodology. For FY2007, neither the
Senate Appropriations Committee nor the House specified a dollar or a percent limit on
administrative costs, but only that such costs be deducted from the state grants share of the
program.
b. Beginning in FY2006, CAM was included under administrative costs.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at
[ http://www.fws.gov/] .
CRS Report RL33468. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Robert Meltz.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.



CRS Report RL33872. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions
in the 110th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela
Baldwin.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System,
currently comprising 390 separate and very diverse park units covering 85 million
acres. The NPS and its 20,400 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. The
Park System has some 20 types of area designations, including national parks,
monuments, memorials, historic sites, battlefields, seashores, recreational areas, and
other classifications. The NPS also supports and promotes some resource
conservation activities outside the Park System through limited grant and technical
assistance programs and cooperation with partners.
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill provided a total of $2.23 billion for
the NPS, $52.4 million (2%) more than the House-passed bill and $72.4 million
(3%) above the budget request, but $209.5 million (9%) below the FY2006 enacted
level. See Table 8, below. The NPS budget request is in accordance with the
Administration’s goal of cutting the federal budget deficit, but may be at odds with
the agency’s public popularity. It included increases for park operations and park
police, with other line items either nearly level or significantly reduced. It has been
reported that inflation; fixed costs, such as mandatory pay and benefit increases; and
rising fuel and utility costs are forcing park managers to reduce visitor programs and5
services and to raise entry fees as the summer season begins.
Two amendments adopted by the House involved the NPS. The first increased
funding for the Operation of the National Park System by $1.0 million, with the
intent of increasing security to open all of the Statue of Liberty to visitors. The
other excluded certain cities from an ongoing NPS study of the San Gabriel
watershed. In addition, House Appropriations Committee Members agreed to help
resolve a matter concerning repeated extensions of the concessions contract to
provide ferry service to the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island National Monument.
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill would direct the NPS to keep in
effect a rule authorizing the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway (that joins these
parks) for three more years or until the NPS completes new rules, and would
reinstate the current rule if a court enjoins or limits the implementation of the
replacement new rules. The FY2005 and FY2006 Interior appropriations acts kept
the current NPS rule in effect for one year, and the House-passed bill for FY2007
would extend that protection for one additional year.


5 “National Parks Cutting Back on Services, Raising Fees,” USA Today (May 12, 2006): A1.

Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line-item
is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting for 80% of the
total NPS budget. 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, facility maintenance, and park support programs, as
well as employee pay, benefits, and other fixed costs. The majority of operations
funding is provided directly to park managers. In its report on the FY2007 bill, the
House Appropriations Committee was critical of a Department “hold harmless”
policy for law enforcement rangers “... while forcing all other visitor service,
maintenance, and resources protection functions to deal with the absorption of fixed
costs and other budgetary limitations” (H.Rept. 109-465, p. 44). The House retained
the committee’s bill language to counter this policy.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1.75 billion for
operation of the Park System for FY2007, an increase of $9.7 million (1%) above
the request, but a decrease of $4.3 million (less than 1%) from the House allowance
and of $20.6 million (1%) from FY2006. The committee’s report lists high-priority
facility maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation projects. It has been reported that an
ongoing NPS “core operations analysis” program aims to reduce parks’ fixed costs
by 20%-30% and promote budget efficiency without compromising core mission
functions of resource protection and visitor hospitality. To date, 53 park units have
completed the studies and 34 more are scheduled to finish by the end of FY2006.6
The NPS intends to complete all unit studies by the end of 2011. Park advocacy
groups have estimated that, in recent years, the national parks operate with two-
thirds of needed funding, on average, and have asked Congress to provide an
additional $150 million for park operations in FY2007, as well as additional funding
for park security, land acquisition, and hurricane damage repairs. The condition of
the national parks and the adequacy of their care and operation continue to be
controversial.
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007FY2007
National Park Service FY2005Approp.FY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
Operation of the National Park$1,683.6$1,771.6$1,742.3$1,755.3$1,751.0
System
U.S. Park Police80.180.284.884.884.8
National Recreation and61.065.533.347.253.5
Preservation
Historic Preservation Fund71.7115.271.958.770.7
Constructiona 353.0 388.3 229.3 229.9 234.9
Land and Water Conservation Fundb-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance


6 “National Parks: Directions to Increase Efficiency, Cut Costs Gets Mixed Reviews,” Land
Letter (May 4, 2006.)

FY2007FY2007
National Park Service FY2005Approp.FY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
— Assistance to States91.229.61.61.630.0
— NPS Acquisition55.134.4c22.728.433.4
Subtotal, Land Acquisition and State146.347.0d24.330.063.4
Assistance
Total Appropriations$2,365.7$2,437.7$2,155.8$2,175.8$2,228.2
a. Includes $50.8 million of emergency funding for FY2005 enacted in P.L. 108-324, and $19.0 million of
emergency funding for FY2006 enacted in P.L. 109-148.
b. Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
c. The funding figure is reduced by the use of $9.8 million from prior year balances.
d. The funding figure is reduced by the use of $17.0 million from prior year balances, which are not allocated
between Assistance to States and NPS Acquisition.
United States Park Police (USPP). This budget item supports the U.S.
Park Police, an urban-oriented, full-service, uniformed law enforcement entity of the
NPS with primary jurisdiction at park sites within the metropolitan areas of
Washington, DC, New York City, and San Francisco. USPP law enforcement
authority extends to all NPS units and to certain other federal and state lands. The
park police provide specialized law enforcement services to other park units when
requested, through deployment of professional police officers to support law
enforcement trained and commissioned park rangers working in park units system-
wide. The enacted level for FY2006 was $80.2 million; the FY2007 request, the
House-passed bill, and the Senate Appropriations Committee all would allow $84.8
million, a 6% increase. Increased funding is proposed for heightened security at icon
parks and for recruitment and training of new officers. An internal review concluded
in December 2004 reportedly addressed long-standing fiscal and management
problems and redefined USPP priorities to be: (1) protection of “iconic” (symbols of
democracy) park units and their visitors, (2) patrol of the National Mall and adjacent
parks, (3) special events and crowd management, (4) criminal investigations, and (5)
traffic control and parkway patrol.
National Recreation and Preservation. This line item has funded a
variety of park recreation and resource protection programs and an international park
affairs office, as well as programs connected with state and local community efforts
to preserve natural, cultural, and historic (heritage) resources. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $53.5 million for the line item, $6.3
million (13%) more than the House allowance, $20.2 million (61%) above the
request of $33.3 million, but $12.0 million (18%) below the FY2006 enacted level
of $65.5 million. The large requested decrease was partly from the proposal to
eliminate the statutory and contractual aid program for specific sites, as had been
proposed — and rejected by Congress — in FY2005 and FY2006. The House agreed
with the request not to fund statutory and contractual aid. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, however, recommended $5.3 million, and in report language proposed
a specific distribution for the funds.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee both rejected the request
to reduce funding for the heritage partnership program and to transfer the program
to the Historic Preservation Fund. The Administration had proposed the transfer of



heritage partnership programs (for heritage areas) to the Historic Preservation Fund
(see below) and a decrease in FY2007 funding for heritage areas to $7.4 million,
down $5.9 million (44%) from FY2006. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $14.1 million, $0.2 million (2%) above the House allowance and $0.8
million (6%) above FY2006 for the heritage partnership program.
In agreement with the House committee report, the House declined to provide
funds for the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trail initiative, a program that
had received a total of $11.0 million since FY2000. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, however, recommended $1.6 million for the program, and noted (in
report language) a DOI Inspector General’s report that commended NPS efforts to
improve program grant management, while urging the NPS to implement additional
recommendations of the Inspector General’s report.
Construction. The construction line item funds new construction, as well as
improvements, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities, including
many historic structures. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$234.9 million for NPS construction, $4.9 million (2%) more than the House, $5.6
million (2%) more than the request, and $153.4 million (40%) less than FY2006
enacted. The committee’s report contained a specific line-item distribution of
construction funds that included funding for the Harpers Ferry Center, which had not
been proposed by the NPS.
Cuts in the construction line item could limit the reduction of the NPS multi-
billion dollar maintenance backlog. Rather than fund the reduction of the backlog
in FY2007, it has been reported that the Administration is proposing to hold the line
against any further backlog accumulation by sustaining the same level of “facility
condition index.”7 (For information on NPS maintenance, see CRS Report RL33484,
National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. FY2006 appropriations for the
NPS under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) were $47.0 million,
comprised of $34.4 million for NPS land acquisition, $29.6 million for state
assistance programs, and a $17.0 million reduction due to the use of prior year
funds.8 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
funds allocated by a formula and states determining their spending priorities.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $63.4 million for NPS
land acquisition and state assistance. This is $33.4 million (111%) above the House
allowance, $39.1 million (160%) above the request, and $16.4 million (35%) above
FY2006. For the federal side of LWCF, the Senate Appropriations Committee


7 Leslie Ann Duncan, “Senate Energy Panel Hears from Mainella on Parks Budget,”
Congressional Quarterly Green Sheets, March 12, 2006.
8 Prior year balances of $9.8 million for land acquisition and of $17.0 million for both
programs (with no specified allocation between NPS land acquisition and state assistance)
offset additional LWCF appropriations for FY2006.

recommended $33.4 million, compared to the $28.4 million House allowance and
$22.7 million request. The House-passed bill allowed a total of $30.0 million for
NPS land acquisition and state assistance. Within the $30.0 million, the report of the
House Appropriations Committee specified $5.0 million for the United Airlines
Flight 93 memorial near Shanksville, PA, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
agreed with that amount. The request for state assistance funds was limited to $1.6
million for administrative expenses, with no funds for state grants ($28.0 million in
FY2006); the House agreed with this request. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, however, recommended $28.4 million for state assistance grants and $1.6
million for administrative expenses. (For more information, see the “Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.) S. 3562 would provide $450
million annually for LWCF state assistance from offshore oil and gas development
leases in the Gulf of Mexico, near Florida.
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. Preservation
grants are normally funded on a 60% federal/40% state matching share basis. The
HPF includes funding for Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America grants.
For FY2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $70.7 million for
the HPF, $44.5 million below the FY2006 appropriation ($115.2 million) and $1.2
million below the Administration’s FY2007 budget of $71.9 million. The FY2006
figure includes a $43.0 million emergency appropriation to help historic sites recover
from hurricane Katrina. See Table 9, below. Both the House-passed and Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported measure would include $35.7 million for grants-
in-aid to state historic preservation offices, $3.9 million for Tribal grants, and $1.0
million for preserving and restoring historic buildings and structures on campuses of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The FY2006 appropriation
for HBCUs was $3.0 million.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee disagreed with the
Administration’s FY2007 request to create the America’s Heritage and Preservation
Partnership program within the Historic Preservation Fund and to reduce National
Heritage areas by 50%. The Administration sought to combine funding for National
Heritage Areas ($7.4 million), Save America’s Treasures ($14.8 million), and
Preserve America grants ($10.0 million). The NPS supports National Heritage
Areas, which are managed by private or state organizations, with financial and
technical assistance. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
would retain the Heritage Partnership program within the National Recreation and
Preservation programs line item.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $30.0
million for Save America’s Treasures, whereas the House-passed bill would provide
$15.0 million. Save America’s Treasures preserves nationally significant intellectual
and cultural artifacts and historic structures. Annual appropriations laws have
required that project recommendations be subject to approval by the Appropriations
Committees. Preserve America grants-in-aid were created to supplement Save
America’s Treasures in supporting community efforts to develop resource



management strategies and to encourage heritage tourism. They are competitively
awarded on a matching basis, as one-time seed money grants. The FY2006
appropriation provided that not to exceed $5.0 million could be allocated to Preserve
America grants. The FY2007 House-passed bill would provide $3.0 million for
Preserve America. The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would
provide that of the $30.0 million for Save America’s Treasures, $10.0 million may
be used for Preserve America grants.
One issue that is often considered during the appropriations process is whether
historic preservation should be funded by private money rather than the federal
government. Also, pending legislation (H.R. 3446 and S. 1378) would reauthorize
the Historic Preservation Fund through FY2011 and FY2015 respectively and make
changes to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal
agency that promotes historic preservation and oversees NHPA §106 historic
preservation review.
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007FY2007
Historic PreservationFY2005Approp.FY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
Grants-in-Aid to States anda$35,500$35,717$35,717$35,717$35,717
Territories
Tribal Grants3,2053,9413,9413,9413,941
HBCUs3,4512,956 — 1,0001,000
Heritage Partnershipb[14,579][13,301]7,400bb
Programs
Save America’s Treasures29,58329,558d14,80015,00030,000
HPF Emergencyc — 43,000 — — —
Appropriation
Preserve America Grants-In-0 d10,0003,000e
Aid
Total Appropriations$71,739$115,172$71,858$58,658$70,658
a. The termGrants-in-Aid to States and Territories” is used in conjunction with the budget and refers to the
same program as Grants-in-Aid to State Historic Preservation Offices.
b. Funding for heritage areas in FY2005 and FY2006 was included in the National Recreation and Preservation
line item. The House-passed and Senate Committee-reported bills would retain the Heritage Partnership
program in the National Recreation and Preservation line item.
c. The emergency supplemental for Iraq and Katrina (P.L. 109-234) provided $43.0 million to the HPF to help
historic sites recover from Katrina.
d. The FY2006 appropriation allowed not to exceed $5.0 million to be used for Preserve America grants within
funding for Save Americas Treasures.
e. H.R. 5386, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, specifies that of the $30.0 million for Save
America’s Treasures, $10.0 million may be used for Preserve America grants.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at
[ http://www.nps.gov/] .



For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website at
[ http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/] .
CRS Report RL33617. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RL33484. National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation’s premier science agency in
providing physical and biological information related to natural hazards; certain
aspects of the environment; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In
addition, it is the federal government’s principal civilian mapping agency and a
primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s water resources. For FY2007,
the Administration is emphasizing the role USGS plays in providing timely scientific
information for monitoring natural hazards and assessing their impacts, measuring
land cover changes, and assessing mineral resources.
Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and
Research, for seven activities: the National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research;
Enterprise Information; Science Support; and Facilities. For FY2007, the
Administration requested $944.8 million for the USGS, which is $36.1 million (4%)
below the FY2006 level of $980.8 (including emergency appropriations). The
House-passed bill contains $986.4 million, which is $41.7 million above the request
and $5.6 million above the FY2006 enacted level. See Table 10, below. The Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill for FY2007 contains $980.0 million, which
is $0.8 million below the FY2006 enacted level, $35.2 million above the
Administration’s request, and $6.5 million below the House-passed bill.
Of the proposed changes in the Administration’s request, the largest would be
the transfer of funds ($68.9 million in FY2006) from the Cooperative Topographic
Mapping Program to the Enterprise Information Program. This transfer is consistent
with changes in the direction of the National Mapping Program, which the
Administration proposed to change to the Geographic Research, Investigations, and
Remote Sensing Program. The Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote
Sensing Program, under these changes, would emphasize fundamental geographic
research and consolidate elements of national geospatial programs. This transfer also
is reflected in the House-passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee-
reported bill. The FY2007 Administration request proposed to eliminate funding for
the Water Resources Research Institutes, which the Administration contends have
been generally self-supporting. The House-passed and the Senate committee-
reported bills would retain $6.4 million for this program. The House-passed and the
Senate committee-reported bills also would retain $22.9 million for mineral resource
assessments, which were cut in the FY2007 request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill did not provide funds for
the multi-hazards initiative within the USGS because the USGS did not specify



where funds that would be reprogrammed would come from. The Senate committee
states that any reprogramming actions should be submitted to the committee in
advance in the “form of a reprogramming.”
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. There are three primary programs
within Enterprise Information: (1) Enterprise Information Security and Technology,
which supports management and operations of USGS telecommunications (e.g.,
computing infrastructure and email); (2) Enterprise Information Resources, which
provides policy support, information management, and oversight over information
services; and (3) Federal Geographic Data Coordination, which provides operational
support and management for the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The
FGDC is an interagency, intergovernmental committee that encourages collaboration
to make geospatial data available to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as
communities. The FY2007 Administration’s request provided $111.2 million for this
program, $64.8 million above the FY2006 enacted level of $46.4 million. The
House-passed bill would provide $113.7 million for this program, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $106.0 million. The increase
in funds is due to a proposed reorganization of the USGS budget. (See introduction,
above.) The Senate Appropriations Committee did not provide an additional $4.6
million for the Federal Geographic Data Committee because no rationale for the
increase in funds was given.
National Mapping Program. The National Mapping Program aims to
provide public access to high quality geospatial information. The Administration
requested $76.6 million for this program, $52.7 million below the FY2006 enacted
level of $129.3 million. Further, the Administration requested that the program name
be changed to the Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing
Program. The House-passed bill would change the program name to the Geographic
Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing Program and provide $78.6 million,
$2.0 million above the request and $50.7 million less than the FY2006 enacted level.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill also would change the program
name and recommends $78.6 million for the program.
The primary reduction in requested funds for this program is due to budget
restructuring, as noted above. Further, the AmericaView program would not be
funded (a reduction of $3.0 million). The AmericaView program is a state level
network that provides access and imagery archives for university participants and
other government participants. The bill passed by the House would provide $2.0
million to the AmericaView program. The bill also would provide $13.0 million for
the Mid-Continent Mapping Center (MCMC) in Rolla, Missouri, and prohibit the use
of funds to consolidate the functions and operations of the MCMC into the National
Geospatial Technical Operations Center. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill
states that funds will be precluded for competitively sourcing functions of the
National Geospatial Technical Operations Center unless the staff at the
Mid-Continent Mapping Center in Rolla, Missouri, is allowed the opportunity to
participate in a “fair and open competition” with other sites as a Federal Most
Efficient Organization.



Under the Land Remote Sensing subheading, an increase of $16.0 million is
requested by the Administration to support the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, also
known as Landsat 8. Landsat 8 is an upcoming satellite that will 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 requested funds would be used
to establish ground systems to provide for the transfer, storage, and accessibility of
data from Landsat 8, when it is launched. The House-passed bill and the Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill would fund this program along the lines of
the request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report states that a proposed reduction
in force (RIF) for this program has not been adequately justified by the USGS, and
no plan for resources required to conduct a RIF was presented to the committee. The
Senate Appropriations Committee reinstates funding for the proposed reduction and
expects research and staff levels to remain at the current level.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, the Administration requested $217.4 million,
which is $17.9 million below the FY2006 enacted level of $235.3 million. This line
item covers programs in three activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and
Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments. The House-passed bill would
provide $241.9 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill
would provide $239.3 million.
The primary reduction in the Administration’s request under this heading is a
$22.9 million reduction in the Mineral Resources Program. According to the
Administration, proposed cuts in the mineral resources program will focus efforts on
mineral resource assessments and research that benefit federal land management
programs, as opposed to both federal and non-federal needs as in previous years. The
Administration expects that universities or other entities will undertake assessments
and research that support non-federal needs. The reduction will result in the
discontinuation of most research and data collection projects, including those on
industrial mineral research, and the elimination of some geophysical labs. In
previous years, the Administration has requested similar cuts in this program, yet
funding has been included by Congress.
The FY2007 House-passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee-
reported bill would retain funding for this program, including $18.4 million for
research and assessments of mineral deposits, and $4.5 million for minerals
information. The House Appropriations Committee stated that it “strongly disagrees”
with the proposed reduction in the program and urged the Administration not to
propose program elimination again. The House committee disagreed with the notion
that objective data can be prepared in the private sector. The Senate Appropriations
Committee states that the reduction has “no merit.”
Water Resources Investigations. The Administration’s request for Water
Resources Investigations was $204.0 million, $7.7 million below the FY2006 enacted
level of $211.8 million. The Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and Research



sub-activity would receive $141.9 million; the Federal-State Cooperation Water
Program would receive $62.2 million; and the Water Resource Research Institutes
would not be funded. The House-passed bill included $213.8 million for this
heading, and the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill contains $216.8
million.
As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2006 budget requests, the
FY2007 request would discontinue USGS support for Water Resources Research
Institutes because, according to the Administration, most institutes have succeeded
in leveraging sufficient funding for program activities from non-USGS sources.
Congress has provided funding for the institutes from FY2002 to FY2006,
appropriating $6.4 million for FY2006. The House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported bills would retain funding for the Institutes at $6.4 million.
The Administration requested an increase of $2.3 million for network operations
under the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), which would receive
a total of $16.8 million for FY2007. These additional funds would be used to
continue the operation of 114 streamgages that would otherwise be shut down due
to the anticipated loss of partner contributions. Further, they would allow for the
number of streamgages to increase by 30 nationwide. Through the NSIP program,
the USGS collects the streamflow data needed by federal, state, and local agencies
for planning, operating water-resources projects, and regulatory programs. The bill
passed by the House and reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee also
would provide this increase.
Biological Research. The Biological Research Program under the USGS
generates and distributes information related to the conservation and management of
the nation’s biological resources. The Administration requested $172.6 million for
biological research, which is $2.3 million below the FY2006 enacted level of $174.9
million. The House-passed bill would provide $175.6 million for this heading, and
the Senate Appropriations Committee would provide $176.5 million.
Under the Administration’s request, several earmarked activities totaling $6.4
million under the Biological Research and Monitoring Program would be removed
for FY2007. According to the USGS, these projects do not address the highest
priority science. Some of these program reductions would be restored in the House-
passed bill and the Senate committee-reported bill.
Under the Terrestrial and Endangered Resources sub-activity, the USGS will be
conducting activities related to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). The
Administration requested $3.2 million for FY2007 to continue USGS avian flu
detection activities. In cooperation with the FWS and other federal and state
agencies, the USGS began targeted surveillance for the early detection of HPAI in
wild birds in Alaska in 2005, collecting samples from 520 birds of 10 species that are
known to migrate through the Russian Far East and Southeast Asia. A steering
committee was formed in 2006 to coordinate efforts and establish standard operating
procedures for sampling and analysis. For 2007, the USGS will continue sampling
birds for HPAI and coordinate with other agencies to deal with avian influenza in
North America. The House-passed bill and Senate Appropriations Committee-
reported bill provide these increases.



Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for managing and disseminating
scientific information. The Administration requested $67.4 million for science
support, a decrease of $1.9 million from the FY2006 enacted level of $69.3 million.
The House-passed bill would provide $72.4 million, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee- reported bill would provide $67.4 million.
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. The
Administration requested $95.5 million for facilities for FY2007, an increase of $0.7
million from the FY2006 enacted level of $94.8 million. The House-passed bill and
the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $95.5 million for
Facilities, the same as the requested amount and $0.7 million above the FY2006
enacted level.
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007FY2007
U.S. Geological SurveyFY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
Enterprise Information$46.4$111.2$113.7$106.0
National Mapping Program 129.376.678.678.6
Geologic Hazards, Resources,
and Processes235.3217.4241.9239.3
Water Resources
Inve stigations 211.8 204.1 213.8 216.8
Biological Research174.9172.6175.6176.5
Science Support69.367.472.467.4
Facilities 94.8 95.5 95.5 95.5
Decrease in House Floor
Action- 5.0
Total Appropriations$980.8b$944.8$986.4$980.1
a. The total includes emergency appropriations of $1.0 million provided in P.L. 108-324 and $8.1
million in P.L. 109-13.
b. The total includes emergency appropriations of $9.0 million provided in P.L. 109-148 and $10.2
million provided in P.L. 109-234.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at
[ http://www.usgs .gov/] .
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the
Offshore Minerals Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue
Management (MRM) Program. OMM administers competitive leasing on Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas, and other
minerals. MRM collects and disburses bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal



onshore and OCS leases and Indian mineral leases. Revenues from onshore leases
are distributed to states in which they were collected, the general fund of the U.S.
Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated
among the coastal states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic
Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
The MMS estimates that it collects and disburses over $8 billion in revenue
annually. This amount fluctuates based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas.
Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40%
to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties have been not more than 25%.
Budget and Appropriations. The Administration submitted an FY2007
total MMS budget of $292.3 million. This includes $6.9 million for Oil Spill
Research and $285.4 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. The
total FY2007 budget request reflected $163.6 million in appropriations and an
additional $128.7 million from offsetting collections which MMS has been retaining
since 1994. The Administration’s total budget request is 6% below the $312.0
million enacted for FY2006 (including emergency appropriations of $31.0 million).
The net appropriations request for FY2007 of $163.6 million is a 14% reduction from
the $189.3 million enacted for FY2006. The House recommended $164.4 million,
slightly higher than the request due to a greater increase for Royalty and Offshore
Minerals Management. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved funding for
programs at levels similar to the House-passed version and the Administration’s
request. See Table 11 below.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007FY2007
Minerals Management Service FY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
— OCS Lands (OMM) $148.8$159.4$158.4$159.2
— Royalty Management (MRM)77.979.279.279.2
— General Administration47.546.948.746.9
— Gross, Royalty and Offshore Mineralsa
Management 305.1 285.4 286.2 285.3
— Use of Receipts-122.7-128.7-128.7-128.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management Appropriations182.4156.7157.5156.6
Oil Spill Research6.96.96.96.9
Total Appropriations$189.3$163.6$164.4$163.5
a. Includes emergency appropriations of $16.0 million in P.L. 109-148 and $15.0 million in P.L. 109-
234.
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts remain controversial. Oil and gas development moratoria in the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, parts of Alaska, and
the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) have been in place since 1982, as a result of public laws



and executive orders of the President. The FY2006 appropriations law retained the
moratorium on funding preleasing and leasing activities in the OCS.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee retained the moratoria on
oil and natural gas leasing in their versions of the FY2007 appropriations bill. The
House Appropriations Committee had approved an amendment that would have
allowed for natural gas leasing in the OCS moratoria areas. Oil leasing would still
have been prohibited. The House voted to restore the moratoria on natural gas
development in certain offshore areas and also to defeat an amendment to strike
sections 104-106 of the bill that contain the OCS oil leasing moratoria. Separately,
legislation (H.R. 4761) that passed the House on June 29, 2006, would allow natural
gas-only drilling in areas currently under the moratoria and give the states a larger
share of the revenue generated from U.S. offshore leases. The bill also addresses
royalty relief issues discussed below by establishing a “conservation of resources”
fee for those leases without price thresholds. (For more information, see CRS Report
RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue
Sharing, by Marc Humphries.)
Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers has been debated during
consideration of 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 1999.9
A House committee amendment to the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill
sought to require the Secretary of the Interior to include price thresholds in all leases
(based on $34.71/barrel of oil and $4.34/thousand cubic feet of natural gas) and
require the Secretary to renegotiate leases to conform with current price thresholds
levels. This provision would have impacted the 1998 and 1999 leases and those
shallow water deep-gas leases with price threshold levels currently around
$9.90/thousand cubic feet. The committee language, however, was removed from
the bill on a point of order during the House floor debate. Subsequently, the House
agreed to an amendment that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to issue
new lease sales to current lessees that do not have price thresholds in their leases.
Opponents of the amendment argued that the companies with valid leases, even
though without price thresholds, should not be penalized. The Senate Appropriations
Committee approved language on price thresholds, in an amendment during markup,
that is similar to the House-passed version. The Senate Appropriations Committee
also approved an amendment that would require the Secretary of the Interior to seek
to renegotiate the leases to include price thresholds and to report to Congress on the
results of such efforts. The amendment also sought to affirm the authority of the


9 This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS,
during April, 2006.

Secretary of the Interior to vary the suspension of royalties based on the price of
production of a lease.
Leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has been controversial over the past
several years. There were several blocks that were removed by the Administration
from Eastern GOM sale 181 that could become available for release after 2007, as
part of the Administration’s proposed five-year (2007-2012) leasing program. A
Senate proposal (S. 2253) would make available for lease about 3.6 million acres
within the lease sale 181 area within one year of enactment of the bill — prior to the
next five-year lease program. Some coastal state senators are seeking to attach state
revenue sharing language to the bill, while others oppose the bill because, they assert,
it would offer leases too close to Florida’s coast. Industry groups contend that
Eastern GOM sales are too limited, asserting that the resource potential is significant.
Environmental groups and some state officials contend that the risks of development
to the environment and local economies are too great.
Oil and gas leasing in offshore California also has continued to be a
controversial issue. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
§1451), development of federal offshore leases must be consistent with state coastal
zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended 36 of the 40 leases at issue in
offshore California by granting lease suspensions, but the State of California
contended that it should have first reviewed the suspensions for consistency with the
state’s coastal zone management plan. In June 2001, the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of California agreed with the State of California and struck down the MMS
suspensions.
The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 9, 2002, to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after the state rejected a more limited lease
development plan that involved 20 leases using existing drilling platforms. However,
on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the District
Court decision.10 The Department of the Interior did not appeal this decision and is
currently working with lessees to resolve the issue.
A breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed against MMS by nine oil companies
seeking compensation for their undeveloped leases. On November 17, 2005, the U.S.
Federal Court of Claims made a determination that the federal government breached
its contract with the lessees regarding the 36 offshore California leases. Although the
government was ordered to repay the lessees $1.1 billion, the judge deferred a final
judgement until additional claims (such as recovery of sunk costs) are resolved.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website
at [http://www.mms.gov].
CRS Report RL33493. Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing
and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries.


10 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 01-16637.

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. SMCRA also established
an Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to
reclaim abandoned sites that pose 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. Fee collections
have been broken up into federal and state shares. Grants are awarded to the states
after applying a distribution formula to the annual appropriation that calculates not
only how much money goes to each state, but also what portion came from each of
the state and federal share accounts. In instances where states have no approved
program, OSM directs reclamation.
Several states have pressed in recent years for increases in the AML
appropriations, with an eye on the unappropriated balances in the state-share accounts
that now exceed $1 billion. The total unappropriated balance — including both
federal and state share accounts in the AML fund — was $1.8 billion by the end of
FY2005. Western states are additionally critical of the program because, as coal
production has shifted westward, these states are paying more into the fund. They
have contended that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation
burden as more of the sites requiring remediation are in the East.11
The FY2005 and FY2006 budget requests from the Administration were
accompanied by a proposal to restructure the program, including a plan to return the
unobligated balances to the states. The Administration plan was not widely
supported. Other proposals for reauthorization of AML collections and restructuring
the program have been introduced in the House and Senate, but Congress has not
reached a consensus surrounding the structure of the program.
As a consequence, reauthorization of fee collection during the last few fiscal
years has been for relatively short terms, with the most recent extension through
September 30, 2007. The FY2007 request does not include any broad Administration
proposal to change the program, and instead seeks what the Administration describes
as an “interim extension” through the end of FY2007 “while allowing the
Administration to continue working with Congress on finding an appropriate, fiscally
responsible and fair, long-term resolution to the reauthorization discussion.”12 In
report language, the House Appropriations Committee supported an interim
extension and also expressed that a more permanent solution is needed.


11 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.
12 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Budget Justification and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2007, p. 49-50.

For FY2007, the Administration sought $185.9 million, an increase of $0.7
million over the FY2006 enacted level of $185.2 million. The other component of
the OSM budget is for regulation and technology programs. For regulation and
technology, Congress provided $108.9 million in FY2006, and the Administration
requested $112.2 million. The greater part of the $3.3 million increase (3%) is for
environmental protection. In total, the Administration requested $298.1 million for
the OSM for FY2007, a $4.0 million increase (1%) over the FY2006 enacted level
of $294.2 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee and the House supported
the same levels of funding as the Administration requested for FY2007. See Table

12 below.


In its FY2007 budget, the Administration requested $1.5 million for minimum
program states. These states have significant AML problems, but insufficient levels
of current coal production to generate significant fees to the AML fund. While
Congress is authorized to appropriate $2 million annually to minimum program
states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program states since
FY1996. The Senate Appropriations Committee and the House retained language
limiting funding for minimum program states to $1.5 million. The SMCRA
legislation also provided that 10% of AML collections would be allocated to the
Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), administered by the Department of
Agriculture. However, no funds have been requested for RAMP since FY1996, and
the $361 million balance in funds set aside for RAMP were transferred to the federal
share of AML collections in the FY2006 appropriation. The FY2007Administration
request recommended that this practice continue. The House included language
transferring the RAMP balance to the federal share fund but the Senate
Appropriations Committee did not.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
Office of Surface MiningFY2006FY2007FY2007FY2007
Reclamation andApprop.RequestHouseSenate
Enf orcement P assed Comm.
Regulation and Technology$108.9$112.2$112.2$112.2
— Environmental Protection78.481.081.081.0
Abandoned Mine Reclamation185.2185.9185.9185.9
Fund
Total Appropriations$294.2$298.1$298.1$298.1
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 FY2006 direct appropriations are $2.27 billion. For FY2007, the
Administration proposed $2.22 billion, a decrease of $52.4 million (2.3%) below
FY2006. The House approved $2.23 billion, a reduction of $39.6 million (2%)
below FY2006, but an increase of $12.8 million (0.6%) over the Administration
proposal. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.27 billion, a
reduction of $1.8 million (0.08%) below FY2006, but an increase of $50.6 million
(2.3%) over the Administration proposal and of $37.8 million (1.7%) over the House.
For the BIA, its major budget components, and selected BIA programs, Table 13
below presents funding figures for FY2006 and for the Administration, the House,
and the Senate Appropriations Committee for FY2007, with the percentages of
change from FY2006 to the Senate Appropriations Committee-recommended levels
for FY2007. Decreases are shown with minuses.
Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of the
Bureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in BIA
education programs, including the Administration’s proposal not to fund the
Johnson-O’Malley program.
Budget Presentation. The BIA’s budget presentation of its Operation of
Indian Programs activities, in which programs with the same budget function (e.g.,
education) were formerly included in different budget activities (e.g., “Tribal Priority
Allocations,” “Other Recurring Programs”), has been restructured so that programs
with the same function fall under the same budget activity (e.g., “Education”). Table
13 below illustrates the new structure. The Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) budget
activity is significant to tribes because it covers many basic tribal services. Perhaps
more importantly, tribes may apply their own priorities to TPA programs, moving
funds among programs without prior BIA approval and without triggering
congressional Appropriation Committees’ requirements for approval of
reprogramming. The BIA identifies in its FY2007 Budget Justifications the amounts
within the new budget activities that fall in the TPA category. Those amounts are
shown in Table 13. According to BIA figures, the total TPA funding proposed for
FY2007 was $754.1 million. Other sources suggest TPA funding for FY2006 was
$769.5 million, but it is not certain that the BIA’s FY2007 figures cover all of the
same programs. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees commended the
new budget structure, but the House committee required the BIA to report on the
budget structure and tribes’ reactions, TPA transparency, BIA management
accountability, and BIA central and regional offices’ funding.



Table 13. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007 RequestFY2007FY2007 SenateCommittee
Bureau of Indian AffairsFY2006Approp.HouseChange
P assedTot a l TP Aa Tot a l from
FY2006
Operation of Indian Programs
Tribal Government$374,689$401,738$394,374$401,738$397,7386%
— Contract Support132,628151,628151,628151,628147,62811%
Costs
Human Services150,416139,385135,449139,385145,385-3%
— Welfare Assistance85,19074,17974,17974,17980,179-6%
Trust - Natural152,754142,51063,279141,510150,810-1%
Resources Management
Trust - Real Estate141,842152,64955,480151,593150,6496%
Services
— Probate15,70819,0758,19318,01919,07521%
— Real Estate40,57847,64731,24947,64745,64712%
Services
Education 646,430 639,155 30,786 652,214 664,805 3%
— Elementary/457,750457,3520457,352457,352-<1%
Secondary (Forward-
Funded)
— Elementary/77,22360,800073,85975,171-3%
Secondary [Other]
— Johnson-16,3710016,37114,371-12%
O’Malley Grants
— Post Secondary104,010103,16130,786103,161114,44010%
Programs
— Tribal Colleges55,54554,721054,72160,0008%
and Universities
— Tribal — — — — 6,000 15%
Vocationalb
Colleges
— Education8,78317,842017,84217,842103%
Management
Public Safety and Justice212,142213,72912,109209,535214,8731%
— Detention/55,56758,663055,94958,6636%
Corrections
Community and51,78239,17538,20439,17543,525-16%
Economic Development
— Tribal Vocationalb5,223000 — —
Colleges
Executive Direction and232,135238,25324,379238,253$237,7532%


Administrative Services

FY2007 RequestFY2007FY2007 SenateCommittee
Bureau of Indian AffairsFY2006Approp.HouseChange
P assedTot a l TP Aa Tot a l from
FY2006
— Office of Federal1,3501,85001,8501,350 0%
Acknowledgment
— Information57,43153,365053,36553,365-7%
Resources Technology
Subtotal, Operation of1,962,1901,966,594754,0601,973,4042,005,5382%
Indian Programs
Construction
Education Construction206,787157,441 — 157,441157,441-24%
— Replacement64,53036,536 — 36,53636,536-43%
School Construction
— Education113,39592,053 — 92,05392,053-19%
Facilities
Improvement and
Repair
Public Safety and Justice11,60311,611 — 11,61111,611<1%
Construction
— Law Enforcement8,1028,106 — 8,1068,106<1%
Facilities
Improvement and
Repair
Resources Management45,09937,810 — 38,56044,220-2%
Construction
General Administration8,0938,187 — 8,1878,1871%
Construction;
Management
Subtotal, Construction271,582215,049 — 215,799$221,459-18%
Land and Water Claim34,24333,946 — 39,21339,21315%
Settlements and
Miscellaneous Payments
Indian Guaranteed Loan6,2556,262 — 6,2626,262<1%
Program
Total Appropriations$2,274,270$2,221,851$754,060$2,234,678$2,272,472-<1%
a. Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) are a subset of funds for BIA Operation of Indian Programs. The amounts in this
column are included in the “FY2007 Request Total column in the table.
b. The Senate Appropriations Committee moved the tribal vocational colleges program from the Community and
Economic Development activity to the Post Secondary Programs activity. The percent change for tribal vocational
colleges under Post Secondary Programs is calculated using the FY2006 appropriation under Community and
Economic Development.
BIA Reorganization. In April 2003, Secretary of the Interior Norton began
implementing a reorganization of the BIA, the Office of Assistant Secretary-Indian
Affairs (AS-IA), and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) in the
Office of the Interior Secretary. (See “Office of Special Trustee” section below.)
The reorganization arose from issues and events related to trust funds and trust assets
management, and is integrally related to the reform and improvement of trust



management. Historically, the BIA has been responsible for managing Indian tribes’
and individuals’ trust funds and trust assets. Trust assets include trust lands and the
lands’ surface and subsurface economic resources (e.g., timber, grazing, or minerals),
and cover about 45 million acres of tribal trust land and 10 million acres of individual
Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate services, processing
of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), surveys, appraisals, probate functions, land
title records activities, and other functions.
The BIA, however, has been frequently charged with mismanaging Indian trust
funds and trust assets. Investigations and audits in the 1980s and after supported
these criticisms, especially in the areas of accounting, linkage of owners to assets,
and retention of records. This led to a trust reform act in 1994 and the filing of an
extensive court case in 1996. (See “Office of Special Trustee” section, below.) The
1994 act created the OST, assigning it responsibility for oversight of trust
management reform. In 1996, trust fund management was transferred to the OST
from the BIA, but the BIA retained management of trust assets.
Unsuccessful efforts at trust management reform in the 1990s led DOI to
contract in 2001 with a management consultant firm. The firm’s recommendations
included both improvements in trust management and reorganization of the DOI
agencies carrying out trust management and improvement.13 After nearly a year of
consultation with Indian tribes and individuals, DOI announced the reorganization
in December 2002, even though the Department and tribal leaders had not reached
agreement on all aspects of reorganization. DOI, however, faced a deadline in the
court case to file a plan for overall trust management reform, and reorganization was
part of DOI’s plan.
The current reorganization of BIA, AS-IA, and OST chiefly involves trust
management structures and functions. The BIA’s trust operations at regional and
agency levels remains in those offices but are split off from other BIA services. The
OST adds trust officers to BIA regional and agency offices to oversee trust
management and provide information to Indian trust beneficiaries. The BIA, OST,
and AS-IA, together with the Office of Historical Trust Accounting in the Secretary’s
office, also are implementing a separate trust management improvement project. The
project includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, and procedures,
historical accounting for trust accounts, reduction of backlogs, modernization of
computer technology (the court case led in 2001 to a continuing shutdown of much
of BIA’s World-Wide-Web connections because of security concerns), and
maintenance of the improved system.
Many Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the plaintiffs in the court case,
have been critical of the new reorganization and have asked that it be suspended.
Tribes contend that the reorganization is premature, because new trust procedures
and policies are still being developed; that it insufficiently defines new OST duties;
and that other major BIA service programs are being limited or cut to pay for the
reorganization. For FY2004-FY2006, Congress responded to tribal concerns by


13 The report is available on the DOI website at [http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/
pdf/roadmap.pdf].

excluding from BIA reorganization certain tribes that have been operating trust
management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices. The House
approved the same exclusion for FY2007, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
agreed. Congress has not, however, suspended or stopped the reorganization.
BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools
and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating about 48,000
students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-determination
contracts and other grants, operate 120 of these institutions; the BIA operates the
remainder. BIA-funded schools’ key problems are low student achievement and,
especially, a large number of inadequate school facilities.
The Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) program provides supplementary education
assistance grants for tribes and public schools to benefit Indian students, and was
funded at $16.4 million in FY2006. The Administration proposed no funding for this
program in FY2007, asserting that U.S. Department of Education programs under
Titles I (education of the disadvantaged) and VII (Indian education) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act provide funds for the same purposes, and
that the funds should be used for BIA-funded schools. Opponents disagree that the
Education Department programs can replace JOM’s culturally-relevant programs.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended restoring the JOM program to
its FY2006 level of $16.4 million, stating that other federal programs could not
provide the funds because there was no guaranteed one-to-one match between
Department of Education grants and JOM funds. The House approved the
committee’s recommendation. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
a partial restoration of JOM funds, to $14.4 million.
Many BIA school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety
deficiencies. BIA education construction covers both construction of new school
facilities to replace facilities that cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair of
existing facilities. Schools are replaced or repaired according to priority lists. The
BIA has estimated the current backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million.
Table 13 above shows education construction funds. For FY2007, the
Administration proposed reducing the appropriation for education construction by
$49.3 million (24%). Included is a reduction for replacement-school construction of
43%. The Administration asserts that the BIA needs to focus on completing
replacement schools funded in prior years. Opponents contend that a large
proportion of BIA schools need replacement or major repairs and that hence funding
should not be cut. The House approved the Administration’s proposal for BIA
education construction, and the Senate Appropriations Committee also agreed, albeit
“reluctantly.” However, the House Appropriations Committee disagreed that funding
for new schools should be reduced while current school construction projects are
finished and expressed concern about large amounts of unobligated construction
balances from prior years. The House committee directed BIA to report on the
projected obligation of current unobligated balances and on improvements in
construction planning and design procedures, enrollment projections, and space
standards. The Senate Appropriations Committee echoed the House committee’s
disagreement with the Administration’s assertions and said it expected more “robust”
appropriations requests for BIA school construction in the future.



For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].
CRS Report RS22056. Native American Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger
Walke.
Departmental Offices14
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to four insular areas — American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — as well as
three former insular areas — the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Palau, and
the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). OIA staff manage relations between
these jurisdictions and the federal government and work to build the fiscal and
governmental capacity of units of local government.
The total OIA request for FY2007 was $426.3 million, an amount slightly above
that provided in FY2006 ($425.6 million). OIA funding consists of two parts: (1)
permanent and indefinite appropriations and (2) discretionary and current mandatory
funding subject to the appropriations process. Of the total request for FY2007,
$347.1 million (81%) in permanent and indefinite funding is required through
statutes, as follows:
!$202.4 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and
Palau) under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free15
Association; and
!$144.7 million in fiscal assistance through payments to territories,
divided between the U.S. Virgin Islands for estimated rum excise
and income tax collections, and Guam for income tax collections.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the remaining 19% of the OIA budget. Two accounts — Assistance to
Territories (AT) and the Compact of Free Association (CFA) — comprise
discretionary and current mandatory funding. AT funding is used to provide grants
for the operation of the government of American Samoa, infrastructure improvement
projects on many of the insular area islands, and specified natural resource initiatives.
The CFA account provides federal assistance to the freely associated states pursuant
to compact agreements negotiated with the federal government.
Discretionary and mandatory appropriations for FY2006 total $81.5 million
(including government-wide rescissions enacted in P.L. 109-148), with AT funded


14 This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under “Departmental Offices.”
Total funding for Departmental Offices is identified in Table 25 at the end of this report.
15 Legislation to approve the amended compacts was enacted in the 108th Congress (P.L. 108-

188). For background, see CRS Report RL31737, The Marshall Islands and Micronesia:


Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the United States, by Thomas Lum. The
Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994 and will terminate in FY2009.

at $76.2 million and CFA at $5.3 million. The FY2007 request would reduce AT
funding to $74.4 million, and CFA assistance to $4.9 million, for a total of $79.2
million. The House approved $3.2 million more for AT ($77.6 million) than had
been requested, for increased oversight and technical assistance funding. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $76.5 million to fund AT activities, an
amount above the request and below that approved by the House. The House passed
CFA funding totaled $5.4 million, $0.5 million above the request specifically to
support food production activities necessary on Enewetak island as a result of
destruction caused by World War II conflicts as well as atomic bomb testing. The
Senate Appropriations Committee concurred with the House approved funding level
for CFA.
In total, the House passed $82.9 million for Insular Affairs, 2% above FY2006
and 5% above the Administration’s FY2007 request. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $81.8 million, which is lower than the House but higher
than the request.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[ http://www.doi.gov/oia/index .html] .
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For FY2007, the
Administration requested $198.0 million for PILT, down 15% from the FY2006 level
of $232.5 million. The Administration asserts that cutting PILT is part of an effort
to reduce the deficit, and is consistent with historical appropriations levels. The
House Appropriations Committee’s draft contained $216.0 million, but the House
committee agreed to an amendment transferring $12.0 million from the Smithsonian
Institution to PILT, bringing the total to $228.0 million. (See “Smithsonian
Institution, Business Ventures” section of this report for more information.) A House
floor amendment transferred an additional $16.0 million from Interior Department
salaries and expenses to PILT, to bring the figure to $244.0 million. The amendment
passed by voice vote. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $235.1
million, 4% less than the House.
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 to the
Consumer Price Index in 1994, has increased authorization levels. However,
appropriations have grown less rapidly, and substantially slower than authorized
amounts, ranging from 42% to 68% of authorized levels between FY2000 and
FY2006 (the most recent year available).16 See Table 14, below. County
governments claim that the program as a whole does not provide funding comparable
to property taxes, and further that rural areas in particular need additional PILT funds
to provide the kinds of services that counties with more private land are able to
provide.


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

Table 14. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in
Lieu of Taxes, FY2000-FY2007
($ in millions)
Fiscal YearAuthorized AmountAppropriatedAmount% of AuthorizedAmount
2000 $317.6 $134.0 42.2
2001 338.6 199.2 58.8
2002 350.8 210.0 59.9
2003 324.1 218.2 67.3
2004 331.3 224.3 67.7
2005 332.0 226.8 68.3
2006 344.4 232.5 67.5
2007 352.0 244.0/235.1 a 70.2/67.6
Notes: The FY2007 authorized level, in italics, is an estimate. Calculation of the level assumes (1)
all revenues from other payment programs are flat over the period; (2) the number of acres eligible for
PILT payments is unchanged; (3) all of the counties populations are unchanged; and (4) no states
change their “pass-through” laws. In consequence, only the changes in the Consumer Price Index
would influence PILT payments. However, it is likely that at least some of these assumptions would
need to be modified.

a. The first figure is the amount passed by the House; the second is the amount approved by the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
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.
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, the direct management of
Indian trust funds, establishment of an adequate trust fund management system, and
support of department claims settlement activities related to the trust funds. Indian
trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in 1996 the Secretary transferred
trust fund management to the OST. (See “Bureau of Indian Affairs” section above.)
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 277,000 accounts with a current total asset
value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2007 budget
justifications.) 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 FY2006 appropriation was $222.8 million. The Administration proposed
$244.5 million for FY2007, an increase of $21.7 million (10%). The House



approved $184.0 million for FY2007, a reduction of $38.7 million (17%) from
FY2006 and $60.4 million (25%) from the proposal. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $217.8 million, a decrease of $4.9 million (2%) from
FY2006 and $26.7 million (11%) from the Administration proposal but an increase
of $33.8 million (18%) over the House amount. Table 15 below presents funding
figures for FY2006-FY2007 for the OST. Key issues for the OST are an historical
accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal and IIM
accounts.
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2006-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007 Senate
Office of SpecialFY2006FY2007FY2007Committee
Trustee for AmericanApprop.RequestHouseChange
Indi ans P assed Tot a l from
FY2006
Federal Trust Programs$188,774$185,036$150,036$178,683-5%
— Historical
Accounting 56,353 56,353 45,000 50,000 -11%
Indian Land
Consolidation 34,006 59,449 34,006 39,150 15%
Total Appropriations$222,780$244,485$184,042$217,833-2%
Historical Accounting. For FY2007, the Administration proposed $56.4
million for historical accounting activities, the same as enacted for FY2006. The
House approved $45.0 million for FY2007, while the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $50.0 million. The historical accounting effort seeks to
assign correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especially because of litigation.th
Because of the long historical period to be covered (some accounts date from the 19
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. The Interior Department in 2003 proposed an
extensive, five-year, $335 million project to reconcile IIM accounts. The project
would reconcile all transactions for certain types of accounts and all land-based
transactions of $5,000 and over, but a statistical sample for land-based transactions
of less than $5,000. OST continues to follow this plan, subject to court rulings (see
“Litigation” below) or congressional actions. Plaintiffs in the litigation consider the
statistical sampling technique invalid. For FY2007, the House Appropriations
Committee did not disagree with DOI’s historical accounting plan, but expressed its
intent to limit spending for historical accounting and also directed DOI to make
quarterly reports on any use of funds from BIA “Operation of Indian Programs” for
IIM litigation support costs. The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed regret
at not being able to fund the Administration’s full request.
Litigation. An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Norton) was
filed in 1996, in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the



federal government by IIM account holders.17 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 proposed method would cost $335
million over five years and produce a total owed to IIM accounts in the low millions.
The plaintiffs’ method, based on estimated rates of errors applied to an agreed-upon
figure for IIM throughput, was estimated to produce a total owed to IIM accounts of
as much as $177 billion, depending on the error rate used. After a lengthy trial, the
court, in September 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. The Interior Department estimated
that the court’s choice for historical accounting would cost $6-$12 billion.
In the FY2004 Interior appropriations act, Congress enacted a controversial
provision aimed at the court’s decision. It directed that no statute or trust law
principle should be construed to require DOI to conduct the historical accounting
until either Congress had delineated the department’s specific historical accounting
obligations or December 31, 2004, whichever was earlier. Based on this provision,
the DOI appealed the court’s September 25, 2003 order. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia temporarily stayed the September 25 order. During the
stay, on April 5, 2004, the IIM plaintiffs and the federal government commenced
mediation. On December 10, 2004, the Appeals Court overturned much of the
September 25 order, finding that the congressional provision prevented the district
court from requiring DOI to follow its directions for a historical accounting. The
Appeals Court noted that the provision expired on December 31, 2004, but did not
discuss the district court’s possible reissue of the order. On February 23, 2005, 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,18 appealed the order. The
Appeals Court on November 15, 2005, vacated the district court’s February 2005
order. The district court has not yet issued another order, and the OST continues its
historical accounting under its September 2003 plan.
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


17 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].
18 Testimony from the Interior Department estimated the cost at $12-13 billion (James
Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Statement before the House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, March 17, 2005). Previous Interior estimates of the cost were $6-12 billion.

their IIM accounts are owed, or (3) the $27.5 billion that the Cobell plaintiffs have
proposed as a settlement amount.19 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,”20 but
some senior appropriators consider the Fund insufficient even for a $6-$13 billion
dollar settlement.21 Among other options, Congress may enact another delay to the
court-ordered accounting, direct a settlement, or delineate the department’s historical
accounting obligations (which could limit, or increase, the size of the historical
accounting). Settlement bills (S. 1439 and H.R. 4322) would establish in the
Treasury Department’s general fund an IIM claim settlement fund with
appropriations from the Judgment Fund. The dollar size of the fund is left blank in
both bills and is still being discussed among the plaintiffs, the Administration, and
Congress. A recent news story said a dollar figure may be inserted in the Senate bill
soon, and suggested it would be less than $10 billion, perhaps in the $6-$8 billion
range.22 In considering the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill, the House
Appropriations Committee expressed its desire that Cobell be resolved but stated no
opinion on a settlement amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee noted that
settlement efforts were underway among the Cobell parties and congressional
authorizing committees.
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.
CRS Report RS22056. Native American Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger
Walke.
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


19 Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement Workgroup, “Principles for Legislation,” June 20,

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


20 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.)
21 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.
22 Jerry Reynolds, “Washington in Brief,” Indian Country Today (June 30, 2006), at
[http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096413237], last accessed July 5, 2006.

and racing).23 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-FY2006, all NIGC activities have been funded from
fees, with no direct appropriations. The Administration, the House, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee did not recommend a direct appropriation for the NIGC
for FY2007.
IGRA formerly capped NIGC fees at $8 million per year, but Congress
amended IGRA (P.L. 109-221) to create a formula-based fee ceiling — 0.08% of the
gross gaming revenues of all gaming operations subject to regulation under IGRA.
If this fee ceiling percentage were applied to the latest NIGC figures for gross Indian
gaming revenues ($19.4 billion in 2004), the fee ceiling based on 2004 would be
$15.5 million.
The NIGC in recent years had requested additional funding because it was
experiencing increased demand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field
investigations. Congress had responded, in the FY2003-FY2006 appropriations acts,
by increasing the NIGC’s fee ceiling to $12 million, but only for FY2004-FY2007.
The Administration’s FY2007 NIGC budget proposal requested that the fee ceiling
be increased to $13 million for FY2008, and the House agreed. The Senate
Appropriations Committee did not agree and, in the light of the enacted formula-
based fee ceiling, recommended repealing the FY2006 appropriations provision
limiting the FY2007 fee ceiling.
For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its
website at [http://www.nigc.gov].


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

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 have grown as Congress has 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 reflects an increase in overall appropriations
to fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities. Without adjusting for inflation,
the agency’s appropriation has risen from $1.0 billion when the agency was
established in FY1970 to a high of $8.4 billion in FY2004. For FY2007, the House
has proposed $7.58 billion for EPA, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has
recommended $7.53 billion. The President had requested $7.32 billion. All of these
amounts are less than the FY2006 appropriation of $7.64 billion, including
rescissions and supplementals. Congress made an additional $80.0 million available
to EPA in FY2006 by rescinding and redirecting previously appropriated agency
funds that had not been obligated for certain activities.24 Consequently, the proposed
FY2007 funding levels for EPA reflect larger decreases when compared to the overall
FY2006 funding of $7.72 billion, which included new appropriations of $7.64 billion
and $80.0 million in rescinded prior year funds redirected to FY2006.
In floor debate, the House agreed to two amendments that increased EPA’s
funding by $3.8 million above the amount that the House Appropriations Committee
had recommended. One amendment included $1.8 million for Energy Star programs
aimed at improving energy efficiency. In its report on H.R. 5386, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended a slight increase above the House amount
for this program. The second House floor amendment increased funding for EPA’s
diesel emission reduction grant program by $2.0 million to a total of $28.0 million.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $20.1 million for this grant
program. The President had requested $49.5 million.
The House also passed other floor amendments that would affect EPA’s
implementation of certain activities. For example, one amendment would prohibit
funds from being spent on implementing controversial guidance on determining
federal jurisdiction over wetlands.25 The Senate Appropriations Committee did not


24 P.L. 109-54 rescinded $80.0 million from prior years’ appropriations that EPA had not
obligated for contracts, grants, and interagency agreements, for which the funding
authorization had expired. The law redirected these funds to be available in FY2006 but did
not specify how this funding was to be allocated among EPA’s accounts. EPA’s FY2007
budget justification indicates that for FY2006, the agency allocated $66.0 million to State
and Tribal Assistance Grants, $11.0 million to Hazardous Substance Superfund, $2.0 million
to Environmental Programs and Management, and $1.0 million to Science and Technology.
25 See CRS Report RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn and
(continued...)

recommend a similar prohibition. A few other House floor amendments relevant to
EPA were not agreed to. For example, one amendment would have provided $800
million in additional funds for activities of several agencies, of which $250 million
would have been for EPA grants to states for Clean Water State Revolving Funds
(SRFs). These grants assist states in issuing loans to communities for wastewater
infrastructure improvements, discussed in the “Water Infrastructure” section, below.
Traditionally, EPA’s annual appropriation has been requested and enacted
according to various line-item appropriations accounts, of which there currently are
eight. Table 16 indicates amounts by appropriations account for FY2006 enacted,
FY2007 requested, FY2007 House-passed, and FY2007 Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported.
Table 16. Appropriations for the
Environmental Protection Agency, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007FY2007
Environmental Protection AgencyFY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
Science and Technology (S&T)
— Direct Appropriations$730.8$788.3$808.0$793.4
— Transfer in from Superfund
account 30.2 27.830.027.8
Science and Technology Total761.0816.1838.0821.2
Environmental Programs and
Management (EPM)2,352.72,306.62,338.22,310.7
Office of Inspector General
— Direct Appropriations36.935.135.135.1
— Transfer in from Superfund
account 13.3 13.313.313.3
Office of Inspector General Total50.248.448.448.4
Buildings & Facilities39.639.839.839.8
Hazardous Substance Superfund Total1,242.11,259.01,256.91,261.3
— Transfer out to Office of Inspector
General (13.3) (13.3) (13.3) (13.3)
— Transfer out to Science and
Technology (30.2) (27.8) (30.0) (27.8)
— Net Appropriations After
Transfers 1,198.6 1,217.8 1,213.6 1,220.2
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
P r ogram 87.0 72.8 72.8 72.8
Oil Spill Response15.616.516.516.5
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
— Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(S RF) 886.8 687.6 687.6 687.6


25 (...continued)
Claudia Copeland.

FY2007FY2007
Environmental Protection AgencyFY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
— Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF)837.5841.5841.5841.5
— Categorical and Other Grants1,489.41,268.31,480.21,471.3
— Rescission and Redirection ofa
Prior Funds (80.0) — — —
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Tot a l 3,133.7 2,797.4 3,009.3 3,000.4
Total Appropriations $7,638.4$7,315.5$7,576.7$7,529.9
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Amounts are from the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees, reflecting rescissions and supplementals.
a. Congress made an additional $80.0 million available to EPA in FY2006 by rescinding and
redirecting prior years appropriated funds that had not been obligated for contracts, grants, and
interagency agreements, for which the funding authorization had expired. This $80.0 million
is shown as a reduction in the above table to reflect new appropriations for FY2006. Including
this $80.0 million, Congress made a total of $7.72 billion available to EPA in FY2006.
Key Funding Issues
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed both decreases
and increases for individual EPA programs and activities throughout the various
appropriations accounts when compared to the President’s FY2007 request and the
FY2006 appropriation. Although there have been varying levels of interest in
FY2007 funding for the agency’s programs and activities, funding for water
infrastructure within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account, the
cleanup of hazardous waste sites within the Superfund account, scientific research,
and air quality programs have received the most attention thus far in the second
session of the 109th Congress. Other areas of interest include funding for EPA’s
homeland security activities, and congressional funding priorities for individual
research and water infrastructure projects, often referred to as earmarks.26 The House
allocated $270.0 million to congressional priority projects for FY2007. The Senate
Appropriations Committee set aside $280.0 million, the same as the FY2006
congressional set-aside. As in past years, the President’s FY2007 request did not
include any funding for congressional priority projects in EPA’s budget. Proposed
funding for each of the above activities in which there has been broad congressional
interest is discussed further below.
Water Infrastructure. From appropriations provided within the STAG
account, EPA issues grants to states to support Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds (SRFs). These funds provide seed monies for state loans to
communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, respectively.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed $687.6 million for
Clean Water SRF grants, the same as the President requested, but less than the
FY2006 appropriation of $886.8 million. The proposed decrease has been


26 See CRS Report 98-518, Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriations Bills, by Sandy
Streeter.

contentious, as there is disagreement over the adequacy of funding to meet local
needs, such as municipal sewage treatment plant upgrades. Although appropriations
for these grants have declined in recent years, Congress has appropriated significantly
more funding than the President has requested to meet these needs. The proposals
of the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee to approve the President’s
requested decrease for FY2007 depart from this trend.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the President’s
request of $841.5 million for Drinking Water SRF grants, an increase above the
FY2006 appropriation of $837.5 million. The proposal to fund Drinking Water SRF
grants at the requested level is consistent with past years, as there generally has been
less disagreement between Congress and the Administration about the appropriate
funding level for these grants. However, some Members support higher funding to
meet local drinking water needs, such as assistance to help communities comply with
new standards for drinking water contaminants (e.g., arsenic and radium).
In addition to funding for Drinking Water SRF grants, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $11.0 million to assist small public water
systems in complying with safe drinking water regulations. Of this amount, $5.5
million would be provided within the Science and Technology account for alternative
technology projects to help small water systems comply with the disinfection
byproducts (DBP) rules and related regulations. The remaining $5.5 million would
be provided within the Environmental Programs and Management account for a
competitive grant program to provide technical assistance to small drinking water
systems for complying with the arsenic and DBP regulations.27
Congress also has provided specific funds in past appropriations for water
infrastructure projects in certain communities. Whether these needs should be met
with SRF loan monies or earmarked grant assistance has become controversial. Due
in part to such concerns, and the competing needs of many EPA activities in general,
the amount of funding earmarked for water infrastructure projects has declined since
FY2004.28 The House set aside $200.0 million for “congressional priority” water
infrastructure projects within the STAG account for FY2007. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $210.0 million for these types of projects.
Both amounts are more than the $197.1 million Congress set aside in the FY2006
appropriation. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees identified the
recipients of these funds in their respective reports on H.R. 5386. As in past years,
the President’s FY2007 budget did not include any funding for congressional priority
water infrastructure projects.
Superfund and Brownfields. Another prominent issue is the adequacy of
funding for the Superfund program to clean up the nation’s most hazardous waste
sites. Some Members, states, and environmental organizations have contended that
more funds than have been appropriated are necessary to speed the pace of cleanup


27 See CRS Report RL33549, Safe Drinking Water Act: Background and Issues in the 109th
Congress, by Mary Tiemann.
28 See CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Project Earmarks in EPA
Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications, by Claudia Copeland.

at contaminated sites. The House, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the
President proposed roughly similar amounts of $1.26 billion for the Superfund
account (prior to transfers to other accounts). As indicated in Table 16, these
amounts vary somewhat, but all are increases above the FY2006 appropriation of
$1.24 billion. This account funds many activities related to the cleanup of hazardous
substances, including administration, enforcement, and certain homeland security
functions. However, only a portion of the funding is for “actual” (i.e., physical)
cleanup of contaminated sites. The House approved $832.9 million for site cleanup,
and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $833.1 million, both
slightly less than the FY2006 appropriation of $833.9 million. The President had
requested a larger decrease, proposing $822.9 million for site cleanup. Some
Members had questioned the President’s requested decrease during budget oversight
hearings, in light of public concerns about the pace of cleanup to ensure protection
of human health and the environment.
The source of funding for the Superfund program also has been an ongoing
issue. Nearly all the funding for the program in the Superfund account that the
House, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the President have proposed
would be provided from general U.S. Treasury revenues. Three dedicated taxes (on
petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and corporate income) historically provided the
majority of funding for the Superfund program. These taxes expired at the end of

1995, and the remaining revenues were essentially used up by the end of FY2003.


Since then, Congress has funded the program almost entirely with general revenues.
Although cost recoveries from responsible parties, fines and penalties, and interest
on the unexpended balance of the trust fund continue to contribute revenue to the
Superfund program, these sources continue to be relatively small compared to general
revenues. Some Members of Congress advocate reinstating the Superfund taxes and
assert that the use of general revenues undermines the “polluter pays” principle.
Other Members and the Administration counter that viable parties are still required
to pay for the cleanup of contamination and that polluters are not escaping their
responsibility. According to EPA, responsible parties pay for the cleanup at more
than 70% of Superfund sites.
There also has been ongoing interest in the adequacy of funding to clean up
other contaminated sites, referred to as brownfields. The cleanup of these sites is
funded separately from Superfund. 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 House and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
the President’s request of $163.3 million for EPA’s Brownfields program to assist
states and tribes in the cleanup of these properties, a slight increase above the
FY2006 appropriation of $162.5 million.
EPA’s Homeland Security Activities. Under the Bioterrorism Act of
2002, and Homeland Security Presidential Directives 7, 9 and 10, EPA is the lead
federal agency for coordinating security of U.S. water systems, and plays a role in
early warning monitoring and decontamination associated with potential attacks
using biological contaminants. Although EPA’s homeland security funding is a
relatively small portion compared to most other federal agencies, the EPA activities



supported with this funding, and their competition for funds with core environmental
programs, have been a concern to some Members of Congress.
The House approved $143.7 million for EPA’s homeland security activities, and
the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $155.4 million. Both amounts
are increases above the FY2006 appropriation of $129.1 million, but are less than the
FY2007 request of $184.0 million. In its report on H.R. 5386, the House
Appropriations Committee indicated that it could only include a “modest” increase
above FY2006 for EPA’s homeland security activities (as well as for certain
programs authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005) because of limited funding
available for the bill as a whole and competing funding needs for activities that the
committee viewed as essential to the agency’s mission and as having a higher priority
(H.Rept. 109-465, p.93). In its report on H.R. 5386, the Senate Appropriations
Committee did not explain its reductions below the President’s FY2007 request.
Similar to the President’s budget, the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee amounts for EPA’s homeland security activities would be distributed
among five of the agency’s accounts: S&T, EPM, Superfund, Building and
Facilities, and STAG. Funding within these accounts would support various
activities, including critical water infrastructure protection, laboratory preparedness,
decontamination, protection of EPA personnel and operations, and communication.
Among these five accounts, the S&T account would include the largest portion of
funding for EPA’s homeland security activities. The House approved $61.8 million
within this account for these activities, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $68.2 million. Both amounts are an increase above the FY2006
appropriation of $50.2 million. The increases above FY2006 are intended for one
additional project for a water quality surveillance and monitoring pilot project,
referred to as the “Water Sentinel Initiative,” which EPA began in FY2006.29
The President’s FY2007 request had included $91.8 million within the S&T
account for homeland security activities, a large portion of which would have funded
four additional pilot projects under the above initiative. Some Members of Congress
and scientists had expressed concerns that the increase requested for homeland
security funding within the S&T account for activities such as these pilot projects
was competing with EPA’s core research programs, for which funding has been
declining in recent years (see related discussion below). In its report on H.R. 5386,
the House Appropriations Committee directed OMB and EPA to coordinate future
funding requests for the Water Sentinel Initiative through the Department of
Homeland Security.
Scientific Research. EPA’s S&T account provides the bulk of the funding
for developing the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support decisions on
preventing, regulating, and abating environmental pollution. It also supports efforts
to advance the base of understanding for environmental sciences. This account
incorporates elements of the former Research and Development account in place until
FY1996. The House approved $838.0 million for the S&T account for FY2007


29 See CRS Report RL31294, Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking Water: EPA and
Congressional Actions, by Mary Tiemann.

(including a transfer of $30.0 million from the Superfund account). The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $821.2 million for the S&T account
(including a transfer of $27.8 million as the President requested). Similar to transfers
in past appropriations, this funding from the Superfund account would support
research and development related to the cleanup of environmental contamination.
Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee amounts for the S&T
account are more than the FY2006 appropriation of $761.0 million (including a
transfer of $30.2 million), and the FY2007 request of $816.1 million (including a
transfer of $27.8 million). Within the S&T account, both the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee reports on H.R. 5386 included $30.0 million for
congressional priority research projects (also referred to as earmarks). Congress had
set aside $32.9 million for these types of projects for FY2006. As in past years, the
President’s FY2007 request did not include any funding for congressional priority
research projects within EPA’s budget.
A significant portion of the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
increases above FY2006 for the S&T account is in the form of an accounting
adjustment, as the President’s FY2007 budget proposed. This adjustment would
transfer $61.0 million into the S&T account for “facilities infrastructure and
operations.” These activities have been funded within the EPM account through
FY2006. The net effect is that the total Senate Appropriations Committee amount
of $821.2 million for the S&T account, without the $61.0 million adjustment, would
be a decrease relative to the FY2006 appropriation. The total House amount of
$838.0 million without the adjustment would be a significantly smaller increase
relative to the FY2006 appropriation.
Among individual research activities, as opposed to the account level, the House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved both increases and decreases
within the S&T account, relative to each other as well as the FY2006 appropriation
and the FY2007 request. For example, the House approved $238.0 million for the
“Human Health and Ecosystems” research program area, slightly more than the
FY2006 appropriation, but a greater increase relative to the President’s FY2007
request of $228.2 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$230.3 million. Research fellowships are funded within this program area, including
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) fellowships in which there has been ongoing
congressional interest. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
included $11.7 million for all fellowships within this area, similar to the FY2006
appropriation, but significantly more than the President’s FY2007 request of $8.4
million with the increase devoted to STAR fellowships. Homeland security funding
within the S&T account is another example of differing priorities for individual
activities, as discussed above.
Although there are varying views on the adequacy of funding for specific
scientific research activities, such as those noted above, there has been much debate
about support for scientific research in general. Some Members of Congress,30


30 See the House Science Committee Majority Views and Estimates on the President’s
(continued...)

scientists, and environmental organizations have expressed concern about declining
funding for what they refer to as “core” scientific research essential to ongoing
federal roles. Debate regarding funding for scientific research administered by EPA
and other federal agencies often has focused on the question of whether these
agencies’ actions are based on “sound science,” and how scientific research is applied
in developing federal policy. The Administration contends that the reductions in
funding that it requested for some scientific research activities in FY2007 would not
impair the quality of science, citing that less funding is needed in certain areas
because of efficiencies gained and cost savings realized from consolidating certain
research areas, and the fruition of certain research projects. As reflected in the
reports on H.R. 5386, the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee have
recommended funding increases for certain research activities, differing from the
Administration in what constitutes adequate funding.
Clean Air Act Implementation and Research. EPA’s implementation of,
and proposed changes to, several Clean Air Act provisions, as well as efforts to
address climate change, have elevated interest in funding for air quality programs
among Members of Congress.31 Funding within the S&T, EPM, Superfund, and
STAG accounts would support various programmatic implementation, research, and
monitoring activities addressing toxic air pollutants and air quality, radiation, climate
protection, indoor air quality, and radon. The House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee proposed both increases and decreases relative to each other, as well as
the FY2006 appropriation and the FY2007 request, for a variety of air quality
activities throughout these accounts.
Many of EPA’s air quality activities would be funded within a new category
introduced in the President’s FY2007 budget for implementation of certain activities
authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct, P.L. 109-58).32 The House and
the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed less funding than requested within
various EPA accounts for this category. As noted above, the House Appropriations
Committee indicated in its report on H.R. 5386 that it was unable to fully fund the
FY2007 request for EPAct activities given the limited funding for the bill as a whole,
and the competing funding needs for activities it viewed as essential to the agency’s
mission and as having a higher priority. For example, the President had requested
$49.5 million for FY2007 for a new diesel emissions reduction grant program within
the EPAct category. The House approved $28.0 million (including $2.0 million per
a floor amendment discussed earlier), and the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $20.1 million. In some cases, EPAct activities would absorb certain
activities funded as separate line-items in prior years. For example, a portion of the


30 (...continued)
FY2007 budget: [http://www.house.gov/science/hot/FinalViewsandEstimatesFY2007.pdf],
and the House Science Committee Minority Views and Estimates on the President’s FY2007
budget at [http://sciencedems.house.gov/randd/views_fy07.htm].
31 See CRS Report RL33552, Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th Congress, by James E.
McCarthy; and CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th
Congress, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.
32 See CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental Issues in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6), coordinated by Brent D. Yacobucci.

funding for the new diesel emissions reduction grant program would support Clean
School Bus grants, for which Congress provided $6.9 million as a separate line-item
in FY2006. Overall, the amounts that the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee proposed, and the President requested, for EPAct air quality activities are
less than what Congress authorized in P.L. 109-58.
Funding for “categorical” grants within the STAG account for state and local
air quality programs also has received attention within Congress. The House
approved $220.3 million for these grants for FY2007, roughly the same as the
FY2006 appropriation. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $200.2
million. Both amounts are an increase above the President’s request of $185.2
million. Some Members and state and local air pollution control officials33 had
raised concerns about the President’s requested reduction for these categorical grants,
contending that more funds are needed as a result of increasing Clean Air Act
responsibilities. For example, EPA has promulgated several new air quality
regulations within the past two years, requiring more of states and local governments.
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/],
and the following CRS products.
CRS Report RL32856. Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for
FY2006, by Robert Esworthy and David M. Bearden.
CRS Report RL33481. Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Susan R. Fletcher and Margaret Isler.


33 State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local
Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO), Impact of Proposed FY 2007 Budget
Cuts on State and Local Air Quality Agencies, March 14, 2006, at [http://www.4cleanair.
org/ StateandLocalExampl esofImpactsofCuts.pdf].

Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $4.15 billion for the
Forest Service (FS) for FY2007. This was $38.1 million (1%) less than the House-
passed bill, $57.4 million (1%) more than the President’s request, and $123.6 million
(3%) less than FY2006 appropriations of $4.28 billion.34 As discussed below and
shown in Figure 1, FS appropriations are provided in several major accounts,
including Forest and Rangeland Research; State and Private Forestry (S&PF);
National Forest System (NFS); Wildland Fire Management; Capital Improvement
and Maintenance (Infrastructure); and Other programs (substantially land
acquisition).
Figure 1. Forest Service FY2007 Budget Request


Major FS Issues in Appropriations. Significant FS issues have been raised
during consideration of the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill. In the FS budget
proposal, the President proposed selling about 300,000 acres of national forest lands,
with the proceeds to pay for a five-year extension of FS payments under the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393).
Current FS authorities to sell or otherwise dispose of national forest lands are
extremely narrow, so legislation would be needed to authorize the land sale. The
Administration has sent to Congress draft legislation with criteria to determine lands
34 Data for FY2006 and previous years include emergency and supplemental appropriations
and rescissions.

eligible for sale, such as lands that are inefficient or difficult to manage because they
are isolated or scattered. Relevant legislation has not been introduced to date, and
the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee did not include such authority
in the bill.
Another issue was raised on the House floor. The House agreed to an
amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to plan, design, study, or build
roads in the Tongass National Forest, in Alaska, for harvesting timber. A similar
amendment to the FY2005 Interior Appropriations Act passed the House, but was
removed before enactment. In the FY2006 bill, a similar amendment was struck on
a point of order as legislation on an appropriations bill. The amendment to the
FY2007 bill was different to avoid a point-of-order being raised. The Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported version did not include such a provision.
The Senate Appropriations Committee did add a provision that might prove
controversial. A new §426 in the bill as reported exempts FS projects that have been
categorically excluded from NEPA documentation and public involvement from the
Appeals Reform Act (§322 of P.L. 102-381). That act requires public notification
of agency decisions and an opportunity for the public to request an administrative
appeal of decisions. Supporters of the Senate provision contend that the
administrative appeals cause unnecessary delays in actions that have little or no
environmental impact (and can, therefore, be categorically excluded from NEPA
provisions). Opponents assert that the public should have an opportunity to know of
and to challenge agency decisions prior to irreversible commitments.
Wildland Fire Management. Fire funding and fire protection programs
continue to be controversial. Ongoing discussions include questions about funding
levels and locations for various fire protection treatments, such as thinning and
prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and clearing around structures to protect them
during fires. Another focus is whether, and to what extent, environmental analysis,
public involvement, and challenges to decisions hinder fuel reduction and post-fire
rehabilitation activities. (For historical background and descriptions of activities, see
CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)
The National Fire Plan comprises the FS wildland fire program (including fire
programs funded under other line items) and fire fighting on DOI lands; the DOI
wildland fire monies are appropriated to BLM. Congress does not fund the National
Fire Plan in any one place in Interior appropriations acts. The total can be derived
by combining the several accounts which the agencies identify as National Fire Plan
funding. For FY2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.60
billion, $20.2 million (1%) less than the House, $28.0 million (1%) more than the
President requested, and $58.4 million (2%) more than total FY2006 funding of
$2.54 billion, as shown in Table 17, below.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $776.6 million for BLM
wildfire funding in FY2007, $7.4 million (1%) more than the House, $7.1 million
(1%) more than the request, and $21.4 million (3%) more than FY2006. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended FS wildfire funding of $1.82 billion for
FY2007, $27.6 million (1%) less than the House, $20.9 million (1%) more than the
request, and $37.1 million (2%) more than FY2006. The FS and BLM wildfire line



items include funds for fire suppression (fighting fires), preparedness (equipment,
training, baseline personnel, prevention, and detection), and other operations
(rehabilitation, fuel reduction, research, and state and private assistance).
Table 17. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan,
FY2003-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007 FY2007
National Fire PlanFY2003Approp.FY2004Approp.FY2005Approp.FY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
P a sse d C o mm.
Forest Service
— Wildfire$418.0$597.1$648.9$690.2$746.2$741.5$741.5
Suppression
— Emergencya919.0748.9425.50.00.00.00.0
Funding
— Preparedness612.0671.6676.5660.7655.9655.9655.9
— Other Operations371.5392.6416.5434.0399.0452.2424.6
Subtotal, Forest2,320.52,410.32,167.31,784.91,801.01,849.61,821.9
Ser vice
BLM
— Wildfire159.3192.9218.4230.7257.0257.0257.0
Suppression
— Emergencya225.0198.498.60.00.00.00.0
Funding
— Preparednessb275.4254.2258.9268.8274.8274.8274.8
— Other Operations215.4238.1255.3255.7237.7237.4244.8
Subtotal, BLM875.2883.6831.3755.3769.6769.3776.6
Total National Fire Plan
— Wildfire577.3790.0867.3920.91,003.2998.5998.5
Suppression
— Emergencya1,144.0947.3524.10.00.00.00.0
Funding
— Preparedness887.4925.8935.4929.5930.7930.7930.7
— Other Operations 586.9630.7671.8689.7636.7689.6669.4
To t a l $3,195.6 $3,293.9 $2,998.6 $2,540.2 $2,570.6 $2,618.8 $2,598.6
Appro pria t io ns
Notes: Includes funding from BLM and FS Wildland Fire Management accounts and from FS State
and Private Forestry (Cooperative Fire Protection).
This table differs from the detailed tables in CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by
Ross W. Gorte, because that report rearranges data to distinguish funding for protecting federal lands,
for assisting in nonfederal land protection, and for fire research and other activities.
a. Emergency supplemental and contingent appropriations are included in agency totals.
b. Fire research and fuel reduction funds are included under Other Operations.



The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $998.5 million for
wildfire suppression funding in FY2007, matching the House-passed level, $4.7
million (0.5%) less than the request and $77.6 million (8%) more than FY2006. No
contingent or emergency funding has been included for FY2007. The agencies have
the authority to borrow unobligated funds from any other account to pay for
firefighting, for instance, if the fire season is worse than average. Such borrowing
typically is repaid, commonly through subsequent emergency appropriations bills.
For FY2007, the Senate committee recommended $930.7 million for fire
preparedness, equal to the House and the request; this is $1.1 million more than the
FY2006 appropriation. This amount includes an increase of $6.0 million (2%) for
BLM preparedness and a decrease of $4.8 million (1%) for FS preparedness.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a total of $669.4 million
for other fire operations, $20.2 million (3%) less than the House, $32.7 million (5%)
more than the request, and $20.7 million (3%) less than FY2006. Fuel reduction
funding (under the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003, P.L. 108-148) was approved at $491.6 million, matching
the request, $5.0 million (1%) less than the House, and $3.3 million (1%) more than
FY2006. This represents an increase above FY2006 of $11.7 million (4%) in FS fuel
reduction and a decrease of $8.3 million (4%) in BLM fuel reduction for FY2007.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended retaining the BLM’s state and
local fire assistance program at roughly half the FY2006 level, and increasing the
funding for the Joint Fire Science program.
State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center
of debate, proposed and recommended changes in State and Private Forestry (S&PF)
— programs that provide financial and technical assistance to states and to private
forest owners — have also attracted attention. For FY2007, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended S&PF funding of $251.1 million — $22.5
million (10%) more than the House, $6.7 million (3%) more than the request, and
$57.9 million (19%) less than FY2006. The Senate committee recommendations
differ from the House-passed levels and the Administration’s proposals for many
accounts.
For S&PF forest health management (insect and disease control on federal and
cooperative [nonfederal] lands) in FY2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $84.4 million, matching the request, $17.4 million (17%) less than the
House, and $15.6 million (16%) less than FY2006. The recommended level was 6%
below FY2006 for federal lands and 26% below FY2006 for cooperative lands.
For S&PF Cooperative Fire Assistance to states and volunteer fire departments,
the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $39.0 million, matching the
House, $6.2 million (19%) more than the request, and $0.2 million (0.5%) more than
appropriated for FY2006. Nearly all the difference was in assistance to states, with
the requested, House-passed, and Senate-recommended levels for assistance to
volunteer fire departments changing by less than 2% from FY2006.
For Cooperative Forestry (assistance for forestry activities on state and private
lands) in FY2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $120.7
million, $39.9 million (49%) more than the House-passed level, $1.5 million (1%)



less than the request, and $12.5 million (9%) less than FY2006. For Forest Legacy
(to purchase title or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses,
such as for residences), the Senate committee recommended $54.8 million, reduced
by $4.9 million by use of prior year balances. The net funding of $49.9 million is
$40.7 million (more than five times) more than the $9.3 million net funding approved
by the House. It is $11.6 million (19%) less than requested for FY2007, and $6.6
million (12%) below the FY2006 enacted level. For Forest Stewardship (for states
to assist private landowners), the Senate committee recommended $33.9 million,
matching the request, $3.1 million (8%) less than the House and $0.3 million (1%)
less than FY2006. Urban and Community Forestry (financial and technical
assistance to localities) received $27.6 million, $1.9 million (6%) less than the
House, $0.7 million (3%) more than requested, and $0.8 million (3%) less than
FY2006. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended retaining the
Economic Action Program (EAP; for rural community assistance, wood recycling,
and Pacific Northwest economic assistance) at $4.3 million, down $5.2 million
(55%) from FY2006 funding. The Administration and the House had sought to
terminate this program. The Senate Appropriations Committee matched the House
with $5.0 million of S&PF funding for resource inventory, funded at $4.6 million in
FY2006, but proposed for termination in the Administration’s budget request.
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations), the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $7.0 million, matching the House,
$2.0 million (41%) more than the request and slightly ($64,000, 1%) more than
FY2006.
Table 18. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry,
FY2004-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY200 FY2007
State and Private ForestryFY2004Approp.FY2005Approp.FY2006Approp.FY2007Request7HouseSenate
P a sse d C o mm.
Forest Health Management$98.6$101.9$100.1$84.4$101.9$84.4
— Federal Lands53.854.253.249.854.249.8
— Cooperative Lands44.747.646.934.647.634.6
Cooperative Fire Assistance38.438.838.832.839.039.0
— State Assistance33.432.932.927.033.033.0
— Volunteer Asst.5.05.95.95.96.06.0
Cooperative Forestry161.4145.4133.2122.280.8120.7
— Forest Stewardship31.932.334.133.937.033.9
— Forest Legacy64.157.156.561.59.3 a49.9 b
— Urban & Community34.932.028.426.829.527.6
F o re stry
— Economic Action25.619.09.50.00.04.3
(Program)
Forest Resource Info. &4.95.04.60.05.05.0
Analysis
International Programs5.96.46.94.97.07.0
Emergency Appropriations24.949.130.00.00.00.0



FY200 FY2007
State and Private ForestryFY2004Approp.FY2005Approp.FY2006Approp.FY2007Request7HouseSenate
P a sse d C o mm.
Total State & Private Forestry $329.2$341.6$309.0$244.4$228.6$251.1
a. Reflects an appropriation of $12.7 million reduced by use of $3.4 million of prior year balances.
b. Reflects an appropriation of $54.8 million reduced by use of $4.9 million of prior year balances.
Infrastructure. For Capital Improvement and Maintenance, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $383.7 million, $27.3 million (7%) less
than the House, $1.1 million (less than 1%) more than the request, and $54.6 million
(12%) less than FY2006. Significant changes from the House were recommended
for the various programs. For Facilities, the Senate committee recommended $6.2
million (5%) less than the House — $14.3 million (22%) less in maintenance and
$8.1 million (16%) more in construction. For Roads, the Senate committee
recommended $9.6 million (4%) less than the House — reducing construction by
$4.0 million (5%) and reducing maintenance by $5.6 million (4%). For Trails, the
Senate committee recommended $11.5 million (16%) less than the House — $6.1
million (19%) less in construction and $5.4 million (13%) less in maintenance. The
Senate committee recommendation for Infrastructure Improvement, to reduce the
agency’s backlog of deferred maintenance (estimated at $6.0 billion), matched the
request and the House, at $9.3 million, $3.4 million (27%) less than FY2006.
Other FS Accounts. For FS Research in FY2007, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $275.0 million, $5.3 million (2%) less than the House,
$7.2 million (3%) more than the request, and $2.7 million (1%) less than FY2006.
For the National Forest System (NFS), the Senate committee recommended $1.41
billion, $29.9 million (2%) less than the House, $15.7 million (1%) more than the
request, and $41.9 million (3%) less than FY2006. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, like the House, agreed with the proposed $32.5 million (12%) increase
in forest (timber) products over FY2006. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $3.7 million for the Valles Caldera National Preserve, for which the
Administration had proposed, and the House had approved, $1.0 million — down
80% from the $5.1 million in FY2006. For other accounts, the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended matching or reducing the House level, although the House
approved a $2.0 million general reduction. For Land Acquisition with LWCF
funds, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $37.0 million, $29.5
million (nearly 4 times) more than House, $11.9 million (47%) more than the request,
and $4.8 million (11%) less than FY2006. (See the “Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)
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 RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.



CRS Report RL30647. National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by Pamela
Baldwin and Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL33792. Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service: Issues for the 110th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte,
Carol Hardy Vincent, and Marc Humphries..
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
Department of Health and Human Services:
Indian Health Service
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is responsible for providing comprehensive
medical and environmental health services for approximately 1.8 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, 98 health stations, and 162 Alaska Native village clinics, and 28
residential treatment centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also operated 9 regional
youth substance abuse treatment centers and 2,252 units of residential quarters for
staff working in the clinics.
The Administration proposed $3.17 billion for IHS for FY2007, an increase of
4% over the FY2006 level of $3.05 billion. The House approved $3.19 billion, an
increase of 5% over FY2006 and 1% over the Administration proposal. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended an amount nearly identical to the House
amount. See Table 19, below. IHS funding is separated into two budget categories:
Health Services, and Facilities. Of the total IHS appropriation enacted for FY2006,
88% will be used for health services and 12% for the facilities program. IHS also
receives funding through reimbursements and a special Indian diabetes program (see
“Health Services” below). The sum of direct appropriations, reimbursements, and
diabetes is IHS’s “program level” total, shown in Table 19.
The most significant changes proposed in the Administration’s FY2007 IHS
budget concern the urban Indian health program, within Indian health services, and
the health care facilities construction program.



Table 19. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007 Senate
FY2007Committee
Indian Health ServiceFY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseChange
PassedTotalfrom
FY2006
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health$1,339.5$1,429.8$1,439.0$1,430.17%
Clinic Programs
— Dental Health117.7127.0127.0127.08%
— Mental Health58.561.761.761.76%
— Alcohol and143.2150.6150.6150.65%
Substance Abuse
— Contract Care499.6536.3536.3536.37%
— Catastrophic Health17.718.018.018.01%
Emergency Fund
Subtotal, Clinical2,176.22,323.32,332.62,323.67%
Services
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health49.053.053.053.08%
Nursing
— Health Education13.614.514.514.57%
— Community Health52.955.855.855.85%
Representatives
— Immunization1.61.71.71.75%
(Alaska)
Subtotal, Preventive117.1125.0125.0125.07%
Health Services
Other Services
— Urban Health32.7032.732.70%
Projects
— Indian Health31.031.731.731.72%
Professions
— Tribal Management2.42.52.52.54%
— Direct Operations62.263.863.863.83%
— Self-Governance5.75.85.85.83%
— Contract Support264.7270.3270.3270.32%
Costs
Subtotal, Other398.8374.2406.9406.92%
Services
Fixed Costs Decrease — — -34.4-20.0 —
Subtotal, Indian2,692.12,822.52,830.1$2,835.55%
Health Services
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and51.652.752.752.72%


Improvement

FY2007 Senate
FY2007Committee
Indian Health ServiceFY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseChange
PassedTotalfrom
FY2006
— Sanitation Facilities92.1 94.0 94.0 94.02%
Construction
— Health Care37.817.736.727.7-27%
Facilities Construction
— Facilities and
Environmental Health150.7161.3161.3161.37%
Support
— Equipment20.921.621.621.63%
Fixed Costs Decrease — — -2.70 —
Subtotal, Indian353.2347.3363.6357.31%
Health Facilities
Total Appropriations$3,045.3$3,169.8$3,193.7$3,192.85%
Medicare/Medicaid
Reimbursements and648.2684.1684.1684.16%
Other Collections
Special Diabetesa150.0150.0150.0150.00%
Program for Indians
Total Program Level$3,843.5$4,003.9$4,027.8$4,027.05%
a. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians has an authorization of $150 million for each of the
fiscal years FY2004 through FY2008 (P.L. 107-360). Funded through the General Treasury,
this program cost is not a part of IHS appropriations.
Health Services. IHS Health Services are funded not only through
congressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from private health
insurance and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Estimated total reimbursements were $598.7
million in FY2005 and are expected to be $648.2 million in FY2006. Another $150
million per year is expended through IHS Health Services for the Special Diabetes
Program for Indians.
While the House Appropriations Committee agreed with most of the
Administration’s proposed amounts for Health Services, it recommended a “fixed
cost decrease” of $34.4 million across the entire Health Services budget, cutting
about 40% of the funding proposed to pay costs of medical inflation and population
growth. The House approved this decrease. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended a smaller fixed cost decrease, of $20.0 million. The decrease would
affect each Health Services program differently.
The IHS Health Services budget has three subcategories: clinical services;
preventive health services; and other services. The clinical services budget includes
by far the most program funding. The clinical services budget proposed for FY2007
was $2.32 billion, an increase of 7% over $2.18 billion in FY2006. The House
approved $2.33 billion, and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$2.32 billion. Clinical services include primary care at IHS and tribally run hospitals
and clinics. For hospital and health clinic programs, which make up 62% of the



clinical services budget, the FY2007 proposal was $1.43 billion, 7% over $1.34
billion in FY2006. The House approved $1.44 billion, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $1.43 billion. Contract care is a significant clinical service
that funds the purchase of health services from local and community health care
providers when IHS cannot provide medical care and specific services through its
own system. It would receive $536.3 million for FY2007, 7% more than the FY2006
appropriation of $499.6 million. The House and the Senate committee agreed to this
amount. For other programs within clinical services for FY2007, dental programs
would receive $127.0 million, mental health programs $61.7 million, alcohol and
substance abuse programs $150.6 million, and the Catastrophic Health Emergency
Fund $18.0 million. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed
to these amounts.
For preventive health services, the Administration proposed $125.0 million for
FY2007, an 7% increase over the $117.1 million for FY2006. Included in the
preventive health services proposal for FY2007 is $53.0 million for public health
nursing, $14.5 million for health education in schools and communities, $1.7 million
for immunizations in Alaska, and $55.8 million for the tribally administered
community health representatives program that supports tribal community members
who work to prevent illness and disease in their communities. The House and the
Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to all of these proposed amounts.
For other health services, the Administration proposed $374.2 million for
FY2007, a 6% decrease from FY2006. The House approved $406.9 million, an
increase of 2% from FY2006 and of 9% from the proposal. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended the same amount as the House. Contract
support costs (CSC), the largest item in this category, were proposed to receive
$270.3 million for FY2007, a 2% increase, to which the House and the Senate
Appropriations Committee agreed. Contract support costs are provided to tribes to
help pay the costs of administering IHS-funded programs under contracts or
compacts authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638, as
amended). CSC pays for costs tribes incur for such items as financial management,
accounting, training, and program start up. Most tribes and tribal organizations
participate in self-determination contracts and self-governing compacts. Other health
services also include urban Indian health programs (discussed below), Indian health
professions scholarships and other support ($31.7 million), tribal management grants
($2.5 million), direct IHS operation of facilities ($63.8 million), and self-governance
technical assistance ($5.8 million). The House and the Senate committee agreed to
all of these amounts except for urban Indian health.
Urban Indian Health Program. The Administration proposed no new
funding for the urban Indian health program, funded at $32.7 million in FY2006.
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 reservations, and that urban Indians can be served through other
federal, health, and local health programs. For instance, the Administration proposed
increased funding for the Health Centers program in HHS. Opponents assert that the



Administration has not provided evidence that these alternative programs can replace
the urban Indian health program and has not studied the impact of the loss of IHS
funding on health care for the approximately 71,000 urban Indians who annually
receive services through this program. They further believe that only the urban
Indian health program will provide culturally appropriate care. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended funding for the urban Indian health
program at its FY2006 level, asserting that the program had a good assessment rating
and that the program has attracted additional non-IHS funding. The House agreed
with the committee’s recommendation. The Senate Appropriations Committee not
only recommended restoring urban Indian health program funding to its FY2006
level, but also included the amount in bill language.
Facilities. The IHS’s Facilities category includes money for the equipment,
construction, maintenance, and improvement of both health-care and sanitation
facilities, as well as environmental health support programs. The Administration’s
proposal was $347.3 million, a 2% decrease from FY2006 appropriations. The
House approved $363.6 million, a 3% increase from FY2006 and a 5% increase from
the Administration’s proposal. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$357.3 million, a 1% increase from FY2006 and 3% increase from the proposal but
a 2% decrease from the House amount. (See Table 19.) As with Health Services,
the House committee recommended a fixed cost decrease for Facilities, in this case
a cut of $2.7 million, cutting funding proposed to pay costs of medical inflation and
population growth by 40%. The House agreed to the fixed cost decrease but the
Senate Appropriations Committee did not recommend any fixed cost decrease.
Included in the FY2007 Facilities proposal are $52.7 million for maintenance
and improvement of health care facilities (2% increase), $94.0 million for sanitation
facilities construction (2% increase), $21.6 million for equipment (3% increase),
$161.3 million for facilities and environmental health support (7% increase), and
funds for health care facilities construction (discussed below). The House-passed bill
concurred with all of these proposed amounts. The Senate Appropriations
Committee agreed with all of the proposed amounts, except for the amount for health
care facilities construction.
Health Care Facilities Construction. The Administration proposed $17.7
million for construction of new health care facilities in FY2007, a 53% reduction
from the FY2006 level of $37.8 million. The FY2006 level was a 57% reduction
from the FY2005 level of $88.6 million. The House approved $36.7 million, which
is 3% below FY2006 and 108% above the proposal. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $27.7 million, 27% below FY2006 and 57% over the
proposal. The Administration’s FY2007 proposal would fund completion of one
ongoing project. The House-approved bill would fund 3 ongoing projects (in
Phoenix, Kayenta, and San Carlos, AZ) and partially fund dental and small
ambulatory facilities construction and IHS-tribal joint venture construction. The
Senate committee’s recommendation would provide funding for only 2 projects (in
Phoenix, AZ, and Barrow, AK). The Administration asserted that its proposed cut
was part of an HHS-wide pause in new construction and that it helped fund staffing
of newly-completed facilities and the increase in Indian health services. Opponents
contended that the IHS reports a $1.5-billion backlog in unmet health-facility needs
and that the need is too great for a pause. Both the House and Senate Appropriations



Committees expressed concern about IHS health care facilities budget requests. The
House Appropriations Committee stated that it would take 48 years to complete the
facilities on IHS’s current priority list at the rate of funding IHS requested for
FY2007, while about one-third of IHS-operated hospitals and health centers are
already over 40 years old. The Senate Appropriations Committee also referred to a
growing backlog of health facility construction projects and said it expected a more
“aggressive” request for FY2008 health facility construction funding.
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 Donna U. Vogt and Roger Walke.
CRS Report RS22056. Native American Issues in the 109th Congress, 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.
For FY2007, the Administration proposed $5.9 million in new appropriations for
ONHIR, a 30% reduction from the FY2006 appropriation of $8.5 million. The
House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Administration’s
proposed amount. ONHIR estimated it would also spend about $12.0 million in
unobligated “carryover” funds during FY2006, thereby reducing its large unobligated
balance from $19.0 million at the beginning of FY2005 to $3.0 million by the end of
FY2006.
Navajo-Hopi relocation began in 1977 and is now nearing completion. ONHIR
still 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 3,400 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 FY2004, according to
ONHIR, 96% of the Navajo families and 100% of the Hopi families had completed
relocation. In addition, however, about half of the roughly 250 Navajo families —
only some of them among the 3,400 eligible families — who signed “accommodation
agreements” (under P.L. 104-301) that allowed them to stay on Hopi land under Hopi
law, may wish to opt out of these agreements and relocate using ONHIR benefits,
according to ONHIR.



ONHIR estimated that as of the end of FY2004, 130 Navajo families were
awaiting relocation. Eleven of these families were still residing on Hopi partitioned
land, with three of them having homes built or seeking homes and eight refusing to
relocate or sign an accommodation agreement. ONHIR and the U.S. Department of
Justice are negotiating with the Hopi Tribe to allow the eight families to stay on Hopi
land, as autonomous families, in return for ONHIR’s relocating off Hopi land those
families who signed agreements but wish to opt out.
In its FY2006 budget justification ONHIR had estimated that relocation moves
for currently eligible families would be completed by the end of FY2006. The
addition of Navajo families who have opted out of accommodation agreements, and
of Navajo families who filed late applications or appeals but whom ONHIR proposes
to accommodate to avoid litigation — together estimated at 210 families — would
mean that all relocation moves would not be completed until the end of FY2008,
according to ONHIR. This schedule 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. Pending legislation (S. 1003)
would 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 FY2006 and approved by the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee for FY2007, prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from
Hopi partitioned lands unless a replacement home were provided. This language
appears to prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families in the near
future, because of ONHIR’s backlog of approved relocatees awaiting replacement
homes. As the backlog is reduced, however, forced eviction may become an issue,
if any remaining Navajo families were to refuse relocation and if the Hopi Tribe were
to exercise a right under P.L. 104-301 to begin legal action against the United States
for failure to give the Hopi Tribe “quiet possession” of all Hopi partitioned lands.
The agreement that ONHIR reported it was negotiating with the Justice Department
and the Hopi Tribe seeks to avoid this.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum and education and research
complex consisting of 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and 9 research
facilities throughout the United States and around the world, plus 144 affiliated
museums. The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with approximately 8 million
square feet of space. There were over 24 million visitors to SI museums last year, a

24% increase over FY2004. The Smithsonian Institution is estimated to be 75%


federally funded and also supported by various types of trust funds. A federal
commitment to fund the SI was established by legislation in 1846.
FY2007 Actions. For FY2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee-
reported bill would provide $644.4 million for SI, the same as the Administration’s
request, an increase of $20.3 million over the House-passed bill ($624.1 million), and
an increase of $29.3 million over the FY2006 level. See Table 20 below. For



Salaries and Expenses, the Senate committee-reported bill would provide $537.4
million for Salaries and Expenses, the same as the Administration’s request, $20.8
million above the FY2006 level and $20.3 million above the House-passed bill.
Salaries and Expenses cover administration of all of the museums and research
institutions that are part of the SI. It also includes program support and outreach, and
facilities services (security and maintenance). The House-passed bill cut the
Smithsonian’s Salaries and Expenses funding by $20.0 million on the grounds that
Congress was not consulted on a contract that the Smithsonian Institution made with
Showtime. In report language, the Senate Appropriations Committee stated that the
visiting public would not be well served by the funding cut (S.Rept. 109-275, p. 110-
111). (See below under Business Ventures.) During House consideration, an
amendment was adopted to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to limit the
Smithsonian’s outreach programs, which currently extend to many communities
across all states.
Facilities Capital. For FY2007, the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved $107.0 million for facilities capital, the same as the
Administration’s budget. This would be an increase over the FY2006 level of $98.5
million. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $91.1
million for revitalization, $5.4 million for construction, and $10.5 million for
facilities planning and design. Revitalization funds are for addressing advanced
deterioration in SI buildings, helping with routine maintenance and repair in SI
facilities, and making critical repairs. Several studies, including one by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO-05-369), indicate that the SI needs an
investment of $1.6 billion for revitalization and construction over the next decade.
National Museum of African American History and Culture. A new
National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) has been
authorized within the Smithsonian Institution through P.L.108-184. The museum
will collect, preserve, study, and exhibit African American historical and cultural
material and will focus on specific periods of history, including the time of slavery,
Reconstruction, the Harlem Renaissance, and the civil rights movement. For
FY2007, the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee supported the
Administration’s budget request for $3.0 million, a slight increase from the FY2006
appropriation of $2.9 million. The funding will cover operating costs, including
personnel for planning, and capital fund raising. Space has been selected on the Mall
near the Washington Monument. Other groups, such as Latinos, have been seeking
museum space on the Mall, and legislation has been introduced (H.R. 2134, S. 2475)
for an American Latino Museum. The House Appropriations Committee’s report on
FY2006 appropriations stipulated that the SI’s purchase of any additional buildings
would require initial consultation with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
National Zoo. For FY2007, the House approved $21.4 million for salaries
and expenses at the National Zoo, an increase over the Administration’s request
($20.7 million) and FY2006 ($20.0 million). The Senate Appropriations Committee
approved $20.7 million, the same as the budget request. In the House-passed bill,
$1.0 million is to address critical infrastructure including fire detection and
suppression systems. Recently, Members of Congress and the public have expressed
increased concern about the National Zoo’s facilities and the care and health of its



animals. The Smithsonian Institution has a plan to revitalize the zoo, to make the
facilities safer for the public and healthier for the animals. In report language, the
Senate Appropriations Committee indicated that they were pleased with the new
leadership at the Zoo. The Administration’s FY2007 request estimated $13.0 million
(under the Facilities Capital account) to begin Phase II of the Asia Trail and
Elephant Trails to provide ample space for the elephants. It also included renewing
facades, roofs, and skylights at Rock Creek ($2.0 million); and an upgrade of critical
infrastructure ($1.0 million), including installing fire protection systems and
upgrading utilities. The new construction and renovation will help the Zoo come into
compliance with the Department of Agriculture and American Zoo and Aquarium
Association standards, and help correct “infrastructure deficiencies” found
throughout the National Zoo. The House agreed to provide the full amount for
Facilities Planning and Design, but asked to review the list of the Zoo’s projects for
Facilities Planning and Design before approval. The Senate Appropriations
Committee reported bill does not contain similar language.
Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian
Institution receives income from trust funds to expand its programs. The SI trust
funds include general trust funds, contributions from private sources, and government
grants and contracts from other agencies. For FY2006, the trust funds available for
operations were estimated at $274.0 million, comprised of $59.0 million for general
trust, $109.0 million for government grants and contracts, and $106.0 million for
donor-designated funds. Of concern to Congress is the extent to which the SI’s
financial managers are investing in hedge funds to boost the endowment. The SI has
tried to assure the Congress that it is not reducing the endowment from these
investments.
Business Ventures. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern
over a new business venture between the Smithsonian and Showtime. The venture,
called “Smithsonian On Demand,” is a new cable programming service that will offer
commercial-free shows about Smithsonian resources and collections. According to
the SI, the Institution will take advantage of the power of cable television to expand
access to objects, scientists, and scholars in keeping with its mission to diffuse
knowledge. The primary concern is that the national collections might not be
available to the public and that access by other film makers could be limited. The SI
asserts that its collections will remain open to all researchers. Further, according to
the SI, it will not refuse access to other producers and in fact will hire independent
film makers to produce the programs for the channel. The SI claims that it does not
need to divulge the terms of its contract with CBS/Showtime, because it is a business
contract that does not involve federal funds. Some lawmakers assert that, because
of the substantial federal support of the SI, they have a right to know about this
contract, while others contend that they should be informed as a courtesy. The SI
contends that it maintains separate trust fund accounts and that activities related to
the private accounts do not need to be made public.
To express its disapproval with the Smithsonian over the Showtime business
venture, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee included bill language
limiting the Smithsonian’s ability to execute any contract or legal agreement which
could limit access by the public to the Smithsonian collections. This was retained in
the House-passed bill. The House also reduced the Administration’s request for



Smithsonian Institution’s Salaries and Expenses by $20.3 million from $537.4
million to $517.1 million. Finally, the House agreed to limit the salary of the
Secretary of the Smithsonian to not more than that of the President of the United
States and to reduce the salaries of any other SI officer or employee now receiving
more than the President to the level of the President. The Senate Appropriations
Committee expressed concern about the House-passed $20.0 million reduction,
stating that the Smithsonian admitted its mistakes in not consulting Congress in the
process of negotiating with Showtime. The Senate Appropriations Committee stated
that the reduction will not have a noticeable impact on the Showtime deal, and any
reduction may damage “already thin program budgets in each of the institution’s
existing museums, research centers and the National Zoo” (S.Rept. 109-275, p. 110).
Table 20. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007FY2007
Smithsonian Institution (SI)FY2005Approp.FY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
Salaries and Expenses$489,035$516,568$537,394$517,094$537,394
Facilities Capital
— Revitalization110,35572,81391,06591,06591,065
— Construction7,87917,8345,4355,4355,435
— Facilities Planning and7,8897,88210,50010,50010,500
Design
Subtotal, Facilities Capital126,12398,529107,000107,000107,000
Total Appropriations$615,158$615,097$644,394$624,094$644,394
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),
and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The NEA and NEH authorization
(P.L. 89-209; 20 U.S.C. §951) expired at the end of FY1993, but the agencies have
been operating on temporary authority through appropriations law. IMLS receives
funding through the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts.
Among the questions Congress continually considers is whether funding for the
arts and humanities is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Additional
concerns of Congress for FY2007 include whether NEA and NEH funding is keeping
up with inflation and whether it is adequate for both NEA and NEH to cover their
mandatory and escalating costs, such as cost of living increases in salaries and rent. An
idea that has been in the background for years is combining the two Endowments into



one to share programs and staff. It is not known if this change would achieve savings
ultimately, or whether it would be feasible, given that the programs for the most part
serve different constituencies. There may be further discussion of this idea during
consideration of the FY2007 NEA and NEH appropriations or by the authorizing
committees.
NEA. The NEA is a major federal source of support for the arts in all arts
disciplines. Since 1965 it has provided over 120,000 grants that have been distributedth
to all states. NEA is celebrating its 40 anniversary as a fully operational public
agency. For FY2007, the House-passed bill would provide $129.4 million for NEA,
an increase of $5.0 million over the Senate committee bill, the Administration’s
FY2007 budget, and the FY2006 appropriation. The FY2007 House-passed bill and
the Senate committee-reported bill would provide $44.9 million for direct grants and
$39.5 million for state partnerships. During House consideration, an amendment was
adopted to add $5.0 million for each of the NEA and NEH. Another House amendment
that would have reduced the NEA by $30.0 million and redirected most of that money
to the wildland fire management budget of the Forest Service was not agreed to.
The House-passed bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported bill, and
the Administration’s budget would allow $14.1 million to be used for Challenge
America grants. The Challenge America Arts Fund is a program of matching grants
for arts education, outreach, and community arts activities for rural and under-served
areas. These grants reach over 17,000 schools, many in remote areas. The House-
passed bill, the Senate committee-reported bill and the Administration’s budget
included $9.9 million for the American Masterpieces program. It is funded jointly
under NEA grants and state partnerships. This national initiative includes touring
programs, local presentations, and arts education in the fields of dance, visual arts, and
music. See Table 21 below.
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. NEH is celebrating its 40th anniversary
as a fully operational public agency.
For NEH, for FY2007, the House-passed bill would provide $146.0 million, $5.0
million above the FY2007 Administration request, the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported bill, and the FY2006 level. The House-passed bill and the Senate
Committee-reported bill would provide $14.9 million for matching grants for both
Treasury Funds and Challenge Grants. The House-passed bill would provide $131.0
million for grants and administration while the Senate Committee-reported bill would
provide $126.0 million. The House included the extra $5.0 million as a floor
amendment. See Table 21 below. The House-passed bill, the Senate Committee-
reported bill, and the FY2007 budget request would allow $15.2 million for the “We
the People” initiative. These grants include model curriculum projects for schools to
improve course offerings in the humanities — American history, culture, and civics.



Table 21. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007FY2007
Arts and HumanitiesFY2005Approp.FY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
NEA
— Challenge America Arts$21,427$17,559$14,097$14,097$14,097
Fund
— National Initiative:1,9729,8529,8529,8529,852
American Masterpieces
Subtotal Grants99,452100,65498,81798,81798,817
Program support1,2701,6721,7611,7611,761
Admi nistration 20,542 22,080 23,834 23,834 23,834
Increase from House floor — — — 5,000
amendment
Total, NEA121,264124,406124,412129,412124,412
NEH
— Subtotal, NEH Grants and122,156125,728126,049126,049126,049
Administration
— Increase from House floor — — — 5,000 —
amendment
Total, NEH Grants and122,156125,728126,049 131,049126,049
Administration
Matching Grants15,89815,22114,90614,90614,906
Total, NEH138,054140,949140,955145,955140,955
Total Appropriations NFAH$259,318$265,355$265,367$275,367$265,367
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 is authorized at $900 million annually through FY2015.
However, these funds may not be spent without an appropriation. The LWCF is used for
three purposes. First, the four principal federal land management agencies — Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest Service
— draw primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The sections on each of those
agencies earlier in this report identify funding levels and other details for their land
acquisition activities. Second, the LWCF funds acquisition and recreational development
by state and local governments through a grant program administered by the NPS,
sometimes referred to as stateside funding. Third, Administrations have requested, and
Congress has appropriated, money from the LWCF to fund some related activities. This
third use is relatively recent, starting with the FY1998 appropriation. Programs funded
have varied from year to year. Most of the appropriations for federal acquisitions
generally are specified for management units, such as a specific National Wildlife
Refuge, while the state grant program and appropriations for other related activities rarely
are earmarked.
From FY1965 through FY2006, about $29 billion has been credited to the LWCF.
About half that amount — $14.3 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 $1.0 billion, partly in response to President Clinton’s Lands Legacy Initiative and
some interest in increased and more certain funding for LWCF.
Table 22. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, FY2004-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007FY2007
Land and WaterFY2004FY2005FY2006FY2006FY2007HouseSenate
Conservation FundApprop.Approp.RequestApprop.RequestPassedComm.
Federal Acquisition
— BLM$18.4$11.2$13.4$8.6$8.8$3.1$9.2
— FWS 38.137.041.028.027.119.842.3
— NPS 41.755.152.934.4 a22.728.433.4
— FS 66.461.040.041.825.17.537.0
Subtotal, Federal164.6164.3147.3112.883.658.7121.9
Acquisition
Appraisal Services0.00.07.47.37.47.47.4
Grants to States93.891.21.629.6a1.61.630.0
Other Programs229.7203.4524.3214.1440.6142.1195.0
Total Appropriations$488.1$458.9$680.6$346.8a$533.3$209.9$354.3
Source: Data are from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the DOI Budget Office,
and The Interior Budget in Brief for each fiscal year.



a. The NPS land acquisition and total appropriation figures are reduced by $9.8 million due to the use
of prior year funds for NPS federal land acquisition. The total only also is reduced by $17.0
million due to the use of prior year funds for NPS land acquisition and state assistance. Thus,
the figures in the column exceed the total by $17.0 million.
FY2007 Funding. For FY2007, the Administration requested $533.3 million
for LWCF, an increase of $186.5 million (54%) over the FY2006 appropriation of
$346.8 million. From prior year funds, for the NPS for FY2006 there are an
additional $17.0 million for land acquisition and state assistance and $9.8 million for
federal land acquisition. The FY2007 request includes funds for federal land
acquisition, the stateside program, and other purposes. The House approved a total
of $209.9 for LWCF, a decrease of $136.9 million (39%) from FY2006 and of
$323.4 million (61%) from the Administration’s request. In its report on the FY2007
bill, the House Appropriations Committee stated that new land acquisition and
unproven grant programs are a low priority. The Senate Appropriations Committee
reported a total of $354.3 million for LWCF, an increase of $7.5 million (2%) over
FY2006 but a decrease of $179.0 million (34%) from the Administration’s request.
Land Acquisition. Of the total FY2007 Administration request, $83.6
million was for federal land acquisition, a $29.1 million (26%) reduction from the
FY2006 level of $112.8 million. The House approved $58.7 million for land
acquisition, a reduction of $54.1 million (48%) from FY2006 and of $24.9 million
(30%) from the President’s request. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported
$121.9 million for land acquisition, more than enacted for FY2006, recommended
by the Administration, and passed by the House. In addition, the Administration
requested, and the House and the Senate committee supported, an additional $7.4
million for land appraisals related to federal land acquisitions.
For the five fiscal years ending in FY2001, appropriations for federal land
acquisition had more than tripled, rising from $136.6 million in FY1996 to $453.4
million in FY2001. However, since then the appropriation for land acquisition has
declined, to $112.8 million for FY2006. Not only did the total for federal land
acquisition decline each year from FY2002 to FY2006, but each of the four
component accounts declined each year (except NPS from FY2004 to FY2005). The
decline may be attributed in part to increased attention to the federal budget deficit
and enhanced interest in funding other national priorities, such as the war on
terrorism. Table 22 shows recent funding for LWCF.
Stateside Program. Another $1.6 million of the total FY2007
Administration request was for administration of the stateside grant program. The
Administration is not seeking funds for new state grants in FY2007 on the grounds
that state and local governments have alternative sources of funding for parkland
acquisition and development, and the current program could not adequately measure
performance or demonstrate results. For FY2007, the House also supported $1.6
million for program administration only. This is not a new phenomenon. For
example, the President similarly did not seek funds for new state grants in FY2006,
although Congress appropriated $29.6 million for that purpose. In addition, for
several years the Clinton Administration proposed eliminating stateside funding, and
Congress concurred. In the last five years, stateside funding has fallen 79%, from
$144.0 million in FY2002 to $29.6 million in FY2006. By contrast, the Senate



Committee on Appropriations approved $30.0 million for the stateside program.
This includes $28.4 million for new grants in FY2007 in addition to $1.6 million for
program administration.
Other Purposes. The largest portion of the President’s FY2007 request —
$440.6 million — was for 15 other programs in the Department of the Interior and
the Forest Service. This would be a $226.5 million (106%) increase over the FY2006
level of $214.1 million. Table 22 shows that in FY2006, the largest portion of the
appropriation was for other programs but the Administration had requested a much
larger amount. Table 23 shows the programs for which the President sought LWCF
funds in FY2007, and the FY2006 appropriation for the indicated programs. In some
cases, Congress provided these programs with non-LWCF funding.
For FY2007, the House passed $142.1 million for other purposes, while the
Senate Appropriations Committee reported $195.0 million. Both chambers included
funds for four FWS programs, one FS program, and one DOI program. The House-
passed level would constitute a reduction of $72.0 million (34%) from FY2006 and
of $298.5 million (68%) from the President’s request for FY2007. The Senate
Appropriations Committee figure would be a reduction of $19.1 million (9%) from
FY2006 and of $245.6 million (56%) from the President’s request.
Table 23. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2007FY2007
Other ProgramsFY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
— Challenge Cost Share$0.0$9.4$0.0$0.0
Fish and Wildlife Service
— Refuge Challenge Cost Share0.08.60.00.0
— Partners for Fish and Wildlife0.042.70.00.0
— Coastal Programs0.013.00.00.0
— Migratory Bird Joint Ventures0.011.80.00.0
— State and Tribal Wildlife Grants67.574.750.067.5
— Landowner Incentive Grants21.724.415.010.0
— Private Stewardship Grants7.39.47.07.3
— Cooperative Endangered Species61.180.060.359.8
Grants
— North American Wetlands0.041.60.00.0
Conservation Fund Grants
National Park Service
— Challenge Cost Share0.02.40.00.0
Departmental Management
— Take Pride in America0.00.50.50.5
Forest Service (USDA)



FY2007FY2007
Other ProgramsFY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedComm.
— Forest Legacy Program56.561.59.349.9
— Forest Stewardship Program0.033.90.00.0
— Urban and Community Forestry0.026.80.00.0
Program
Total Appropriations$214.1$440.6$142.1$195.0
Notes: This table identifies “other” programs for which the Administration seeks LWCF funds for
FY2007; it excludes federal land acquisition and the stateside program. The FY2007 information is
derived from DOI and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Funding provided outside
of LWCF is not reflected.
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 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.
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 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 FY1993-FY2006, federal appropriations for projects and services related to
the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem exceeded $2.6 billion, and state
funding topped $3.6 billion.35 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.36


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

FY2007 Funding. For FY2007, the Administration requested $233.4 million
for the Department of the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers for restoration
efforts in the Everglades, which is an increase of $31.0 million from the FY2006
enacted level of $202.4 million. For DOI, the Administration requested $69.4
million for CERP and non-CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida
ecosystem for FY2007. The House-passed bill provides $69.0 million for Everglades
restoration, which is similar to the requested amount. The Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported bill does not provide a total funding amount for Everglades
restoration, although like the House-passeed bill, it provides $13.3 million for the
Modified Water Deliveries Project and $9.8 million for interagency coordination and
planning of Everglades restoration. This latter heading does not correspond to the
categories outlined in the request and therefore is not included in Table 24 below.
For FY2006, $80.5 million was provided to the DOI for Everglades restoration.
However, of this amount, $17.0 million was provided for land acquisition from prior
year balances, making the FY2006 appropriation for restoration $63.5 million. The
FY2007 House-passed level of $69.0 million for Everglades restoration is $5.5
million above the FY2006 appropriation.
Table 24. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration
in the DOI Budget, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
Everglades Restoration inFY2005FY2006FY2007FY2007House FY2007Senate
DO I Approp. Approp. Request P asseda Comm.b
National Park Service
— CERP$5,213$4,620$4,658n/an/a
— Park Operations c 25,26625,83226,350n/an/a
— Land Acquisition (use of0-17,0000n/an/a
prior year balances)
— Everglades Acquisitions1,500690500n/an/a
Management
— Modified Water Delivery 7,96524,88213,33013,33013,330
— Everglades Research3,8823,8403,863n/an/a
— South Florida Ecosystem1,2901,2861,308n/an/a
Task Force
— GSA Space0554554n/an/a
Subtotal, NPS 45,11644,70450,563n/an/a
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP3,3043,2693,269n/an/a
— Land Acquisition74000n/an/a
— Ecological Services2,5182,5162,516n/an/a
— Refuges and Wildlife4,7874,0864,086n/an/a
— Migratory Birds0101101n/an/a
— Law Enforcement627619619n/an/a
— Fisheries999595n/an/a
Subtotal, FWS 12,07510,68610,686n/an/a



Everglades Restoration inFY2005FY2006FY2007FY2007House FY2007Senate
DO I Approp. Approp. Request P asseda Comm.b
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and7,7387,7717,771n/an/a
Coordination
Subtotal, USGS 7,7387,7717,771n/an/a
Bureau of Indian Affairs
— Seminole, Miccosukee536382382n/an/a
Tribe Water Studies and
Restoration
Subtotal, BIA536382382n/an/a
Total Appropriations$65,465$63,543$69,402$69,000n/a
Source: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2007, The Interior Budget in Brief (Washington, DC:
Feb. 2006) and House Appropriations Committee Press Release, accessed May 15, 2006 at
[ h t tp ://ap p r o p r i a t i o n s . h o u s e . g o v / i n d e x . c f m? F u s e Ac t i o n = P r e s s R e l e a s e s . D e t a i l & P r e s s R e l e a s e _ i d = 605].
Note: n/a = not available
a. The report of the House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-465) and the House-passed bill
do not specify funding for all of the projects listed under Everglades restoration.
b. Neither the bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee nor the accompanying report
(S.Rept. 109-275) provide total funding for Everglades restoration or detail funding for its
various components.
c. This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National
Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve.
The primary increase in funding for Everglades restoration requested for
FY2007 is for the Modified Water Deliveries Project (Mod Waters) under NPS. This
project is designed to improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park, and to
the extent possible, restore the natural hydrological conditions within the Park. The
completion of this project is required prior to the construction of certain projects
under CERP. For FY2006, $7.9 million in new funds were appropriated for Mod
Waters. This figure reflects a reduction of $17.0 million due to the use of prior year
funds. For FY2007, $13.3 million was requested. The House-passed bill and the
Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide this level of funding
based on conditions discussed under the phosphorus mitigation heading.
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 sustain the current level of funding, in light
of escalating costs and project delays. In H.Rept. 109-80 (FY2006 appropriations),
the House Appropriations Committee cited concerns expressed by stakeholders that



a new Florida initiative termed Acceler8 is focused too heavily on water storage
projects that do not provide anticipated natural benefits. In report language for
FY2007 appropriations, the House Appropriations Committee expresses its
appreciation of the efforts the state of Florida has made to provide funding for
Acceler8 projects.
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation. For FY2006, P.L. 109-54
conditioned funding for Mod Waters based on meeting state water quality standards.
It provided that funds appropriated in the act and any prior acts for the project 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 (to be filed annually until December 31, 2006)
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. This provision was included in the FY2007 House-
passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill, and also had been
enacted in the FY2004 and FY2005 Interior appropriations laws. Provisions
conditioning funds on the achievement of water quality standards were not requested
in the Administration’s budget for FY2007.
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.
In its report for FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee contends that
good water quality is essential for restoring the Everglades and opposes any changes
to the consent decree, which establishes a goal of lowering phosphorus levels to 10
ppb (parts per billion) in federal lands in the Everglades. To support this position,
the House-passed bill would condition funds for implementing Mod Waters based
on the state of Florida meeting water quality standards. This condition also applies
if the terms of the consent decree are terminated prior to its mandate of achieving low
levels of phosphorus.
Also in the House-passed bill and in the Senate Appropriations Committee-
reported bill, funds for Mod Waters would also be unavailable unless funds for
implementing Mod Waters and engineering and design documents for the Tamiami
Trail component of the project are appropriated to the Corps. The condition on
funding Mod Waters stems from a provision in the law (P.L. 106-541) that authorizes
the implementation of CERP. This provision states that Mod Waters must be
completed before several other restoration projects are undertaken. Therefore, delays
in the completion of Mod Waters would result in delays in the implementation of a
larger portion of the restoration plan.
CRS Report RS22048. Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by
Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.



CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole
T. Carter.



Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007 FY2007
Bureau or AgencyFY2004Approp.FY2005Approp. FY2006Approp.FY2007RequestHouseSenate
P a sse d C o mm.
: Department of the Interior
of Land Management$1,893,233$1,816,910$1,754,145$1,782,860$1,785,347$1,804,391
. Fish and Wildlife Service1,308,4051,332,5911,477,4371,291,5361,289,5881,323,975
ional Park Service2,258,5812,365,6832,437,7062,155,8232,175,8402,228,222
. Geological Survey937,985944,564980,845944,760986,447979,997
erals Management Service170,297173,826189,309163,554164,399163,454
ice of Surface Mining Reclamation and
o rcement 295,975 296,573 294,157 298,145 298,145 298,145
of Indian Affairs2,300,8142,295,7022,274,2702,221,8512,234,6772,272,472
ental Officesa682,674729,379775,910754,039717,943766,058
Title I9,847,9649,955,22810,183,7799,612,5689,652,3869,836,714
e II: Environmental Protection Agency8,365,817c 8,026,4857,638,4167,315,4757,576,6707,529,924
le III: Related Agencies
. Forest Service4,939,8994,770,598d4,277,7624,096,7284,192,2664,154,133
an Health Service2,921,7152,985,0663,045,3103,169,7873,193,7093,192,831
nal Institute of Environmental Health
ences 78,309 79,842 79,108 78,414 79,414 78,414
cy for Toxic Substances and Disease
istry 73,034 76,041 74,905 75,004 76,754 75,004
ncil on Environmental Quality and Office of
ironmental Quality3,2193,2582,6772,6272,6272,627
ical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board8,6489,4249,0649,1089,2089,108
ice of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation13,3664,9308,4745,9405,9405,940
te of American Indian and Alaska Native
ture and Arts Development6,1735,9166,2076,7036,7036,703
ithsonian Institution596,279615,158615,097644,394624,094644,394
ional Gallery of Art98,225102,654111,141116,743116,743116,743
n F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts32,15933,02130,34738,70938,70938,709
Wilson International Center for
o lars 8,498 8,863 9,065 9,438 9,438 9,438
ional Endowment for the Arts120,972121,264124,406124,412129,412124,412
al Endowment for the Humanities135,310138,054140,949140,955145,955140,955
mission of Fine Arts1,4051,7681,8651,9511,9511,951
ional Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs6,9146,9027,1436,5346,5347,500
isory Council on Historic Preservation3,9514,5364,7895,1185,1185,118
ional Capital Planning Commission7,6357,8888,1238,2657,6238,265
. Holocaust Memorial Museum39,50540,85842,15043,78643,41543,786
idio Trust20,44519,72219,70619,25619,25619,256
ite House Commission on the Natl. Moment
emembrance 248247200200200
Title III9,115,6619,036,0118,618,5358,604,0728,715,0698,685,487
V: Veterans’ Health][1,500,000]
stributed Reductions 1,768
nd Total (in Bill)b$27,329,442$27,017,724$26,438,962e$25,532,115$25,944,125$26,054,925
House and Senate Appropriations Committees.



ental Offices includes Insular Affairs, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), and the Office of the Special
Trustee for American Indians.
. Figures generally do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments.
erived from the report of the House Appropriations Committee on H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674).
cludes $40.0 million in transferred funds from the Department of Defense (§8098, P.L. 108-287).
The total does not reflect a $1.50 billion in emergency appropriations for veterans health. The total does reflect undistributed
reductions which are not included in the individual agency figures in the column, and $77.0 million in emergency
supplemental appropriations.



For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL32993. Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fee on Coal, by Nonna A.
Noto.
CRS Report RL33872. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in
the 110th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL33468. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Robert Meltz.
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 RL32244. Grazing Regulations: Changes by the Bureau of Land
Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL33617. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
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.
CRS Report RL33531. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding
History, and Current Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS22056. Native American Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger
Walke.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RL33484. National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL33806. Natural Resources Policy: Management, Institutions, and
Issues, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent, Nicole T. Carter, and Julie
Jennings.



CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands,
by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL33493. Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing
and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole
T. Carter.
Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Report RL32393. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL30335. Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL33792. Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service: Issues for the 110th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte,
Carol Hardy Vincent, and Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RL33525. Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert
and Carol Hardy Vincent.
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
CRS Report RL30798. Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes
Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), coordinated by
Susan R. Fletcher.
CRS Report RL32856. Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for
FY2006, by Robert Esworthy and David M. Bearden.
CRS Report RS22064. Environmental Protection Agency: FY2006 Appropriations
Highlights, by David M. Bearden and Robert Esworthy.



CRS Report RL33481. Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Susan R. Fletcher and Margaret Isler.
Title III: Related Agencies
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL33022. Indian Health Service: Health Care Delivery, Status,
Funding, and Legislative Issues, by Donna U. Vogt and Roger Walke.
CRS Report RS22056. Native American Issues in the 109th Congress, by Roger
Walke.
CRS Report RL30647. National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by Pamela
Baldwin and Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.