Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Congressional research reportMar 7, 2007
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2007 Appropriations
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
March 7, 2007
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL33399
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Summary
The FY2007 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for
the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for two agencies
within other departments—the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the
Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also includes
funding for arts and cultural agencies; the Environmental Protection Agency, which was recently
transferred to the appropriations subcommittees that deal with Interior and Related Agencies; and
numerous other entities and agencies.
On June 29, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5386 (S.Rept. 109-275),
providing $26.05 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007, $110.8
million (0.4%) above the House-passed level ($25.94 billion). The Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported level would have been a $384.0 million (1%) decrease from the FY2006
enacted level of $26.44 billion, but a $522.8 million (2%) increase over the President’s request for
FY2007 of $25.53 billion. Among the proposed decreases in the Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported bill for FY2007, from the FY2006 level, were the following:
•
$-209.5 million (9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
•
$-153.5 million (10%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
•
$-123.6 million (3%) for the Forest Service (FS); and
•
$-108.5 million (1%) for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Among the increases for FY2007 were the following:
•
$147.5 million (5%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
•
$50.2 million (3%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and
•
$29.3 million (5%) for the Smithsonian Institution.
The Senate Appropriations Committee adopted a few amendments in addition to a Manager’s
package. One sought to require the Secretary of the Interior to re-negotiate leases for Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sales where no royalties are currently being paid, and
to include the price thresholds that were inadvertently left out of leases from 1998 and 1999. A
second amendment, similar to House-passed language, would have prohibited funds in the bill
from being used to issue new lease sales to current OCS oil and gas lessees who do not have price
thresholds in their leases.
The Senate did not consider H.R. 5386, and Congress did not enact a regular annual
appropriations law for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007. Instead, funds
were included in P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007. The
law provides funding for FY2007 essentially at the FY2006 account levels, except where
otherwise stated. Funding below the account level is being determined by the agencies.
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Contents
Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
FY2007 Budget and Appropriations ............................................................................................2
Current Overview .................................................................................................................2
Major Issues..........................................................................................................................3
Status of Bill .........................................................................................................................5
Title I: Department of the Interior................................................................................................5
Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................................5
Overview ........................................................................................................................5
Management of Lands and Resources..............................................................................6
Wildland Fire Management .............................................................................................7
Construction and Land Acquisition..................................................................................8
Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................9
Endangered Species Funding...........................................................................................9
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement ............................................... 10
Avian Flu ...................................................................................................................... 10
Land Acquisition........................................................................................................... 11
Wildlife Refuge Fund.................................................................................................... 12
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF)........................................................ 12
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants .................................................................................... 13
National Park Service.......................................................................................................... 14
Operation of the National Park System.......................................................................... 14
United States Park Police (USPP).................................................................................. 16
National Recreation and Preservation ............................................................................ 16
Construction ................................................................................................................. 17
Land Acquisition and State Assistance........................................................................... 17
Historic Preservation..................................................................................................... 18
U.S. Geological Survey....................................................................................................... 19
Enterprise Information .................................................................................................. 20
National Mapping Program ........................................................................................... 21
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes................................................................. 21
Water Resources Investigations ..................................................................................... 22
Biological Research ...................................................................................................... 22
Science Support and Facilities....................................................................................... 23
Minerals Management Service ............................................................................................ 24
Budget and Appropriations............................................................................................ 24
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore ....................................................................................... 25
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ..................................................... 27
Bureau of Indian Affairs...................................................................................................... 29
BIA Reorganization....................................................................................................... 31
BIA School System ....................................................................................................... 32
Departmental Offices .......................................................................................................... 33
Insular Affairs ............................................................................................................... 33
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) ................................................................... 34
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.............................................................. 36
National Indian Gaming Commission............................................................................ 39
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency................................................................................. 39
Key Funding Issues............................................................................................................. 41
Water Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 42
Superfund and Brownfields ........................................................................................... 43
EPA’s Homeland Security Activities .............................................................................. 44
Scientific Research........................................................................................................ 45
Clean Air Act Implementation and Research.................................................................. 46
Title III: Related Agencies......................................................................................................... 47
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................................................................... 47
Major FS Issues in Appropriations................................................................................. 48
Wildland Fire Management ........................................................................................... 49
State and Private Forestry.............................................................................................. 50
Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 52
Other FS Accounts ........................................................................................................ 52
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service...................................... 53
Health Services ............................................................................................................. 55
Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 57
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ...................................................................... 58
Smithsonian Institution ....................................................................................................... 59
FY2007 Actions ............................................................................................................ 59
Facilities Capital ........................................................................................................... 59
National Museum of African American History and Culture.......................................... 60
National Zoo................................................................................................................. 60
Trust Funds ................................................................................................................... 60
Business Ventures ......................................................................................................... 61
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities................... 62
NEA ............................................................................................................................. 62
NEH ............................................................................................................................. 63
Cross-Cutting Topics................................................................................................................. 64
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) ................................................................ 64
Overview ...................................................................................................................... 64
FY2007 Funding ........................................................................................................... 65
Everglades Restoration........................................................................................................ 67
FY2007 Funding ........................................................................................................... 68
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation .......................................................................... 70
For Additional Reading ............................................................................................................. 73
Title I: Department of the Interior........................................................................................ 73
Land Management Agencies Generally ............................................................................... 74
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency........................................................................... 75
Title III: Related Agencies................................................................................................... 75
Figures
Figure 1. Forest Service FY2007 Budget Request...................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Tables
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2006 ..........3
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2007 .............5
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2006-FY2007 ..........................8
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs, FY2005-FY2007 ......... 10
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2005-FY2007 ......................... 11
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Neotropical
Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2007 .................................................................................. 12
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2005-FY2007.......................... 13
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2005-FY2007 ................................... 15
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund, FY2005-FY2007............................ 19
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2005-FY2007 ............................... 23
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2006-FY2007 .................... 25
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
FY2006-FY2007.................................................................................................................... 28
Table 13. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2006-FY2007.............................. 30
Table 14. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu of Taxes,
FY2000-FY2007.................................................................................................................... 35
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
FY2006-FY2007.................................................................................................................... 36
Table 16. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2006-FY2007 ............... 41
Table 17. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2003-FY2007....................................... 49
Table 18. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry, FY2004-FY2007 ............................ 52
Table 19. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2006-FY2007.................................. 54
Table 20. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2005-FY2007 ............................... 61
Table 21. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2005-FY2007 ......................................... 63
Table 22. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, FY2004-FY2007.......... 65
Table 23. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF, FY2006-FY2007 ....................... 67
Table 24. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget, FY2005-FY2007........ 69
Table 25. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2007.................................................................................................................... 71
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 76
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 76
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies are being funded by P.L. 110-5, the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007. The law continues funds at the FY2006
account level, unless otherwise specified. The law, enacted on February 15, 2007, required that
agencies and departments submit an allocation of funds below the account level within 30 days of
enactment. The submissions are to be sent to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Introduction
The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for
agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as well as numerous related
agencies and bureaus. It provides funding for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except
for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded in Energy and Water Development appropriations laws),
many of which manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs. The bill also
provides funds for agencies in two other departments: the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture, and the Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human Services, as
well as funds for the Environmental Protection Agency. Further, the annual bill includes funding
for arts and cultural agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art,
National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities, and for
numerous other entities and agencies.
In recent years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies provided funds for
several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE), including research, development, and
conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
However, at the outset of the 109th Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House
and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate 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.
The FY2006 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law contained three
primary titles providing funding. The regular, annual FY2007 legislation (H.R. 5386) followed a
similar organization, and this report is organized along these lines. Accordingly, the first section
(Title I) provides information on Interior agencies; the second section (Title II) discusses EPA;
and the third section (Title III) addresses other agencies, programs, and entities. A fourth section
of this report discusses cross-cutting topics that encompass more than one agency.
The report does not contain FY2007 enacted levels for agencies, programs, and activities because
these funding levels are being determined by the agencies, as provided under P.L. 110-5. In
1
The House panel is called the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies. The Senate
panel is entitled the Subcommittee on Energy and Water.
2
The House panel is called the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Senate panel is
entitled the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.
Congressional Research Service
1
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
general, in this report the term appropriations represents total funds available, including regular
annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as rescissions, transfers, and deferrals, but
excludes permanent budget authorities. Increases and decreases generally are calculated on
comparisons between FY2007 funding levels for the most recent action on H.R. 5386, and those
requested by the President for FY2007 and appropriated for FY2006. The House Committee on
Appropriations is the primary source of the funding figures used throughout the report. Other
sources of information include the Senate Committee on Appropriations, agency budget
justifications, and the Congressional Record. In the tables throughout this report, some columns
of funding figures do not add to the precise totals provided due to rounding.
FY2007 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
Funds for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007 are contained in P.L. 110-5,
the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007. Continuing funding is needed to
fund agency operations and activities because Congress did not enact a regular FY2007
appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. P.L. 110-5 provides funds
though September 30, 2007, which is the rest of the fiscal year. It continues funds at the FY2006
account level, except where otherwise specified. The law requires that agencies and departments
submit an allocation of funds below the account level, for example for programs and activities, to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The submissions are due within 30 days of
enactment, which occurred on February 15, 2007.
Prior to the enactment of P.L. 110-5, continuing funds were provided to Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies through a series of laws to continue funds at the lower of either the FY2006
level or the House-passed level for FY2007. However, projects and activities that were included
in the FY2006 appropriations law, but not in the FY2007 House-passed bill, were funded at a
level not to exceed the FY2006 rate.
The last action on the FY2007 regular annual appropriations bill, H.R. 5386, occurred on June 29,
2006, when the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported the bill (S.Rept. 109-275). The bill
provided $26.05 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007, $110.8
million (0.4%) above the House-passed level ($25.94 billion). The Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported level would have been a $384.0 million (1%) decrease from the FY2006
enacted level of $26.44 billion, but a $522.8 million (2%) increase over the President’s request for
FY2007 of $25.53 billion. Among the proposed decreases in the Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported bill for FY2007, from the FY2006 level, were the following:
•
$-209.5 million (9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);
•
$-153.5 million (10%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
•
$-123.6 million (3%) for the Forest Service (FS); and
•
$-108.5 million (1%) for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Among the increases for FY2007 were the following:
•
$147.5 million (5%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
Congressional Research Service
2
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
•
$50.2 million (3%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); and
•
$29.3 million (5%) for the Smithsonian Institution.
The Senate Appropriations Committee adopted a few amendments in addition to a Manager’s
package. One sought to require the Secretary of the Interior to re-negotiate leases for Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sales where no royalties are currently being paid, and
to include the price thresholds that were inadvertently left out of leases from 1998 and 1999. A
second amendment, similar to House-passed language, prohibited funds in the bill from being
used to issue new lease sales to current OCS oil and gas lessees who do not have price thresholds
in their leases. In earlier action, on June 27, 2006, the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee marked up and agreed to H.R. 5386, without amendment.
On May 18, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5386, providing $25.94 billion for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007. The House-passed level would have been a
$494.8 million (2%) decrease from the FY2006 enacted level of $26.44 billion, but a $412.0
million (2%) increase over the President’s request for FY2007 of $25.53 billion.
The House had considered many amendments to H.R. 5386, and agreed to a number of them.
They included amendments to prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the sale or slaughter
of wild horses and burros, building roads in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska for harvesting
timber, limiting the outreach programs of the Smithsonian Institution, and issuing new lease sales
to current Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lessees who do not have price thresholds in
their leases. The House also retained the moratoria on OCS leasing, and increased funds for the
NEA, NEH, and Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, among other changes.
Previously, on May 15, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5386 (H.Rept.
109-465), also with $25.94 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2007.
The House Appropriations Committee adopted a number of amendments during its markup before
ordering the bill reported.
Table 1 below shows the budget authority for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for
FY2004-2006. See Table 25 for a budgetary history of each agency for FY2004-FY2007.
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2006
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
$27.33
$27.02
$26.44
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. They generally reflect rescissions and supplemental appropriations to date.
Major Issues
One issue debated in this appropriations cycle was the distribution of proceeds from land sales
under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA). This issue is covered briefly in the
“Bureau of Land Management” section, below. Also debated was the sale of certain National
Forest System lands. This issue is covered briefly in the “Forest Service” section, below. The
President’s FY2007 budget assumed enactment of legislation to open part of the Coastal Plain in
Congressional Research Service
3
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development. This issue is
covered briefly in the “Fish and Wildlife Service” section, below. (For more information, see
CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th
Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).)
Controversial policy and funding issues typically have been debated during consideration of the
annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Debate on FY2007
funding levels encompassed a variety of issues, many of which have been controversial in the
past, including the issues listed below.
•
BIA Schools and IHS Hospitals, particularly whether to enact funding cuts
proposed in the President’s FY2007 budget. (For more information, see
the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Indian Health Service” sections in
this report.)
•
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially the adequacy
of funding to meet state and local wastewater and drinking water needs. These
state revolving funds provide seed money for state loans to communities for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see
the “Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)
•
Indian Trust Funds, especially the method by which a historical accounting will
be conducted of Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts to determine correct
balances in the class-action lawsuit against the government involving tribal and
IIM accounts. (For more information, see the “Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians” section in this report.)
•
Land Acquisition, including the appropriate level of funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and the state grant
program, and extent to which the fund should be used for activities not involving
land acquisition. (For more information, see “The Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)
•
Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly the moratoria on preleasing
and leasing activities in offshore areas, and oil and gas leases in offshore
California. (For more information, see the “Minerals Management Service”
section in this report.)
•
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), primarily the appropriate level of
funding for compensating local governments for federal land within their
jurisdictions. (For more information, see the “Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program
(PILT)” section in this report.)
•
Royalty Relief, especially the extent to which oil and natural gas companies
receive royalty relief for production of oil and natural gas on federal lands. (For
more information see “MMS” section of this report.)
•
Smithsonian Institution, in particular its contract with CBS/Showtime that gives
certain rights to Showtime in accessing the Smithsonian’s collection. (For more
information see the “Smithsonian Institution” section of this report.)
•
Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet hazardous waste
cleanup needs, and whether to continue using general Treasury revenues to fund
the account or reinstate a tax on industry that originally paid for most of the
Congressional Research Service
4
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
program. (For more information, see the “Environmental Protection Agency”
section in this report.)
•
Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate level of
funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of borrowing funds from other
agency programs to fight wildfires; implementation of a new program for
wildland fire protection and locations for fire protection treatments; and impact
of environmental analysis, public involvement, and challenges to agency
decisions on fuel reduction activities. (For more information, see the “Bureau of
Land Management” and “Forest Service” sections in this report.)
Status of Bill
Table 2 below contains information on congressional consideration of the FY2007 Interior
appropriations bill (H.R. 5386) and the FY2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution
for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5).
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2007
Subcommittee
Markup
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
6/27/06
H.R. 5386,
H.Rept.
109-465
5/15/06
H.R. 5386,
(293-128)
5/18/06
H.R. 5386,
S.Rept.
109-275
6/29/06
—
—
—
H.J.Res. 20
(286-140)
1/31/07
—
H.J.Res. 20
(81-15)
2/14/07
House
Senate
5/04/06
—
Conference
Report Approval
House
Senate
Public
Law
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
P.L.
110-5
2/15/07
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Overview
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 261 million acres of public
land for diverse and sometimes conflicting uses, such as energy and minerals development,
livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also is responsible for about 700
million acres of federal subsurface mineral resources throughout the nation, and supervises the
mineral operations on an estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another key BLM
function is wildland fire management on about 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, and
certain nonfederal land.
For the BLM for FY2007, the House approved $1.79 billion and the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported $1.80 billion. The House bill would have been an increase of $31.2 million
Congressional Research Service
5
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
(2%) from the FY2006 enacted level of $1.75 billion, while the Senate committee bill would have
been an increase of $50.2 million (3%). See Table 3 below.
The Administration’s FY2007 budget suggested amending the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act (FLTFA) to alter the distribution of proceeds from land sales. Under current law,
proceeds are deposited into a separate Treasury account and are available primarily for land
acquisition. The President’s proposal directed 70% of the proceeds to the general fund of the
Treasury to help reduce the deficit. Legislation would be needed to make this change. Neither the
House nor the Senate Appropriations Committee included such a proposal in its FY2007 bill.
Management of Lands and Resources
For Management of Lands and Resources, the House approved $867.7 million, a $20.1 million
(2%) increase over the FY2006 enacted level of $847.6 million. The Senate Appropriations
Committee reported $876.9 million, a $29.2 million (3%) increase over FY2006. This line item
includes funds for an array of BLM land programs, including protection, recreational use,
improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM administration.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the Administration’s approach
to decrease funds for some programs from FY2006, including deferred maintenance and
management of soil, air, and water. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee also
agreed with the Administration’s approach to increase funds for some programs over FY2006. For
instance, for cultural resources, the request and the Senate committee level were $18.1 million, up
$3.1 million (21%) from the FY2006 enacted level of $15.0 million, while the House approved
$16.6 million. The increase was for a long-term initiative to inventory, monitor, stabilize, and
protect cultural resources. For energy and minerals, the request was $134.7 million, an increase of
$24.3 million (22%) over FY2006 ($110.4 million, including Alaska minerals). The House
supported $133.0 million and the Senate Appropriations Committee reported $138.0 million. The
overall increase was intended to foster access to energy resources on federal lands. A portion was
to process the growing number of Applications for Permits to Drill, and for related inspection,
enforcement, and monitoring. Another portion was to accelerate implementation of an oil shale
development program. Further, the budget assumed that Congress would enact legislation in 2006
to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to development. Thus, an increase was
sought for preparing and implementing an ANWR leasing program and for management of
energy development activities in the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska.
In other cases, the House, Senate Appropriations Committee, and Administration took differing
approaches relative to FY2006 levels. For instance, the House approved $67.0 million for
recreation management, a 3% increase over FY2006, while the Administration proposed a 2% cut
and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended nearly level funding. The House also
included $20.1 million for resource protection and law enforcement, a 6% increase over FY2006,
in part for law enforcement along the southwest border. By contrast, the Administration and the
Senate Appropriations Committee supported $18.6 million, a 2% cut from FY2006. For
conveyance of lands in Alaska, the Administration and House sought $35.2 million, a 12% cut,
but the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended level funding at $40.0 million.
Both the House-passed and Senate committee-reported bills continued to bar funds from being
used for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of national monuments, as they were on
January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the presidential proclamations that created the
monuments. The bills also continued the moratorium on accepting and processing applications for
Congressional Research Service
6
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
patents for mining and mill site claims on federal lands. However, applications meeting
certain requirements that were filed on or before September 30, 1994, would be allowed to
proceed, and third party contractors would be authorized to process the mineral examinations on
those applications.
The House agreed to an amendment to prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the sale or
slaughter of wild horses and burros (as defined in P.L. 92-195). Amendment proponents seek to
prevent BLM from selling, during FY2007, excess wild horses and burros under authority
enacted in P.L. 108-447. According to BLM, 41 animals that were sold under that authority were
subsequently resold or traded, and then sent to slaughterhouses by the new owners. Advocates of
the amendment assert that there are alternatives for controlling populations of wild horses on
federal lands, such as fertility control. Opponents of a similar amendment to the previous year’s
appropriations bill contended that BLM’s changes to the sale procedure would prevent animals
from being slaughtered. They maintained that sale authority was needed because adoptions and
other efforts to reduce herd sizes have been insufficient. Further, they asserted that significant
funds used for caring for animals in holding facilities could be redirected to other government
priorities. Although the House passed a similar amendment to the FY2006 Interior appropriations
bill, the provision was not enacted.
Wildland Fire Management
For Wildland Fire Management for FY2007, the House approved $769.3 million, a $14.0 million
increase (2%) over the $755.3 million enacted for FY2006 and nearly identical ($0.3 million less)
to the Administration’s request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $776.6
million, a $21.4 million (3%) increase over FY2006 and $7.1 million (1%) over the
Administration’s request. The House, Senate Appropriations Committee, and Administration
levels were similar in many respects. They provided $274.8 million for fire preparedness, an
increase of $6.0 million (2%) over FY2006. They also provided $257.0 million for fire
suppression, an increase of $26.3 million (11%) from FY2006 to fund the 10-year average cost of
fire suppression. In report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed continued
concern with the high costs of fire suppression, and directed DOI and the FS to examine fires
with suppression costs exceeding $10.0 million. The increases for preparedness and suppression
were partially offset by reductions in other areas. For instance, the Administration, House, and
Senate Appropriations Committee sought a decrease of $8.3 million (4%, to $199.8 million) for
hazardous fuels reduction. The Administration and House also sought to eliminate funds for state
and local fire assistance, on the grounds that assistance for local fire departments will be provided
through other programs. The Senate Appropriations Committee included $5.0 million for state
and local fire assistance, asserting that rural and volunteer fire departments are effective in
responding to fires and saving the federal government money, and that the Administration also
has proposed cuts in related programs. The FY2006 funding level for state and local fire
assistance was $9.9 million.
The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all Interior Department
lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for wildland fire management to the Forest
Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both
departments is implementing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the
National Fire Plan, which emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to
catastrophic fires. In report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed that the FS
and DOI “do not have a suitable or comprehensive plan and strategy to deal with the Nation’s
wildfire management needs,” and directed the development and implementation of a
Congressional Research Service
7
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
comprehensive and cohesive strategy (H.Rept. 109-465, p. 18). The committee also stated that it
is still not clear that hazardous fuels funding is being used for priority projects and asked that
DOI provide a report on how funding is to be prioritized and allocated. Report and bill language
sought to address other concerns. (For additional information on wildland fires, see the “Forest
Service” section in this report.)
Construction and Land Acquisition
For FY2007, the House approved $11.5 million for BLM construction, a decrease of 2% relative
to the FY2006 level. The Senate Appropriations Committee and the Administration supported
more substantial cuts—of 42% and 45%, respectively. For Land Acquisition for FY2007, the
Administration and Senate Appropriations Committee sought increases of 2% and 7%,
respectively, over the FY2006 level. The House approved a 64% decrease. In report language, the
House Appropriations Committee stated that new land acquisition is a low priority. The
appropriation for BLM acquisitions has fallen steadily from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.6
million for FY2006. Money for land acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “The Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” section in this report.)
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
Bureau of Land Management
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
Management of Lands and Resources
$847.6
$863.2
$867.7
$876.9
Wildland Fire Management
755.3
769.6
769.3
776.6
—Preparedness
268.8
274.8
274.8
274.8
—Suppression
230.7
257.0
257.0
257.0
—Other Operations
255.7
237.7
237.4
244.8
Construction
11.8
6.5
11.5
6.8
Land Acquisition
8.6
8.8
3.1
9.2
Oregon and California Grant Lands
108.5
112.4
111.4
112.4
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeituresa
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
$1,754.1
$1,782.9
$1,785.3
$1,804.4
Total Appropriations
a.
The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its website at http://www.doi.gov.
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at
http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm.
CRS Report RL32315, Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands, by (name
redacted).
Congressional Research Service
8
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
CRS Report RL33792, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 110th Congress, by (name redacted) et al.
Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2007, the President requested $1.29 billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 13%
less than FY2006 ($1.48 billion, including emergency appropriations). The House approved $1.9
million less than the request, and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $32.4 million
more than the request. By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the
Resources Management account. The President’s FY2007 request was $995.6 million, a 1%
decrease from the FY2006 level of $1.00 billion. The House approved $1.017 billion, while
the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $1.024 billion. Among the programs included
in Resources Management are the Endangered Species program, the Refuge System, and
Law Enforcement.
In addition, the President’s FY2007 budget proposed enacting legislation to open part of the
Coastal Plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas exploration and
development.3 The budget proposed that the first lease sale would be held in FY2008. Under the
proposal, this and subsequent sales were estimated to generate $4.0 billion in federal revenues
over the next five years. For information on the debate over whether to approve energy
development in the Refuge, see CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
New Directions in the 110th Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name red
acted).
Endangered Species Funding
Funding for the Endangered Species program is one of the perennially controversial portions of
the FWS budget. The Administration proposed to reduce the program from $147.8 million in
FY2006 to $141.0 million in FY2007 (5%), with the bulk of the reduction in the recovery
subprogram. For FY2007, the House approved $146.6 million, $1.2 million below FY2006 and
$5.6 million above the request, while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $152.0
million. See Table 4, below.
A number of other related programs also benefit conservation of species that are listed, or
proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The President’s request would have
increased the Landowner Incentive Program from $21.7 million in FY2006 (including a $2.0
million rescission) to $24.4 million in FY2007. Stewardship Grants would rise from $7.3 million
in FY2006 to $9.4 million. The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants
to states and territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) would remain at $80.0
million. Within that figure, the Administration proposed to earmark $5.1 million in FY2007 for
the Idaho Salmon and Clearwater River Basins Habitat Account. The House approved cuts in the
Landowner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Grants, but a modest increase in the
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. The Senate Appropriations Committee
approved cuts in the Landowner Incentive Program, but otherwise supported the requests. See
Table 4, below.
3
The proposed authorization for exploration and development would be separate legislation, rather than part of the
Interior appropriations bill. The proposal does not appear in the FWS Budget Justification for FY2007.
Congressional Research Service
9
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Under the President’s request, total FY2007 funding for the Endangered Species program and
related programs would have decreased from $256.8 million to $254.8 million (1%). The House
approved a 3% decrease, as did the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2005
Approp.
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
—Candidate Conservation
$9,255
$8,619
$8,063
$8,163
$10,045
—Listing
15,960
17,630
17,759
17,759
17,859
—Consultation
48,129
47,997
49,337
50,018
50,018
—Recovery
69,870
73,562
65,879
70,670
74,028
Subtotal, Endangered Species Program
143,214
147,808
141,038
146,610
151,950
—Landowner Incentive Program
21,694
21,667
24,400
15,000
10,000
—Private Stewardship Grants
6,903
7,277
9,400
7,000
7,277
80,001
Endangered Species and
Related Programs
Endangered Species Program
Related Programs
80,462
80,001
80,001
80,507a
—Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
Subtotal, Related Programs
109,059
108,945b
113,801
102,507
97,278
Total Appropriations
$252,273
$256,753b
$254,839
$249,117
$249,228
a.
The President’s request for FY2007 called for the entire amount to be derived from LWCF. The House
approved $60.3 million from LWCF, an amount the report of the House Committee on Appropriations
identifies as equal to species recovery, land acquisition, and acquisition for Habitat Conservation Plans.
b.
Reflects a $2.0 million rescission in the Landowner Incentive Program and a $1.0 million rescission in the
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund in P.L. 109-148.
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement
For refuge operations and maintenance in FY2007, the President proposed $381.7 million, a
decrease from $382.5 million in FY2006. The House approved $388.7 million, while the Senate
Appropriations Committee approved $391.2 million. The President proposed $57.3 million for
Law Enforcement—an increase of $1.2 million from the FY2006 level ($56.1 million). The
House-passed bill contained $57.5 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved
$57.9 million.
Avian Flu
For FY2007, the Administration proposed to continue the special supplemental funding Congress
provided in FY2006 for the study, monitoring, and early detection of highly pathogenic avian flu,
through a virus strain known as H5N1. The FY2006 level was $7.4 million. The same was
proposed by the Administration for FY2007, and this amount was passed by the full House and
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. FWS will cooperate with other federal and
non-federal agencies in studying the spread of the virus through wild birds. Attention will be
Congressional Research Service
10
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
focused on the North American species whose migratory patterns make them likely to come into
contact with infected Asian birds. The geographic focus will be on Alaska, the Pacific Flyway
(along the west coast), and Pacific islands. The House Appropriations Committee report also
directed that the funds be used not only for monitoring and testing in Alaska, but also for “vector
control efforts in other areas,” but did not elaborate on the efforts intended nor the geographic
areas to be given additional emphasis. The Senate Appropriations Committee report did not
discuss the program.
Land Acquisition
For FY2007, the Administration proposed $27.1 million for Land Acquisition, 3% below
FY2006. The House approved $19.8 million, a decrease of 29%. (See Table 5.) The House
Appropriations Committee report earmarked acquisition funding for six refuges in the northeast.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $42.3 million, with a more scattered list of
acquisitions. This program is funded from appropriations from LWCF. In the past, the bulk of this
FWS program had been for specified acquisitions of federal refuge land, but a portion was used
for closely related functions such as acquisition management, land exchanges, emergency
acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, and general overhead (“Cost Allocation Methodology”). In
recent years, less of the funding has been reserved for traditional land acquisition. The
Administration continued this trend for FY2007, reserving $13.7 million for specified
acquisitions, and funding the remainder of the program at $13.4 million. 4 The House-passed bill
would allocate a smaller fraction to acquisition than the President’s proposal. While the Senate
Appropriations Committee supported an increase to $42.3 million, it took the unusual step of
earmarking some $500,000 of the $28.2 million in Acquisition funds for an EIS for an Alaskan
land exchange, rather than deriving the expenses from Exchanges or Acquisition Management.
(See Table 5, below.) (For more information, see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” in this report.)
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FWS Land Acquisition
FY2005
Approp.
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
Acquisitions—Federal Refuge Lands
$22,593
$13,494
$13,672
$8,800
$28,242
1,479
1,478
1,478
478
1,500
986
1,478
1,478
1,500
1,500
Exchanges
1,726
1,478
1,478
0
1,500
Acquisition Management
8,249
8,269
7,171
7,171
7,720
Cost Allocation Methodology
1,972
1,793
1,802
1,802
1,802
$37,005
$27,990
$27,079
$19,751
$42,264
Inholdings
Emergencies & Hardships
Total Appropriations
4
Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a permanently appropriated source of funding
(from the sale of “duck stamps” to hunters, and import duties on certain arms and ammunition) for land acquisition. As
annual appropriations for acquisitions under LWCF have declined, the MBCA ($41.9 million in FY2006) has become
increasingly important in the protection of habitat for migratory birds, especially waterfowl. Other species in these
habitats benefit incidentally.
Congressional Research Service
11
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 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 amounts authorized in the formula, and county governments have long urged
additional appropriations to make up the difference. Congress generally does provide additional
appropriations. The President requested $10.8 million for FY2007, down from $14.2 million in
FY2006. This FY2007 level, combined with expected receipts, would provide about 30% of the
authorized full payment, down from 40% in FY2006. The House-passed figure was $14.2
million, as in FY2006, which the Senate Appropriations Committee also approved.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF)
The MSCF has generated considerable constituent interest despite the small size of the program.
It benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, great apes, and marine turtles. The
President’s FY2007 budget again proposed to move funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. Congress has rejected the proposed transfer
annually from FY2002 to FY2006, and the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
again rejected the proposal for FY2007. For FY2007, the President proposed $8.2 million for the
MSCF (including the proposed transfer of the NMBCF to this program). The proposal would cut
programs for great apes, rhinos, tigers, African and Asian elephants, and marine turtles, but would
increase funding for neotropical migratory birds. The House passed smaller reductions, while the
Senate Appropriations Committee added funds over FY2006 levels. See Table 6, below.
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
FY2005
Approp.
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
African Elephant
$1,381
$1,379
$990
$1,290
$1,400
Tiger and Rhinos
1,477
1,576
990
1,490
1,600
Asian Elephant
1,381
1,379
990
1,290
1,400
Great Apes
1,381
1,379
990
1,290
1,400
Marine Turtles
99
691
297
697
1,000
[Neotropical Migratory Birds]
[3,944]
[3,941]
[3,960]
[4,000]
[4,000]
Total Appropriations
$5,719
$6,404
$4,257
$6,057
$6,800
Note: The Neotropical Migratory Bird program was first authorized in FY2002, and is not part of the MSCF,
although the transfer has been proposed in the President’s budgets from FY2002-FY2007. Congress has rejected
the proposal five times, and the program is not included in the column totals.
Congressional Research Service
12
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help fund efforts to conserve species (including non-game
species) of concern to states, territories, and tribes and has generated considerable support from
these governments. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior appropriations law (P.L.
106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior appropriations bills. (It lacks any separate
authorizing statute.) Funds may be used to develop conservation plans as well as to support
specific practical conservation projects. A portion of the funding is set aside for competitive
grants to tribal governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining state portion is for
matching grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined by formula. The President proposed
$74.7 million, an increase from $67.5 million in FY2006. The House approved a decrease to
$50.0 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the FY2006 funding level, and set
aside $5.9 million for tribal grants. Like the House, it did not specify what fraction of the state
share was to be used for administrative expenses. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee rejected the President’s proposal to set aside $5 million for competitive grants to the
same jurisdictions. See Table 7, below.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
FY2005
Approp.
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
State Grants
$61,040
$59,556
$61,486
$45,000
$61,580
0
0
5,000
0
0
Tribal Grants
5,917
5,912
5,940
5,000
5,912
Administrationa
1,947
2,024
2,240
n/a
n/a
124
—
—
—
—
$69,028
$67,492
$74,666
$50,000
$67,492
Competitive Grants for States, Territories, &
Other Jurisdictions
Cost Allocation Methodology (CAM)b
Total Appropriations
Note: n/a = not available.
a.
In FY2006 and earlier, administrative costs were limited to 3%, after tribal grants are deducted from the
total. Committee reports and the conference report did not specify a dollar figure for allocation to
administration or to the cost allocation methodology. For FY2007, neither the Senate Appropriations
Committee nor the House specified a dollar or a percent limit on administrative costs, but only that such
costs be deducted from the state grants share of the program.
b.
Beginning in FY2006, CAM was included under administrative costs.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at http://www.fws.gov/.
CRS Report RL33468, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting
Values and Difficult Choices, by (name redacted) et al.
CRS Report RS21157, Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by (name redacted) and (na
me redacted).
CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th
Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
13
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System, currently
comprising 390 separate and very diverse park units covering 85 million acres. The NPS and its
20,400 employees protect, preserve, interpret, and administer the park system’s diverse natural
and historic areas representing the cultural identity of the American people. The NPS mission is
to protect park resources and values, unimpaired, while making them accessible to the public. The
Park System has some 20 types of area designations, including national parks, monuments,
memorials, historic sites, battlefields, seashores, recreational areas, and other classifications. The
NPS also supports and promotes some resource conservation activities outside the Park System
through limited grant and technical assistance programs and cooperation with partners.
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill provided a total of $2.23 billion for the NPS, $52.4
million (2%) more than the House-passed bill and $72.4 million (3%) above the budget request,
but $209.5 million (9%) below the FY2006 enacted level. See Table 8, below. The NPS budget
request is in accordance with the Administration’s goal of cutting the federal budget deficit, but
may be at odds with the agency’s public popularity. It included increases for park operations and
park police, with other line items either nearly level or significantly reduced. It has been reported
that inflation; fixed costs, such as mandatory pay and benefit increases; and rising fuel and utility
costs are forcing park managers to reduce visitor programs and services and to raise entry fees as
the summer season begins.5
Two amendments adopted by the House involved the NPS. The first increased funding for the
Operation of the National Park System by $1.0 million, with the intent of increasing security to
open all of the Statue of Liberty to visitors. The other excluded certain cities from an ongoing
NPS study of the San Gabriel watershed. In addition, House Appropriations Committee Members
agreed to help resolve a matter concerning repeated extensions of the concessions contract to
provide ferry service to the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island National Monument.
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill would direct the NPS to keep in effect a rule
authorizing the use of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John
D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway (that joins these parks) for three more years or until the NPS
completes new rules, and would reinstate the current rule if a court enjoins or limits the
implementation of the replacement new rules. The FY2005 and FY2006 Interior appropriations
acts kept the current NPS rule in effect for one year, and the House-passed bill for FY2007 would
extend that protection for one additional year.
Operation of the National Park System
The park operations line-item is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting
for 80% of the total NPS budget. It supports the activities, programs, and services essential to the
day-to-day operations of the Park System, and covers resource protection, visitors’ services,
facility operations, facility maintenance, and park support programs, as well as employee pay,
benefits, and other fixed costs. The majority of operations funding is provided directly to park
managers. In its report on the FY2007 bill, the House Appropriations Committee was critical of a
Department “hold harmless” policy for law enforcement rangers “... while forcing all other visitor
5
“National Parks Cutting Back on Services, Raising Fees,” USA Today (May 12, 2006): A1.
Congressional Research Service
14
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
service, maintenance, and resources protection functions to deal with the absorption of fixed costs
and other budgetary limitations” (H.Rept. 109-465, p. 44). The House retained the committee’s
bill language to counter this policy.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1.75 billion for operation of the Park
System for FY2007, an increase of $9.7 million (1%) above the request, but a decrease of $4.3
million (less than 1%) from the House allowance and of $20.6 million (1%) from FY2006. The
committee’s report lists high-priority facility maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation projects. It
has been reported that an ongoing NPS “core operations analysis” program aims to reduce parks’
fixed costs by 20%-30% and promote budget efficiency without compromising core mission
functions of resource protection and visitor hospitality. To date, 53 park units have completed the
studies and 34 more are scheduled to finish by the end of FY2006. The NPS intends to complete
all unit studies by the end of 2011.6 Park advocacy groups have estimated that, in recent years, the
national parks operate with two-thirds of needed funding, on average, and have asked Congress to
provide an additional $150 million for park operations in FY2007, as well as additional funding
for park security, land acquisition, and hurricane damage repairs. The condition of the national
parks and the adequacy of their care and operation continue to be controversial.
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2005-FY2007
($ in millions)
National Park Service
FY2005
Approp.
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
Operation of the National Park System
$1,683.6
$1,771.6
$1,742.3
$1,755.3
$1,751.0
U.S. Park Police
80.1
80.2
84.8
84.8
84.8
National Recreation and Preservation
61.0
65.5
33.3
47.2
53.5
Historic Preservation Fund
71.7
115.2
71.9
58.7
70.7
Constructiona
353.0
388.3
229.3
229.9
234.9
Land and Water Conservation Fundb
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
—Assistance to States
91.2
29.6
1.6
1.6
30.0
—NPS Acquisition
55.1
34.4c
22.7
28.4
33.4
Subtotal, Land Acquisition and
State Assistance
146.3
47.0d
24.3
30.0
63.4
$2,365.7
$2,437.7
$2,155.8
$2,175.8
$2,228.2
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
Total Appropriations
6
a.
Includes $50.8 million of emergency funding for FY2005 enacted in P.L. 108-324, and $19.0 million of
emergency funding for FY2006 enacted in P.L. 109-148.
b.
Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
c.
The funding figure is reduced by the use of $9.8 million from prior year balances.
d.
The funding figure is reduced by the use of $17.0 million from prior year balances, which are not allocated
between Assistance to States and NPS Acquisition.
“National Parks: Directions to Increase Efficiency, Cut Costs Gets Mixed Reviews,” Land Letter (May 4, 2006.)
Congressional Research Service
15
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
United States Park Police (USPP)
This budget item supports the U.S. Park Police, an urban-oriented, full-service, uniformed law
enforcement entity of the NPS with primary jurisdiction at park sites within the metropolitan
areas of Washington, DC, New York City, and San Francisco. USPP law enforcement authority
extends to all NPS units and to certain other federal and state lands. The park police provide
specialized law enforcement services to other park units when requested, through deployment of
professional police officers to support law enforcement trained and commissioned park rangers
working in park units system-wide. The enacted level for FY2006 was $80.2 million; the FY2007
request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate Appropriations Committee all would allow $84.8
million, a 6% increase. Increased funding is proposed for heightened security at icon parks and
for recruitment and training of new officers. An internal review concluded in December 2004
reportedly addressed long-standing fiscal and management problems and redefined USPP
priorities to be: (1) protection of “iconic” (symbols of democracy) park units and their visitors,
(2) patrol of the National Mall and adjacent parks, (3) special events and crowd management, (4)
criminal investigations, and (5) traffic control and parkway patrol.
National Recreation and Preservation
This line item has funded a variety of park recreation and resource protection programs and an
international park affairs office, as well as programs connected with state and local community
efforts to preserve natural, cultural, and historic (heritage) resources. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $53.5 million for the line item, $6.3 million (13%) more than the
House allowance, $20.2 million (61%) above the request of $33.3 million, but $12.0 million
(18%) below the FY2006 enacted level of $65.5 million. The large requested decrease was partly
from the proposal to eliminate the statutory and contractual aid program for specific sites, as had
been proposed—and rejected by Congress—in FY2005 and FY2006. The House agreed with the
request not to fund statutory and contractual aid. The Senate Appropriations Committee, however,
recommended $5.3 million, and in report language proposed a specific distribution for the funds.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee both rejected the request to reduce funding
for the heritage partnership program and to transfer the program to the Historic Preservation
Fund. The Administration had proposed the transfer of heritage partnership programs (for
heritage areas) to the Historic Preservation Fund (see below) and a decrease in FY2007 funding
for heritage areas to $7.4 million, down $5.9 million (44%) from FY2006. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $14.1 million, $0.2 million (2%) above the House
allowance and $0.8 million (6%) above FY2006 for the heritage partnership program.
In agreement with the House committee report, the House declined to provide funds for the
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trail initiative, a program that had received a total of $11.0
million since FY2000. The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, recommended $1.6
million for the program, and noted (in report language) a DOI Inspector General’s report that
commended NPS efforts to improve program grant management, while urging the NPS to
implement additional recommendations of the Inspector General’s report.
Congressional Research Service
16
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Construction
The construction line item funds new construction, as well as improvements, repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities, including many historic structures. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $234.9 million for NPS construction, $4.9 million (2%)
more than the House, $5.6 million (2%) more than the request, and $153.4 million (40%) less
than FY2006 enacted. The committee’s report contained a specific line-item distribution of
construction funds that included funding for the Harpers Ferry Center, which had not been
proposed by the NPS.
Cuts in the construction line item could limit the reduction of the NPS multi-billion dollar
maintenance backlog. Rather than fund the reduction of the backlog in FY2007, it has been
reported that the Administration is proposing to hold the line against any further backlog
accumulation by sustaining the same level of “facility condition index.”7 (For information on
NPS maintenance, see CRS Report RL33484, National Park Management, coordinated by (name
redacted).
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
FY2006 appropriations for the NPS under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) were
$47.0 million, comprised of $34.4 million for NPS land acquisition, $29.6 million for state
assistance programs, and a $17.0 million reduction due to the use of prior year funds.8 Land
acquisition funds are used to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for inclusion within the National
Park System. State assistance is for recreation-related land acquisition and recreation planning
and development by the states, with the funds allocated by a formula and states determining their
spending priorities.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $63.4 million for NPS land acquisition and
state assistance. This is $33.4 million (111%) above the House allowance, $39.1 million (160%)
above the request, and $16.4 million (35%) above FY2006. For the federal side of LWCF, the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $33.4 million, compared to the $28.4 million
House allowance and $22.7 million request. The House-passed bill allowed a total of $30.0
million for NPS land acquisition and state assistance. Within the $30.0 million, the report of the
House Appropriations Committee specified $5.0 million for the United Airlines Flight 93
memorial near Shanksville, PA, and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with that
amount. The request for state assistance funds was limited to $1.6 million for administrative
expenses, with no funds for state grants ($28.0 million in FY2006); the House agreed with this
request. The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, recommended $28.4 million for state
assistance grants and $1.6 million for administrative expenses. (For more information, see the
“The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.) S. 3562 would provide
$450 million annually for LWCF state assistance from offshore oil and gas development leases in
the Gulf of Mexico, near Florida.
7
Leslie Ann Duncan, “Senate Energy Panel Hears from Mainella on Parks Budget,” Congressional Quarterly Green
Sheets, March 12, 2006.
8
Prior year balances of $9.8 million for land acquisition and of $17.0 million for both programs (with no specified
allocation between NPS land acquisition and state assistance) offset additional LWCF appropriations for FY2006.
Congressional Research Service
17
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Historic Preservation
The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid for
activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. §470), such as
restoring historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and
culture. Preservation grants are normally funded on a 60% federal/40% state matching share
basis. The HPF includes funding for Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America grants.
For FY2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $70.7 million for the HPF, $44.5
million below the FY2006 appropriation ($115.2 million) and $1.2 million below the
Administration’s FY2007 budget of $71.9 million. The FY2006 figure includes a $43.0 million
emergency appropriation to help historic sites recover from hurricane Katrina. See Table 9,
below. Both the House-passed and Senate Appropriations Committee-reported measure would
include $35.7 million for grants-in-aid to state historic preservation offices, $3.9 million for
Tribal grants, and $1.0 million for preserving and restoring historic buildings and structures on
campuses of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The FY2006 appropriation
for HBCUs was $3.0 million.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee disagreed with the Administration’s
FY2007 request to create the America’s Heritage and Preservation Partnership program within the
Historic Preservation Fund and to reduce National Heritage areas by 50%. The Administration
sought to combine funding for National Heritage Areas ($7.4 million), Save America’s Treasures
($14.8 million), and Preserve America grants ($10.0 million). The NPS supports National
Heritage Areas, which are managed by private or state organizations, with financial and technical
assistance. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee would retain the Heritage
Partnership program within the National Recreation and Preservation programs line item.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $30.0 million for Save
America’s Treasures, whereas the House-passed bill would provide $15.0 million. Save America’s
Treasures preserves nationally significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures.
Annual appropriations laws have required that project recommendations be subject to approval by
the Appropriations Committees. Preserve America grants-in-aid were created to supplement Save
America’s Treasures in supporting community efforts to develop resource management strategies
and to encourage heritage tourism. They are competitively awarded on a matching basis, as onetime seed money grants. The FY2006 appropriation provided that not to exceed $5.0 million
could be allocated to Preserve America grants. The FY2007 House-passed bill would provide
$3.0 million for Preserve America. The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would
provide that of the $30.0 million for Save America’s Treasures, $10.0 million may be used for
Preserve America grants.
One issue that is often considered during the appropriations process is whether historic
preservation should be funded by private money rather than the federal government. Also,
pending legislation (H.R. 3446 and S. 1378) would reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund
through FY2011 and FY2015 respectively and make changes to the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, an independent federal agency that promotes historic preservation and oversees
NHPA §106 historic preservation review.
Congressional Research Service
18
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund, FY2005-FY2007
($ in thousands)
Historic Preservation
FY2005
Approp.
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
Grants-in-Aid to States and Territoriesa
$35,500
$35,717
$35,717
$35,717
$35,717
Tribal Grants
3,205
3,941
3,941
3,941
3,941
HBCUs
3,451
2,956
—
1,000
1,000
—b
Heritage Partnership Programsb
[14,579]
[13,301]
7,400
—b
Save America’s Treasures
29,583
29,558d
14,800
15,000
30,000
HPF Emergency Appropriationc
—
43,000
—
—
—
Preserve America Grants-In-Aid
0
d
10,000
3,000
e
$71,739
$115,172
$71,858
$58,658
$70,658
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.
Funding for heritage areas in FY2005 and FY2006 was included in the National Recreation and Preservation
line item. The House-passed and Senate Committee-reported bills would retain the Heritage Partnership
program in the National Recreation and Preservation line item.
c.
The emergency supplemental for Iraq and Katrina (P.L. 109-234) provided $43.0 million to the HPF to help
historic sites recover from Katrina.
d.
The FY2006 appropriation allowed not to exceed $5.0 million to be used for Preserve America grants
within funding for Save America’s Treasures.
e.
H.R. 5386, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, specifies that of the $30.0 million for Save
America’s Treasures, $10.0 million may be used for Preserve America grants.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at http://www.nps.gov/.
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/.
CRS Report RL33617, Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL33484, National Park Management, coordinated by (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. For FY2007, the Administration is emphasizing the role USGS plays in
providing timely scientific information for monitoring natural hazards and assessing their
impacts, measuring land cover changes, and assessing mineral resources.
Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and Research, for
seven activities: the National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes;
Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research; Enterprise Information; Science Support;
Congressional Research Service
19
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
and Facilities. For FY2007, the Administration requested $944.8 million for the USGS, which is
$36.1 million (4%) below the FY2006 level of $980.8 (including emergency appropriations). The
House-passed bill contains $986.4 million, which is $41.7 million above the request and $5.6
million above the FY2006 enacted level. See Table 10, below. The Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported bill for FY2007 contains $980.0 million, which is $0.8 million below the
FY2006 enacted level, $35.2 million above the Administration’s request, and $6.5 million below
the House-passed bill.
Of the proposed changes in the Administration’s request, the largest would be the transfer of
funds ($68.9 million in FY2006) from the Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program to the
Enterprise Information Program. This transfer is consistent with changes in the direction of the
National Mapping Program, which the Administration proposed to change to the Geographic
Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing Program. The Geographic Research,
Investigations, and Remote Sensing Program, under these changes, would emphasize
fundamental geographic research and consolidate elements of national geospatial programs. This
transfer also is reflected in the House-passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committeereported bill. The FY2007 Administration request proposed to eliminate funding for the Water
Resources Research Institutes, which the Administration contends have been generally selfsupporting. The House-passed and the Senate committee-reported bills would retain $6.4 million
for this program. The House-passed and the Senate committee-reported bills also would retain
$22.9 million for mineral resource assessments, which were cut in the FY2007 request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill did not provide funds for the multi-hazards
initiative within the USGS because the USGS did not specify where funds that would be
reprogrammed would come from. The Senate committee states that any reprogramming actions
should be submitted to the committee in advance in the “form of a reprogramming.”
Enterprise Information
This program consolidates funding of all USGS information needs including information
technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as capital asset planning. There
are three primary programs within Enterprise Information: (1) Enterprise Information Security
and Technology, which supports management and operations of USGS telecommunications (e.g.,
computing infrastructure and email); (2) Enterprise Information Resources, which provides policy
support, information management, and oversight over information services; and (3) Federal
Geographic Data Coordination, which provides operational support and management for the
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The FGDC is an interagency, intergovernmental
committee that encourages collaboration to make geospatial data available to state, local, and
tribal governments, as well as communities. The FY2007 Administration’s request provided
$111.2 million for this program, $64.8 million above the FY2006 enacted level of $46.4 million.
The House-passed bill would provide $113.7 million for this program, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $106.0 million. The increase in funds is
due to a proposed reorganization of the USGS budget. (See “Introduction,” above.) The Senate
Appropriations Committee did not provide an additional $4.6 million for the Federal Geographic
Data Committee because no rationale for the increase in funds was given.
Congressional Research Service
20
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
National Mapping Program
The National Mapping Program aims to provide public access to high quality geospatial
information. The Administration requested $76.6 million for this program, $52.7 million below
the FY2006 enacted level of $129.3 million. Further, the Administration requested that the
program name be changed to the Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing
Program. The House-passed bill would change the program name to the Geographic Research,
Investigations, and Remote Sensing Program and provide $78.6 million, $2.0 million above the
request and $50.7 million less than the FY2006 enacted level. The Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported bill also would change the program name and recommends $78.6 million for
the program.
The primary reduction in requested funds for this program is due to budget restructuring, as noted
above. Further, the AmericaView program would not be funded (a reduction of $3.0 million). The
AmericaView program is a state level network that provides access and imagery archives for
university participants and other government participants. The bill passed by the House would
provide $2.0 million to the AmericaView program. The bill also would provide $13.0 million for
the Mid-Continent Mapping Center (MCMC) in Rolla, Missouri, and prohibit the use of funds to
consolidate the functions and operations of the MCMC into the National Geospatial Technical
Operations Center. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill states that funds will be precluded
for competitively sourcing functions of the National Geospatial Technical Operations Center
unless the staff at the Mid-Continent Mapping Center in Rolla, Missouri, is allowed the
opportunity to participate in a “fair and open competition” with other sites as a Federal Most
Efficient Organization.
Under the Land Remote Sensing subheading, an increase of $16.0 million is requested by the
Administration to support the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, also known as Landsat 8.
Landsat 8 is an upcoming satellite that will take remotely-sensed images of the Earth’s land
surface and surrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring. The volume of
data taken by Landsat 8 is to be four times greater than its predecessor, Landsat 7, and Landsat 8
is to include additional spectral bands and higher resolution than Landsat 7 data. The requested
funds would be used to establish ground systems to provide for the transfer, storage, and
accessibility of data from Landsat 8, when it is launched. The House-passed bill and the Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill would fund this program along the lines of the request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report states that a proposed reduction in force (RIF)
for this program has not been adequately justified by the USGS, and no plan for resources
required to conduct a RIF was presented to the committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee
reinstates funding for the proposed reduction and expects research and staff levels to remain at
the current level.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes
For Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activities, the Administration requested $217.4
million, which is $17.9 million below the FY2006 enacted level of $235.3 million. This line item
covers programs in three activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments,
and Resource Assessments. The House-passed bill would provide $241.9 million, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill would provide $239.3 million.
Congressional Research Service
21
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
The primary reduction in the Administration’s request under this heading is a $22.9 million
reduction in the Mineral Resources Program. According to the Administration, proposed cuts in
the mineral resources program will focus efforts on mineral resource assessments and research
that benefit federal land management programs, as opposed to both federal and non-federal needs
as in previous years. The Administration expects that universities or other entities will undertake
assessments and research that support non-federal needs. The reduction will result in the
discontinuation of most research and data collection projects, including those on industrial
mineral research, and the elimination of some geophysical labs. In previous years, the
Administration has requested similar cuts in this program, yet funding has been included
by Congress.
The FY2007 House-passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill would
retain funding for this program, including $18.4 million for research and assessments of mineral
deposits, and $4.5 million for minerals information. The House Appropriations Committee stated
that it “strongly disagrees” with the proposed reduction in the program and urged the
Administration not to propose program elimination again. The House committee disagreed with
the notion that objective data can be prepared in the private sector. The Senate Appropriations
Committee states that the reduction has “no merit.”
Water Resources Investigations
The Administration’s request for Water Resources Investigations was $204.0 million, $7.7 million
below the FY2006 enacted level of $211.8 million. The Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and
Research sub-activity would receive $141.9 million; the Federal-State Cooperation Water
Program would receive $62.2 million; and the Water Resource Research Institutes would not be
funded. The House-passed bill included $213.8 million for this heading, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported bill contains $216.8 million.
As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2006 budget requests, the FY2007 request would
discontinue USGS support for Water Resources Research Institutes because, according to the
Administration, most institutes have succeeded in leveraging sufficient funding for program
activities from non-USGS sources. Congress has provided funding for the institutes from FY2002
to FY2006, appropriating $6.4 million for FY2006. The House and the Senate Appropriations
Committee-reported bills would retain funding for the Institutes at $6.4 million.
The Administration requested an increase of $2.3 million for network operations under the
National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), which would receive a total of $16.8 million
for FY2007. These additional funds would be used to continue the operation of 114 streamgages
that would otherwise be shut down due to the anticipated loss of partner contributions. Further,
they would allow for the number of streamgages to increase by 30 nationwide. Through the NSIP
program, the USGS collects the streamflow data needed by federal, state, and local agencies for
planning, operating water-resources projects, and regulatory programs. The bill passed by the
House and reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee also would provide this increase.
Biological Research
The Biological Research Program under the USGS generates and distributes information related
to the conservation and management of the nation’s biological resources. The Administration
requested $172.6 million for biological research, which is $2.3 million below the FY2006 enacted
Congressional Research Service
22
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
level of $174.9 million. The House-passed bill would provide $175.6 million for this heading, and
the Senate Appropriations Committee would provide $176.5 million.
Under the Administration’s request, several earmarked activities totaling $6.4 million under the
Biological Research and Monitoring Program would be removed for FY2007. According to the
USGS, these projects do not address the highest priority science. Some of these program
reductions would be restored in the House-passed bill and the Senate committee-reported bill.
Under the Terrestrial and Endangered Resources sub-activity, the USGS will be conducting
activities related to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). The Administration requested
$3.2 million for FY2007 to continue USGS avian flu detection activities. In cooperation with the
FWS and other federal and state agencies, the USGS began targeted surveillance for the early
detection of HPAI in wild birds in Alaska in 2005, collecting samples from 520 birds of 10
species that are known to migrate through the Russian Far East and Southeast Asia. A steering
committee was formed in 2006 to coordinate efforts and establish standard operating procedures
for sampling and analysis. For 2007, the USGS will continue sampling birds for HPAI and
coordinate with other agencies to deal with avian influenza in North America. The House-passed
bill and Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill provide these increases.
Science Support and Facilities
Science Support focuses on those costs associated with modernizing the infrastructure for
managing and disseminating scientific information. The Administration requested $67.4 million
for science support, a decrease of $1.9 million from the FY2006 enacted level of $69.3 million.
The House-passed bill would provide $72.4 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committeereported bill would provide $67.4 million.
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. The Administration
requested $95.5 million for facilities for FY2007, an increase of $0.7 million from the FY2006
enacted level of $94.8 million. The House-passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committeereported bill would provide $95.5 million for Facilities, the same as the requested amount and
$0.7 million above the FY2006 enacted level.
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2005-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
Enterprise Information
$46.4
$111.2
$113.7
$106.0
National Mapping Program
129.3
76.6
78.6
78.6
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes
235.3
217.4
241.9
239.3
Water Resources Investigations
211.8
204.1
213.8
216.8
Biological Research
174.9
172.6
175.6
176.5
Science Support
69.3
67.4
72.4
67.4
U.S. Geological Survey
Congressional Research Service
23
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
U.S. Geological Survey
Facilities
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
94.8
95.5
95.5
95.5
Decrease in House Floor Action
Total Appropriations
-5.0
$980.8b
$944.8
$986.4
$980.1
a.
The total includes emergency appropriations of $1.0 million provided in P.L. 108-324 and $8.1 million in P.L.
109-13.
b.
The total includes emergency appropriations of $9.0 million provided in P.L. 109-148 and $10.2 million
provided in P.L. 109-234.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at http://www.usgs.gov/.
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the Offshore Minerals
Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) Program. OMM
administers competitive leasing on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands and oversees production
of offshore oil, gas, and other minerals. MRM collects and disburses bonuses, rents, and royalties
paid on federal onshore and OCS leases and Indian mineral leases. Revenues from onshore leases
are distributed to states in which they were collected, the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and
designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated among the coastal states,
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
The MMS estimates that it collects and disburses over $8 billion in revenue annually. This
amount fluctuates based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas. Over the past decade,
royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40% to 45% of annual MMS receipts,
while oil royalties have been not more than 25%.
Budget and Appropriations
The Administration submitted an FY2007 total MMS budget of $292.3 million. This includes
$6.9 million for Oil Spill Research and $285.4 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management. The total FY2007 budget request reflected $163.6 million in appropriations and an
additional $128.7 million from offsetting collections which MMS has been retaining since 1994.
The Administration’s total budget request is 6% below the $312.0 million enacted for FY2006
(including emergency appropriations of $31.0 million). The net appropriations request for
FY2007 of $163.6 million is a 14% reduction from the $189.3 million enacted for FY2006. The
House recommended $164.4 million, slightly higher than the request due to a greater increase for
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved
funding for programs at levels similar to the House-passed version and the Administration’s
request. See Table 11 below.
Congressional Research Service
24
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
$148.8
$159.4
$158.4
$159.2
—Royalty Management (MRM)
77.9
79.2
79.2
79.2
—General Administration
47.5
46.9
48.7
46.9
—Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
305.1a
285.4
286.2
285.3
—Use of Receipts
-122.7
-128.7
-128.7
-128.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals
Management Appropriations
182.4
156.7
157.5
156.6
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
$189.3
$163.6
$164.4
$163.5
Minerals Management Service
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
—OCS Lands (OMM)
Oil Spill Research
Total Appropriations
a.
Includes emergency appropriations of $16.0 million in P.L. 109-148 and $15.0 million in P.L. 109-234.
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore
Issues not directly tied to specific funding accounts remain controversial. Oil and gas
development moratoria in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) along the Atlantic and Pacific
Coasts, parts of Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) have been in place since 1982, as a result
of public laws and executive orders of the President. The FY2006 appropriations law retained the
moratorium on funding preleasing and leasing activities in the OCS.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee retained the moratoria on oil and natural
gas leasing in their versions of the FY2007 appropriations bill. The House Appropriations
Committee had approved an amendment that would have allowed for natural gas leasing in the
OCS moratoria areas. Oil leasing would still have been prohibited. The House voted to restore the
moratoria on natural gas development in certain offshore areas and also to defeat an amendment
to strike sections 104-106 of the bill that contain the OCS oil leasing moratoria. Separately,
legislation (H.R. 4761) that passed the House on June 29, 2006, would allow natural gas-only
drilling in areas currently under the moratoria and give the states a larger share of the revenue
generated from U.S. offshore leases. The bill also addresses royalty relief issues discussed below
by establishing a “conservation of resources” fee for those leases without price thresholds. (For
more information, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas
Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by (name redacted).)
Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers has been debated during consideration of FY2007
Interior appropriations. On February 13, 2006, the New York Times reported that the MMS would
not collect royalties on leases awarded in 1998 and 1999 because no price threshold was included
in the lease agreements during those two years. Without the price thresholds, producers may
produce oil and gas up to specified volumes without paying royalties no matter what the price.
The MMS asserts that placing price thresholds in the lease agreements is at the discretion of the
Congressional Research Service
25
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Secretary of the Interior. However, according to the MMS, the price thresholds were omitted by
mistake during 1998 and 1999.9
A House committee amendment to the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill sought to require the
Secretary of the Interior to include price thresholds in all leases (based on $34.71/barrel of oil and
$4.34/thousand cubic feet of natural gas) and require the Secretary to renegotiate leases to
conform with current price thresholds levels. This provision would have impacted the 1998 and
1999 leases and those shallow water deep-gas leases with price threshold levels currently around
$9.90/thousand cubic feet. The committee language, however, was removed from the bill on a
point of order during the House floor debate. Subsequently, the House agreed to an amendment
that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to issue new lease sales to current lessees
that do not have price thresholds in their leases. Opponents of the amendment argued that the
companies with valid leases, even though without price thresholds, should not be penalized. The
Senate Appropriations Committee approved language on price thresholds, in an amendment
during markup, that is similar to the House-passed version. The Senate Appropriations Committee
also approved an amendment that would require the Secretary of the Interior to seek to
renegotiate the leases to include price thresholds and to report to Congress on the results of such
efforts. The amendment also sought to affirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to vary
the suspension of royalties based on the price of production of a lease.
Leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has been controversial over the past several years. There
were several blocks that were removed by the Administration from Eastern GOM sale 181 that
could become available for release after 2007, as part of the Administration’s proposed five-year
(2007-2012) leasing program. A Senate proposal (S. 2253) would make available for lease about
3.6 million acres within the lease sale 181 area within one year of enactment of the bill—prior to
the next five-year lease program. Some coastal state senators are seeking to attach state revenue
sharing language to the bill, while others oppose the bill because, they assert, it would offer leases
too close to Florida’s coast. Industry groups contend that Eastern GOM sales are too limited,
asserting that the resource potential is significant. Environmental groups and some state officials
contend that the risks of development to the environment and local economies are too great.
Oil and gas leasing in offshore California also has continued to be a controversial issue. Under
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §1451), development of federal offshore
leases must be consistent with state coastal zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended 36
of the 40 leases at issue in offshore California by granting lease suspensions, but the State of
California contended that it should have first reviewed the suspensions for consistency with the
state’s coastal zone management plan. In June 2001, the U.S. Court for the Northern District of
California agreed with the State of California and struck down the MMS suspensions.
The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 9, 2002, to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, after the state rejected a more limited lease development plan that involved 20 leases
using existing drilling platforms. However, on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the
Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court decision.10 The Department of the Interior did not appeal
this decision and is currently working with lessees to resolve the issue.
9
This information is from discussions with Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of MMS, during April, 2006.
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 01-16637.
10
Congressional Research Service
26
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
A breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed against MMS by nine oil companies seeking compensation
for their undeveloped leases. On November 17, 2005, the U.S. Federal Court of Claims made a
determination that the federal government breached its contract with the lessees regarding the
36 offshore California leases. Although the government was ordered to repay the lessees $1.1
billion, the judge deferred a final judgment until additional claims (such as recovery of sunk
costs) are resolved.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website at
http://www.mms.gov.
CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue
Sharing, by (name redacted).
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 that calculates not only how much money goes
to each state, but also what portion came from each of the state and federal share accounts. In
instances where states have no approved program, OSM directs reclamation.
Several states have pressed in recent years for increases in the AML appropriations, with an eye
on the unappropriated balances in the state-share accounts that now exceed $1 billion. The total
unappropriated balance—including both federal and state share accounts in the AML fund—was
$1.8 billion by the end of FY2005. Western states are additionally critical of the program because,
as coal production has shifted westward, these states are paying more into the fund. They have
contended that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation burden as more of
the sites requiring remediation are in the East.11
The FY2005 and FY2006 budget requests from the Administration were accompanied by a
proposal to restructure the program, including a plan to return the unobligated balances to the
states. The Administration plan was not widely supported. Other proposals for reauthorization of
AML collections and restructuring the program have been introduced in the House and Senate,
but Congress has not reached a consensus surrounding the structure of the program.
As a consequence, reauthorization of fee collection during the last few fiscal years has been for
relatively short terms, with the most recent extension through September 30, 2007. The FY2007
request does not include any broad Administration proposal to change the program, and instead
seeks what the Administration describes as an “interim extension” through the end of FY2007
11
Interest generated by unappropriated balances in the AML fund is transferred to the United Mine Workers of
America Combined Benefit Fund, established by P.L. 102-486 to cover the unreimbursed health cost requirements of
retired miners.
Congressional Research Service
27
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
“while allowing the Administration to continue working with Congress on finding an appropriate,
fiscally responsible and fair, long-term resolution to the reauthorization discussion.”12 In report
language, the House Appropriations Committee supported an interim extension and also
expressed that a more permanent solution is needed.
For FY2007, the Administration sought $185.9 million, an increase of $0.7 million over the
FY2006 enacted level of $185.2 million. The other component of the OSM budget is for
regulation and technology programs. For regulation and technology, Congress provided $108.9
million in FY2006, and the Administration requested $112.2 million. The greater part of the $3.3
million increase (3%) is for environmental protection. In total, the Administration requested
$298.1 million for the OSM for FY2007, a $4.0 million increase (1%) over the FY2006 enacted
level of $294.2 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee and the House supported the same
levels of funding as the Administration requested for FY2007. See Table 12 below.
In its FY2007 budget, the Administration requested $1.5 million for minimum program states.
These states have significant AML problems, but insufficient levels of current coal production to
generate significant fees to the AML fund. While Congress is authorized to appropriate $2 million
annually to minimum program states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum
program states since FY1996. The Senate Appropriations Committee and the House retained
language limiting funding for minimum program states to $1.5 million. The SMCRA legislation
also provided that 10% of AML collections would be allocated to the Rural Abandoned Mine
Program (RAMP), administered by the Department of Agriculture. However, no funds have been
requested for RAMP since FY1996, and the $361 million balance in funds set aside for RAMP
were transferred to the federal share of AML collections in the FY2006 appropriation. The
FY2007Administration request recommended that this practice continue. The House included
language transferring the RAMP balance to the federal share fund but the Senate Appropriations
Committee did not.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
Regulation and Technology
$108.9
$112.2
$112.2
$112.2
—Environmental Protection
78.4
81.0
81.0
81.0
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
185.2
185.9
185.9
185.9
Total Appropriations
$294.2
$298.1
$298.1
$298.1
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, see its
website at http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm.
CRS Report RL32993, Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fee on Coal, by (name redacted).
12
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Budget Justification and
Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2007, p. 49-50.
Congressional Research Service
28
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally-recognized
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and historically has been the lead
agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs provided or funded through the BIA include
government operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education,
roads, economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights
protection, implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust assets (real estate
and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.
BIA’s FY2006 direct appropriations are $2.27 billion. For FY2007, the Administration proposed
$2.22 billion, a decrease of $52.4 million (2.3%) below FY2006. The House approved $2.23
billion, a reduction of $39.6 million (2%) below FY2006, but an increase of $12.8 million (0.6%)
over the Administration proposal. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.27
billion, a reduction of $1.8 million (0.08%) below FY2006, but an increase of $50.6 million
(2.3%) over the Administration proposal and of $37.8 million (1.7%) over the House. For the
BIA, its major budget components, and selected BIA programs, Table 13 below presents funding
figures for FY2006 and for the Administration, the House, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee for FY2007, with the percentages of change from FY2006 to the Senate
Appropriations Committee-recommended levels for FY2007. Decreases are shown with minuses.
Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of the Bureau, especially its
trust asset management functions, and problems in BIA education programs, including the
Administration’s proposal not to fund the Johnson-O’Malley program.
Budget Presentation
The BIA’s budget presentation of its Operation of Indian Programs activities, in which programs
with the same budget function (e.g., education) were formerly included in different budget
activities (e.g., “Tribal Priority Allocations,” “Other Recurring Programs”), has been restructured
so that programs with the same function fall under the same budget activity (e.g., “Education”).
Table 13 below illustrates the new structure. The Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) budget
activity is significant to tribes because it covers many basic tribal services. Perhaps more
importantly, tribes may apply their own priorities to TPA programs, moving funds among
programs without prior BIA approval and without triggering congressional Appropriation
Committees’ requirements for approval of reprogramming. The BIA identifies in its FY2007
Budget Justifications the amounts within the new budget activities that fall in the TPA category.
Those amounts are shown in Table 13. According to BIA figures, the total TPA funding proposed
for FY2007 was $754.1 million. Other sources suggest TPA funding for FY2006 was $769.5
million, but it is not certain that the BIA’s FY2007 figures cover all of the same programs. The
House and Senate Appropriations Committees commended the new budget structure, but the
House committee required the BIA to report on the budget structure and tribes’ reactions, TPA
transparency, BIA management accountability, and BIA central and regional offices’ funding.
Congressional Research Service
29
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Table 13. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2006-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007 Senate
Committee
FY2007 Request
TPAa
FY2007
House
Passed
Total
Change
from
FY2006
$401,738
$394,374
$401,738
$397,738
6%
132,628
151,628
151,628
151,628
147,628
11%
150,416
139,385
135,449
139,385
145,385
-3%
85,190
74,179
74,179
74,179
80,179
-6%
Trust - Natural Resources Management
152,754
142,510
63,279
141,510
150,810
-1%
Trust - Real Estate Services
141,842
152,649
55,480
151,593
150,649
6%
—Probate
15,708
19,075
8,193
18,019
19,075
21%
—Real Estate Services
40,578
47,647
31,249
47,647
45,647
12%
646,430
639,155
30,786
652,214
664,805
3%
—Elementary/ Secondary (ForwardFunded)
457,750
457,352
0
457,352
457,352
-<1%
—Elementary/ Secondary [Other]
77,223
60,800
0
73,859
75,171
-3%
—Johnson-O’Malley Grants
16,371
0
0
16,371
14,371
-12%
104,010
103,161
30,786
103,161
114,440
10%
Bureau of Indian Affairs
FY2006
Approp.
Total
$374,689
Operation of Indian Programs
Tribal Government
—Contract Support Costs
Human Services
—Welfare Assistance
Education
—Post Secondary Programs
—Tribal Colleges and Universities
55,545
54,721
0
54,721
60,000
8%
—Tribal Vocational Collegesb
—
—
—
—
6,000
15%
—Education Management
8,783
17,842
0
17,842
17,842
103%
212,142
213,729
12,109
209,535
214,873
1%
55,567
58,663
0
55,949
58,663
6%
51,782
39,175
38,204
39,175
43,525
-16%
—Tribal Vocational Collegesb
5,223
0
0
0
—
—
Executive Direction and Administrative
Services
232,135
238,253
24,379
238,253
$237,753
2%
—Office of Federal Acknowledgment
1,350
1,850
0
1,850
1,350
0%
—Information Resources Technology
57,431
53,365
0
53,365
53,365
-7%
1,962,190
1,966,594
754,060
1,973,404
2,005,538
2%
206,787
157,441
—
157,441
157,441
-24%
—Replacement School Construction
64,530
36,536
—
36,536
36,536
-43%
—Education Facilities Improvement
and Repair
113,395
92,053
—
92,053
92,053
-19%
Public Safety and Justice
—Detention/ Corrections
Community and Economic Development
Subtotal, Operation of Indian
Programs
Construction
Education Construction
Congressional Research Service
30
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
FY2007 Senate
Committee
FY2007 Request
TPAa
FY2007
House
Passed
Total
Change
from
FY2006
11,611
—
11,611
11,611
<1%
8,102
8,106
—
8,106
8,106
<1%
Resources Management Construction
45,099
37,810
—
38,560
44,220
-2%
General Administration Construction;
Management
8,093
8,187
—
8,187
8,187
1%
Subtotal, Construction
271,582
215,049
—
215,799
$221,459
-18%
Land and Water Claim
Settlements and Miscellaneous
Payments
34,243
33,946
—
39,213
39,213
15%
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
6,255
6,262
—
6,262
6,262
<1%
FY2006
Approp.
Total
Public Safety and Justice Construction
11,603
—Law Enforcement Facilities
Improvement and Repair
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Total Appropriations
$2,274,270 $2,221,851 $754,060 $2,234,678 $2,272,472 -<1%
a.
Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) are a subset of funds for BIA Operation of Indian Programs. The amounts
in this column are included in the “FY2007 Request—Total” column in the table.
b.
The Senate Appropriations Committee moved the tribal vocational colleges program from the Community
and Economic Development activity to the Post Secondary Programs activity. The percent change for tribal
vocational colleges under Post Secondary Programs is calculated using the FY2006 appropriation under
Community and Economic Development.
BIA Reorganization
In April 2003, Secretary of the Interior Norton began implementing a reorganization of the BIA,
the Office of Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (AS-IA), and the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians (OST) in the Office of the Interior Secretary. (See “Office of Special Trustee”
section below.) The reorganization arose from issues and events related to trust funds and trust
assets management, and is integrally related to the reform and improvement of trust management.
Historically, the BIA has been responsible for managing Indian tribes’ and individuals’ trust funds
and trust assets. Trust assets include trust lands and the lands’ surface and subsurface economic
resources (e.g., timber, grazing, or minerals), and cover about 45 million acres of tribal trust land
and 10 million acres of individual Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate
services, processing of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), surveys, appraisals, probate functions,
land title records activities, and other functions.
The BIA, however, has been frequently charged with mismanaging Indian trust funds and trust
assets. Investigations and audits in the 1980s and after supported these criticisms, especially in
the areas of accounting, linkage of owners to assets, and retention of records. This led to a trust
reform act in 1994 and the filing of an extensive court case in 1996. (See “Office of Special
Trustee” section, below.) The 1994 act created the OST, assigning it responsibility for oversight
of trust management reform. In 1996, trust fund management was transferred to the OST from the
BIA, but the BIA retained management of trust assets.
Unsuccessful efforts at trust management reform in the 1990s led DOI to contract in 2001 with a
management consultant firm. The firm’s recommendations included both improvements in trust
Congressional Research Service
31
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
management and reorganization of the DOI agencies carrying out trust management and
improvement. 13 After nearly a year of consultation with Indian tribes and individuals, DOI
announced the reorganization in December 2002, even though the Department and tribal leaders
had not reached agreement on all aspects of reorganization. DOI, however, faced a deadline in the
court case to file a plan for overall trust management reform, and reorganization was part of
DOI’s plan.
The current reorganization of BIA, AS-IA, and OST chiefly involves trust management structures
and functions. The BIA’s trust operations at regional and agency levels remains in those offices
but are split off from other BIA services. The OST adds trust officers to BIA regional and agency
offices to oversee trust management and provide information to Indian trust beneficiaries. The
BIA, OST, and AS-IA, together with the Office of Historical Trust Accounting in the Secretary’s
office, also are implementing a separate trust management improvement project. The project
includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, and procedures, historical accounting for
trust accounts, reduction of backlogs, modernization of computer technology (the court case led
in 2001 to a continuing shutdown of much of BIA’s World-Wide-Web connections because of
security concerns), and maintenance of the improved system.
Many Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the plaintiffs in the court case, have been critical
of the new reorganization and have asked that it be suspended. Tribes contend that the
reorganization is premature, because new trust procedures and policies are still being developed;
that it insufficiently defines new OST duties; and that other major BIA service programs are being
limited or cut to pay for the reorganization. For FY2004-FY2006, Congress responded to tribal
concerns by excluding from BIA reorganization certain tribes that have been operating trust
management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices. The House approved the same
exclusion for FY2007, and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed. Congress has not,
however, suspended or stopped the reorganization.
BIA School System
The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools and peripheral dormitories, with over
2,000 structures, educating about 48,000 students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations,
under self-determination contracts and other grants, operate 120 of these institutions; the BIA
operates the remainder. BIA-funded schools’ key problems are low student achievement and,
especially, a large number of inadequate school facilities.
The Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) program provides supplementary education assistance grants for
tribes and public schools to benefit Indian students, and was funded at $16.4 million in FY2006.
The Administration proposed no funding for this program in FY2007, asserting that U.S.
Department of Education programs under Titles I (education of the disadvantaged) and VII
(Indian education) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provide funds for the same
purposes, and that the funds should be used for BIA-funded schools. Opponents disagree that the
Education Department programs can replace JOM’s culturally-relevant programs. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended restoring the JOM program to its FY2006 level of
$16.4 million, stating that other federal programs could not provide the funds because there was
no guaranteed one-to-one match between Department of Education grants and JOM funds. The
13
The report is available on the DOI website at http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/pdf/roadmap.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
House approved the committee’s recommendation. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended a partial restoration of JOM funds, to $14.4 million.
Many BIA school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. BIA
education construction covers both construction of new school facilities to replace facilities that
cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair of existing facilities. Schools are replaced or
repaired according to priority lists. The BIA has estimated the current backlog in education
facility repairs at $942 million.
Table 13 above shows education construction funds. For FY2007, the Administration proposed
reducing the appropriation for education construction by $49.3 million (24%). Included is a
reduction for replacement-school construction of 43%. The Administration asserts that the BIA
needs to focus on completing replacement schools funded in prior years. Opponents contend that
a large proportion of BIA schools need replacement or major repairs and that hence funding
should not be cut. The House approved the Administration’s proposal for BIA education
construction, and the Senate Appropriations Committee also agreed, albeit “reluctantly.”
However, the House Appropriations Committee disagreed that funding for new schools should be
reduced while current school construction projects are finished and expressed concern about large
amounts of unobligated construction balances from prior years. The House committee directed
BIA to report on the projected obligation of current unobligated balances and on improvements in
construction planning and design procedures, enrollment projections, and space standards. The
Senate Appropriations Committee echoed the House committee’s disagreement with the
Administration’s assertions and said it expected more “robust” appropriations requests for BIA
school construction in the future.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, see its website at
http://www.oiep.bia.edu.
CRS Report RS22056, Native American Issues in the 109th Congress, by (name redacted).
Departmental Offices14
Insular Affairs
The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial assistance to four insular areas—American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands—as well as three former insular areas—the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Palau,
and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). OIA staff manages relations between these
jurisdictions and the federal government and work to build the fiscal and governmental capacity
of units of local government.
The total OIA request for FY2007 was $426.3 million, an amount slightly above that provided in
FY2006 ($425.6 million). OIA funding consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite
appropriations and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the appropriations
14
This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under “Departmental Offices.” Total funding for
Departmental Offices is identified in Table 25 at the end of this report.
Congressional Research Service
33
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
process. Of the total request for FY2007, $347.1 million (81%) in permanent and indefinite
funding is required through statutes, as follows:
•
$202.4 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau) under
conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free Association;15 and
•
$144.7 million in fiscal assistance through payments to territories, divided
between the U.S. Virgin Islands for estimated rum excise and income tax
collections, and Guam for income tax collections.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations constitute the
remaining 19% of the OIA budget. Two accounts—Assistance to Territories (AT) and the
Compact of Free Association (CFA)—comprise discretionary and current mandatory funding. AT
funding is used to provide grants for the operation of the government of American Samoa,
infrastructure improvement projects on many of the insular area islands, and specified natural
resource initiatives. The CFA account provides federal assistance to the freely associated states
pursuant to compact agreements negotiated with the federal government.
Discretionary and mandatory appropriations for FY2006 total $81.5 million (including
government-wide rescissions enacted in P.L. 109-148), with AT funded at $76.2 million and CFA
at $5.3 million. The FY2007 request would reduce AT funding to $74.4 million, and CFA
assistance to $4.9 million, for a total of $79.2 million. The House approved $3.2 million more for
AT ($77.6 million) than had been requested, for increased oversight and technical assistance
funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $76.5 million to fund AT activities,
an amount above the request and below that approved by the House. The House passed CFA
funding totaled $5.4 million, $0.5 million above the request specifically to support food
production activities necessary on Enewetak island as a result of destruction caused by World War
II conflicts as well as atomic bomb testing. The Senate Appropriations Committee concurred with
the House approved funding level for CFA.
In total, the House passed $82.9 million for Insular Affairs, 2% above FY2006 and 5% above the
Administration’s FY2007 request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $81.8
million, which is lower than the House but higher than the request.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its website at http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT)
For FY2007, the Administration requested $198.0 million for PILT, down 15% from the FY2006
level of $232.5 million. The Administration asserts that cutting PILT is part of an effort to reduce
the deficit, and is consistent with historical appropriations levels. The House Appropriations
Committee’s draft contained $216.0 million, but the House committee agreed to an amendment
transferring $12.0 million from the Smithsonian Institution to PILT, bringing the total to $228.0
million. (See “Smithsonian Institution, ‘Business Ventures’” section of this report for more
information.) A House floor amendment transferred an additional $16.0 million from Interior
15
Legislation to approve the amended compacts was enacted in the 108th Congress (P.L. 108-188). For background, see
CRS Report RL31737, The Marshall Islands and Micronesia: Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with
the United States, by (name redacted). The Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994 and will terminate in
FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
34
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Department salaries and expenses to PILT, to bring the figure to $244.0 million. The amendment
passed by voice vote. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $235.1 million, 4% less
than the House.
The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their jurisdictions
which cannot be taxed. Since the beginning of the program in 1976, payments of more than $3.6
billion have been made. The PILT program has been controversial, because in recent years the
payment formula, which was indexed to the Consumer Price Index in 1994, has increased
authorization levels. However, appropriations have grown less rapidly, and substantially slower
than authorized amounts, ranging from 42% to 68% of authorized levels between FY2000 and
FY2006 (the most recent year available). 16 See Table 14, below. County governments claim that
the program as a whole does not provide funding comparable to property taxes, and further that
rural areas in particular need additional PILT funds to provide the kinds of services that counties
with more private land are able to provide.
Table 14. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu of Taxes,
FY2000-FY2007
($ in millions)
Fiscal Year
Authorized
Amount
Appropriated
Amount
% of Authorized
Amount
2000
$317.6
$134.0
42.2
2001
338.6
199.2
58.8
2002
350.8
210.0
59.9
2003
324.1
218.2
67.3
2004
331.3
224.3
67.7
2005
332.0
226.8
68.3
2006
344.4
232.5
67.5
2007
352.0
244.0/235.1a
70.2/67.6
Notes: The FY2007 authorized level, in italics, is an estimate. Calculation of the level assumes (1) all revenues
from other payment programs are flat over the period; (2) the number of acres eligible for PILT payments is
unchanged; (3) all of the counties’ populations are unchanged; and (4) no states change their “pass-through” laws.
In consequence, only the changes in the Consumer Price Index would influence PILT payments. However, it is
likely that at least some of these assumptions would need to be modified.
a.
The first figure is the amount passed by the House; the second is the amount approved by the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
For further information on the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, see the DOI website at
http://www.doi.gov/pilt/.
CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by (name red
acted).
16
When appropriations are not sufficient to cover the authorization, each county receives a pro rata share of the
authorized amount.
Congressional Research Service
35
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians
The Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST), in the Secretary of the Interior’s
office, was authorized by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of
1994 (25 U.S.C. §§4001 et seq.). The OST generally oversees the reform of Interior Department
management of Indian trust assets, the direct management of Indian trust funds, establishment of
an adequate trust fund management system, and support of department claims settlement
activities related to the trust funds. Indian trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in
1996 the Secretary transferred trust fund management to the OST. (See “Bureau of Indian
Affairs” section above.)
Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by
about 300 tribes in approximately 1,450 accounts, with a total asset value of about $2.9 billion;
and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about
277,000 accounts with a current total asset value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the
OST FY2007 budget justifications.) The funds include monies received from claims awards, land
or water rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from income from land-based trust
assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as from investment income.
OST’s FY2006 appropriation was $222.8 million. The Administration proposed $244.5 million
for FY2007, an increase of $21.7 million (10%). The House approved $184.0 million for
FY2007, a reduction of $38.7 million (17%) from FY2006 and $60.4 million (25%) from the
proposal. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $217.8 million, a decrease of $4.9
million (2%) from FY2006 and $26.7 million (11%) from the Administration proposal but an
increase of $33.8 million (18%) over the House amount. Table 15 below presents funding figures
for FY2006-FY2007 for the OST. Key issues for the OST are an historical accounting for tribal
and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal and IIM accounts.
Table 15. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
FY2006-FY2007
($ in thousands)
FY2007 Senate
Committee
Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
Total
Change
from
FY2006
Federal Trust Programs
$188,774
$185,036
$150,036
$178,683
-5%
—Historical Accounting
56,353
56,353
45,000
50,000
-11%
Indian Land Consolidation
34,006
59,449
34,006
39,150
15%
Total Appropriations
$222,780
$244,485
$184,042
$217,833
-2%
Historical Accounting
For FY2007, the Administration proposed $56.4 million for historical accounting activities, the
same as enacted for FY2006. The House approved $45.0 million for FY2007, while the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $50.0 million. The historical accounting effort seeks to
assign correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especially because of litigation. Because of
the long historical period to be covered (some accounts date from the 19th century), the large
Congressional Research Service
36
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
number of IIM accounts, and the large number of missing account documents, an historical
accounting based on actual account transactions is expected to be large and time-consuming. The
Interior Department in 2003 proposed an extensive, five-year, $335 million project to reconcile
IIM accounts. The project would reconcile all transactions for certain types of accounts and all
land-based transactions of $5,000 and over, but a statistical sample for land-based transactions of
less than $5,000. OST continues to follow this plan, subject to court rulings (see “Litigation”
below) or congressional actions. Plaintiffs in the litigation consider the statistical sampling
technique invalid. For FY2007, the House Appropriations Committee did not disagree with DOI’s
historical accounting plan, but expressed its intent to limit spending for historical accounting and
also directed DOI to make quarterly reports on any use of funds from BIA “Operation of Indian
Programs” for IIM litigation support costs. The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed
regret at not being able to fund the Administration’s full request.
Litigation
An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Norton) was filed in 1996, in the federal district
court for the District of Columbia, against the federal government by IIM account holders.17
Many OST activities are related to the Cobell case, including litigation support activities. The
most significant issue for appropriations concerns the method for the historical accounting to
estimate IIM accounts’ proper balances. The DOI estimated its proposed method would cost $335
million over five years and produce a total owed to IIM accounts in the low millions. The
plaintiffs’ method, based on estimated rates of errors applied to an agreed-upon figure for IIM
throughput, was estimated to produce a total owed to IIM accounts of as much as $177 billion,
depending on the error rate used. After a lengthy trial, the court, in September 2003, rejected both
the plaintiffs’ and DOI’s historical accounting plans and ordered DOI to account for all trust fund
and asset transactions since 1887, without using statistical sampling. The Interior Department
estimated that the court’s choice for historical accounting would cost $6-$12 billion.
In the FY2004 Interior appropriations act, Congress enacted a controversial provision aimed at
the court’s decision. It directed that no statute or trust law principle should be construed to require
DOI to conduct the historical accounting until either Congress had delineated the department’s
specific historical accounting obligations or December 31, 2004, whichever was earlier. Based on
this provision, the DOI appealed the court’s September 25, 2003 order. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia temporarily stayed the September 25 order. During the stay, on April
5, 2004, the IIM plaintiffs and the federal government commenced mediation. On December 10,
2004, the Appeals Court overturned much of the September 25 order, finding that the
congressional provision prevented the district court from requiring DOI to follow its directions
for a historical accounting. The Appeals Court noted that the provision expired on December 31,
2004, but did not discuss the district court’s possible reissue of the order. On February 23, 2005,
the district court issued an order on historical accounting very similar to its September 2003
order, requiring that an accounting cover all trust fund and asset transactions since 1887 and not
use statistical sampling. The DOI, which estimated that compliance with the new order would
cost $12-13 billion, 18 appealed the order. The Appeals Court on November 15, 2005, vacated the
17
Cobell v. Norton (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). Updated information is available on the websites of the plaintiffs at
http://www.indiantrust.com, the DOI at http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/, and the Justice Department at
http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/index.htm.
18
Testimony from the Interior Department estimated the cost at $12-13 billion (James Cason, Associate Deputy
Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Statement before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
37
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
district court’s February 2005 order. The district court has not yet issued another order, and the
OST continues its historical accounting under its September 2003 plan.
Congress has long been concerned that the current and potential costs of the Cobell lawsuit may
jeopardize DOI trust reform implementation, reduce spending on other Indian programs, and be
difficult to fund. Besides the ongoing expenses of the litigation, possible costs include $12-$13
billion for the court-ordered historical accounting, a Cobell settlement that might cost as much as
(1) the court-ordered historical accounting, (2) the more than $100 billion that Cobell plaintiffs
estimate their IIM accounts are owed, or (3) the $27.5 billion that the Cobell plaintiffs have
proposed as a settlement amount. 19 Among the funding sources for these large costs discussed in a
2005 House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing were discretionary appropriations and
the Treasury Department’s “Judgment Fund,”20 but some senior appropriators consider the Fund
insufficient even for a $6-$13 billion dollar settlement.21 Among other options, Congress may
enact another delay to the court-ordered accounting, direct a settlement, or delineate the
department’s historical accounting obligations (which could limit, or increase, the size of the
historical accounting). Settlement bills (S. 1439 and H.R. 4322) would establish in the Treasury
Department’s general fund an IIM claim settlement fund with appropriations from the Judgment
Fund. The dollar size of the fund is left blank in both bills and is still being discussed among the
plaintiffs, the Administration, and Congress. A recent news story said a dollar figure may be
inserted in the Senate bill soon, and suggested it would be less than $10 billion, perhaps in the $6$8 billion range. 22 In considering the FY2007 Interior appropriations bill, the House
Appropriations Committee expressed its desire that Cobell be resolved but stated no opinion on a
settlement amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee noted that settlement efforts were
underway among the Cobell parties and congressional authorizing committees.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, see its website at
http://www.ost.doi.gov/.
CRS Report RS22343, Indian Trust Fund Litigation: Legislation to Resolve Accounting Claims in
Cobell v. Norton, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS21738, The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v. Norton, by (na
me redacted).
CRS Report RS22056, Native American Issues in the 109th Congress, by (name redacted).
(...continued)
on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, March 17, 2005). Previous Interior estimates of the cost were
$6-12 billion.
19
Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement Workgroup, “Principles for Legislation,” June 20, 2005, p. 2, at
http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20050620SettlementPrinciples.pdf.
20
The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation for paying judgments against, and settlements by, the
U.S. Government. (See 31 U.S.C. §1304.)
21
Matt Spangler, “Treasury Fund May Be Short of Cash Needed to Settle Indian Royalty Case,” Inside Energy with
Federal Lands (March 21, 2005), p. 6.
22
Jerry Reynolds, “Washington in Brief,” Indian Country Today (June 30, 2006), at http://www.indiancountry.com/
content.cfm?id=1096413237, last accessed July 5, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
38
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
National Indian Gaming Commission
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988 (25 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq.) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of
tribal bingo and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming (e.g., casinos and
racing).23 The primary appropriations issue for NIGC is whether its funding is adequate for its
regulatory responsibilities.
The NIGC is authorized to receive annual appropriations of $2 million, but its budget
authority consists chiefly of annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II and III operations. During
FY1999-FY2006, all NIGC activities have been funded from fees, with no direct appropriations.
The Administration, the House, and the Senate Appropriations Committee did not recommend a
direct appropriation for the NIGC for FY2007.
IGRA formerly capped NIGC fees at $8 million per year, but Congress amended IGRA (P.L. 109221) to create a formula-based fee ceiling—0.08% of the gross gaming revenues of all gaming
operations subject to regulation under IGRA. If this fee ceiling percentage were applied to the
latest NIGC figures for gross Indian gaming revenues ($19.4 billion in 2004), the fee ceiling
based on 2004 would be $15.5 million.
The NIGC in recent years had requested additional funding because it was experiencing increased
demand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field investigations. Congress had
responded, in the FY2003-FY2006 appropriations acts, by increasing the NIGC’s fee ceiling to
$12 million, but only for FY2004-FY2007. The Administration’s FY2007 NIGC budget proposal
requested that the fee ceiling be increased to $13 million for FY2008, and the House agreed.
The Senate Appropriations Committee did not agree and, in the light of the enacted formulabased fee ceiling, recommended repealing the FY2006 appropriations provision limiting the
FY2007 fee ceiling.
For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its website at
http://www.nigc.gov.
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
EPA was established in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control responsibilities that had been
divided among several federal agencies. EPA’s responsibilities have grown as Congress has
enacted an increasing number of environmental laws, as well as major amendments to these
statutes. Among the agency’s primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality, water
quality, pesticides, and toxic substances; the management and disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state
and local governments in controlling pollution.
EPA’s funding over time generally reflects an increase in overall appropriations to fulfill a rising
number of statutory responsibilities. Without adjusting for inflation, the agency’s appropriation
has risen from $1.0 billion when the agency was established in FY1970 to a high of $8.4 billion
23
Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but overlapping regulatory
responsibilities for each class.
Congressional Research Service
39
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
in FY2004. For FY2007, the House has proposed $7.58 billion for EPA, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee has recommended $7.53 billion. The President had requested $7.32
billion. All of these amounts are less than the FY2006 appropriation of $7.64 billion, including
rescissions and supplementals. Congress made an additional $80.0 million available to EPA in
FY2006 by rescinding and redirecting previously appropriated agency funds that had not been
obligated for certain activities. 24 Consequently, the proposed FY2007 funding levels for EPA
reflect larger decreases when compared to the overall FY2006 funding of $7.72 billion, which
included new appropriations of $7.64 billion and $80.0 million in rescinded prior year funds
redirected to FY2006.
In floor debate, the House agreed to two amendments that increased EPA’s funding by $3.8
million above the amount that the House Appropriations Committee had recommended. One
amendment included $1.8 million for Energy Star programs aimed at improving energy
efficiency. In its report on H.R. 5386, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a
slight increase above the House amount for this program. The second House floor amendment
increased funding for EPA’s diesel emission reduction grant program by $2.0 million to a total of
$28.0 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $20.1 million for this grant
program. The President had requested $49.5 million.
The House also passed other floor amendments that would affect EPA’s implementation of certain
activities. For example, one amendment would prohibit funds from being spent on implementing
controversial guidance on determining federal jurisdiction over wetlands. 25 The Senate
Appropriations Committee did not recommend a similar prohibition. A few other House floor
amendments relevant to EPA were not agreed to. For example, one amendment would have
provided $800 million in additional funds for activities of several agencies, of which $250 million
would have been for EPA grants to states for Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). These
grants assist states in issuing loans to communities for wastewater infrastructure improvements,
discussed in the “Water Infrastructure” section, below.
Traditionally, EPA’s annual appropriation has been requested and enacted according to various
line-item appropriations accounts, of which there currently are eight. Table 16 indicates amounts
by appropriations account for FY2006 enacted, FY2007 requested, FY2007 House-passed, and
FY2007 Senate Appropriations Committee-reported.
24
P.L. 109-54 rescinded $80.0 million from prior years’ appropriations that EPA had not obligated for contracts,
grants, and interagency agreements, for which the funding authorization had expired. The law redirected these funds to
be available in FY2006 but did not specify how this funding was to be allocated among EPA’s accounts. EPA’s
FY2007 budget justification indicates that for FY2006, the agency allocated $66.0 million to State and Tribal
Assistance Grants, $11.0 million to Hazardous Substance Superfund, $2.0 million to Environmental Programs and
Management, and $1.0 million to Science and Technology.
25
See CRS Report RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
40
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
Table 16. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2006-FY2007
($ in millions)
FY2006
Approp.
FY2007
Request
FY2007
House
Passed
FY2007
Senate
Comm.
$730.8
$788.3
$808.0
$793.4
—Transfer in from Superfund account
30.2
27.8
30.0
27.8
Science and Technology Total
761.0
816.1
838.0
821.2
2,352.7
2,306.6
2,338.2
2,310.7
—Direct Appropriations
36.9
35.1
35.1
35.1
—Transfer in from Superfund account
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
Office of Inspector General Total
50.2
48.4
48.4
48.4
Buildings & Facilities
39.6
39.8
39.8
39.8
1,242.1
1,259.0
1,256.9
1,261.3
—Transfer out to Office of Inspector General
(13.3)
(13.3)
(13.3)
(13.3)
—Transfer out to Science and Technology
(30.2)
(27.8)
(30.0)
(27.8)
—Net Appropriations After Transfers
1,198.6
1,217.8
1,213.6
1,220.2
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
87.0
72.8
72.8
72.8
Oil Spill Response
15.6
16.5
16.5
16.5
—Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
886.8
687.6
687.6
687.6
—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
837.5
841.5
841.5
841.5
—Categorical and Other Grants
1,489.4
1,268.3
1,480.2
1,471.3
—Rescission and Redirection of Prior Funds
(80.0)a
—
—
—
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
3,133.7
2,797.4
3,009.3
3,000.4
Total Appropriations
$7,638.4
$7,315.5
$7,576.7
$7,529.9
Environmental Protection Agency
Science and Technology (S&T)
—Direct Appropriations
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)
Office of Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund Total
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Amounts are from the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, reflecting rescissions and supplementals.
a.
Congress made an additional $80.0 million available to EPA in FY2006 by rescinding and redirecting prior
years’ appropriated funds that had not been obligated for contracts, grants, and interagency agreements, for
which the funding authorization had expired. This $80.0 million is shown as a reduction in the above table
to reflect new appropriations for FY2006. Including this $80.0 million, Congress made a total of $7.72 billion
available to EPA in FY2006.
Key Funding Issues
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed both decreases and increases for
individual EPA programs and activities throughout the various appropriations accounts when
compared to the President’s FY2007 request and the FY2006 appropriation. Although there have
been varying levels of interest in FY2007 funding for the agency’s programs and activities,
Congressional Research Service
41
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
funding for water infrastructure within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account,
the cleanup of hazardous waste sites within the Superfund account, scientific research, and air
quality programs have received the most attention thus far in the second session of the 109th
Congress. Other areas of interest include funding for EPA’s homeland security activities, and
congressional funding priorities for individual research and water infrastructure projects, often
referred to as earmarks.26 The House allocated $270.0 million to congressional priority projects
for FY2007. The Senate Appropriations Committee set aside $280.0 million, the same as the
FY2006 congressional set-aside. As in past years, the President’s FY2007 request did not include
any funding for congressional priority projects in EPA’s budget. Proposed funding for each of the
above activities in which there has been broad congressional interest is discussed further below.
Water Infrastructure
From appropriations provided within the STAG account, EPA issues grants to states to support
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). These funds provide seed
monies for state loans to communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects,
respectively. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed $687.6 million for
Clean Water SRF grants, the same as the President requested, but less than the FY2006
appropriation of $886.8 million. The proposed decrease has been contentious, as there is
disagreement over the adequacy of funding to meet local needs, such as municipal sewage
treatment plant upgrades. Although appropriations for these grants have declined in recent years,
Congress has appropriated significantly more funding than the President has requested to meet
these needs. The proposals of the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee to approve the
President’s requested decrease for FY2007 depart from this trend.
The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the President’s request of
$841.5 million for Drinking Water SRF grants, an increase above the FY2006 appropriation of
$837.5 million. The proposal to fund Drinking Water SRF grants at the requested level is
consistent with past years, as there generally has been less disagreement between Congress
and the Administration about the appropriate funding level for these grants. However, some
Members support higher funding to meet local drinking water needs, such as assistance to
help communities comply with new standards for drinking water contaminants (e.g., arsenic
and radium).
In addition to funding for Drinking Water SRF grants, the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $11.0 million to assist small public water systems in complying with safe drinking
water regulations. Of this amount, $5.5 million would be provided within the Science and
Technology account for alternative technology projects to help small water systems comply with
the disinfection byproducts (DBP) rules and related regulations. The remaining $5.5 million
would be provided within the Environmental Programs and Management account for a
competitive grant program to provide technical assistance to small drinking water systems for
complying with the arsenic and DBP regulations. 27
Congress also has provided specific funds in past appropriations for water infrastructure projects
in certain communities. Whether these needs should be met with SRF loan monies or earmarked
26
See CRS Report 98-518, Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriations Bills, by (name redacted).
See CRS Report RL33549, Safe Drinking Water Act: Background and Issues in the 109th Congress, by (name
redacted).
27
Congressional Research Service
42
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations
grant assistance has become controversial. Due in part to such concerns, and the competing needs
of many EPA activities in general, the amount of funding earmarked for water infrastructure
projects has declined since FY2004.28 The House set aside $200.0 million for “congressional
priority” water infrastructure projects within the STAG account for FY2007. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $210.0 million for these types of projects. Both
amounts are more than the $197.1 million Congress set aside in the FY2006 appropriation. The
House and Senate Appropriations Committees identified the recipients of these funds in their
respective reports on H.R. 5386. As in past years, the President’s FY2007 budget did not include
any funding for congressional priority water infrastructure projects.
Superfund and Brownfields
Another prominent issue is the adequacy of funding for the Superfund program to clean up the
nation’s most hazardous waste sites. Some Members, states, and environmental organizations
have contended that more funds than have been appropriated are necessary to speed the pace of
cleanup at contaminated sites. The House, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the
President proposed roughly similar amounts of $1.26 billion for the Superfund account (prior to
transfers to other accounts). As indicated in Table 16, these amounts vary somewhat, but all are
increases above the FY2006 appropriation of $1.24 billion. This account funds many activities
related to the cleanup of hazardous substances, including administration, enforcement, and certain
homeland security functions. However, only a portion of the funding is for “actual” (i.e.,
physical) cleanup of contaminated sites. The House approved $832.9 million for site cleanup, and
the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $833.1 million, both slightly less than the
FY2006 appropriation of $833.9 million. The President had requested a larger decrease,
proposing $822.9 million for site cleanup. Some Members had questioned the President’s
requested decrease during budget oversight hearings, in light of public concerns about the pace of
cleanup to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
The source of funding for the Superfund program also has been an ongoing issue. Nearly all the
funding for the program in the Superfund account that the House, the Senate Appropriations
Committee, and the President have proposed would be provided from general U.S. Treasury
revenues. Three dedicated taxes (on petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and corporate income)
historically provided the majority of funding for the Superfund program. These taxes expired at
the end of 1995, and the remaining revenues were essentially used up by the end of FY2003.
Since then, Congress has funded the program almost entirely with general revenues. Although
cost recoveries from responsible parties, fines and penalties, and interest on the unexpended
balance of the trust fund continue to con
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.