Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Congressional research reportFeb 3, 2006

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:

FY2006 Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

(name redacted), Coordinator

February 3, 2006

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL32893

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Summary

The FY2006 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 newlytransferred to the Appropriations subcommittees that deal with Interior and Related Agencies; and

numerous other entities and agencies.

On August 2, 2005, H.R. 2361 was signed into law as P.L. 109-54, containing approximately

$26.20 billion in FY2006 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Congress also included in this law $1.50 billion in supplemental funds to cover a shortfall in

veterans’ health care resources. On July 28, 2005, the House approved the conference agreement

(410-10), and on July 29, 2005, the Senate agreed to the conference report (99-1). The FY2006

appropriations law provided an increase of 2% over the President’s request for FY2006 of $25.72

billion, but a decrease of 3% below the FY2005 enacted level of $27.02 billion. The FY2006 total

appropriation reflects an across-the-board rescission of 0.476% ($126.0 million) to be applied

across accounts. However, it does not reflect rescissions and emergency supplemental

appropriations contained in P.L. 109-148. Further, the figures used throughout this report do not

reflect the supplemental appropriations or the rescissions in either law because their effect on

individual agencies, programs, and activities has not yet been calculated.

The FY2006 appropriation reflected lower funding than the FY2005 enacted level in areas

including

•

$-507.1 million for the Forest Service (FS);

•

$-294.1 million for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

•

$-75.8 million for the National Park Service (NPS); and

•

$-36.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The FY2006 appropriation reflected higher funding than the FY2005 enacted level in areas

including

•

$105.7 million for the Indian Health Service (IHS);

•

$31.5 million for the United States Geological Survey (USGS);

•

$12.5 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and

•

$9.2 million for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).

During consideration of FY2006 funding, Congress debated many issues including appropriate

funding for wildland fire fighting, land acquisition, NEA, select FWS programs, BIA schools,

IHS hospitals, the Superfund, wastewater/drinking water needs, agency competitive sourcing

activities, maintenance backlogs, Indian trust fund management, Outer Continental Shelf leasing,

the Abandoned Mine Lands fund, and EPA’s human dosing studies. This report is not expected to

be updated.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Contents

Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

FY2006 Budget and Appropriations ............................................................................................2

Current Overview .................................................................................................................2

Earlier Action........................................................................................................................3

Major Issues..........................................................................................................................4

Status of Bill .........................................................................................................................6

Title I: Department of the Interior................................................................................................6

Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................................6

Overview ........................................................................................................................6

Management of Lands and Resources..............................................................................7

Wildland Fire Management .............................................................................................8

Construction ...................................................................................................................9

Land Acquisition.............................................................................................................9

Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands .....................................................................9

Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................................... 10

Endangered Species Funding......................................................................................... 11

National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement ............................................... 12

Land Acquisition........................................................................................................... 12

Wildlife Refuge Fund.................................................................................................... 13

Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF)........................................................ 13

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants .................................................................................... 14

National Park Service.......................................................................................................... 15

Operation of the National Park System.......................................................................... 15

United States Park Police (USPP).................................................................................. 16

National Recreation and Preservation ............................................................................ 17

Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) ............................................................ 17

Construction ................................................................................................................. 17

Land Acquisition and State Assistance........................................................................... 18

Historic Preservation..................................................................................................... 18

U.S. Geological Survey....................................................................................................... 20

Enterprise Information .................................................................................................. 21

National Mapping Program ........................................................................................... 21

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes................................................................. 22

Water Resources Investigations ..................................................................................... 23

Biological Research ...................................................................................................... 23

Science Support and Facilities....................................................................................... 24

Minerals Management Service ............................................................................................ 24

Budget and Appropriations............................................................................................ 25

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore ....................................................................................... 26

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ..................................................... 28

Bureau of Indian Affairs...................................................................................................... 29

BIA Reorganization....................................................................................................... 31

BIA School System ....................................................................................................... 32

Departmental Offices .......................................................................................................... 33

Insular Affairs ............................................................................................................... 33

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) ................................................................... 34

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.............................................................. 35

National Indian Gaming Commission............................................................................ 38

Title II: Environmental Protection Agency................................................................................. 39

EPA Appropriation Accounts ......................................................................................... 40

Key Funding Issues....................................................................................................... 42

Title III: Related Agencies......................................................................................................... 47

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................................................................... 47

Forest Fires and Forest Health....................................................................................... 47

State and Private Forestry.............................................................................................. 49

Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 51

Land Acquisition........................................................................................................... 51

Other Accounts ............................................................................................................. 51

Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service...................................... 52

Health Services ............................................................................................................. 53

Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 54

Diabetes........................................................................................................................ 55

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ...................................................................... 56

Smithsonian Institution ....................................................................................................... 57

FY2006 Budget and Appropriations .............................................................................. 57

Facilities Capital ........................................................................................................... 57

National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI)........................................................ 58

National Museum of African American History and Culture.......................................... 58

National Zoo................................................................................................................. 58

Trust Funds ................................................................................................................... 59

National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities................... 59

NEA ............................................................................................................................. 60

NEH ............................................................................................................................. 61

Cross-Cutting Topics................................................................................................................. 62

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) ................................................................ 62

Overview ...................................................................................................................... 62

FY2006 Appropriations................................................................................................. 63

Conservation Spending Category ........................................................................................ 65

Everglades Restoration........................................................................................................ 66

Overview of Appropriations .......................................................................................... 67

FY2006 Funding ........................................................................................................... 67

Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation .......................................................................... 71

Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs.......................................................................... 72

For Additional Reading ............................................................................................................. 75

Title I: Department of the Interior........................................................................................ 75

Land Management Agencies Generally ............................................................................... 76

Title II: Environmental Protection Agency........................................................................... 77

Title III: Related Agencies................................................................................................... 77

Figures

Figure 1. EPA FY2006 Appropriations (P.L. 109-54) by Appropriations Account....................... 42

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Tables

Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2006.................................4

Table 2. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,

FY2006....................................................................................................................................6

Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2005-FY2006 ..........................9

Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs, FY2005FY2006.................................................................................................................................. 11

Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2005-FY2006 ......................... 13

Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Neotropical

Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2006 .................................................................................. 14

Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2005-FY2006.......................... 14

Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2005-FY2006 ................................... 16

Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund, FY2005-FY2006............................ 20

Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2005-FY2006 ............................... 24

Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2005-FY2006 .................... 25

Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2005-FY2006.............................. 30

Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, FY2005FY2006.................................................................................................................................. 36

Table 14. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2005-FY2006 ............... 40

Table 15. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2002-FY2006....................................... 48

Table 16. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry, FY2005-FY2006............................... 50

Table 17. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2005-FY2006.................................. 52

Table 18. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2005-FY2006 ............................... 59

Table 19. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2005-FY2006 ......................................... 61

Table 20. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, FY2004-FY2006.......... 63

Table 21. FY2006 Funding for Other Programs from the LWCF................................................ 64

Table 22. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget, FY2005-FY2006........ 69

Table 23. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, FY2004FY2006.................................................................................................................................. 73

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 78

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments

On August 2, 2005, H.R. 2361, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act for FY2006, was enacted as P.L. 109-54. The law contained a total of $26.20 billion for

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The law also contained $1.50 billion in

supplemental funds to cover a shortfall in veterans health care resources.

On December 30, 2005, H.R. 2863 was signed into law as P.L. 109-148. The law affected funding

levels enacted in P.L. 109-54, through rescissions and emergency supplemental funds, which are

not reflected in this report.

Introduction

The FY2006 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law included funding

for agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as well as numerous related

agencies and bureaus. The law provided 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 law

also provided funds for agencies in two other departments: for 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 FY2006

law included funding for arts and cultural agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National

Gallery of Art, National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities,

and for numerous other entities and agencies.

In recent years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies provided funds for

several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE), including research, development, and

conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

However, at the outset of the 109th Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House

and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate jurisdiction

over DOE.1 At the same time, jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and

several smaller entities, was moved to the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees

covering Interior and Related Agencies.2 This change resulted from the abolition of the House and

Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and

Independent Agencies, which previously had jurisdiction over EPA.

In the recent past, Interior and Related Agencies appropriations acts typically contained two

primary titles providing funding. Title I provided funds for Interior agencies, and Title II

contained funds for other agencies, programs, and entities. The FY2006 appropriations law

contained three primary titles providing funding. This report is organized along the lines of the

law. 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,

In the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations panel is called the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

and Related Agencies and the Senate panel is entitled the Subcommittee on Energy and Water.

In the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations panel is called the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and

Related Agencies, while the Senate panel is entitled the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

programs, and entities funded in the FY2006 law. A fourth section of this report discusses crosscutting topics that encompass more than one agency.

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 the funding levels enacted for FY2006, requested by the President,

recommended by the House and Senate for FY2006, and appropriated for FY2005. 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. Finally,

some of the DOI websites provided throughout the report have not been consistently operational

due to a court order regarding Indian trust funds litigation. Nevertheless, they are included herein

for reference when the websites are operational.

FY2006 Budget and Appropriations

Current Overview

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2361) was signed into

law on August 2, 2005 as P.L. 109-54. On July 28th, 2005, the House approved the conference

agreement (410-10), and on July 29th, 2005, the Senate agreed to the conference report (99-1).

Congress also included in this law $1.50 billion in supplemental funds to cover a shortfall in

veterans’ health care resources. The FY2006 appropriations law provided $26.20 billion, an

increase of 2% over the President’s budget request for FY2006 of $25.72 billion, but a decrease

of 3% below the FY2005 enacted level of $27.02 billion. The FY2006 total appropriation reflects

an across-the-board rescission of 0.476% to be applied across accounts. However, it does not

reflect a 1% across-the-board rescission, other rescissions, and emergency supplemental funds

contained in P.L. 109-148. Further, the figures used throughout this report do not reflect these

supplemental funds or the rescissions in either law because their effect on individual agencies,

programs, and activities has not yet been calculated.

The FY2006 appropriations law reflected lower funding as compared to the FY2005 enacted level

in areas including:

•

$-507.1 million for the Forest Service (FS);

•

$-294.1 million for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

•

$-75.8 million for the National Park Service (NPS); and

•

$-36.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management.

The FY2006 appropriations law reflected higher funding than the FY2005 enacted level in areas

including

•

$105.7 million for Indian Health Service;

•

$31.5 million for the United States Geological Survey (USGS);

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

•

$12.5 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and

•

$10.0 million total for National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National

Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).

Earlier Action

During initial consideration of H.R. 2361, on June 29th, 2005, the Senate passed H.R. 2361

unanimously (94-0). As passed by the Senate, H.R. 2361 would have provided appropriations of

$26.26 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. On May 19, 2005, the House had

passed H.R. 2361 (329-89) containing $26.16 billion in FY2006 appropriations. The Housepassed level was a 3% decrease from the FY2005 enacted level and a 0.4% decrease from the

Senate-passed total, but a 2% increase over the President’s request for FY2006.

During Senate debate on H.R. 2361, the Senate had considered about four dozen floor

amendments, some of which addressed major issues and activities of agencies that are discussed

in relevant sections of this report. Amendments generally not discussed in this report include

those that dealt with Interior appropriations more generally or were cross-cutting in nature.

Examples include an amendment to reduce each appropriation in the bill by 1.7% (withdrawn)

and another to require limitations, directives, and earmarks in committee reports to be included

also in conference reports in order to be regarded as having been approved by Congress (not

agreed to). Still other amendments not covered in this report are those that did not relate directly

to Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Examples include an amendment seeking to

facilitate family travel to Cuba (not agreed to) and an amendment providing emergency

supplemental appropriations for FY2005 for the Veterans Health Administration (agreed to).

During floor debate, the House considered about two dozen amendments before voting on final

passage of the FY2006 appropriations bill. Many of these amendments are discussed in pertinent

sections throughout this report. In some cases, the inclusion of legislation in the bill was

controversial. The presiding officer sustained points of order against several provisions in the bill

on the grounds that House rules bar legislation on an appropriations bill, thereby striking the

provisions from the bill. These points of order were raised by chairmen of authorizing panels,

namely the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and the Chairman of the

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Energy and

Commerce. The inclusion in the bill of appropriations not previously authorized by law also was

controversial in some instances. The Chairman of the House Resources Committee offered an

amendment seeking to prevent money in the bill from being spent for 10 programs within the

Committee’s jurisdiction which are not authorized to be appropriated in FY2006, according to the

Chairman.3 The presiding officer sustained a point of order against the amendment on the grounds

that it too constituted legislation, so it was not in order to be considered.

In earlier action, on June 10, 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously reported

(28-0) H.R. 2361 (S.Rept. 109-80), providing $26.27 billion for Interior, Environment, and

Related Agencies. On May 13, 2005, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2361

(H.Rept. 109-80) with $26.16 billion in FY2006 Interior appropriations. Both the House and

Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior had marked up funding bills and held hearings

Rep. Richard Pombo, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily ed., 151, (19 May 2005): H3670.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

on the President’s budget request for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Hearings

examined the requests for individual agencies and programs as well as cross-cutting issues.

For FY2006, the President had sought $25.72 billion, a 5% decrease from the FY2005 enacted

level of $27.02 billion. The FY2005 total reflects two across-the-board rescissions in the

Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447) of 0.594% and 0.80%.4

The President’s FY2006 budget had recommended depositing, into the general fund of the

Treasury, 70% of receipts from BLM land sales under the Southern Nevada Public Land

Management Act (SNPLMA). This issue is covered briefly in the “Bureau of Land Management”

section below. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redact

ed).) The budget also 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

Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th

Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).)

Table 1 below shows the budget authority for Interior and Related Agencies for FY2004-2006.

See Table 23 for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau, and program for FY2004 and

FY2005; the President’s budget request for FY2006; the FY2006 House- and Senate-passed

levels; and the FY2006 levels enacted into law.

Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2006

(budget authority in billions of current dollars)

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

$27.33

$27.02

$26.20

Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping

adjustments. They generally reflect rescissions and supplemental appropriations to date, except that the FY2006

figure excludes rescissions and emergency supplemental appropriations contained in P.L. 109-148.

Major Issues

Controversial policy and funding issues typically have been debated during consideration of the

annual Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bills. Current debate on FY2006 funding

levels encompasses a variety of issues, many of which have been controversial in the past,

including the issues listed below.

•

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Fund, including whether, as part of AML

reauthorization, to change the program as sought by the Administration to

address state and regional concerns, including a change to return unobligated

state share balances in the fund to the states. (For more information, see the

“Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement” section in this report.)

The 0.594% rescission applied to agencies and programs funded in the Interior and Related Agencies portion of the

consolidated law, thus the EPA and several smaller entities that were transferred to the Interior Subcommittees in the

109th Congress were not affected by this cut.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

•

Arts and Humanities, including whether funding for the arts and humanities is an

appropriate federal responsibility, and, if so, what should be the proper level of

federal support for cultural activities. (For more information, see the “National

Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities” section in

this report.)

•

BIA Schools and IHS Hospitals, particularly whether to enact funding cuts

proposed in the President’s FY2006 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 monies for state loans to communities for

wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see

the “Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)

•

Competitive Sourcing, namely the extent to which government functions should

be privatized, agency funds can and should be used for such efforts, and agencies

are communicating appropriately with Congress on their competitive sourcing

activities. (For more information, see the “Competitive Sourcing of Government

Jobs” section in this report.)

•

Fish and Wildlife Service Programs, including the appropriate levels of funding

for the endangered species program, state and tribal wildlife grants, and the

multinational species conservation fund, and whether changes to the endangered

species program are warranted. (For more information, see the “Fish and Wildlife

Service” section in this report.)

•

Indian Trust Funds, especially the method by which an 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.)

•

Intentional Human Dosing Studies, in particular the adequacy of health safety

standards for research subjects and general ethical questions with respect to

EPA’s use of data from such studies, whether conducted by EPA or others, for

determining associated human health risks of pesticides. (For more information,

see the “Environmental Protection Agency” 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.)

•

Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet hazardous waste

cleanup needs, and whether to continue using general Treasury revenues to fund

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

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.)

•

Wild Horses and Burros, particularly the sale of excess animals under new

authority and the slaughter of some animals. (For more information, see the

“Bureau of Land Management” 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 “Department of Agriculture: Forest Service” sections in

this report.)

Status of Bill

Table 2 below contains information on congressional consideration of the FY2006 Interior

appropriations bill.

Table 2. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,

FY2006

Subcommittee

Markup

House

5/4/05

Senate

House

Report

6/7/05

H.R.

2361,

H.Rept.

109-80

5/13/05

House

Passage

Senate

Report

5/19/05

(329-89)

H.R.

2361,

S.Rept.

109-80

6/10/05

Senate

Passage

6/29/05

(94-0)

Conf.

Report

H.Rept.

109-188

Conference

Report Approval

House

7/28/05

(410-10)

Senate

7/29/05

(99-1)

Public

Law

P.L.

109-54

8/2/05

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

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

function is wildland fire management on about 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, and

certain nonfederal land.

For FY2006, the appropriations law included $1.78 billion for BLM, a reduction from the

FY2005 enacted level of $1.82 billion. The original House-passed bill had included $1.76 billion

and the original Senate-passed bill had contained $1.79 billion. See Table 3 below.

The Administration’s FY2006 budget supported amending the Southern Nevada Public Land

Management Act (SNPLMA) to change the allocation of proceeds of BLM land sales in Nevada.

Under current law, none of the funds are deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. The

President supported depositing 70% of the receipts there, instead of using the money in Nevada,

for instance, to buy environmentally sensitive lands. The House-passed bill had sought to require

the Secretary of the Interior to report to the House Appropriations Committee on past

expenditures under SNPLMA during FY2003 and FY2004. This provision was not included in

the FY2006 law. (For information on this issue, see CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redact

ed) .)

Management of Lands and Resources

For Management of Lands and Resources, the FY2006 law contained $860.8 million, an increase

of 3% over FY2005. The House originally had approved $845.8 million for FY2006, while the

Senate had supported $867.0 million. This line item includes funds for an array of BLM land

programs, including protection, recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and

general BLM administration. The FY2006 law would increase some programs over FY2005,

including resource protection and law enforcement; resource management planning; and

management of forests, rangelands, riparian areas, recreation, wildlife, and oil and gas. The law

provided a 35% increase to the Challenge Cost Share Program, rather than the 89% increase that

had been sought by the Administration. Through this program, BLM and local communities and

citizens jointly fund and carry out conservation programs. The law did not fund the Cooperative

Conservation Initiative, for which the Administration had requested $6.0 million for restoration

and conservation projects. The FY2006 law decreased funds for some other programs from

FY2005, including Alaska minerals, wild horses and burros, and deferred maintenance.

Energy

The FY2006 appropriations law 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 law 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. In report

language, the House Appropriations Committee directed BLM to report by December 31, 2005,

on the steps that may be needed to proceed with oil shale development. The Senate

Appropriations Committee, in report language, supported accelerating oil shale development.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Wild Horses and Burros

The FY2006 law did not include a limitation on funds for wild horses and burros, as originally

passed by the House. Specifically, the House language would have prohibited funds in the bill

from being used for the sale or slaughter of wild horses and burros (as defined in P.L. 92-195).

Proponents of the amendment had sought to prevent BLM from selling, during FY2006, excess

wild horses and burros under new authority enacted in last year’s appropriations law (P.L. 108447). According to BLM, 41 animals that were sold under the new authority were subsequently

resold or traded, and then sent to slaughterhouses by the new owners. Advocates of the

amendment asserted that there are alternatives for controlling populations of wild horses and

burros on federal lands, such as through the adoption program. Opponents of the amendment

contended that BLM’s recent efforts to revise the sale procedure will prevent sold animals from

ending up in slaughterhouses. They maintain that the new sale authority is needed because

adoptions and other efforts to reduce herd sizes have been insufficient. Further, they assert that

significant funds used for caring for animals in holding facilities could be redirected to other

government priorities. The report of the Senate Appropriations Committee encouraged BLM to

fund the pilot adoption program of the National Wild Horse Association in Nevada. (For

information on this issue, see CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Lands and National Forests, coordinated by (name redacted) and (name redacted).)

Wildland Fire Management

For Wildland Fire Management for FY2006, the appropriations law contained $766.6 million as

previously passed by the Senate. This is a decrease of 8% from the FY2005 level (including

emergency appropriations). The original House-passed bill was similar to the Senate-passed

version, but contained $761.6 million due to less funding for state and local fire assistance. The

Administration sought to zero out funds for state and local fire assistance, on the grounds that the

fire assistance programs of the Forest Service (FS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) address the needs of local fire departments. The House originally supported $5.0 million

while the Senate had approved $10.0 million, essentially the same as the FY2005 appropriation

($9.9 million). The $10.0 million was included in the FY2006 law. In report language, the Senate

Appropriations Committee expressed “dismay” at the proposal to eliminate this rural fire

assistance (S.Rept. 109-80, p. 12). (For additional information on wildland fires, see the

“Department of Agriculture: Forest Service” section in this report.)

For FY2006, the appropriations law included $272.9 million for fire preparedness—5% over the

FY2005 enacted level of $258.9 million. The increase was sought to cover aviation support

contracts and firefighter training, among other costs. For fire suppression, the FY2006 law

provided $234.2 million, a 26% decrease from the FY2005 enacted level of $317.1 million

(including emergency funds) and a 40% decrease from FY2004. While the average annual cost of

fire suppression has increased overall over the past decade, the FY2006 request represents the

ten-year average cost of fire suppression, according to the Administration. 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.

For other fire operations during FY2006, the law included $259.5 million. This constitutes a 2%

increase over the FY2005 level of $255.3 million. It contained an increase of 5% for hazardous

fuels reduction, for an FY2006 level of $211.2 million.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

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.

Construction

For FY2006, the appropriations law included $11.9 million for BLM construction, a 5% increase

over the FY2005 level. The original House-passed bill had contained $11.5 million while the

Senate-passed bill had contained $10.0 million. The President had sought a reduction of 43%

from FY2005.

Land Acquisition

For Land Acquisition for FY2006, the law included $8.8 million, 22% less than the FY2005

enacted level. Within that total, funding was provided for five specific acquisitions. The House

originally had approved $3.8 million, providing funds for management of the acquisition program

and emergencies rather than specific new acquisitions. The original Senate-passed bill had

contained $12.3 million, and had funding for specified new acquisitions. A Senate amendment

had sought to eliminate funds for BLM land acquisition, and reduce or eliminate acquisition

funds for other land management agencies, while providing additional funds for certain Indian

health programs. The amendment fell on a point of order.

The appropriation for BLM acquisitions fell steadily from $49.9 million in FY2002 through the

FY2005 enacted level. Money for land acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water

Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “The Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF)” section in this report.)

Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands

For the O&C Lands, which include highly productive timber lands, the FY2006 law contained

$110.1 million for FY2006, an increase of 2% over the FY2005 enacted level of $107.5 million.

The House, Senate, and Administration had supported that level. This activity funds programs

related to revested Oregon and California Railroad grant lands and related areas, including for

land improvements and for managing, protecting, and developing resources on these lands.

Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2005-FY2006

($ in millions)

Bureau of Land Management

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

Management of Lands and Resources

$836.8

$850.2

$845.8

$867.0

$860.8

Wildland Fire Management

831.3

756.6

761.6

766.6

Central Hazardous Materials Fund

9.9b

—d

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

Construction

11.3

6.5

11.5

10.0

11.9

Land Acquisition

11.2

13.4

3.8

12.3

8.8

Oregon and California Grant Lands

107.5

110.1

Range Improvements

10.0

Service Charges, Deposits, and

ForfeituresError! Reference source not found.a

0.0

Miscellaneous Trust Funds

12.4

$1,816.9c

$1,759.0

$1,755.1

$1,788.3

1,780.5

Bureau of Land Management

Total Appropriations

The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.

A rescission of $-13.5 million is not reflected, but is included in the column total.

Includes $98.6 million for emergency firefighting in FY2005, and a rescission of $-13.5 million for the

Central Hazardous Materials Fund.

The President’s FY2006 budget proposes transferring this Fund to the Departmental Offices within the

Department of the Interior, and accordingly includes $9.9 million for the Fund under DOI’s Departmental

Offices. The FY2006 appropriations law took this approach.

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 RL32244, Grazing Regulations: Changes by the Bureau of Land Management, by

(name redacted).

CRS Report RL32315, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands, by (name

redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by

(name redacted) and (name redacted), coordinators.

Fish and Wildlife Service

For FY2006, the President requested $1.32 billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

slightly less (0.7%) than the enacted level for FY2005 ($1.33 billion). The FY2006 House-passed

level was $1.31 billion; the Senate-passed level was $1.32 billion. P.L. 109-54 contained $1.33

billion. By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources

Management account. The President’s FY2006 request was $985.6 million, a 2% increase over

the FY2005 level of $962.9 million. The House approved $1.01 billion, a 4% increase over

FY2005. The Senate-passed level was $993.5 billion, a 3% increase over FY2005. The FY2006

appropriations law provided $1.01 billion, a 5% increase over FY2005. Among the programs

included in Resources Management are the Endangered Species program, the Refuge System, and

Law Enforcement.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

The President’s FY2006 budget proposed enacting legislation to open part of the Coastal Plain in

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development.5 The budget

proposed that the first lease sale would be held in 2007. Under the proposal, this and subsequent

sales were estimated to generate $2.4 billion in federal revenues from bonus bids over the next

five years. While no such provision was included in H.R. 6, as signed by the President on August

8, 2005, many expect to see such a measure included in a reconciliation bill in the fall of 2005.

(For information on the debate over whether to approve energy development in the Refuge, see

CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th

Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).)

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 (by 2%) from $143.2

million in FY2005 to $140.1 million in FY2006. The FY2006 law contained $151.6 million, a 6%

increase over FY2005. 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 FY2005 to $40.0 million in

FY2006. Congress approved $24.0 million for the program. Stewardship Grants would have risen

from $6.9 million in FY2005 to $10.0 million under the President’s request. The final bill

contained $7.4 million. The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to

states and territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) would have fallen from

$80.5 million in FY2005 to $80.0 million for FY2006 under the Administration’s request. In the

end, Congress appropriated $82.2 million for FY2006. See Table 4 below.

Under the President’s request, total FY2006 funding for the Endangered Species program and

related programs would have increased to $270.1 million. Congress increased these programs

overall to $265.2 million.

Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,

FY2005-FY2006

($ in thousands)

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

—Candidate Conservation

$9,255

$8,252

$8,852

$8,752

$8,852

—Listing

15,960

18,130

—Consultation

48,129

49,484

Endangered Species

and Related Programs

Endangered Species Program

The proposed authorization for exploration and development is not a part of the Interior appropriations bill.

Development supporters anticipate an authorization either as a part of an energy bill, or as part of a possible

reconciliation measure later in the session. H.R. 6, an omnibus energy bill as passed by the House, would open the

Refuge to development. The Senate version contains no similar provision.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Endangered Species

and Related Programs

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

—Recovery

69,870

64,243

70,443

72,541

75,159

Subtotal, Endangered Species

Program

143,214

140,109

146,909

148,907

151,625

—Landowner Incentive Program

21,694

40,000

23,700

25,000

24,000

—Private Stewardship Grants

6,903

10,000

7,386

7,500

7,386

—Cooperative Endangered

Species Conservation Funda

80,462

80,000

84,400

80,000

82,200

Subtotal, Related Programs

109,059

130,000

115,486

112,500

113,586

Total Appropriations

$252,273

$270,109

$262,395

$261,407

$265,211

Related Programs

The FY2006 request called for $49.4 million to be derived from LWCF. The House version derived the

portions for species recovery land acquisition and habitat conservation plan land acquisition ($64.2 million)

from LWCF. The Senate called for $45.7 million to be derived from LWCF, and specified that such amount

was to be used for habitat conservation plan land acquisition. P.L. 109-54 called for $62.0 million to be

derived from LWCF, with no other earmark.

National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement

For refuge operations and maintenance in FY2006, the President proposed $393.9 million, an

increase from $381.0 million in FY2005. The President’s request restructured the account,

dividing it into several new subaccounts. The House approved $394.4 million; the Senate-passed

level was $393.9 million. The FY2006 appropriations law bill contained $393.4 million. The

President proposed $57.6 million for Law Enforcement—an increase of $2.0 million from the

FY2005 level ($55.6 million). The House-passed level was $57.8 million, and the Senate-passed

level was $57.6 million. The FY2006 appropriations law contained $57.7 million.

Land Acquisition

For FY2006, the Administration proposed $41.0 million for Land Acquisition, 11% over FY2005,

but 5% less than the FY2004 level of $43.1 million. (See Table 5.) P.L. 109-54 reduced the

program to $28.4 million. 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. Congress continued this trend for FY2006, reserving $13.7 million for specified

acquisitions, and funding the remainder of the program at $14.7 million. (For more information,

see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2005-FY2006

($ in thousands)

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

$22,593

$26,029

$25,364

$13,695

1,479

1,750

1,500

986

1,750

1,500

Exchanges

1,726

1,750

1,724

1,750

1,500

Acquisition Management

8,249

7,893

8,393

Cost Allocation

Methodology

1,972

1,820

$37,005

$40,992

$14,937

$40,827

$28,408

FWS Land Acquisition

Acquisitions—

Federal Refuge Lands

Inholdings

Emergencies & Hardships

Total Appropriations

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 authorized amounts, and county governments have long urged additional

appropriations to make up the difference. Congress generally provides additional funding. The

President requested and Congress enacted $14.4 million for FY2006; the FY2005 level was $14.2

million. This FY2006 level, combined with expected receipts, would provide about 41% of the

authorized full payment, down from 44% in FY2005 and 47% in FY2004.

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 FY2006 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. For FY2006, the President proposed $8.3 million for the

MSCF (including the proposed transfer of the NMBCF to this program). The proposal included

cuts in programs for great apes, rhinos, tigers, and African and Asian elephants, in contrast to

increases in programs for marine turtles and neotropical migratory birds. Congress enacted

modest increases over FY2005 for the subprograms. (See Table 6 below.)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and

Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2006

($ in thousands)

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

African elephant

$1,381

$1,000

$1,400

Tiger and Rhinos

1,477

1,100

1,400

1,600

Asian elephant

1,381

1,000

1,400

Great Apes

1,381

900

1,400

Marine turtles

300

700

[Neotropical Migratory Birds]

[3,944]

[4,000]

Total Appropriations

$5,719

$4,300

$5,900

$6,500

Multinational Species

Conservation Fund

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 President’s budgets from FY2002-FY2006. Congress has rejected

the proposal five times, and the program is not included in the column totals.

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program helps fund efforts to conserve species (including

non-game species) of concern to states and tribes. 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 $74.0 million, an increase from $69.0 million in FY2005. The

FY2006 appropriations law decreased the program to $68.5 million. See Table 7 below.

Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2005-FY2006

($ in thousands)

State and Tribal Wildlife

Grants

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

State Grants

$61,040

$65,437

$59,000

$66,000

$62,500

Tribal Grants

5,917

6,343

6,000

Administration

1,947

2,092

—a

124

128

—a

$69,028

$74,000

$65,000

$72,000

$68,500

Cost allocation methodology

(CAM)

Total Appropriations

Administrative costs are limited to 3%, after the $6.0 million for tribal grants is deducted from the total.

Committee reports and the conference report did not specify how much was to be allocated to

administration or to the cost allocation methodology. P.L. 109-54 required that administrative costs and

CAM be taken from the state share only.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at http://www.fws.gov/.

CRS Issue Brief IB10136. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th

Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB10144. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting

Values and Difficult Choices, by (name redacted), (name redacted), (name redacted), (name r

edacted), and (name redacted).

CRS Report RS21157, Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by (name redacted) and (na

me redacted).

National Park Service

The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System, currently

comprising 388 separate and very diverse park units with more than 84 million acres. The NPS

and its 20,000 employees protect, preserve, interpret, and administer the park system’s diverse

natural and historic areas representing the cultural identity of the American people. 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 resource conservation activities outside the Park System.

The FY2006 Interior appropriations law provided $2.29 billion for the NPS, a decrease of $75.8

million from the FY2005 enacted level ($2.37 billion), but $40.6 million more than the request

($2.25 billion). (See Table 8 below.) The FY2006 request had sought increases for the operations

line item, but decreases or level funding for most other line items. This year, enhanced security

and infrastructure upgrades are planned for certain parks. The original House-passed bill

contained $2.23 billion, while the Senate originally approved $2.32 billion.

Issues affecting the NPS but not tied to specific funding accounts were addressed. One provision

included in the FY2006 Interior appropriations law would prevent the NPS from studying or

implementing any plan to reduce the water level of Lake Powell below levels required to operate

Glen Canyon Dam. The law also contained a Senate-backed provision of $10.0 million, which

must be matched with nonfederal contributions, for a Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial in

Washington, DC. Another provision extended the controversial rule to allow individual

snowmobiles into Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks for another year (covering the

upcoming winter season of 2005-2006). Congress enacted a similar provision as part of the

FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) to prevent lawsuits from blocking

snowmobile access to those parks last winter. Not included in the law was House language that

had sought to prohibit DOI funds from being used for concession contracts except those that

require that souvenir-type merchandise sold at NPS units be made in the United States. Instead,

conference report language directed the NPS to explore ways to encourage the sale of Americanmade souvenirs by NPS concessioners, with a written progress report by December 1, 2006.

Operation of the National Park System

The park operations line-item is the primary source of funding for the national parks and accounts

for more than two-thirds 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’

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

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. The FY2006 Interior appropriations law provided $1.74 billion for

park operations, or $60.5 million more than the FY2005 enacted level ($1.68 billion). The

FY2006 request for NPS operations was $1.73 billion, and the House and Senate originally had

passed funding of about $1.75 billion. Park advocacy groups have estimated that, in recent years,

the national parks operate, on average, with two-thirds of needed funding. 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-FY2006

($ in millions)

National Park Service

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

Operation of the

National Park System

$1,683.6

$1,734.1

$1,754.2

$1,748.5

$1,744.1

U.S. Park Police

80.1

80.4

82.4

80.4

81.4

National Recreation

and Preservation

61.0

36.8

49.0

56.7

55.0

Historic Preservation

Fund

71.7

66.2

72.7

74.5

73.3

Constructiona

353.0

307.4

291.2

299.2

301.3

Land and Water

Conservation Fundb

-30.0

—Assistance to States

91.2

1.6

30.0

—NPS Acquisition

55.1

52.9

7.8c

56.0

34.9cc

Subtotal, Land Acquisition

and State Assistance

146.3

54.5

9.4

86.0

64.9

Total Appropriations

$2,365.7

$2,249.3

$2,229.0

$2,315.3

$2,290.0

Land Acquisition and

State Assistance

Includes $50.8 million of emergency funding for FY2005 enacted in P.L. 108-324. FY2006 figures do not

reflect an additional $17.0 million from prior year balances.

Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.

These figures do not include $9.9 million from prior year balances.

United States Park Police (USPP)

This budget item supports the U.S. Park Police, a full-service, uniformed law enforcement entity

of the NPS with primary jurisdiction at park sites within metropolitan areas of Washington, DC;

New York City; and San Francisco. The USPP also provides 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 FY2005 was $80.1 million. For FY2006, the Senate approved $80.4 million, the

same as the request, but $2.0 million below the House allowance of $82.4 million. The conferees

split the difference and the law provided $81.4 million for FY2006. An internal review concluded

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

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 funds 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 heritage resources. The FY2006 request was $36.8

million, a decrease of $24.2 million (40%) from the FY2005 appropriation of $61.0 million. The

request did not seek funds for statutory or contractual aid. The Administration has previously

proposed discontinuing these programs, requesting no funds for FY2005, but Congress provided

$11.2 million. For FY2006, the original House-passed bill contained $49.0 million for National

Recreation and Preservation, but no funds for statutory or contractual aid. The original Senatepassed bill contained $8.2 million for statutory or contractual aid, with $56.7 million for the entire

line item. The FY2006 Interior appropriations law provided $7.1 million for statutory or

contractual aid and $55.0 million for the whole line item, which is $6.0 million below FY2005.

The FY2006 request proposed $5.0 million for funding the 27 existing National Heritage Areas

(NHAs), a reduction of $9.6 million (66%) from the FY2005 enacted level ($14.6 million). In

recent years, the Administration’s requests for heritage area partnerships have been significantly

lower than the previous year’s appropriation, but Congress has maintained or increased NHA

funding. The House included $15.0 million for Heritage Partnership Programs for FY2006, while

the Senate approved $13.6 million for NHAs. The FY2006 law provided $13.5 million for NHAs.

DOI officials had testified that the $12.5 million requested for FY2006 for Preserve America, a

proposed program that was not funded in FY2005, could be used in part to fund NHAs. The

original House-passed bill did not contain FY2006 funding for Preserve America, while the

Senate-passed bill had allowed that not more than $7.5 million of the allocation to Save

America’s Treasures could be used for Preserve America pilot grants. The FY2006 Interior

appropriations law did not fund Preserve America.

Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR)

This once-popular matching grant program, created in 1978, provided direct federal assistance to

urban localities to rehabilitate recreational facilities. In FY2001 and FY2002, Congress

appropriated $30.0 million annually for UPARR. Since then, no money has been provided for

new grants. For FY2006, neither the President, the House, nor the Senate sought funds for new

grants and none was provided. The grant administration portion of the program was transferred to

the National Recreation and Preservation line item in FY2005. Administration of more than 100

active grants approved in FY2000-FY2002 continues. The enabling legislation, the Urban Park

and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625, title X; 16 U.S.C. §§2501-2514), requires that grantassisted sites remain recreation facilities and ongoing NPS stewardship and protection activities

continue for the 1,528 recreation sites.

Construction

The construction line item funds new construction, as well as rehabilitation and replacement of

park facilities. The FY2006 Interior appropriations law provided $301.3 million for NPS

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

construction, $10.1 million more than the House and $2.1 million above the Senate, but $51.7

million less than FY2005 enacted. In addition, the law provided $17.0 million from prior year

balances, which had been requested by the Administration and approved by the House and Senate

(but is not included in the figures herein). For FY2006, the Administration had requested $307.4

million for NPS construction for high priority health, safety, and resource protection needs. This

was a decrease of $45.6 million from the FY2005 enacted appropriation of $353.0 million

(including $50.8 million in emergency funding for disaster response). The original House-passed

bill contained $291.2 million while the original Senate-passed bill included $299.2 million. (For

information on NPS maintenance, see CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management,

coordinated by (name redacted).)

Land Acquisition and State Assistance

For FY2006, appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) totaled $64.9

million, with $34.9 million for NPS land acquisition and $30.0 million for state assistance

programs, known as stateside assistance. An additional $9.9 million from prior year balances is to

be used for land acquisition. The 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 FY2006 total was $81.4 million

below the FY2005 enacted level. The Administration had requested $54.5 million.

For FY2006, the House originally had approved $9.4 million, while the Senate-passed bill

included $86.0 million. The sizable reduction in the original House-passed level in large part

stemmed from not providing funds for new LWCF State Assistance Grants, as had been

recommended by the President. However, the House did include $1.6 million, as requested, to

administer existing grants. FY2005 funding for state assistance programs was $91.2 million. The

Senate approved $30.0 million for the state assistance program, and this amount prevailed in

conference. Administration representatives had testified that state project grants are more

appropriately funded through other means, and that in a period of budgetary constraint, such

programs should have a lower priority than other NPS activities. (For more information, see “The

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)

The reduction proposed by the House was due also to a reduction for federal land acquisition. The

FY2006 budget request was $52.9 million. The original House-passed bill contained $7.8 million

for NPS land acquisition management activities (plus $9.9 million of prior year appropriations),

but did not include money for specified acquisitions. The Senate had approved $56.0 million for

NPS land acquisition and provided specific park unit recommendations. A Senate amendment to

cut NPS land acquisition, and reduce or eliminate acquisition funding for other land management

agencies, fell on a point of order.

Historic Preservation

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid to states

(primarily through State Historic Preservation Offices), territories, the Federated States of

Micronesia, and certified local governments, for activities specified in the National Historic

Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. §470). These activities include protecting cultural

resources and enhancing economic development by restoring historic districts, sites, buildings,

and objects significant in American history and culture. Preservation grants are normally funded

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

on a 60% federal/40% state matching share basis. HPF also provides funding for cultural heritage

projects for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.

For FY2006, the final appropriation was $73.3 million for the HPF, including $36.3 million for

grants-in aid to states, $4.0 million for tribal grants, $30.0 million for Save America’s Treasures

and $3.0 million for HBCUs. The FY2006 appropriation for HPF reflected an increase over the

FY2006 House-passed bill ($72.7 million), the FY2006 Administration request ($66.2 million),

and the FY2005 level ($71.7 million). However, it was a decrease from the Senate-passed bill

($74.5 million.)

The FY2006 enacted appropriation for HPF included $30.0 million for Save America’s Treasures,

which the President had proposed to cut in half. The Save America’s Treasures program preserves

nationally significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures. Due to concerns

that the program did not reflect geographic diversity, annual appropriations laws have required

that project recommendations be subject to approval by the Appropriations Committees prior to

distribution of funds. From the total for Save America’s Treasures for FY2006, $13.3 million

would be for competitive grants with $16.8 million specified by Congress for designated projects.

The House-passed bill did not specify funding for a proposed “Preserve America” program.

However, the Senate-passed bill provided that not to exceed $7.5 million of the funding for Save

America’s Treasures may be allocated to Preserve America pilot grants. The FY2005

appropriations law did not fund these grants. The FY2006 appropriation provided that not to

exceed $5.0 million could be allocated to Preserve America grants. Preserve America grants-inaid would supplement Save America’s Treasures in supporting community efforts to develop

resource management strategies and to encourage heritage tourism. Preserve America grants

would be competitively awarded on a matching basis, as one-time seed money grants. (See Table

9 below.) The Senate Appropriations Committee report stated that the consideration in this

session of a bill to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Act would likely include

discussion of the Preserve America program and Save America’s Treasures.

An issue that is often considered during the appropriations process is whether historic

preservation programs should be funded by private money rather than the federal government.

Congress eliminated permanent federal funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation,

but has funded on a temporary basis the Trust’s endowment fund for endangered properties. Also,

HPF previously included funds for preserving and restoring historic buildings and structures on

HBCU campuses. An appropriation in FY2001 of $7.2 million represented the unused

authorization remaining under law. There was no funding for HBCUs under HPF for FY2002 or

FY2003. The FY2004 appropriations law provided $3.0 million through competitive grants

administered by the NPS, and the FY2005 law provided $3.4 million. For FY2006, the

Administration did not propose funding for HBCUs under HPF, but the House-passed bill would

have provided $3.5 million. During Senate floor consideration, an amendment was agreed to that

would provide $2.0 million for HBCUs. The final FY2006 law provided $3.0 million for HBCUs.

During House debate on FY2006 Interior appropriations, the Chairman of the House Resources

Committee objected to the appropriation for the Historic Preservation Fund (and other programs)

on the grounds that it was not authorized for FY2006 and that there should be no appropriation

without an authorization. His amendment on this issue was ruled out of order as constituting

legislation on an appropriations bill.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund, FY2005-FY2006

($ in thousands)

Historic Preservation

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

Grants-in-Aid to States and

Territoriesa

$35,500

$36,000

$38,500

$36,250

Tribal Grants

3,205

4,000

Save America’s Treasures

29,583

15,000

30,000

30,000b

12,500

3,451

3,500

2,000

3,000

$71,739

$66,205

$72,705

$74,500

$73,250

Preserve America Grants-In-Aid

HBCUs

National Historic Trust

Endowment Grant/Historic Sites

Fund

Total Appropriations

The term “Grants-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.

The Senate-passed bill provided that part of the Save America’s Treasures allocation, not to exceed $7.5

million, may be used to provide for Preserve America pilot grants. The final FY2006 appropriation would

allow not to exceed $5.0 million to 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 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by (name redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB10145. National Park Management, coordinated by (name redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB10141. Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori Calvert and (name

redacted).

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation’s premier science agency in providing physical

and biological information related to natural hazards; certain aspects of the environment; and

energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In addition, it is the federal government’s

principal civilian mapping agency and a primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s

water resources.

Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and Research, for

seven activities: the National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes;

Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research; Enterprise Information; Science Support;

and Facilities. For FY2006, P.L. 109-54 appropriated $976.0 million for the USGS, which is an

increase of $31.5 million over the FY2005 enacted level of $944.6 million, and $42.5 million

over the Administration’s request of $933.5 million. See Table 10 below.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

P.L. 109-54 provided $131.2 million for the National Mapping Program; $238.8 million for

Geologic Hazards, Resource, and Processes; $214.9 million for Water Resources Investigations;

$177.5 million for Biological Research; $47.1 million for Enterprise Information; $70.3 million

for Science Support; and $96.2 million for Facilities. All of these accounts received funding

above their FY2005 enacted levels.

In this past year, more than 27 major disasters were declared in the United States from

earthquakes to landslides, hurricanes, fires, and floods. Further, the United States and its

territories have 169 volcanoes considered to be active, more than any other country in the world.

USGS has the lead federal responsibility under the Disaster Relief Act (P.L. 93-288, popularly

known as the Stafford Act) to provide notification for earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides and

reduce losses through effective forecasts and warnings based on the best possible scientific

information. The FY2006 budget request sought to address these responsibilities by proposing

funding increases to assist in the development and use of tsunami monitoring systems, seismic

activity monitoring, and geothermal assessments. P.L. 109-54 provided approximately $6.2

million more than the FY2005 enacted level for the account that addresses natural hazards.

Of the proposed reductions in the Administration’s FY2006 budget, the largest would have been

for $28.3 million in the Geologic Hazards, Resource, and Processes line item due to cuts in

programs related to mineral resources. Both the House- and Senate-passed bills recommended

restoring this funding, and in the enacted legislation funding was restored for FY2006. The

FY2006 request also proposed to eliminate funding for the Water Resources Research Institutes,

which the Administration claims have been generally self-supporting. The Institutes were funded

at $6.4 million in FY2005. P.L. 109-54 provided $6.5 million to these institutes for FY2006.

Enterprise Information

In FY2005, the Administration proposed a new line item for funding within the USGS called

Enterprise Information. This program consolidates funding of all USGS information needs

including information technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as

capital asset planning. Funding for these functions previously was distributed among several

different USGS offices and budget subactivities. P.L. 109-54 provided $47.1 million for this

account, which is $2.7 million above the FY2005 enacted level and $0.7 million less than the

Administration’s request.

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.

National Mapping Program

The National Mapping Program aims to provide access to high quality geospatial information to

the public. P.L. 109-54 provided $131.2 million for FY2006, which was $12.5 million above the

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

FY2005 enacted level of $118.8 million and $2.3 million below the Administration’s request of

$133.5 million.

The FY2006 appropriations law reflected an increase of $11.7 million over the FY2005 enacted

level to support land remote sensing archives and capability. This increase is anticipated to allow

the continued availability of Landsat data and provide the necessary resources for data reception,

processing, and archiving. As part of the budget response to a funding shortfall in Landsat 7, due

to fewer purchases of the data, the USGS sought $6.0 million in FY2006 for the Landsat

Program. Landsat 7 is a satellite that takes remotely-sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and

surrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring. Last year, approximately 25%

of the data from the Landsat 7 Satellite began showing signs of degradation. Nevertheless, an

interagency panel concluded that the Landsat 7 Satellite data “continues to provide a unique, costeffective solution to operational and scientific problems.”6 In report language, the House

Appropriations Committee commended the Administration and the USGS for providing a

proposal to continue Landsat operations.

In contrast to the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed bill would have provided a reduction of

$6.0 million from the Administration’s request for the Landsat 7 program. Although in report

language the Senate Appropriations Committee commended the DOI and others for working out a

plan for the program, it expressed that the plan is no different from previous recommendations

which amounted to a subsidy of current operations. The Committee stated that it expected the

USGS and the DOI to provide more explanation of this proposal before the FY2006 Interior bill

was conferenced, and before it gave the Administration’s request more consideration (S.Rept.

109-80, p. 33-34).

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes

For Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activities, P.L. 109-54 provided $238.8 million,

which was $9.6 million above the FY2005 enacted level of $229.2 million, and $30.7 million

above the Administration’s request. This line item covers programs in three activities: Hazard

Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments.

P.L. 109-54 provided funding of $77.7 million for the Resource Assessments line item, although

the Administration had sought a reduction of $28.3 million for FY2006. Both the House and

Senate-passed bills would have restored funding for this program. According to the

Administration, proposed cuts in the mineral resources program would terminate the collection of

basic geologic and mineral deposit data for the nation, the internationally-coordinated global

mineral resource assessment, and many mineral commodity reports. The approximately $25

million the Administration had sought for the minerals program was to continue funding minerals

surveys and studies relevant to ongoing federal land management, regulatory, and remediation

activities. The conference committee report stated that it would seem “irresponsible for the

Administration to decrease or eliminate funding for what is clearly an inherently Federal

responsibility.” (H.Rept. 109-188, p. 89). The House Appropriations Committee, in report

language, asserted that minerals and mineral products are important to the U.S. economy, and that

The proposed authorization for exploration and development is not a part of the Interior appropriations bill.

Development supporters anticipate an authorization either as a part of an energy bill, or as part of a possible

reconciliation measure later in the session. H.R. 6, an omnibus energy bill as passed by the House, would open the

Refuge to development. The Senate version contains no similar provision.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

minerals resources research and assessments are a core responsibility of the USGS. The House

Committee further stated that objective data on mineral commodities cannot be generated by the

private sector.

The Geologic Hazards Assessments program received $82.2 million from P.L. 109-54, as

recommended by the Administration, an increase of $6.2 million over the FY2005 enacted level.

This reflected increased attention to monitoring natural hazards and mitigating their effects.

Water Resources Investigations

For Water Resources Investigations, P.L. 109-54 provided $214.9 million for FY2006, which was

$3.7 million above the FY2005 enacted level, and $10.8 million above the Administration’s

request. The Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and Research activity was funded at $144.7

million for FY2006, $2.2 million above the FY2005 enacted level.

As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2005 budget requests, the FY2006 request sought

to discontinue USGS support for Water Resources Research Institutes because, the

Administration alleged, most institutes have succeeded in leveraging sufficient funding for

program activities from non-USGS sources. However, Congress provided funding for the

institutes from FY2002 to FY2005. P.L. 109-54 funded the institutes at a level of $6.5 million.

The National Assessment of Water Availability and Use is a program under Water Resources that

is being implemented this year. This program aims to provide a better understanding of the

nation’s water resources, trends in water use, and forecasting water availability. In FY2005, the

program began a $1.2 million pilot study in the Great Lakes Basin to evaluate water resources

and use. The FY2006 budget proposed to extend the program to the western United States

through a pilot effort that would provide and analyze information to characterize changes in

ground-water availability in large regional aquifer systems. In report language, the House

Appropriations Committee stated an expectation that USGS continue this project, implement a

second pilot project, and continue to expand this program to other parts of the country.

Conference managers expressed concern over reports that suggest that the USGS water resources

program is providing, or seeking to provide, commercial services to federal and non-federal

entities in competition with the private sector. The managers expect that the USGS will use the

services of the private sector to the best of its ability whenever feasible, cost effective, and

consistent with the principles of government standards.

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. P.L. 109-54 provided

$177.5 million for this activity for FY2006, which is $5.8 million above the FY2005 enacted

level of $171.7 million and $4.6 million above the requested amount of $172.9 million. The

activities under Biological Research include Biological Research and Monitoring, Biological

Information Management and Delivery, and Cooperative Research Units. The FY2006 request

had proposed increases for projects and research in deepwater fisheries in the Great Lakes,

freshwater fisheries in the western United States, and control of invasive species, such as the

tamarisk in the Rio Grande Basin.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

Conference managers included funding increases for the invasive species initiative within this

program and directed the USGS to fund leafy spurge eradication. Further, the managers included

funding for surveying efforts to describe the population range of the ivory-billed woodpecker. In

concordance with the Senate Appropriations Committee, conference managers expressed concern

that no coordinated budgetary and programmatic plan has been made for the expansion of the

National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). The NBII is a program that provides

increased access to data on the nation’s biological resources.

Science Support and Facilities

Science Support focuses on those costs associated with modernizing the infrastructure for

managing and disseminating scientific information. P.L. 109-54 provided $70.3 million for

Science Support for FY2006, which was an increase of $4.8 million from the FY2005 enacted

level of $65.6 million, and a decrease of $2.0 million from the Administration’s request of $72.3

million.

Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. P.L. 109-54 provided $96.2

million for facilities, which was $1.5 million over the Administration request of $94.7 million,

and $1.6 million over the FY2005 enacted level of $94.6 million.

Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2005-FY2006

($ in millions)

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

Enterprise Information

$44.4

$47.8

$47.1

National Mapping

Program

118.8

133.5

133.2

127.2

131.2

Geologic Hazards,

Resources, and

Processes

229.2

208.1

239.2

237.2

238.8

Water Resources

Investigations

211.2

204.2

211.7

214.8

214.9

Biological Research

171.7

172.9

174.8

174.3

177.5

Science Support

65.6

72.3

66.3

70.3

Facilities

94.6

94.7

96.2

$944.6a

$933.5

$974.6

$963.1

$976.0

U.S. Geological

Survey

Total

Appropriations

The total includes emergency appropriations of $1.0 million provided in P.L. 108-324 and $8.1 million in P.L.

109-13.

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

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

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,

Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.

The MMS estimates that it collects and disburses over $6 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 FY2006 total MMS budget of $290.2 million. This included

$7.0 million for Oil Spill Research and $283.1 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals

Management. The Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management total budget would have included

$148.3 million for OMM, $87.3 million for MRM, and $47.5 million for general administration.

The total FY2006 budget of $290.2 million in the Administration request reflected $167.4 million

in appropriations and an additional $122.7 million from offsetting collections which MMS has

been retaining since 1994. The Administration’s total budget was 5% above the $277.6 million

provided for FY2005. The Administration proposed to reduce the FY2006 appropriations by 4%,

from $173.8 million enacted for FY2005 to $167.4 million for FY2006.

The House-passed version contained $282.4 million for MMS programs (including Oil Spill

Research). The major differences between the Administration’s request and the House bill were in

two Royalty Management programs: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Royalty-in-Kind (RIK)

conversion and the Compliance and Asset Management (CAM) initiative. The House considered

the $9.8 million in the budget request to fund these programs unnecessary, because the House had

included a provision to allow the RIK program to recover its costs directly. Thus, while the

President requested $51.9 million for CAM, the House bill would have provided $42.1 million.

The Senate-passed version included a total of $282.2 million for MMS programs (including Oil

Spill Research) and would have funded the CAM initiative at $43.1 million. The Senate bill

generally would have funded MMS programs at or near the requested or House-passed levels in

all other categories. See Table 11 below.

The conferees settled on a total MMS budget of $283.4 million. This included $149.9 million for

OMM, $78.5 million for MRM, $47.9 million for General Administration, and $7.0 million for

oil spill research. They supported the use of $122.7 million in offsetting collections, for a net

appropriation of $160.7 million. These were the levels enacted in the FY2006 appropriations law,

making the FY2006 appropriation 8% lower than the FY2005 level.

Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2005-FY2006

($ in millions)

Minerals Management

Service

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

$148.3

$149.5

$149.2

$149.9

—Royalty Management (MRM)

75.4

87.3

77.5

78.5

—General Administration

46.9

47.5

48.4

47.5

47.9

—Gross, Royalty and Offshore

Minerals Management

270.6

283.1

275.4

275.2

276.4

—Use of Receipts

-103.7

-122.7

Total, Royalty and Offshore

Minerals Management

Appropriations

166.9

160.4

152.7

152.5

153.7

7.0

$173.9

$167.4

$159.7

$159.5

$160.7

Minerals Management

Service

—OCS Lands (OMM)

Oil Spill Research

Total Appropriations

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore

Issues not directly tied to specific funding accounts were once again considered during the

FY2006 appropriations process, as they were in recent years. Oil and gas development moratoria

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 moratoria language, in virtually every respect, was in agreement with the Houseand Senate-passed bills. The FY2006 appropriations law retained the moratorium on funding

preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM), as had the FY2005

appropriations law. Sales in the Eastern GOM have been especially controversial. There are

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 new five-year leasing

program. Industry groups contend that Eastern GOM sales are too limited, arguing 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. The FY2006

appropriations law included House- and Senate-passed language, which continued leasing

moratoria in other areas, including the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, as did the FY2005

appropriations law.

The House- and Senate-passed versions of the FY2006 Interior Appropriations bill did not

include language to prohibit funding for preleasing and leasing activity in the North Aleutian

Basin Planning Area, nor did the FY2006 appropriations law. The FY2005 and FY2004

appropriations laws also omitted this language. However, the issue remains controversial. There

is some industry interest in eventually opening the area to oil and gas development as an offset to

the depressed fishing industry in the Bristol Bay area. Environmentalists and others oppose this

effort. The North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, containing Bristol Bay, is not in the MMS

current five-year (2002-2007) leasing plan. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

(OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. §1331), the Secretary of the Interior submits five-year leasing programs that

specify the time, location, and size of lease sales to be held during that period.

Industry groups are seeking legislation to allow natural-gas-only drilling in areas currently under

the moratoria. The industry proposal would allow state governors to veto any proposal within 60

miles of their shores and would extend states’ coastal boundaries up to 12 miles to increase the

potential of generating more revenue for the states.

During the FY2006 House Appropriations Committee markup, an amendment that would lift the

moratoria in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico if U.S. oil imports reach two-thirds of consumption was

withdrawn. Another amendment, also withdrawn, would have allocated $50.0 million to

inventory offshore natural gas. The amendment to lift the moratoria in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico

was offered again on the House floor (by Representative Istook), but a point of order was

sustained on the grounds that it constituted legislation on an appropriations bill. A second

amendment (by Representative John E. Peterson) that would have lifted the moratorium on

offshore natural gas was defeated (157-262).

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.7 The Department of the Interior did not appeal

this decision and is currently working with lessees to resolve the issue. The breach-of-contract

lawsuit that was filed against MMS by nine oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in compensation

for their undeveloped leases is pending further action.

Several oil and gas lessees submitted a new round of suspension requests to prevent lease

termination and loss of development rights. The MMS has prepared six environmental

assessments and found no significant impact for processing the applications for Suspension of

Production or Operations. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, a consistency review by

MMS and the state’s response to that review will occur before a decision is made to grant or deny

the requests.

For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website at

http://www.mms.gov.

CRS Report RL31521. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas: Energy Security and Other Major

Issues, by (name redacted).

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

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

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 premining 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 and drawing upon both the federal and state

shares. In instances where states have no approved program, OSM directs reclamation.

Several states have been pressing 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 nearly $1.7 billion by the end of FY2004. Western states are additionally critical of the

program because, as coal production has shifted westward, these states are paying more into the

fund. They contend that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation burden

as more of the sites requiring remediation are in the East.

In both the 108th and 109th Congresses, legislation was introduced to reauthorize fee collections

and make a number of changes to the program to address state and regional concerns. Other

legislative proposals for reauthorization of AML collections were introduced in the House and

Senate. The 108th Congress was unable to reach a resolution of the issues surrounding the

structure of the program.

In light of the narrowing prospects that a broader AML bill would be enacted before the

conclusion of the 108th Congress, the Senate Committee on Appropriations added a short-term

extension—to May 31, 2005—during its markup of the FY2005 Interior appropriations bill. The

House version of the bill had no comparable language. However, authorization for collection of

AML fees was extended to the end of June 2005 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005

(P.L. 108-447). Pending a longer-term settlement of unresolved issues about the structure of the

AML program, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 109-13)

extended authorization for collection of the fees that are deposited to the AML reclamation fund

to the end of FY2005. As passed by the Senate, the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill sought to

provide a further extension of the AML fund to June 30, 2006. The House bill included no similar

provision. The FY2006 appropriations law included the Senate language extending the

authorization for collections to the end of June 2006.

The FY2005 budget request, which included a proposal to restructure the program to return the

unobligated balances to the states, totaled $243.9 million for the AML fund. However, neither the

House nor Senate embraced the Administration’s plan. The final appropriation for the fund for

FY2005 was $188.2 million. The FY2006 request again sought to return unobligated state-share

balances to the states over ten years. This part of the request accounted for $58.0 million of the

Administration’s total FY2006 OSM request of $356.5 million. The FY2006 request for

additional funds to begin return of unobligated state share balances also was rejected by both the

House and Senate. With that exception, the House and Senate were in agreement with the levels

requested by the Administration for OSM, including $188.0 million for the AML fund. This was

the level enacted.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

The other component of the OSM budget is for regulation and technology programs. For

regulation and technology, Congress provided $108.4 million in FY2005. The House and Senate

agreed to the Administration’s request for $110.5 million for FY2006 and that level was enacted

into law. Included in the FY2006 request was $10.0 million for the Appalachian Clean Streams

Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002-FY2005. This figure was retained in the FY2006

appropriations law.

Owing to the Administration proposal to return unobligated state balances, and as noted above,

the Administration requested $356.5 million for OSM, a 20% increase over the FY2005 level of

$296.6 million. However, the total for OSM enacted for FY2006 was $298.5 million, reflecting

House and Senate agreement with the other components of the Administration’s request.

In its FY2006 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. Currently, grants to the states from the AML fund are

based on states’ current and historic coal production. The minimum funding level for each of

these states was increased to $2.0 million in 1992. However, over the objection of those states

who would have preferred the full authorization, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to

minimum program states since FY1996. While the Administration sought $2.0 million for

minimum program states in its FY2005 request, it returned to $1.5 million for FY2006. This level

was provided in the FY2006 law. Also, SMCRA included a provision for a $10.0 million

allocation from the AML collections for the Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP).

However, no appropriation was requested for FY2006, and none was included in the FY2006

appropriations law.

For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, see its

website at http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm.

CRS Report RL32373, Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected Issues, by (name r

edacted).

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 FY2005 direct appropriations are $2.30 billion. For FY2006, the Administration proposed

$2.19 billion, a decrease of $108.2 million (5%) below FY2005. The House approved $2.32

billion, an increase of $22.3 million (1%) over FY2005 and of $130.5 million (6%) over the

Administration’s proposal. The Senate approved $2.27 billion, which was $26.3 million (1%) less

than FY2005, $81.9 million (4%) more than the FY2006 proposal, and $48.6 million (2%) less

than the House FY2006 amount. Congress enacted an FY2006 total of $2.31 billion, an increase

of $12.5 million (less than 1%) over FY2005 and of $120.8 million (6%) over the

Administration’s proposal. For the BIA, its major budget components, and selected BIA

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

programs, Table 12 below presents figures for FY2005-FY2006 and the percentages of change

from FY2005 to FY2006 for the enacted levels. 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 the BIA school system.

Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2005-FY2006

($ in thousands)

FY2006

Senate

Passed

Percent

Change:

FY2005FY2006

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

—Tribal Priority Allocations

$769,543

$760,149

$778,069

$775,407

$777,319

——Contract

Support Costs

134,420

134,609

<1%

—Other Recurring

Programs

612,919

602,301

636,337

621,295

634,795

——School

Operations

517,647

521,633

544,993

521,633

531,493

——TriballyControlled Colleges

53,141

43,375

56,375

—Non-Recurring Programs

75,985

65,325

67,691

70,475

71,371

-6%

—Central Office

Operations

140,021

151,534

——Office

of Federal

Acknowledgment

1,280

——Trust Services

19,071

27,169

42%

——Information

Resources Technology

58,092

58,288

<1%

—Regional Office

Operations

41,362

41,590

—Special Programs

and Pooled Overhead

286,261

303,331

317,516

310,831

314,881

10%

——Public Safety

and Justice

180,063

192,265

200,765

192,265

196,265

——Tribal Vocational

Colleges

5,177

5,300

Subtotal, Operation

of Indian Programs

1,926,091

1,924,230

1,992,737

1,971,132

1,991,490

Construction

319,129

232,137

284,137

267,137

275,637

-14%

—Education Construction

263,372

173,875

225,875

198,875

209,875

-20%

——Replacement School

Construction

105,550

43,494

75,494

58,494

65,494

-38%

Bureau of Indian

Affairs

FY2006

Approp.

Operation of Indian Programs

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

FY2006

Senate

Passed

Percent

Change:

FY2005FY2006

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

——Education

Facilities Improvement and

Repair

142,531

128,381

147,381

138,381

142,381

-<1%

—Law Enforcement

Facilities Improvement and

Repair

3,833

8,223

115%

Land and Water Claim

Settlements

and Miscellaneous

Payments

44,150

24,754

34,754

24,754

34,754

-21%

Indian Guaranteed Loan

Program

6,332

6,348

<1%

Total Appropriations

$2,295,702

$2,187,469

$2,317,976

$2,269,371

$2,308,229

<1%

Bureau of Indian

Affairs

FY2006

Approp.

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 (see “Office of Special Trustee for American

Indians” section below). The reorganization arises 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 for American Indians” 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. 8 Following nearly a year of DOI consultation on reorganization with Indian tribes

The proposed authorization for exploration and development is not a part of the Interior appropriations bill.

Development supporters anticipate an authorization either as a part of an energy bill, or as part of a possible

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

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 plan of BIA, AS-IA, and OST—which DOI expects to complete in

FY2005—chiefly involves trust management structures and functions. Under the plan, the BIA’s

trust operations at regional and agency levels remains in those offices but is 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. Certain tribes, however, that

had been operating trust management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices under

self-governance compacts were excluded from the reorganization, under the FY2004 and FY2005

appropriations acts. 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, announced in March 2003, which 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

BIA’s World-Wide-Web connections), 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 urgently asked that it be suspended. Tribes argue 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-FY2005, Congress responded to tribal

concerns by excluding from BIA reorganization certain tribes that have been operating trust

management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices. Congress retained this

exclusion for FY2006. Congress has not, however, suspended or stopped the reorganization, and

Congress agreed with the Administration’s proposed FY2006 funding for BIA Central Office trust

reform and 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.

Some observers feel tribal operation of schools will improve student achievement. To encourage

tribal boards to take over operation of current BIA-operated schools, for FY2004-FY2005,

Congress created an administrative cost fund to pay tribal school boards’ start-up administrative

costs. The fund’s FY2005 appropriation was $986,000. The Administration’s FY2006 proposal

reduced this fund to $500,000, and Congress agreed.

(...continued)

reconciliation measure later in the session. H.R. 6, an omnibus energy bill as passed by the House, would open the

Refuge to development. The Senate version contains no similar provision.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

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, but this figure changes as new repair needs appear each year.

Table 12 above shows FY2005 education construction funds, and for FY2006 the

Administration’s proposal, the House and Senate amounts, and the enacted level for education

construction. The Administration proposed reducing the total FY2006 appropriation for education

construction by $89.5 million (34%). Included in the proposal was a reduction for replacementschool construction of $62.1 million (59%); the Administration asserted that a majority of school

replacement projects funded in previous years are still under construction and that BIA needed to

focus on completing them. Congress disagreed with the Administration’s assertion and partly

restored the Administration’s cuts, reducing FY2006 total education construction by $53.5 million

(20%) and replacement-school construction by $40.1 million (38%) from the FY2005 enacted

levels.

In response to the Administration’s position that some projects under self-determination contracts

have been too slow in commencing, the FY2005 appropriations act authorized the BIA to

reassume management of school construction projects that are under tribal self-determination

contracts if the construction does not begin within 18 months of funding availability. Congress

retained this provision for FY2006.

Because construction appropriations are, in some tribes’ views, not reducing construction needs

fast enough, Indian tribes have urged Congress to explore additional sources of construction

financing. In the FY2001-FY2005 Interior appropriations acts, Congress authorized a

demonstration program that allows tribes to help fund construction of BIA-funded, triballycontrolled schools. For FY2005, Congress funded the program at $12.3 million (earmarking all

the funding for three projects). For FY2006, the Administration proposed no funding for this

program and Congress agreed.

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 (name redacted).

Departmental Offices

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 also manages relations between these

jurisdictions and the federal government and works to build the fiscal and governmental capacity

of units of local government.

Funding for the OIA consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite appropriations and (2)

discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the appropriations process. The total

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

request for FY2006 was $392 million; of this total, $345.5 million (88%) is mandated through

statutes. A total of $343 million in permanent funding would be provided in FY2006 as follows:

•

$198 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau) under

conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free Association;9

•

$115 million in fiscal assistance, divided between the U.S. Virgin Islands for

estimated rum excise and income tax collections and Guam for income tax

collections; and

•

$30 million in each year for American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, or the state of

Hawaii, from FY2004 through FY2023, for health, educational, social, or public

safety services, or infrastructure costs, associated with the residence of “qualified

nonimmigrants” from the RMI, FSM, or Palau.10

Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations constitute the

balance 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.

Appropriations for FY2005 total $81.0 million, with AT funded at $75.6 million and CFA at $5.5

million. The FY2006 request sought to reduce AT funding to $74.3 million, and CFA assistance to

$4.9 million, for a total of $79.1 million. The House approved amounts higher than requested for

AT ($76.6 million) and CFA ($5.4 million), resulting in total recommended discretionary and

mandatory funding of almost $82 million. The Senate approved a total of $81.6 million, $76.7

million for AT and $4.9 million for CFA. Little debate has occurred in recent years on funding for

the territories and the OIA. For FY2006, Congress enacted a total of $82.2 million for the Insular

Affairs account—$76.9 million for AT, and $5.4 million for CFA.

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 FY2006, Congress enacted $236.0 million for PILT. Originally the House had passed $242.0

million for PILT, while the Senate had approved $235.0 million. The FY2006 enacted level is an

increase over the FY2005 level ($226.8 million) and a larger increase over the Administration’s

FY2006 request ($200.0 million). The Administration had recommended cutting PILT as part of

an effort to reduce the deficit and to provide funding at a level that is more consistent with

historical appropriations levels.

In earlier action, the House Appropriations Committee had recommended $230.0 million for

PILT, but the House agreed to a floor amendment to increase PILT funding by $12.0 million with

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

The proposed authorization for exploration and development is not a part of the Interior appropriations bill.

Development supporters anticipate an authorization either as a part of an energy bill, or as part of a possible

reconciliation measure later in the session. H.R. 6, an omnibus energy bill as passed by the House, would open the

Refuge to development. The Senate version contains no similar provision.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

an offset in the DOI Departmental Management account. The amendment was supported on the

grounds that local governments need additional PILT funds to provide vital services, and that

additional funds would help close the gap between authorized and appropriated funding. The

amendment was opposed on the assertion that there were insufficient funds in the bill overall to

direct more money to PILT, and that it would have an adverse impact on management of

important DOI programs and result in the elimination of staff positions. The House subsequently

rejected another amendment that sought to increase PILT funding by an additional $4.8 million,

with an offset in funds for the National Endowment for the Arts. A Senate amendment seeking to

increase PILT funding to $242.0 million, equal to the House passed level, was withdrawn.

The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their jurisdictions

because federal land is not taxed. Since the beginning of the program in 1976, payments of more

than $3 billion have been made. The PILT program has been controversial, because in recent

years appropriations have been substantially less than authorized amounts, ranging from 42% to

68% of authorized levels between FY2000 and FY2004 (the most recent year available). County

governments claim 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.

Beginning in FY2004, the Administration proposed, and Congress agreed, to shift the program

from the BLM to Departmental Offices in DOI. The shift was supported because PILT payments

are made for lands of the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Forest Service, and

certain other federal lands, in addition to BLM lands.

For further information on the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, see the BLM website at

http://www.doi.gov/pilt/.

CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by (name red

acted).

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 (P.L. 103-412; 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, as authorized by P.L. 103-412, the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust

fund management from the BIA 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 1,400 accounts, with a total asset value of about $3 billion; and

(2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about

245,000 accounts with a current total asset value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the

OST FY2006 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 FY2005 appropriation was $228.1 million. The Administration proposed $303.9 million

for FY2006, an increase of $75.9 million (33%). Congress approved $226.1 million, a decrease of

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

$1.9 million (1%) from FY2005 and of $77.8 million (26%) from the Administration’s proposal.

Table 13 below presents figures for FY2005-FY2006 for the OST. Key issues for the OST are its

current reorganization, an historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation

involving tribal and IIM accounts.

Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,

FY2005-FY2006

($ in thousands)

Office of Special

Trustee for

American Indians

FY2005

Approp.

FY2006

Request

FY2006

House

Passed

FY2006

Senate

Passed

FY2006

Approp.

Percent

Change

FY2005FY2006

Federal Trust Programs

$193,540

$269,397

$191,593

-1%

—Historical Accounting

57,194

135,000

58,000

Indian Land

Consolidation

34,514

Total

Appropriations

$228,054

$303,911

$226,107

-1%

Reorganization

Both OST and BIA began a reorganization in 2003 (see “Bureau of Indian Affairs” section

above), one aspect of which is the creation of OST field operations. OST is installing fiduciary

trust officers and administrators at the level of BIA agency and regional offices. OST and BIA

plan on completing the reorganization in FY2005. Many Indian tribes disagree with parts of the

OST and BIA reorganization and have asked Congress to put it on hold so that OST and BIA can

conduct further consultation with the tribes.

Historical Accounting

The historical accounting effort seeks to assign correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts,

especially because of litigation. Because of the long historical period to be covered (some

accounts date from the 19th century), the large number of IIM accounts, and the large number of

missing account documents, an historical accounting based on actual account transactions is

expected to be large and time-consuming. The Interior Department in 2003 proposed an

extensive, five-year, $335 million project to reconcile IIM accounts. OST continues to follow this

historical accounting plan for IIM accounts, subject to court rulings (see “Litigation” below) or

congressional actions. All of the increase that the Administration sought for the OST for FY2006

was for historical accounting, which was proposed to increase from $57.2 million in FY2005 to

$135.0 million in FY2006. Of the proposed $135.0 million, $95.0 million was to be for IIM

accounts and $40.0 million for tribal accounts. The House and Senate rejected the

Administration’s proposed $77.8 million increase for historical accounting and instead capped

FY2006 historical accounting funds at $58.0 million (the FY2005 pre-rescission level). The

House Appropriations Committee’s report recommended using the $77.8 million to restore the

Administration’s proposed cuts in BIA education and Indian Health Service funding. The Senate

Appropriations Committee’s report also cited “ongoing litigation and uncertainty” as reasons for

not funding the Administration’s full request for historical accounting (S.Rept. 109-80, p. 50).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

The FY2006 Interior appropriations law capped funding for historical accounting activities at

$58.0 million.

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.11

Many OST activities are related to the Cobell case, including litigation support activities, but the

most significant issue for appropriations concerns the method by which the historical accounting

will be conducted 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, the cost of which is uncertain, was estimated to produce a

total owed to IIM accounts over $100 billion.

In 2003, the district court conducted a lengthy trial to decide which historical accounting method

to use in estimating the IIM accounts’ proper balances. The court’s decision on historical

accounting was delivered on September 25, 2003. The court rejected both the plaintiffs’ and

DOI’s proposed historical accounting plans and instead 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 September 25, 2003 decision. The provision directed that no statute or trust law

principle should be construed to require the Interior Department 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 announced agreement on two mediators in their case and

mediation commenced. Meanwhile, no bill was introduced in the 108th Congress to delineate the

government’s historical accounting obligation. On December 10, 2004, the Appeals Court

overturned much of the September 25 order, finding among other things 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 estimates that compliance with the new order would cost $12-13

billion,12 appealed the order. The district court did not stay its order during the appeal, however,

so various deadlines that DOI must meet are still in effect. One news story suggests DOI is

seeking congressional action to delay the court-ordered accounting, similar to the provision in the

FY2004 Interior appropriations act.13

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

The proposed authorization for exploration and development is not a part of the Interior appropriations bill.

Development supporters anticipate an authorization either as a part of an energy bill, or as part of a possible

reconciliation measure later in the session. H.R. 6, an omnibus energy bill as passed by the House, would open the

Refuge to development. The Senate version contains no similar provision.

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

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

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

the court-ordered historical accounting, the over-$100 billion that Cobell plaintiffs estimate their

IIM accounts are owed, or the $27.5 billion that the Cobell plaintiffs have proposed as a

settlement amount.14 Among the funding sources for these large costs discussed in a recent House

Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing were discretionary appropriations and the Treasury

Department’s “Judgment Fund,”15 but some senior appropriators consider the Fund insufficient

even for a $6-$13 billion dollar settlement.16 Among other options, Congress may await a stay,

reversal, or other appeals court action, or it may enact another delay to the court-ordered

accounting, or it may take other actions such as directing a settlement or delineating the

department’s historical accounting obligations. In their reports for FY2006, both the House

Appropriations Committee and the conference committee stated that they rejected the position

that Congress intended in the 1994 Act to order an historical accounting on the scale of that

ordered by the district court. The House Appropriations Committee also noted that House and

Senate authorizing committees are committed to developing a legislative solution, and a

settlement bill (S. 1439) has been introduced and received hearings. No language in the FY2006

appropriations law either delayed the court-ordered historical accounting or otherwise settled the

suit.

For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, see its website at

http://www.ost.doi.gov/.

CRS Report RS21738. The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v. Norton, by

(name redacted).

CRS Report RS22056, Native American Issues in the 109th Congress, by (name redacted).

National Indian Gaming Commission

The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988 (P.L. 100-497; 25 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq) to oversee Indian tribal

regulation of tribal bingo and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming

(e.g., casinos and racing). 17 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. IGRA currently caps