# Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32893 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** February 3, 2006 - **Citation:** RL32893 ## 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, 1 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. 2 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 1 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 2 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 3 Rep. Richard Pombo, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily ed., 151, (19 May 2005): H3670. Congressional Research Service 3 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.) 4 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 831.3 756.6 761.6 766.6 766.6 Central Hazardous Materials Fund 9.9b —d —d —d —d Congressional Research Service 9 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 107.5 110.1 110.1 110.1 110.1 Range Improvements 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Service Charges, Deposits, and ForfeituresError! Reference source not found.a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Trust Funds 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 $1,816.9c $1,759.0 $1,755.1 $1,788.3 1,780.5 Bureau of Land Management Total Appropriations a. The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees. b. A rescission of $-13.5 million is not reflected, but is included in the column total. c. Includes $98.6 million for emergency firefighting in FY2005, and a rescission of $-13.5 million for the Central Hazardous Materials Fund. d. 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 10 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 18,130 18,130 18,130 —Consultation 48,129 49,484 49,484 49,484 49,484 Endangered Species and Related Programs Endangered Species Program 5 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 11 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 a. 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 $14.7 million. (For more information, see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.) Congressional Research Service 12 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2005-FY2006 ($ in thousands) FY2005 Approp. FY2006 Request FY2006 House Passed FY2006 Senate Passed FY2006 Approp. $22,593 $26,029 $0 $25,364 $13,695 1,479 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,500 986 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,500 Exchanges 1,726 1,750 1,724 1,750 1,500 Acquisition Management 8,249 7,893 7,893 8,393 8,393 Cost Allocation Methodology 1,972 1,820 1,820 1,820 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 $8.3 million for the MSCF (including the proposed transfer of the NMBCF to this program). The proposal included cuts in programs for great apes, rhinos, tigers, and African and Asian elephants, in contrast to increases in programs for marine turtles and neotropical migratory birds. Congress enacted modest increases over FY2005 for the subprograms. (See Table 6 below.) Congressional Research Service 13 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2006 ($ in thousands) FY2005 Approp. FY2006 Request FY2006 House Passed FY2006 Senate Passed FY2006 Approp. African elephant $1,381 $1,000 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 Tiger and Rhinos 1,477 1,100 1,400 1,600 1,600 Asian elephant 1,381 1,000 1,400 1,400 1,400 Great Apes 1,381 900 1,400 1,400 1,400 Marine turtles 99 300 300 700 700 [Neotropical Migratory Birds] [3,944] [4,000] [4,000] [4,000] [4,000] Total Appropriations $5,719 $4,300 $5,900 $6,500 $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 6,000 6,000 Administration 1,947 2,092 —a —a —a 124 128 —a —a —a $69,028 $74,000 $65,000 $72,000 $68,500 Cost allocation methodology (CAM) Total Appropriations a. 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 14 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 15 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 -30.0 -30.0 -30.0 -30.0 —Assistance to States 91.2 1.6 1.6 30.0 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 a. 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. b. Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority. c. 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 $3.0 million for HBCUs. During House debate on FY2006 Interior appropriations, the Chairman of the House Resources Committee objected to the appropriation for the Historic Preservation Fund (and other programs) on the grounds that it was not authorized for FY2006 and that there should be no appropriation without an authorization. His amendment on this issue was ruled out of order as constituting legislation on an appropriations bill. Congressional Research Service 19 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund, FY2005-FY2006 ($ 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 $35,500 $36,000 $38,500 $36,250 Tribal Grants 3,205 3,205 3,205 4,000 4,000 Save America’s Treasures 29,583 15,000 30,000 30,000b 30,000b 0 12,500 0 0b 0b 3,451 0 3,500 2,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 $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 a. 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. b. 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 20 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 21 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 6 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 22 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 23 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 $47.1 $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 72.3 66.3 70.3 Facilities 94.6 94.7 96.2 96.2 96.2 $944.6a $933.5 $974.6 $963.1 $976.0 U.S. Geological Survey Total Appropriations a. The total includes emergency appropriations of $1.0 million provided in P.L. 108-324 and $8.1 million in P.L. 109-13. 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 24 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 25 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations FY2005 Approp. FY2006 Request FY2006 House Passed FY2006 Senate Passed FY2006 Approp. $148.3 $148.3 $149.5 $149.2 $149.9 —Royalty Management (MRM) 75.4 87.3 77.5 78.5 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 -122.7 -122.7 -122.7 Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management Appropriations 166.9 160.4 152.7 152.5 153.7 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 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 26 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). 7 Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 01-16637. Congressional Research Service 27 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 28 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 $120.8 million (6%) over the Administration’s proposal. For the BIA, its major budget components, and selected BIA Congressional Research Service 29 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations programs, Table 12 below presents figures for FY2005-FY2006 and the percentages of change from FY2005 to FY2006 for the enacted levels. Decreases are shown with minuses. Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of the Bureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in the BIA school system. Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2005-FY2006 ($ 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 1% ——Contract Support Costs 134,420 134,609 134,609 134,609 134,609 <1% —Other Recurring Programs 612,919 602,301 636,337 621,295 634,795 4% ——School Operations 517,647 521,633 544,993 521,633 531,493 3% ——TriballyControlled Colleges 53,141 43,375 43,375 56,375 56,375 6% —Non-Recurring Programs 75,985 65,325 67,691 70,475 71,371 -6% —Central Office Operations 140,021 151,534 151,534 151,534 151,534 8% ——Office of Federal Acknowledgment 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280 0% ——Trust Services 19,071 27,169 27,169 27,169 27,169 42% ——Information Resources Technology 58,092 58,288 58,288 58,288 58,288 <1% —Regional Office Operations 41,362 41,590 41,590 41,590 41,590 1% —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 9% ——Tribal Vocational Colleges 5,177 0 5,177 5,300 5,300 2% Subtotal, Operation of Indian Programs 1,926,091 1,924,230 1,992,737 1,971,132 1,991,490 3% 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 30 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 8,223 8,223 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 6,348 6,348 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 8 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 31 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 prob [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32893. Public record. Not legal advice.