Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Congressional research reportFeb 3, 2008

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:

FY2008 Appropriations

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

February 3, 2008

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL34011

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Summary

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for the

Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for two agencies

within other departments—the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the

Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also

includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, and

numerous other entities.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) included $26.89 billion for

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2008. An additional $500.0 million in

emergency appropriations for wildfires was included in P.L. 110-116, for an FY2008 total of

$27.39 billion. This would be about the same as enacted for FY2007 (including funds for Secure

Rural Schools), $240.2 million (0.9%) lower than passed by the House for FY2008 in H.R. 2643,

and $205.0 million (0.8%) higher than recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations

for FY2008 in S. 1696. The FY2008 level was an increase of $1.70 billion (6.6%) over the

Administration’s request for FY2008.

The FY2008 appropriations level was higher for some agencies than the FY2007 level, but lower

for others. Among the FY2008 increases over FY2007 were the following:

•

$292.6 million (6.2%) for the Forest Service (FS);

•

$185.2 million (9.9%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM);

•

$166.0 million (5.2%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);

•

$90.4 million (3.9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);

•

$47.7 million (7.5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI); and

•

$28.1 million (2.1%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Among the FY2008 decreases from FY2007 were the following:

•

-$263.6 million (3.4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

•

-$124.2 million (42.2%) for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement (OSM);

•

-$43.6 million (27.3%) for the Minerals Management Service (MMS); and

•

-$33.9 million (15.2%) for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

(OST).

Congress debated a variety of funding and policy issues during consideration of FY2008 Interior

appropriations legislation. They included appropriate funding for BIA construction, education,

and housing; IHS construction and urban Indian health; wastewater/drinking water needs; land

acquisition; the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program; the Superfund program; the Smithsonian

Institution; and wildland fire fighting. Other issues included Indian trust fund management,

leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf, and royalty relief. This report is not expected to be

updated.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Contents

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

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

FY2004-FY2008...................................................................................................................2

FY2008 Budget and Appropriations ............................................................................................3

Current Overview .................................................................................................................3

Major Issues..........................................................................................................................5

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

Title I: Department of the Interior................................................................................................7

Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................................7

Overview ........................................................................................................................7

Management of Lands and Resources..............................................................................8

Wildland Fire Management .............................................................................................9

Construction ................................................................................................................. 10

Land Acquisition........................................................................................................... 10

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement ................................. 12

Avian Flu ...................................................................................................................... 12

Land Acquisition........................................................................................................... 13

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

Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants............................................................ 14

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

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

Major NPS Issues in Appropriations.............................................................................. 16

Operation of the National Park System.......................................................................... 16

United States Park Police (USPP).................................................................................. 18

Centennial Challenge .................................................................................................... 18

National Recreation and Preservation ............................................................................ 18

Construction ................................................................................................................. 19

Land Acquisition and State Assistance........................................................................... 19

Historic Preservation..................................................................................................... 19

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

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

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing............................................ 21

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

Water Resources Investigations ..................................................................................... 22

Biological Research ...................................................................................................... 22

Science Support and Facilities....................................................................................... 23

Minerals Management Service ............................................................................................ 23

Budget and Appropriations............................................................................................ 23

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore ....................................................................................... 24

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ..................................................... 27

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

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs.................................................................. 31

Law Enforcement Program............................................................................................ 34

Housing Improvement Program (HIP) ........................................................................... 34

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process ....................................................................... 35

Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs........................................................ 36

Office of Insular Affairs ................................................................................................ 36

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) ................................................................... 36

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.............................................................. 38

National Indian Gaming Commission............................................................................ 41

Title II: Environmental Protection Agency................................................................................. 42

Key Funding Issues............................................................................................................. 44

Water Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 44

Superfund ..................................................................................................................... 45

Brownfields .................................................................................................................. 46

Office of Inspector General (OIG)................................................................................. 46

Scientific Research........................................................................................................ 47

State and Local Air Quality Management Grants ........................................................... 48

Proposed Commission on Climate Change .................................................................... 48

Title III: Related Agencies......................................................................................................... 49

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................................................................... 49

Major FS Issues in Appropriations................................................................................. 50

Wildland Fire Management ........................................................................................... 51

State and Private Forestry.............................................................................................. 53

Other Programs............................................................................................................. 54

Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service...................................... 55

Health Services ............................................................................................................. 57

Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 59

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation ...................................................................... 60

Smithsonian Institution ....................................................................................................... 61

Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................... 61

Facilities Capital ........................................................................................................... 62

Trust Funds ................................................................................................................... 62

Legacy Fund ................................................................................................................. 62

National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities................... 63

NEA ............................................................................................................................. 63

NEH ............................................................................................................................. 64

Cross-Cutting Topics................................................................................................................. 65

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) ................................................................ 65

Overview ...................................................................................................................... 65

FY2008 Funding ........................................................................................................... 65

Everglades Restoration........................................................................................................ 68

FY2008 Funding ........................................................................................................... 69

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

Figures

Figure 1. FS FY2008 Appropriation .......................................................................................... 50

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Tables

Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2008 ..........3

Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2008 .............7

Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2007-FY2008 ..........................7

Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs, FY2007-FY2008 ......... 11

Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2007-FY2008 ......................... 13

Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Neotropical

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2007-FY2008............................................................. 14

Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2007-FY2008.......................... 15

Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2007-FY2008 ................................... 17

Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2007-FY2008................................. 20

Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2007-FY2008 .................... 24

Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,

FY2007-FY2008.................................................................................................................... 29

Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2007-FY2008.............................. 30

Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu of Taxes,

FY2000-FY2008.................................................................................................................... 37

Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,

FY2007-FY2008.................................................................................................................... 38

Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2007-FY2008 ............... 43

Table 16. Appropriations for FS and BLM Wildland Fire Management, FY2004-FY2008.......... 52

Table 17. Appropriations for FS State and Private Forestry, FY2005-FY2008 ............................ 53

Table 18. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2007-FY2008.................................. 55

Table 19. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2007-FY2008 ............................... 62

Table 20. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2007-FY2008 ......................................... 64

Table 21. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, FY2004-FY2008.......... 66

Table 22. Appropriations for Other Programs from the LWCF, FY2006-FY2008 ....................... 68

Table 23. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget, FY2007-FY2008........ 69

Table 24. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,

FY2004-FY2008.................................................................................................................... 72

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 75

Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 75

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided $26.89 billion for

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Another $500.0 million in emergency funds for

wildfires was provided in P.L. 110-116, for an FY2008 total of $27.39 billion.

Introduction

The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for

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

agencies and bureaus. It provides funding for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except

for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded in Energy and Water Development appropriations laws),

many of which manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs. The bill also

provides funds for agencies in two other departments—the Forest Service in the Department of

Agriculture, and the Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and Human

Services—as well as funds for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further, the annual

bill includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National

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

and for numerous other entities and agencies.

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

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

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

However, at the outset of the 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 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.

Since FY2006, appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have

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

Accordingly, the first section (Title I) provides information on Interior agencies; the second

section (Title II) discusses EPA; and the third section (Title III) addresses other agencies,

programs, and entities. A fourth section of this report discusses cross-cutting topics that

encompass more than one agency.

Entries in this report are for major agencies (e.g., the National Park Service) and cross-cutting

issues (e.g., Everglades restoration) that receive funding in the Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies appropriations bill. For each such agency or issue, we discuss some of the key funding

changes proposed or enacted for FY2008 that are likely to be of interest to Congress. We also

address related policy issues that occurred in the context of considering appropriations legislation.

Presenting such information in summary form is a challenge given that budget submissions for

These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development.

These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

some agencies number several hundred pages and contain innumerable funding, programmatic,

and legislative changes for congressional consideration. Similarly, funding bills and

accompanying reports contain numerous line items and discussions of programs and issues.

This report contains final FY2007 enacted levels for agencies, programs, and activities. The

Administration did not use these figures as the basis of comparison in agency budget submissions

for FY2008, because agencies were being funded under a short-term continuing resolution at the

time of those submissions. Accordingly, the FY2007 figures used throughout this report will

differ in many cases from those contained in the FY2008 agency budget submissions. A further

difference is that FY2007 figures in this report include supplemental funding.3

Final FY2007 funding levels, as contained in this report, were determined by the agencies under

the provisions of P.L. 110-5, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007.

Continuing funding was needed to fund agency operations and activities because Congress did

not enact a regular FY2007 appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

P.L. 110-5 provided funds though September 30, 2007, which was the rest of the fiscal year. It

continued funds at the FY2006 account level, except where otherwise specified. The law required

that agencies and departments submit an allocation of funds below the account level, for example

for programs and activities, to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The

submissions were due within 30 days of enactment (March 17, 2007).

In general, in this report the term appropriations represents total funds available, including

regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as rescissions, transfers, and deferrals,

but excludes permanent mandatory budget authorities. Increases and decreases generally are

calculated on comparisons between the funding levels enacted for FY2008 and those enacted for

FY2007 and requested by the President for FY2008. The House Committee on Appropriations is

the primary source of the funding figures used throughout the report. Other sources of

information include the Senate Committee on Appropriations, agency budget justifications, and

the Congressional Record. In the tables throughout this report, some columns of funding figures

do not add to the precise totals provided due to rounding.

FY2004-FY2008

Table 1, below, shows the budget authority for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for

FY2004-FY2008. Funding for earlier years is not readily available due to the changes in the

makeup of the Interior appropriations bill. The President’s request for FY2008 ($25.69 billion), if

enacted, would have been the lowest level since FY2004. It would have been a $1.64 billion (6%)

decrease in funds from the FY2004 level in current dollars, or a 16% decrease in constant dollars

(assuming 2.24% inflation for 2007 and 2008). The House-approved funding of $27.63 billion

was slightly higher than FY2004—a $301.8 million increase (1%) in current dollars but a 10%

decrease in constant dollars. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $27.19

billion, which was a slightly lower level than FY2004—a $143.3 million decrease (0.5%) in

current dollars and an 11% decrease in constant dollars. For FY2008, the $26.89 billion contained

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act was a decrease of $483.3 million (2%) in current dollars

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

In addition, final FY2007 enacted levels are not included in CRS Report RL33399, Interior, Environment, and

Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, because they were not available until after the start of the 110th Congress

and the beginning of the FY2008 appropriations cycle.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

$500.0 million in emergency fire funding, would be a $61.7 million increase (0.2%) over FY2004

in current dollars but a 10% decrease in constant dollars. See Table 24 for a budgetary history of

each agency for FY2004-FY2008.

Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,

FY2004 to FY2008

(budget authority in billions of current dollars)

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

$27.33

$27.02

$25.94

$27.38

$27.39

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

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

figure does not reflect supplementals. The FY2007 figure includes $425.0 million for Secure Rural Schools.

FY2008 Budget and Appropriations

Current Overview

FY2008 funding for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was included in the

Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). The enacted bill (H.R. 2764),

providing funding for government agencies and activities except defense, was signed into law on

December 26, 2007. An explanatory statement on the bill was printed in the Congressional

Record of December 17, 2007. The explanatory statement on Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies (Division F of the bill) was published in Book II of the Record, at H16122-H16178. The

explanatory statement noted that it contained “a list of congressional earmarks and

congressionally directed spending items” as defined in House and Senate rules, at H16142H16157. However, the amounts in the list did not reflect a 1.56% across-the-board cut provided

in H.R. 2764 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The explanatory statement also

included a detailed funding table for Interior, at H16158-H16178. For activities, programs, and

agencies, the table contained funding levels enacted for FY2007, requested by the Administration

for FY2008, approved by the House for FY2008, recommended by the Senate Committee on

Appropriations for FY2008, contained in H.R. 2764 for FY2008, and reduced by a 1.56% acrossthe-board cut for FY2008.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided $26.89 billion for

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2008. That total reflects the 1.56% cut

provided in the Interior portion of the act. In general, FY2008 appropriations figures used

throughout this report also reflect the cut, which under the law was to be applied across the board

to programs, projects, and activities. An additional $500.0 million in emergency appropriations

for FY2008 for wildfires was included in an earlier law, P.L. 110-116, for an FY2008 total of

$27.39 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This would be about the same as

enacted for FY2007 (including funds for Secure Rural Schools), $240.2 million (0.9%) lower

than passed by the House for FY2008 in H.R. 2643, and $205.0 million (0.8%) higher than

recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations for FY2008 in S. 1696. The FY2008

level was an increase of $1.70 billion (6.6%) over the Administration’s request.

Of the $500.0 million in P.L. 110-116, $329.0 million was provided to the Forest Service for

wildland fire management. The funds were divided as follows: $110.0 million for suppression,

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

$100.0 million for repayment of accounts from which funds were borrowed in FY2007, $80.0

million for hazardous fuels reduction, $25.0 million for rehabilitation and restoration of federal

lands, and $14.0 million for construction and reconstruction of federal facilities. For fire fighting

on DOI lands, the law provided BLM with the remaining $171.0 million in wildland fire

management funds. The funds were apportioned as follows: $40.0 million for suppression, $115.0

million for repayment of accounts from which funds were borrowed in FY2007, $10.0 million for

hazardous fuels reduction, and $6.0 million for rehabilitation and restoration of federal lands.

The FY2008 appropriations level was higher for some agencies than the FY2007 level, but lower

for others. Among the FY2008 increases over FY2007 were the following:

•

$292.6 million (6.2%) for the Forest Service (FS);

•

$185.2 million (9.7%) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM);

•

$166.0 million (5.2%) for the Indian Health Service (IHS);

•

$90.4 million (3.9%) for the National Park Service (NPS);

•

$47.7 million (7.5%) for the Smithsonian Institution (SI); and

•

$28.1 million (2.1%) for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Among the FY2008 decreases from FY2007 were the following:

•

-$263.6 million (3.4%) for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

•

-$124.2 million (42.2%) for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement (OSM);

•

-$43.6 million (27.3%) for the Minerals Management Service (MMS); and

•

-$33.9 million (15.2%) for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

(OST).

Prior to the enactment of the consolidated bill, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies were

funded under a series of laws that generally continued funds at FY2007 levels. Continuing

funding was needed to fund ongoing projects and activities because Congress did not enact a

regular FY2008 funding bill for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies before the October

1, 2007, start of the fiscal year.

In earlier action, the Senate Committee on Appropriations had reported a regular annual

appropriations bill, but it was not considered on the Senate floor. Specifically, on June 26, 2007,

the Senate committee reported S. 1696 (S.Rept. 110-91), with $27.19 billion for FY2008 for all

agencies included in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. On June

27, 2007, the House passed H.R. 2643 with $27.63 billion for FY2008. The House-passed level

would have been an increase over the FY2007 level of $27.38 billion, including $425.0 million

for the Secure Rural Schools program (established under P.L. 106-393). The Senate committee

level would have been a decrease from FY2007. The House and the Senate committee levels both

would have been increases over the President’s request for FY2008 of $25.69 billion.

The Senate Appropriations Committee considered several amendments during its markup, in

addition to a managers’ package of amendments. The Committee agreed to an amendment to

remove language from the bill that barred funds from being used for new Outer Continental Shelf

leases for those holding leases without price thresholds, unless the leases were renegotiated. The

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Committee also agreed to an amendment seeking to ban imports of polar bears and polar bear

parts. An amendment seeking to extend the Secure Rural Schools Act for four years was

withdrawn. The act provides a method for compensating counties for the tax exempt status of

most national forests (managed by the FS) and some public lands (managed by the BLM).

Amendments seeking to expedite the time frame for filing claims challenging the land

management plan for the Tongass National Forest (AK) also were withdrawn.

The House considered 58 amendments to H.R. 2643 during two days of floor debate, and adopted

18 of them before passing the bill (272-155) on June 27, 2007. The amendments addressed an

array of programs and issues. Some of them were broad, as in those that sought to cut the total

appropriation in the bill by a particular sum or reduce each appropriation in the bill by a fixed

percentage (which were not agreed to). Others were more narrow, such as those prohibiting funds

in the bill from being used for particular programs or purposes. Many of the amendments are

discussed in the pertinent sections throughout this report.

In earlier action, on June 11, 2007, the House Appropriations Committee had reported H.R. 2643

(H.Rept. 110-187) with a total of $27.63 billion. The House Appropriations Committee issued a

supplemental report (H.Rept. 110-187, Part II) on June 22, 2007. The report identified projects

that would be funded from various line items in the bill, such as the construction accounts of the

land management agencies. It specified whether the Administration or a particular Member of

Congress requested the funding and the state in which the project is located.

Major Issues

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

annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Debate on the FY2008

funding levels encompassed a variety of issues, many of which have been controversial in the

past, including the issues listed below.

•

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially the adequacy

of funding to meet state and local wastewater and drinking water needs. These

state revolving funds provide seed money for state loans to communities for

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

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

•

Construction of BIA Schools and IHS Health Facilities, particularly whether to

enact funding cuts proposed in the President’s FY2008 budget. (For more

information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Department of Health

and Human Services: Indian Health Service” sections in this report.)

•

Indian Trust Funds, especially whether to enact reductions proposed in the

President’s FY2008 request and the method by which a historical accounting will

be conducted of Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts to determine correct

balances in the class-action lawsuit against the government. (For more

information, see the “Office of Special Trustee for American Indians” section in

this report.)

•

Land Acquisition, including the appropriate level of funding for the Land and

Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and the state grant

program, and extent to which the fund should be used for activities not involving

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

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 “Minerals Management Service” section of this report.)

•

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

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

the account or reinstate a tax on industry that originally paid for most of the

program. (For more information, see the “Title II: Environmental Protection

Agency” section in this report.)

•

Termination of BIA Education and Housing and IHS Urban Health Programs,

particularly whether to end funding for BIA’s Johnson-O’Malley grants to

schools and the Housing Improvement Program and for IHS’s urban Indian

health projects. (For more information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the

“Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service” sections in

this report.)

•

Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate level of

funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of borrowing funds from other

agency programs to fight wildfires; implementation of a new program for

wildland fire protection and locations for fire protection treatments; and impact

of environmental analysis, public involvement, and challenges to agency

decisions on fuel reduction activities. (For more information, see the “Bureau of

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

this report.)

Status of Bill

Table 2 contains information on congressional consideration of the FY2008 Interior

appropriations bill.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

Appropriations, FY2008

Subcommittee

Markup

House

05/23/07

Senate

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

06/19/07

H.R. 2643

H.Rept.

110-187

06/11/07;

Part II

06/22/07

H.R.

2643

06/27/07

272-155

S. 1696

S.Rept.

110-91

06/26/07

Senate

Passage

Conf.

Report

—

Conference

Report

Approval

House

—

Senate

Public

Law

—

H.R. 2764

P.L. 110161

12/26/07

Title I: Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Overview

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 258 million acres of public

land for diverse and sometimes conflicting uses, such as energy and minerals development,

livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also is responsible for about 700

million acres of federal subsurface mineral resources throughout the nation, and supervises the

mineral operations on an estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another key BLM

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

certain nonfederal land.

For the BLM, the FY2008 law contained $1.89 billion, including $78.0 million in emergency

appropriations for wildfire suppression contained in Title V. An additional $171.0 million in

emergency wildfire funds was provided in an earlier law, P.L. 110-116, for a total BLM

appropriation of $2.06 billion for FY2008. This level was higher than enacted for FY2007 and

had been supported for FY2008 by the Administration, House, and Senate Appropriations

Committee, primarily due to the emergency appropriations for wildfires. See Table 3. Proposed

funding for several key activities is discussed below.

Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management, FY2007-FY2008

($ in millions)

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

Management of Lands and Resources

866.9

879.4

888.6

902.9

853.9

Wildland Fire Managementa

853.4

801.8

806.6

829.5

1,057.1

—Preparedness

274.9

268.3

274.9

286.0

276.5

—Suppressiona

344.2

294.4

367.8

—Other Operations

234.3

239.1

237.4

249.1

241.8

Bureau of Land Management

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Bureau of Land Management

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

—Emergency Appropriations (P.L. 110-116)

—

171.0

Construction

11.8

6.5

11.5

6.4

Land Acquisition

8.6

1.6

18.6

12.2

8.9

Oregon and California Grant Lands

109.0

110.2

108.5

Range Improvements

10.0

Service Charges, Deposits, and Forfeituresb

0.0

Miscellaneous Trust Funds

12.4

Total Appropriationsa

1,872.0

1,822.0

1,853.0

1,888.7

2,057.2

The figures for FY2007 reflect a supplemental appropriation of $95.0 million for wildfire suppression

contained in P.L. 110-28. The figures for FY2008 appropriated reflect an emergency appropriation of $78.0

million for suppression included in Title V of the FY2008 law. The FY2008 appropriation figures for wildland

fire management and BLM total also include $171.0 million in emergency appropriations provided in P.L.

110-116.

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

Management of Lands and Resources

Management of Lands and Resources includes funds for an array of BLM land programs,

including protection, recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM

administration. For this line item, the FY2008 law contained $853.9 million, lower than enacted

for FY2007 and supported by the President, House, and Senate Appropriations Committee for

FY2008. The enacted level reflects $25.5 million in revenues from a new oil and gas cost

recovery program as an offset to the appropriation for energy and minerals management. Many

lands and resources programs received increases relative to FY2007, while others received

decreased or level funding.

For maintenance, the FY2008 law included $74.8 million, a $4.4 million increase over the

FY2007 level. Increases were included for both annual and deferred maintenance, with total

deferred maintenance funding of $36.5 million. BLM has estimated its deferred maintenance at

between $387 million and $473 million for FY2006. Wildlife and fisheries would receive $44.3

million in FY2008, a $3.5 million increase. For range management, the law contained $73.0

million, $4.8 million more than appropriated for FY2007. More than half the increase for each of

wildlife and fisheries and for range management was for the healthy lands initiative (see below).

Recreation and wilderness programs received $67.9 million, up $4.2 million.

For the healthy lands initiative, the FY2008 law provided about $5 million, an increase above the

$3.0 million appropriated for FY2007. The initiative consists of vegetation resources

enhancements to restore and improve the health and productivity of western public lands. The

House, like the Administration, had sought a large increase—to $15.0 million—while the Senate

Committee had recommended $6.0 million. The Administration had anticipated using another

$8.2 million in existing BLM funds, and leveraging $10.0 million in contributions from partners.

For the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), which consists of 26 million acres of

BLM’s protected conservation areas, the FY2008 law provided about $5 million over the

President’s request of $49.2 million. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee had

approved higher increases over the request. In the explanatory statement, the appropriations

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

committees directed BLM to present annual NLCS reports with expenditures by unit and

subactivity to enhance fiscal accountability.

The FY2008 law included lower funding for energy and minerals, $109.9 million, than had been

enacted for FY2007—$138.1 million (including Alaska minerals). The reduction is to be

accomplished primarily through the collection of $25.5 million in offsetting fees. These revenues

are expected to be derived through a new program requiring payment of $4,000 for each

application for a permit to drill oil and gas wells. A similar program had been requested by the

Administration and supported by the House. The FY2008 law capped the appropriation for oil

and gas management at $90.2 million, due to concerns that BLM has used conservation and other

natural resource funds for oil and gas activities (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 16). Further, the law

prohibited funds from being used to prepare final regulations regarding a commercial leasing

program for oil shale or to conduct a commercial oil shale lease sale. In the explanatory

statement, the appropriations committees expressed that while oil shale has the potential to be an

important energy resource, there is concern that DOI “may be moving ahead before the full

impacts of such a program are known, and without full and complete cooperation of the affected

States ... Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.”4 Current law (P.L. 109-58) requires BLM to issue the

regulations and to move to a commercial leasing program.

For management of wild horses and burros, the FY2008 law provided nearly level funding—

$36.2 million. The Administration had sought to reduce funding to $32.1 million, but the House

and the Senate Committee supported increases over FY2007. In its report, the Senate

Appropriations Committee “strongly” encouraged federal agencies that use horses to first seek to

acquire a wild horse from BLM, and encouraged BLM to expedite providing wild horses to state

and local police (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 12).

Wildland Fire Management

For Wildland Fire Management, the FY2008 law contained $886.1 million, including the $78.0

million in emergency appropriations for wildfire suppression. This was an increase over the

FY2007 level and the levels supported by the President, House, and Senate Committee for

FY2008. An additional $171.0 million was provided in P.L. 110-116, for suppression, hazardous

fuels reduction, rehabilitation, and repayment of accounts from which funds were borrowed in

FY2007 for fire suppression. With these funds, the FY2008 total for wildland fire management

was $1.06 billion, which is about half the overall BLM appropriation for FY2008.

Fire suppression would increase from $344.2 million in FY2007 (including supplemental

funding) to $367.8 million in FY2008 under P.L. 110-161. This would fund the ten-year average

cost of fire suppression (about $289.8 million) and provide additional funds ($78.0 million) if

needed for an extreme fire season, according to the explanatory statement on the FY2008 bill.

Preparedness was increased from $274.9 million in FY2007 to $276.5 million in FY2008. The

Administration had sought to reduce preparedness funding, while the House had supported level

funding. The Senate Committee had recommended an increase on the grounds that cutting

preparedness funding does not save money, but shifts expenditures to suppression (S.Rept. 11091, p. 15). Funding for other fire operations would increase from $234.3 million in FY2007 to

$241.8 million in FY2008, primarily due to the inclusion of $5.9 million for rural fire assistance.

Congressional Record, v. 153, December 17, 2007, Book II, Explanatory Statement, Division F, Sec. 433, p. H16141H16142. Hereafter cited as “Explanatory Statement,” with the Congressional Record page number.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Most of the funding for other operations in FY2008 was for hazardous fuels reduction—$199.6

million—essentially level with FY2007 funding. In the explanatory statement, appropriators

directed the agencies to report on the allocation of funds for reducing hazardous fuels.

The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all DOI lands. Interior

appropriations laws also provide funds for wildland fire management to the Forest Service

(Department of Agriculture) for fire programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments

is implementing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire

Plan, which emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to catastrophic fires. (For

additional information, see the “Department of Agriculture: Forest Service” section in this report.)

Construction

For FY2008, the law contained $6.4 million for BLM Construction, akin to the level requested by

the Administration and supported by the House. The explanatory statement expressed that the

funds should be allocated as described in the President’s budget request, which called for 12

construction projects in five states. The FY2008 level was a decrease of $5.4 million from

FY2007 ($11.8 million). The Senate Appropriations Committee had supported funding at nearly

the FY2007 level, to avoid an increase in the construction backlog, and had expressed

“disapproval” regarding DOI’s “lack of commitment to its infrastructure” (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 1516).

Land Acquisition

For Land Acquisition for FY2008, the law contained $8.9 million, a small increase over the

FY2007 level of $8.6 million. The explanatory statement specified how about two-thirds of the

funds would be used for eight acquisitions. Both the House and the Senate Committee initially

had supported higher increases for FY2008. However, the Administration had sought a reduction

to $1.6 million, with an additional $5.0 million from the proceeds of sales of the subsurface

mineral estate to the surface owners. BLM estimated that 500,000 acres could be sold annually

for approximately $10 per acre, for a total of $5.0 million per year. Such a redirection of the

proceeds of the sales to land acquisition was not included in the FY2008 law. The appropriation

for BLM acquisitions had fallen steadily from $49.9 million in FY2002 to $8.6 million for

FY2007. Money for land acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

(For more information, see the “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this

report.)

For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm.

CRS Report RL33792, Federal Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and

the Forest Service (FS): Issues for the 110th Congress, by (name redacted) et al.

CRS Report RL33990, Wildfire Funding, by (name redacted).

Fish and Wildlife Service

For FY2008, the appropriation for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was $1.37 billion. The

FY2008 level was a 2% increase over the FY2007 level of $1.34 billion and a 6% increase over

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

the President’s request of $1.29 billion. The House had approved $1.42 billion, while the Senate

Appropriations Committee had recommended $1.38 billion.

By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resource Management

account. The FY2008 appropriation for this account was $1.08 billion, a 6% increase over the

FY2007 level of $1.02 billion and a 5% increase over the Administration’s request of $1.03

billion. The House had approved $1.10 billion; the Senate Committee level was $1.08 billion.

Among the programs included in Resources Management are the Endangered Species program,

the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement.

Endangered Species Funding

Funding for the Endangered Species program is one of the perennially controversial portions of

the FWS budget. The FY2008 appropriation was $150.5 million for the Endangered Species

program, a 4% increase over FY2007. The Administration had proposed a smaller increase of

1%—from $144.7 million in FY2007 to $146.5 million in FY2008. See Table 4. The FY2008 law

did not include language from the Senate committee bill that had sought to limit funding for the

importation of polar bear parts taken in sport hunts. The House had rejected a similar amendment

during floor debate. The House had also rejected an amendment to prohibit use of funds for

Mexican wolf recovery.

A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are listed, or proposed for

listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The President proposed to end the Landowner

Incentive Program ($23.7 million in FY2007) as well as Stewardship Grants ($7.3 million in

FY2007). The President also sought to reduce the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation

Fund (for grants to states and territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) from

$81.0 million to $80.0 million. The FY2008 appropriation reflected these proposals, and included

a further reduction for the Cooperative Endangered Species program for an FY2008 appropriation

of $73.8 million. However, the FY2008 law also provided for the use of $5.0 million in prior year

balances, making total FY2008 funding of $78.8 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species

program. See Table 4.

In total, the FY2008 appropriations law contained $224.3 million for endangered species and

related programs, down 13% from the FY2007 level of $256.6 million. Under the President’s

request, total FY2008 funding would have decreased to $226.5 million, a 12% reduction.

Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,

FY2007-FY2008

($ in thousands)

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

—Candidate Conservation

8,425

8,635

9,135

10,135

9,731

—Listing

17,824

18,263

18,763

17,978

—Consultation

49,179

51,578

52,578

53,578

51,758

—Recovery

69,244

68,067

72,067

73,067

71,041

Endangered Species and

Related Programs

Endangered Species Program

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

144,672

146,543

152,543

155,543

150,508

—Landowner Incentive Program

23,667

—Private Stewardship Grants

7,277

—Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund

81,001

80,001

81,001

80,001

73,754a

Subtotal, Related Programs

111,945

80,001

81,001

80,001

73,754

Total Appropriations

256,617

226,544

233,544

235,544

224,262

Endangered Species and

Related Programs

Subtotal, Endangered Species Program

Related Programs

An additional $5.0 million in prior year funds was provided for FY2008.

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement

For refuge operations and maintenance, the FY2008 appropriation was $434.1 million. This was a

10% increase over the FY2007 level of $395.3 million. The President had proposed $394.8

million, a slight decrease from FY2007. However, both the House and the Senate Appropriations

Committee had sought increases. The House had approved $451.0 million, an increase of 14%,

while the Senate committee level was $413.8 million, up 5%.

Costs of operation have increased on many refuges, partly due to special problems such as

hurricane damage and more aggressive border enforcement. Reductions in funding for operations

in the NWRS, combined with the need to meet fixed costs such as rent, salaries, and utilities,

have led to cuts in funding for programs to aid endangered species, reduce infestation by invasive

species, protect water supplies, address habitat restoration, and ensure staffing at the less popular

refuges. The Northeast Region (roughly Virginia to Maine, with 71 refuges) took the lead in

addressing this issue by attempting to consolidate management at refuges, and increasing the

number of refuges which are not staffed on a regular basis (termed “de-staffing”). This region

also attempted to consolidate some services in order to spread remaining resources more

effectively. Other regions have begun their own plans to address reduced operating budgets. In

the Explanatory Statement for FY2008, FWS was directed to use the additional FY2008 funding

to reestablish basic operations nationwide. FWS was further directed to report back to the

Appropriations Committees on allocation of the increased funding within 60 days.

The FY2008 appropriations law contained $59.6 million for Law Enforcement, a 4% increase

over the FY2007 level of $57.3 million. The President had proposed $57.6 million, a modest

increase over FY2007, but the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee had sought larger

increases. Specifically, the House had approved $60.1 million, up 5%, while the Senate

committee recommended $61.1 million, a 7% increase.

Avian Flu

For FY2008, Congress enacted $7.3 million for the study, monitoring, and early detection of

highly pathogenic avian flu. The Administration, House, and Senate Appropriations Committee

initially approved $7.4 million. The FY2007 appropriation was $12.4 million, including a $7.4

million supplemental appropriation in P.L. 110-28. FWS cooperates with other federal and

nonfederal agencies in studying the spread of the virus through wild birds. Attention is on North

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

American species whose migratory patterns make them likely to come into contact with infected

Asian birds. The geographic focus is on Alaska, the Pacific Flyway (along the west coast), and

Pacific islands, with smaller samples in other areas. (See CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza

in Poultry and Wild Birds, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).)

Land Acquisition

For FY2008, the appropriation for Land Acquisition was $34.6 million. This was an increase of

92% over the Administration’s request and 23% increase over FY2007, with the increase going to

the acquisition of new lands and inholdings. The Administration had proposed $18.0 million for

Land Acquisition, $10.0 million (36%) below FY2007. See Table 5. In the past, the bulk of this

FWS program had been for acquisitions of land for specified federal refuges, but a portion was

used for closely related functions such as acquisition management, land exchanges, emergency

acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, and general overhead (“Cost Allocation Methodology”). In

recent years, less of the funding has been reserved for traditional land acquisition. The

Administration had proposed to continue this trend for FY2008, reserving $5.5 million for

specified acquisitions, and funding the remainder of the program at $12.5 million.5 This program

is funded with appropriations from LWCF. (For more information, see the “The Land and Water

Conservation Fund (LWCF)” in this report.)

Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2007-FY2008

($ in thousands)

FWS Land Acquisition

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

Acquisitions—Federal Refuge Lands

13,650

5,544

28,650

28,904

20,676

Inholdings

1,500

2,953

Emergencies & Hardships

1,478

1,500

1,478

1,500

Exchanges

1,485

1,537

1,485

1,500

1,477

Acquisition Management

8,140

6,436

8,140

8,013

Cost Allocation Methodology

1,793

1,494

1,793

1,500

1,477

28,046

18,011

43,046

43,044

34,596

Total Appropriations

Wildlife Refuge Fund

The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates

counties for the presence of the non-taxable federal lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System

(NWRS). A portion of the fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of receipts from

various activities carried out on the NWRS. However, these receipts are not sufficient for full

funding of amounts authorized in the formula, and county governments have long urged

Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a permanently appropriated source of mandatory

funding (from the sale of duck stamps to hunters, and import duties on certain arms and ammunition) for land

acquisition. As annual appropriations for acquisitions under LWCF have declined, the MBCA ($41.9 million in

FY2006) has become increasingly important in the protection of habitat for migratory birds, especially waterfowl.

Other species in these habitats benefit incidentally.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

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

appropriations. For FY2008, the appropriation was $14.0 million, a small decrease from the

FY2007 level of $14.2 million. With refuge receipts, the FY2008 level would fund about 42% of

the authorized payment level, down from 52% in FY2007. The President had requested $10.8

million for FY2008, down $3.4 million (24%). That level, combined with expected receipts,

would have provided about 35% of the authorized full payment. The House had approved the

FY2007 level, as did the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants

The Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) has generated considerable constituent

interest despite the small size of the program. It benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers,

rhinoceroses, great apes, and marine turtles. For FY2008, the appropriations law contained $7.9

million for MSCF and $4.4 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

(NMBCF), both increases over the FY2007 level and the Administration’s request for FY2008.

The President had proposed $4.3 million for the MSCF and $4.0 million for the NMBCF.6 The

proposal would have cut each of the MSCF programs and held funding level for NMBCF. See

Table 6.

Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, FY2007-FY2008

($ in thousands)

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

African Elephant

1,379

990

2,000

1,500

1,477

Tiger and Rhinos

1,576

990

2,500

2,000

1,969

Asian Elephant

1,379

990

2,000

1,500

1,477

Great Apes

1,379

990

2,000

1,969

Marine Turtles

691

297

1,500

1,000

984

Total MSCF Appropriations

6,404

4,257

10,000

8,000

7,876

Neotropical Migratory Birds

3,941

3,960

5,000

4,000

4,430

Multinational Species

Conservation Fund

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help fund efforts to conserve species (including nongame

species) of concern to states, territories, and tribes. The grants have generated considerable

support from these governments. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior appropriations

law (P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior appropriations bills. (It does not

have any separate authorizing statute.) Funds may be used to develop state conservation plans as

well as to support specific practical conservation projects. A portion of the funding is set aside for

competitive grants to tribal governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining portion is for

The President’s FY2008 budget did not propose to move funding for NMBCF into the MSCF. Congress had rejected

the Administration’s proposed transfer for the previous six fiscal years, beginning in FY2002.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

matching grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined by formula. The appropriation for

FY2008 was $73.8 million. See Table 7.

Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2007-FY2008

($ in thousands)

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants

State Grants

Competitive Grants for States, Territories, & Other

Jurisdictions

Tribal Grants

Total Appropriations

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

61,852

59,210

73,000

60,580

62,724

5,000

6,184

5,640

5,282

7,000

6,912

4,922

67,492

69,492

85,000

72,492

73,830

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

CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th

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

CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds, by (name redacted) and (name red

acted).

CRS Report RL33779, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 110th 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).

National Park Service

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

comprising 391 separate and diverse park units covering 85 million acres. The NPS and its more

than 20,000 permanent, temporary, and seasonal employees protect, preserve, interpret, and

administer the park system’s diverse natural and historic areas representing the cultural identity of

the American people. The NPS mission is to protect park resources and values, unimpaired, while

making them accessible to the public. Annual park visitation is now 273 million visits. The Park

System has some 20 types of area designations, including national parks, monuments, memorials,

historic sites, battlefields, seashores, recreational areas, and other classifications. The NPS also

supports and promotes some resource conservation activities outside the Park System through

limited grant and technical assistance programs and cooperation with partners.

The FY2008 appropriations law provided $2.39 billion for the NPS, $26.6 million (1%) more

than the FY2008 request and $90.3 million (4%) above the FY2007 level, but $71.1 million (3%)

below the Senate Appropriations Committee level and $122.8 million (5%) below the House

total. See Table 8. The parks remain popular with the public and the condition of the parks and

the adequacy of their care and operating capacity continues to be of concern.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

To be ready for the NPS’s 100th anniversary in 2016, the Administration proposed a multi-year

initiative, beginning in FY2008, to strengthen visitor services and other park programs. The

National Parks Centennial Initiative, announced by President Bush in August 2006, could add up

to $3 billion in new funds for the parks over the next 10 years through a public/private joint

effort. The initiative has three components: (1) a commitment to add $100.0 million annually in

discretionary funds; (2) a challenge for the public to donate $100.0 million annually; and (3) a

commitment to match the public donations with federal funds of up to $100.0 million annually.

The second part of the initiative—the proposed $1 billion “Centennial Challenge”—would rely

on corporate, foundation, and other private donations, raising concerns among some park

supporters about potential commercialization and privatization influence on the parks. Many

claim that the park system has long experienced chronic budget shortfalls. Park advocacy groups

have estimated that, on average, the national parks operate with two-thirds of needed funding—a

budget shortfall of more than $600 million annually.7

Major NPS Issues in Appropriations

The FY2008 law included language proposed by the House extending the authorization of the

National Park System Advisory Board until January 1, 2009. Board authority expired on January

1, 2007, preventing statutorily required participation in some NPS programs. The law did not

include a transfer of $1.0 million from the Office of the DOI Secretary to park operations to help

fully reopen the Statue of Liberty to park visitors, as had been approved by the House.

The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) grant program has not been funded since

FY2002. The House Appropriations Committee reminded the NPS of its responsibility to enforce

§1010 of the authorizing legislation (16 U.S.C. §2509), generally prohibiting the conversion of

UPARR project sites from public recreational use to other (e.g., commercial) use, regardless of

whether funding is provided (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 46). The FY2008 law provided no

administrative or new grant monies for UPARR.

The Senate committee bill had directed the NPS to keep in force, for the 2007-2008 winter

season, the interim Yellowstone snowmobile use regulations of the past three years. The FY2008

law did not include that language because the NPS issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on winter

use management on November 30, 2007, with implementing regulations expected thereafter.

Lawsuits challenging the ROD did not request preliminary injunctions, allowing local operations

to continue for the 2007-2008 winter season. The Appropriations Committees expressed that this

was in the best interest of all parties (Explanatory Statement, H16130-H16131). The FY2008 law

retained a provision of the Senate committee bill repealing Section 1077(c) of P.L. 109-364 that

had prohibited the NPS from complying with a court-approved agreement to remove nonnative

deer and elk from Santa Rosa Island in the Channel Islands National Park. The provision sought

to resolve a long-running hunting concession controversy.

Operation of the National Park System

The park operations line item is the primary source of funding for the national parks, accounting

for more than 80% of the total NPS budget. The FY2008 law provided $1.97 billion for park

See the website of the National Parks Conservation Association at http://www.npca.org/media_center/reports/

analysis.html.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

operations, $122.2 million above the FY2007 enacted level but less than the Administration’s

request and the Senate committee and House bills. The difference was due in part to a $44.3

million reduction in the enacted level, apparently comprised of a $19.7 million general reduction

and a $24.6 million “offset” for the centennial funding provided separately (see below)

(Explanatory Statement, H16124-H16125). The FY2008 law agreed with the House in

incorporating the Park Police account into the operations line item. See Table 8.

The majority of operations funding is provided directly to park managers. It supports the

activities, programs, and services essential to the day-to-day operations of the park system, and

covers resource protection, visitors’ services, facility operations and maintenance, and park

support programs, as well as such administrative expenses as employee pay, benefits, and other

fixed costs. The FY2008 law provided $1.74 billion for park management, more than enacted for

FY2007 but less than the House, Senate committee, and requested levels. The Administration,

House, and Senate committee had sought relatively large increases for maintenance, visitor

services, and resource stewardship.

Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2007-FY2008

($ in millions)

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

Operation of the National Park System

1,848.4

2,057.1

2,047.8

2,046.8

1,970.6

—Park Management

1,627.6

1,822.3

1,818.1

1,817.1

1,744.5

—Administrative Costs

135.1

146.7

141.6

139.4

—U.S. Park Police

85.2

88.1

86.7

Centennial Challenge (Matching Prog.)

0.0

0.0a

50.0

0.0

24.6

National Recreation and Preservationb

54.4

48.9

62.9

68.5

67.4

Historic Preservation Fundb

65.7

63.7

81.5

75.0

70.4

Construction

297.5

201.6

227.2

218.4

Land and Water Conservation Fundc

-30.0

Land Acquisition and State Assistance

64.0

22.5

99.4

78.7

69.0

—Assistance to States

29.6

0.0

50.0

30.0

24.6

—NPS Acquisition

34.4

22.5

49.4

48.7

44.4

2,300.0d

2,363.8

2,513.2

2,461.4

2,390.3

National Park Service

Total Appropriations

The Administration requested the establishment of a mandatory fund with $100.0 million annually for ten

years, to match nonfederal contributions to the NPS for certain purposes. The fund has not been

authorized to date. This figure reflects that the Administration did not seek funding through annual

appropriations.

For Preserve America, the Senate committee and the FY2008 appropriation reflect funding in the National

Recreation and Preservation line item. The FY2007 appropriation, FY2008 request, and FY2008 House

figures reflect Preserve America funds in Historic Preservation.

Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.

Includes an emergency appropriation of $0.5 million not reflected in the figures above.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

United States Park Police (USPP)

The U.S. Park Police is an urban-oriented, full-service, uniformed law enforcement entity with

primary jurisdiction at park sites within the metropolitan areas of Washington, DC, New York

City, and San Francisco. USPP law enforcement authority extends to all NPS units and to certain

other federal and state lands. The park police provide specialized law enforcement services to

other park units when requested, through deployment of professional police officers to support

law enforcement trained and commissioned park rangers working in park units system-wide. The

FY2008 law provided $86.7 million, $1.5 million above FY2007. The House and Senate

committee bills matched the request of $88.1 million. Increased funding was proposed primarily

for enhanced security at National Mall icons, special events in Washington, DC, and at the Statue

of Liberty in New York. As noted above, the FY2008 law moved the U.S. Park Police to the

Operation of the National Park System line item.

Centennial Challenge

As discussed above, the Administration proposed a three-part National Parks Centennial

Initiative, with additional funding for park operations (presumably included in the request for

park management discussed above), donations, and federal funds to match the donations. The

FY2008 law provided $24.6 million for a signature projects matching program. This is considered

interim funding to initiate the program in 2008, and requires a 50:50 match. The House and

Senate Appropriations Committees expressed an expectation that authorization will be enacted

during the 110th Congress for a ten year program (Explanatory Statement, H16125). The House

had approved $50.0 million to be available for matching donations in FY2008, while the Senate

committee bill provided no money for the program. The Senate committee expressed support for

the concept, but a preference that the authorizing committee address the issue (S.Rept. 110-91, p.

25). The President did not seek an annual appropriation for this purpose, but instead proposed the

establishment of a mandatory program with $100.0 million annually for ten years. This program

has not been authorized to date, and legislation would be required to effect this 10-year

mandatory spending program.

National Recreation and Preservation

This line item funds a variety of park system recreation, natural and cultural resource protection

programs, and an international park affairs office, as well as programs connected with state and

local community efforts to preserve natural and historic resources. The FY2008 law provided

$67.4 million, $18.5 million above the request and $13.0 million more than FY2007. The increase

was partly the result of moving funding for Preserve America ($7.4 million) to this line item from

Historic Preservation. Preserve America was funded at $4.9 million in FY2007, and the Senate

committee originally supported $5.0 million. The Administration and the House had sought $10.0

million for FY2008.

The FY2008 appropriation included $15.3 million for the heritage partnership program that funds

National Heritage Areas (NHAs). NHA funding was $5.3 million more than the request and

$1.9 million above FY2007. For the statutory and contractual aid programs in specific, non-NPS

sites, the FY2008 law allowed $7.5 million, $4.3 million more than FY2007. The Administration

had proposed discontinuing statutory and contractual aid, as proposed (but not enacted) for

FY2005-FY2007.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Construction

The construction line item funds new construction projects, as well as improvements, repair,

rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. The FY2008 law provided $218.4 million for

NPS construction, $79.1 million less than FY2007 and $8.8 million less than the Senate

committee bill but $16.8 million more than the House approved and the Administration requested.

Recent DOI data (March 2007) report an NPS deferred maintenance backlog of $7.9 billion, of

which $4.3 billion is park roads, while another DOI source estimates an NPS backlog (mid-range)

of $9.1 billion for FY2006. (For information on NPS maintenance, see CRS Report RL33484,

National Park Management, coordinated by (name redacted).)

Land Acquisition and State Assistance

FY2008 appropriations for the NPS under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) were

$69.0 million, comprised of $44.4 million for NPS land acquisition and $24.6 million for state

assistance programs. Land acquisition funds are used to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for

inclusion within the National Park System. State assistance is for recreation-related land

acquisition and recreation planning and development by the states, with the appropriated funds

allocated by formula and states determining their spending priorities.

The $44.4 million for NPS land acquisition was $10.0 million above the FY2007 level and nearly

double the Administration’s request of $22.5 million. The House and Senate committee had

sought higher funding levels. The Administration did not seek funds for state assistance from

LWCF, requesting $1.4 million for program administration under National Recreation and

Preservation. The $24.6 million for state assistance was $25.4 million less than the House, $5.4

million less than the Senate, and $5.0 million below the FY2007 enacted level. (For more

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

Historic Preservation

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

activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. §470), such as

restoring historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and

culture. NHPA reauthorization (P.L. 109-235) was enacted on December 22, 2006, and extends

authority to fund the HPF through 2015. The Fund’s preservation grants are normally funded on a

60% federal, 40% state matching share basis. The HPF also includes funding for Save America’s

Treasures grants.

The FY2008 law provided $70.4 million for the HPF, compared to an FY20007 amount of $65.7

million, representing a 7% increase. The FY2007 level included a $10.0 million hurricane

recovery supplemental appropriation. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee

versions of the FY2008 funding bill would have provided $81.5 million and $75.0 million,

respectively. The largest HPF activity, grants to state historic preservation offices, rose 6% from

$37.2 million in FY2007 to $39.4 million for FY2008.

Additional funding was also provided for the Save America’s Treasures and the Preserve America

grant programs, which had been cut from $29.6 million in FY2006 to $13.0 million in FY2007.

The FY2008 law provided $24.6 million for Save America’s Treasures—triple the FY2007 level

of $8.1 million, with over 55% of these funds allocated to congressionally-directed projects.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

While Preserve America funding also was increased, from $4.9 million to $7.4 million, the

program was moved from the HPF to National Recreation and Preservation.

New for FY2008, the Park Service proposed to establish a $5.0 million program to help states and

tribal governments create an integrated inventory of historic properties. Of that amount, $4.0

million would be to fund grants through the HPF and the balance would be provided through

National Recreation and Preservation funding. This proposal was not funded.

For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at http://www.nps.gov/.

For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/.

CRS Report RL33617, Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL33484, National Park Management, coordinated by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL33525, Recreation on Federal Lands, by Kori Calvert, (name redacted), and

(name redacted).

U.S. Geological Survey

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

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

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

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

water resources.

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

seven activities: Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing; Geologic Hazards,

Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research; Enterprise

Information; Science Support; and Facilities. The FY2008 law provided $1.01 billion for the

USGS. This was the first time the USGS budget has been over a billion dollars. This amount was

$31.5 million (3%) over the Administration’s request of $975.0 million, and $18.4 million (2%)

over the FY2007 enacted level of $988.1 million. See Table 9.

Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2007-FY2008

($ in millions)

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Enacted

Enterprise Information

111.8

112.1

110.4

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing

80.2

75.0

80.0

78.5

77.7

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes

237.0

222.1

249.8

243.3

243.5

Water Resources Investigations

214.9

212.5

223.5

224.1

220.5

Biological Research

175.7

181.1

187.1

182.1

179.9

67.8

70.7b

68.7

68.2

67.2

U.S. Geological Survey

Science Support

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Enacted

Facilities

95.4

101.6

100.0

Global Climate Change Research

0.0

10.0

0.0

7.4

988.1a

975.0

1,032.8

1,009.9

1,006.5

U.S. Geological Survey

Total Appropriations

The FY2007 total includes $5.3 million in P.L. 110-28.

This figure includes $2.4 million for the Financial and Business Management System. This amount was not

included in the FY2008 law.

The FY2008 law provided $6.3 million for water resources research institutes and full funding for

the mineral resource assessment program. Funding for these programs was not requested by the

Administration. The law included an increase of $7.4 million for global climate change research,

of which $2.5 million was directed to establish the National Global Warming and Wildlife

Science Center.

Enterprise Information

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

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

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

capital asset planning. The FY2008 law provided 110.4 million for Enterprise Information, which

was $1.7 million below the Administration’s request of $112.1 million and $1.4 million below the

FY2007 level of $111.8 million.

There are three primary programs within Enterprise Information: (1) enterprise information

security and technology, which supports management and operations of USGS

telecommunications (e.g., computing infrastructure and email); (2) enterprise information

resources, which provides policy support, information management, and oversight over

information services; and (3) national geospatial program, which provides operational support

and management for the Federal Geographic Data committee (FGDC). The FGDC is an

interagency, intergovernmental committee that encourages collaboration to make geospatial data

available to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as communities.

Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing

This program aims to provide access to high quality geospatial information to the public. The

FY2008 law provided $77.7 million for this program, which was $2.8 million above the

Administration’s request of $75.0 million, and $2.5 million below the FY2007 level of $80.2

million. Under the Land Remote Sensing subheading, $24.2 million was requested to support the

Landsat Data Continuity Mission, also known as Landsat 8. Landsat 8 is an upcoming satellite

that is to take remotely sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and surrounding coastal areas

primarily for environmental monitoring. The volume of data taken by Landsat 8 is to be four

times greater than its predecessor, Landsat 7, and Landsat 8 is to include additional spectral bands

and higher resolution than Landsat 7 data. The FY2008 law appeared to support the requested

funding level for Landsat 8. The Senate recommendation for a priority ecosystem restoration

program was not included in the FY2008 law.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes

For Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activities, the FY2008 law provided $243.5

million, which is $21.4 million above the Administration’s request, and $6.5 million about the

FY2007 level. This line item covers programs in three activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape

and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments.

The primary reduction sought by the Administration was a $20.1 million cut in the mineral

resources program. According to the Administration, universities or other entities will undertake

assessments and research that support nonfederal needs. In previous years the Administration

requested similar cuts in this program, yet each year funding was provided. The FY2008 law

reinstated funding for this program and the Appropriations Committees referred to the

Administration’s request as irresponsible (Explanatory Statement, H16128).

The FY2008 law contained $85.7 million for the geologic hazards program, $1.6 million above

the Administration’s request. Some of the funds would go towards supporting research and

monitoring on volcanoes, landslides, and earthquakes. The joint explanatory statement states

Congress’s strong support for the multi-hazard initiative.

Water Resources Investigations

The FY2008 law provided $220.5 million for Water Resources Investigations, which was $8.1

million above the Administration’s request of $212.5 million, and $5.6 million above the FY2007

level of $214.9 million. As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2007 budget requests, the

FY2008 request had sought to discontinue USGS support for water resources research institutes

because, according to the Administration, most institutes have succeeded in leveraging sufficient

funding for program activities from non-USGS sources. Nevertheless, the institutes received

funding from FY2002-FY2007, with $5.4 million appropriated for FY2007. The FY2008 law

provided $6.3 million.

The FY2008 law provided $20.1 million for the National Streamflow Information Program

(NSIP), an increase of $3.5 million over the FY2007 enacted level. Funds would be used to

continue the operation of the streamgage network of 7,400 streamgages. Further, they would

allow for several new streamgages to be built and maintained. Through the NSIP, the USGS

collects the streamflow data needed by federal, state, and local agencies for planning, operating

water-resources projects, and regulatory programs.

Biological Research

The Biological Research Program under the USGS generates and distributes information related

to conserving and managing the nation’s biological resources. The FY2008 law provided 179.9

million for the program, $1.2 million below the Administration’s request of $181.1 million and

$4.2 million above the FY2007 level of $175.7 million.

In cooperation with the FWS and other federal and state agencies, the USGS is surveying for the

early detection of avian flu in wild birds, and collecting samples from birds that are known to

migrate through the Russian Far East and Southeast Asia. For 2008, the USGS will continue

sampling birds for avian flu and coordinate with other agencies to address the potential for avian

flu in North America.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Science Support and Facilities

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

managing and disseminating scientific information. The FY2008 law provided $67.2 million for

Science Support, a decrease of $3.5 million from the Administration’s request of $70.7 million

and decrease of $0.6 million from the FY2007 level of $67.8 million

Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair. The FY2008 law provided $100.0

million for Facilities, which is $1.6 million below the Administration’s request and an increase of

$4.5 million above the FY2007 enacted level of $95.4 million.

For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at http://www.usgs.gov/.

Minerals Management Service

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the Offshore Minerals

Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) Program. OMM

administers competitive leasing on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands and oversees production

of offshore oil, gas, other minerals, and offshore alternative energy. MRM collects and disburses

bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal onshore and OCS leases and Indian mineral leases.

Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were collected, the general

fund of the U.S. Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are

allocated among the coastal states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic

Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.

The MMS collected and disbursed about $11.5 billion in revenue in FY2007 from mineral leases

on federal and Indian lands. This amount fluctuates annually based primarily on the prices of oil

and natural gas. Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for

40% to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties have been not more than 25%. However,

in FY2007, oil royalties accounted for about 38.5% of MMS receipts. Other sources of MMS

receipts include rents and bonuses for all leaseable minerals and royalties from coal and other

minerals.

Budget and Appropriations

The FY2008 funding level for MMS was $294.7 million, composed of: $115.9 million in

appropriations; $135.7 million in offsetting collections, which MMS has been retaining since

1994; and $43.0 million in state cost sharing deductions, as had been proposed by the House. This

would be an increase of $6.4 million (2%) over the total funding of $288.2 million in FY2007.

The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended a total MMS budget of $302.1 million,

consisting of a $166.4 million appropriation and $135.7 million in offsetting collections. The

House had approved a total of $295.7 million, but much less funding through the annual

appropriation process. Specifically, the House had included $67.0 million in appropriations,

$135.7 million in offsetting collections, and an “administrative provisions” section resulting in a

$50.0 million deferral for ultra deepwater research and a $43.0 million deduction for state royalty

administrative costs. See Table 10.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Table 10. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service, FY2007-FY2008

($ in millions)

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

—OCS Lands (OMM)

152.8

160.0

159.0

164.9

160.1

—Royalty Management (MRM)

80.1

82.4

81.1

—General Administration

48.5

48.0

48.5

47.2

—Gross, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

281.3

290.8

289.3

295.7

288.4

—Use of Receipts

-128.7

-135.7

Total, Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

Appropriations

152.6

155.0

153.6

159.9

152.6

6.9

6.4

6.3

—Ultra Deepwater Research Deferral

—

-50.0

—

—-

—State Royalty Administrative Cost Deduction

—

-43.0

—

-43.0

159.5

161.5

67.0

166.4

115.9

Minerals Management Service

Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management

Oil Spill Research

Administrative Provisions

Total Appropriations

The FY2008 appropriations law included House-passed language regarding state royalty

administrative costs. The law required the Secretary of the Interior to deduct 2% from the states’

50% share of revenue from onshore federal leases for FY2008. Congress established net receipts

sharing in 1991, which required states to pay for a portion of the administrative costs associated

with managing federal leases in their states. In 2000, P.L. 106-393 ended that requirement and

allowed states to receive their full share of revenue from federal leases within their state.

The FY2008 appropriations law did not include other House-passed language to prevent transfers

of funds into the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum

Research Fund (the Fund). The Fund was created as a mandatory program in the Energy Policy

Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and was authorized to receive $50 million each year from FY2007FY2017 from federal oil and gas leasing receipts. The Administration had proposed both to repeal

the Fund and reintroduce net receipts sharing among states. The House-passed bill reflected

support for the Administration’s proposals through scoring credits, resulting in a $50.0 million

deferral for ultra deepwater research as well as the $43.0 million deduction for state royalty

administrative costs. See Table 10.

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore

Issues not directly tied to specific funding accounts remain controversial. Oil and gas

development moratoria in the OCS along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, parts of Alaska, and the

Gulf of Mexico have been in place since 1982, as a result of public laws and executive orders of

the President. However, Congress enacted separate legislation (P.L. 109-432) to open part of the

Gulf of Mexico (about 5.8 million acres) previously under the moratoria, but the law places

nearly all of the eastern Gulf under a leasing moratorium until 2022. The law also contains

revenue sharing provisions for selected coastal states. Two areas—Bristol Bay (AK) and

Virginia—contained in the MMS Proposed Final Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

(2007-2012) remain controversial. Bristol Bay was removed from the congressional moratoria,

while oil and gas leasing off Virginia remains under the moratoria. The new five-year program

took effect July 1, 2007. (For more information, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental

Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by (name redacted).)

The FY2008 appropriations law did not contain House-passed language barring funds in the bill

from being used for new leases for those holding leases under the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act

of 1995 without price thresholds. The Appropriations Committees expressed continued

commitment to this issue and the expectation that the authorizing committees would complete

action on this matter (Explanatory Statement, H16130). The Senate Appropriations Committee

had rejected bill language that would have prohibited the government from issuing new offshore

leases to companies holding deepwater leases without price thresholds.

Royalty relief for OCS oil and gas producers also was debated during consideration of FY2007

Interior appropriations. On February 13, 2006, the New York Times reported that the MMS would

not collect royalties on leases awarded in 1998 and 1999 because no price threshold was included

in the lease agreements during those two years. Without the price thresholds, producers may

produce oil and gas up to specified volumes without paying royalties no matter what the price.

The MMS asserts that placing price thresholds in the lease agreements is at the discretion of the

Secretary of the Interior. However, according to the MMS, the price thresholds were omitted by

mistake during 1998 and 1999.8

On January 18, 2007, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6) that would deny new Gulf of Mexico

leases to those holding leases without price thresholds or payment or an agreement to pay a

“conservation of resources” fee that would be established by H.R. 6. DOI has asserted that the

House-passed bill could lead to legal challenges which could delay oil and gas development in

the Gulf of Mexico. The Department also suggested that Congress offer the lessees a three-year

extension to their leases as an incentive to amend the leases to include price thresholds. The

House-passed language was not enacted in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

(P.L. 110-140).9

During consideration of FY2008 Interior appropriations, the House considered other amendments

related to the OCS. An amendment which would have lifted the OCS moratoria for natural gas

leasing and development beyond 25 miles from the coastline was defeated. Related amendments

to open the OCS for oil and gas drilling beyond 100 miles of the coastline and to open the entire

OCS currently under the moratoria were defeated.

For FY2008, the Appropriations Committees provided direction related to drilling in the North

Aleutian Basin Planning Area, also known as Bristol Bay (Explanatory Statement, H16128). They

expressed that drilling in that area should be conducted only after the availability of detailed

studies and information. They directed MMS and other scientific bodies to document oil spill

containment and responses to accidents. Further, the MMS was required to complete a 2½–3 year

pre-sale and NEPA process including the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

before proceeding with the North Aleutian Basin sale.

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

For more information, see CRS Report RS22567, Royalty Relief for U.S. Deepwater Oil and Gas Leases, by (name

redacted) and CRS Report RL33974, Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating

Incentives for Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price Thresholds, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Another challenge confronting the MMS is to ensure that its audit and compliance program is

consistently effective. Critics contend that less auditing and more focus on compliance review has

led to a less rigorous royalty collection system and thus a loss of revenue to the federal Treasury.

DOI’s Inspector General (IG) has made recommendations to strengthen and improve

administrative controls of the Compliance and Asset Management Program (CAM). Further, DOI

established an independent panel to review the MMS Mineral Leasing Program. The review

included an examination of the Royalty-in-Kind Program which has grown significantly over the

past three years—from 41.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) sold in 2004 to 112 million

BOE sold in 2007.10 The House Appropriations Committee, in report language on the FY2008

bill, expressed concern about IG reports on the need for more and better audits, and directed

MMS to report on corrective actions it is taking (H.Rept. 110-187, p. 58).

Oil and gas leasing in offshore California also has continued to be a controversial issue. Under

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. §1451-64) (CZMA),

development of federal offshore leases must be consistent with state coastal zone management

plans. In 1999, MMS extended the terms of 36 leases in offshore California by granting

suspensions of the leases’ five-year terms. A suspension extends the term of the lease, to allow the

lessee to facilitate development. 11 The state of California sued, contending that MMS should have

made a consistency determination showing that the lease suspensions were consistent with

California’s coastal management plan before issuing the suspensions. In June 2001, the U.S.

Court for the Northern District of California agreed with the state of California and struck down

the lease suspensions.12 MMS appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

However, in December 2002, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court decision. 13

Following this ruling, nine oil company lessees brought breach of contract claims against MMS

seeking restitution for “bonus payments” made to MMS in order to obtain and suspend their

leases in offshore California. In November 2005, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the

federal government breached its contract with the lessees when it enacted the amendments to the

CZMA in 1990 that, according to the decisions described above, required lease suspensions to be

evaluated for consistency with a state’s coastal management plan.14 The Court reasoned that the

lessees had not bargained for the more extensive consistency determination requirements to be

applied to suspension requests when the leases were signed, and that therefore the legislation

creating these new requirements amounted to breach of the leases. 15 The government was ordered

to repay the lessees for all so-called “bonus payments” made to the government in exchange for

the leases.16

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

http://www.mms.gov.

The report of the panel, Mineral Revenue Collection from Federal and Indian Lands and the Outer Continental Shelf,

is available on the MMS website at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/RoyPC/PdFDocs/RPCRMS1207.pdf.

The regulations on suspension are at 30 C.F.R §250.168.

California v. Norton, 150 F.Supp.2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2002)01-16637.

Amber Resources Co. v. U.S., 68 Fed. Cl. 535 (2005).

Id. at 546-48.

Id. at 560. The lessees continued to pursue further recovery under other breach of contract theories. These matters

remain unsettled. See Amber Resources Corp. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 738 (2006).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

CRS Report RL33974, Legal Issues Raised by Provision in House Energy Bill (H.R. 6) Creating

Incentives for Certain OCS Leaseholders to Accept Price Thresholds, by (name redacted) and (name

redacted).

CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue

Sharing, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RS22567, Royalty Relief for U.S. Deepwater Oil and Gas Leases, 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. However, coal mining is an old activity in the United States, and at the time

SMCRA was enacted there was a large inventory of abandoned mine sites that no company could

be held accountable to reclaim. To address this problem, SMCRA established an Abandoned Mine

Land (AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites that posed

serious health or safety hazards. The law provided that individual states and Indian tribes would

develop their own regulatory programs incorporating minimum standards established by law and

regulations. Reclamation in states with no approved programs is directed by OSM.

Historically, AML collections have been divided up and assigned to different accounts, some of

which fall into a federal designation allocated to individual states based upon their ranking in

historical coal production. A portion of fee collections also has been credited to a state share

account. Grants to states and tribes for reclamation have been awarded after applying a formula to

annual congressional appropriations from the AML fund. Grants to a state or tribe would draw on

both that state’s federal-share and state-share accounts. Collections have exceeded appropriations

for a number of years. The total unappropriated balance—including both federal and state share

accounts in the AML fund—was over $1.95 billion by the end of FY2006, of which

approximately $1.2 billion was in the state-share accounts.

As coal production has shifted westward, western states have paid more into the fund. These

states have contended that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation

burden because the great majority of the sites requiring remediation are in the East.17 Several

states were pressing for increases in the AML appropriations, with an eye on those unappropriated

balances in the state-share accounts.

The Tax Relief and Health Care Act (P.L. 109-432) reauthorized AML fee collections through

FY2021, and also made significant changes in the procedures for disbursing grants. Grants will be

funded by permanent appropriations from the AML fund and the general fund of the U. S.

Treasury. All the revenues paid to the fund during a given fiscal year will be returned during the

fiscal year that follows.18 Under the restructuring, the balances in the state- and tribal-share

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.

The permanent appropriation has a ceiling of $490 million annually. If demands on that money, which include annual

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

accounts will be returned to all states and tribes in seven annual installments paid with general

Treasury funds.19

States and tribes are categorized as “Certified” or “Uncertified,” and distributions to each differ.

Certified states are those that have reclaimed the most serious sites, while uncertified states have

not yet done so. Beginning in FY2008, and over a period of seven years, certified states will

receive equal installments of the unappropriated balances in their state-share accounts as of the

end of FY2006. Additionally, they will receive whatever grants they would be entitled to based

upon application of the distribution formula to both prior year collections and that state’s

entitlement based upon its historic coal production.20 Beginning with fees collected during

FY2008, the amounts that would have been deposited to certified states’ state-share accounts

will instead be credited to the federal-share account representing historical coal production.

Certified states will not receive this allocation in their annual grants after FY2008. This is

intended to have the effect of increasing the pool of money available for distribution to

uncertified states in future years.

The level of grants distributed to uncertified states will be based upon their proportionate

entitlement from the historical coal production account (which, as just noted, will hold more

money than under the old system), as well as the amount that would have otherwise been

deposited to the state-share account.21

Owing to the establishment of the permanent appropriation, the FY2008 OSM budget request was

sharply lower than the FY2007 level. Overall, the FY2008 budget request for OSM totaled

$168.3 million in discretionary spending, a reduction of $126.3 million (43%) from the FY2007

level of $294.6 million. However, due to the restructuring of the program to provide for

repayment of the unappropriated state balances from Treasury funds, one cannot make a direct

comparison between the FY2007 appropriated level for OSM and the FY2008 levels.

In FY2008, some activities will remain subject to annual appropriations. Among these are the

expenses of federal AML programs in states with no OSM-approved reclamation programs, an

emergency reclamation program, OSM administrative expenses, and the Clean Streams program.

The agency budget also has an additional component—regulatory and technology programs.

The FY2008 appropriations law provided a total of $118.5 million for Regulation and Technology

and $52.0 million for the AML fund. The total appropriation of $170.4 million for the Office of

Surface Mining is roughly $2.1 million (1%) higher than the Administration’s request.

(...continued)

payments to the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, would exceed the cap, distributions will be

proportional.

Added to these totals will be any money needed to fund minimum program states. These states have sites remaining

with serious problems. However, these states also have insufficient levels of current coal production to generate

significant fees to the AML fund. Each minimum program state is to receive $1.5 million annually.

Payments will be ramped up. For the first three years, certified states will receive 25%, 50%, and 75% of the amount

the state would receive under the restructured program.

An allocation of fee collections under the old program to the Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) is

discontinued by P.L. 109-432, which transfers the RAMP balances to the fund pool representing state historical coal

production. Whether or not fee collections are reauthorized beyond FY2021, mandatory distributions will continue so

long as money remains in the AML fund.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

As is summarized in Table 11, there was, in fact, no wide disparity in the funding levels

recommended by the House and the Senate committee on Appropriations. The House had

approved a $1.9 million boost to Regulation and Technology, an addition of 2%, over the

Administration’s request for $115.5 million. The additional funds were intended for

environmental protection activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $121.5

million, an increase of $6.0 million above the Administration’s request. The increase was to

include additional funds to match state costs for the conduct of regulatory programs intended to

minimize impacts of coal extraction on local environments and populations. Both the full House

and the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the Administration request of $52.8

million for AML. In total, the House approved $170.2 million for OSM, $1.9 million (1%) over

the Administration’s request and $124.5 million (42%) below FY2007. The Senate Committee on

Appropriations recommended a total of $174.3 million for OSM, $6.0 million (4%) over the

Administration’s request and $120.3 million (41%) below FY2007.

Table 11. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, FY2007-FY2008

($ in millions)

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

Regulation and Technology

109.2

115.5

117.3

121.5

118.5

—Environmental Protection

78.7

83.8

85.9

89.8

87.4

Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund

185.4

52.8

52.0

Total Appropriations

294.6

168.3

170.2

174.3

170.4

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

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).

Bureau of Indian Affairs

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally recognized

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and historically has been the lead

agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs provided or funded through the BIA include

government operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education,

roads, economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights

protection, implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust assets (real estate

and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.

BIA’s direct appropriations were $2.31 billion in FY2007. For FY2008, the Consolidated

Appropriations Act provided $2.29 billion for the BIA, a decrease of $17.0 million (1%) from

FY2007. The Administration had proposed $2.23 billion for FY2008, the House had approved

$2.35 billion, and the Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended $2.27 billion. The

FY2008 enacted amount for the BIA was $62.4 million (3%) more than the Administration’s

proposal, $55.7 million (2%) less than the House amount, and $25.6 million (1%) more than the

Senate committee’s recommendation. See Table 12 for more detailed BIA appropriations figures.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Key issues for the BIA include education programs—including the Administration’s proposals to

increase education management spending, eliminate funding for the Johnson-O’Malley program

and tribal technical colleges, and reduce education construction—as well as BIA law enforcement

and housing programs, and the Interior Department’s process for acknowledging Indian tribes.

Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2007-FY2008

($ in thousands)

Bureau of Indian Affairs

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

Operation of Indian Programs

Tribal Government

392,261

397,698

403,009

406,398

399,862

—Johnson-O’Malley Grantsa

7,700

5,311

7,700

N/A

—Housing Improvement Programb

4,266

N/A

143,628

149,628

147,294

144,824

120,703

146,548

134,128

139,339

—Welfare Assistance

80,179

74,164

80,179

77,164

78,928

—Housing Improvement Programb

18,824

18,830

9,425

13,614

Trust - Natural Resources Management

145,238

141,684

152,684

147,489

147,157

Trust - Real Estate Services

144,073

150,722

151,722

148,371

—Probate

15,884

19,883

N/A

—Real Estate Services

43,510

47,964

48,964

N/A

—Land Records Improvement

7,897

16,065

N/A

657,912

660,540

699,040

685,540

689,611

—Elementary/ Secondary (ForwardFunded)

458,310

476,500

487,500

476,500

479,895

—ISEP Formula Funds

351,817

364,020

N/A

—Elementary/ Secondary [Other]

60,390

61,803

69,803

74,620

—Johnson-O’Malley Grantsa

12,000

16,500

8,000

N/A

108,619

98,520

109,520

115,520

111,749

—Tribal Colleges and Universities

54,721

59,721

N/A

—Tribal Colls. and Univs.

Supplements to Grantsc

4,588

1,292

N/A

—Tribal Technical Collegesc

2,004

6,000

N/A

18,593

23,717

23,347

Public Safety and Justice

217,611

233,818

250,018

237,818

243,657

—Law Enforcement

204,454

221,753

231,753

225,753

228,138

58,678

65,038

67,038

N/A

12,013

12,065

17,065

12,065

14,338

42,234

39,061

47,339

39,061

39,436

—Contract Support Costs

Human Services

Bureau of Indian Education

—Post Secondary Programs

—Education Management

—Detention/Corrections

—Tribal Courts

Community and Economic Development

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

Executive Direction and Administrative Services

244,070

246,692

244,185

240,376

—Office of Federal Acknowledgment

1,900

2,900

1,900

N/A

—Information Resources Technology

53,199

53,704

N/A

1,988,223

1,990,918

2,093,545

2,046,341

2,047,809

204,956

139,844

145,200

125,029

142,935

—Replacement School Construction

83,891

14,815

N/A

—Replacement Facility Construction

26,873

22,578

N/A

—Education Facilities Improvement and

Repair

92,219

100,834

105,834

100,834

N/A

Public Safety and Justice Construction

11,605

11,621

14,621

11,621

14,393

—Law Enforcement Facilities

Improvement and Repair

8,103

8,111

11,111

8,111

N/A

Resources Management Construction

45,125

37,916

39,916

37,916

38,309

General Administration Construction and

Construction Management

10,137

8,246

N/A

Subtotal, Construction

271,823

197,627

207,983

179,012d

203,754

Land and Water Claim Settlements and

Miscellaneous Payments

42,000

34,069

39,136

34,069

33,538

Indian Guaranteed Loan Program

6,258

6,276

6,178

2,308,304

2,228,890

2,346,940

2,265,698

2,291,279

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Subtotal, Operation of Indian Programs

Construction

Education Construction

Total Appropriations

Note: N/A = Not available.

The Johnson O’Malley program is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and Bureau of

Indian Education.

The Housing Improvement Program is split between two budget activities, Tribal Government and Human

Services.

Of the FY2007 amount for Tribal Colleges and Universities Supplements to Grants, $3.3 million is for tribal

technical colleges.

Reflects a rescission of $3.8 million of unobligated prior year balances.

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Programs22

BIE funds an elementary-secondary school system and higher education programs. The BIE

school system comprises 184 BIE-funded schools and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000

structures, educating about 46,000 students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under

self-determination contracts and other grants, operate 123 of these institutions; the BIE operates

In August 2006, the BIA’s administrative office for its education programs was removed from the BIA, made a

parallel agency under the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). BIE

appropriations remain within BIA appropriations.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

the remainder. The BIE operates two postsecondary schools and provides grants to 26 tribally

controlled colleges and two tribally controlled technical colleges. Key problems for the BIEfunded school system are low student achievement, the high proportion of schools failing to make

adequate yearly progress (AYP), and the large number of inadequate school facilities.

Proposed Indian Education Initiative

The Administration proposed a nearly $15-million initiative in FY2008 to enhance education at

BIE-funded schools. BIE’s forward-funded elementary and secondary budget activity would

receive $9.6 million of the new program funds; these funds would be used to improve

instructional resources (especially through teacher development and principal training) at BIE

schools being restructured to meet AYP goals ($5.3 million), and to increase operation and

maintenance funds for student transportation ($4.3 million). The remaining $5.3 million of the

initiative would go to BIE’s education management budget activity, to add education and

administrative specialists at education line offices ($4.0 million) and maintain BIE’s new student

and school information system ($1.2 million). Both the full House and the Senate Appropriations

Committee approved these initiatives, but the House approved an additional $7.0 million for

meeting AYP goals and an additional $1.0 million for student transportation. The amount of

appropriations enacted for FY2008 for the education initiative is being determined through the

OMB report under §437 of the Interior portion of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.

Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Program

The JOM program provides supplementary education assistance grants for tribes and public

schools to benefit Indian students, and is funded in two budget activities, Tribal Government and

BIE. In FY2007, JOM was funded at $7.7 million in the Tribal Government activity and $12.0

million in the BIE activity. The Administration proposed no funding for this program in FY2008,

asserting that Department of Education programs under Titles I (education of the disadvantaged)

and VII (Indian education) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 23 provide funds for

the same purposes, and that the funds should be used for BIE-funded schools. Opponents disagree

that the Education Department programs can replace what they see as JOM’s culturally relevant

programs. The House Appropriations Committee rejected the Administration’s proposal to end

JOM funding in FY2008, stating that the Administration’s argument has not been substantiated

(H.Rept. 110-187, p. 70). For FY2008, the House approved $5.3 million under Tribal

Government and $16.5 million under BIE for JOM. The Senate committee recommended $7.7

million under Tribal Government and $8.0 million under BIE. The amount enacted for JOM by

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, under the Tribal Government budget activity, is being

determined through the OMB report under §437. The act’s explanatory statement specified $14.0

million for JOM under BIE, before an across-the-board rescission of 1.56% for discretionary

programs.

Tribal Technical Colleges

There are two tribal technical (or vocational) colleges, one in North Dakota (United Tribes

Technical College) and one on the Navajo Reservation (Navajo Technical College, formerly

Crownpoint Institute of Technology). Both colleges are statutorily excluded from the BIE tribal

These sections are contained in 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. and 20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. respectively.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

colleges and universities assistance program,24 but the two are the only colleges receiving grants

under the Education Department’s Carl Perkins Act program for tribally controlled vocational

colleges. 25 The BIE has for several years sought to end its funding for the two technical colleges,

asserting that they receive adequate funding from the Perkins Act and other Education

Department higher education programs and that the funds are needed more at the 26 tribal

colleges and universities. Congress has not agreed to the Administration’s recommendation. The

tribal technical colleges received a total of $5.3 million in FY2007, split between the BIA’s

Community Development budget activity and the BIE’s Post Secondary Programs budget

subactivity. The Administration proposed no funding for tribal technical colleges in FY2008, but

neither the full House nor the Senate committee agreed. The House approved, and the Senate

committee recommended, $6.0 million for tribal technical colleges, all in the BIE Post Secondary

Programs budget subactivity. The explanatory statement on the FY2008 Act agreed, specifying

$6.0 million for the two tribal technical colleges (without the rescission).

Education Construction

Many BIE school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. BIA

education construction covers both construction of new school facilities to replace facilities that

cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair of existing facilities. Schools are replaced or

repaired according to priority lists. Table 12 shows education construction funds. For FY2008,

the Administration had proposed reducing the appropriation for education construction by $65.1

million (32%). Included was a reduction of $69.1 million (82%) for construction of replacement

schools, leaving $14.8 million for two new replacement schools. The Administration asserted that

construction and repairs since 2001 have reduced the proportion of BIE facilities in bad condition

from about 66% to 31%, and that the BIA needed to focus on completing replacement schools

funded in prior years. Opponents of a reduction contend that a large proportion of BIA schools

still need replacement or major repairs and thus funding should not be cut.

The FY2008 appropriations law supported a significant reduction for education construction. It

contained the House-passed level of $145.2 million, reduced to $142.9 million after the

rescission. This was a reduction of $62.0 million (30%) from the FY2007 level of $205.0 million.

The amounts enacted for replacement school construction and other education construction

activities are being determined through the OMB report under §437. The act’s explanatory

statement also approved the BIE plan to complete existing school construction and alleviate

current construction shortfalls before beginning new school construction projects. While the

House had approved $145.2 million for education construction, the Senate Appropriations

Committee had recommended $125.0 million. The Senate committee had recommended no

funding for replacement school construction, stating that the BIA informed them that 15

replacement school construction projects (of 18 total) had funding shortfalls, totaling $143

million overall, and that the Committee believed it imprudent to start new projects until the BIA

presented a plan to address the shortfalls (S.Rept. 110-91, p. 39).

The tribal colleges and universities assistance statute limits the number of eligible tribally controlled colleges to one

per tribe (25 U.S.C. 1801(a)(4)).

The provision for tribally controlled vocational institutions is at 20 U.S.C. 2327.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Law Enforcement Program

BIA and Justice Department figures show rising crime rates, methamphetamine use, and juvenile

gang activity on some Indian reservations. The federal government has lead jurisdiction over

major criminal offenses on most Indian reservations, although in some states federal law has

transferred criminal jurisdiction to the state. Tribes share jurisdiction but under federal law tribal

courts have limited sentencing options. In general, tribes have fewer law enforcement resources.

The BIA funds most law enforcement, jails, and courts in Indian country, whether operated by

tribes or the BIA. For FY2008 the Administration proposed a “Safe Indian Communities

Initiative” involving a $17.3 million total increase (8%) in BIA law enforcement funding, to

$221.8 million. Included in the initiative were $5.4 million for additional officers, equipment, and

training; $6.4 million to increase staffing at detention and corrections facilities, a need identified

in a 2004 Interior Inspector General report; and $5.4 million for specialized drug enforcement

training, especially regarding methamphetamine. Indian tribes and supporters, estimating a 42%

shortfall in law enforcement staffing, suggested the Administration’s initiative was insufficient for

adequate policing on reservations26 and may not have been sufficient to handle the

methamphetamine problem.

For BIA law enforcement, the FY2008 appropriations law included the House-passed level of

$231.8 million, reduced to $228.1 million after the rescission. This was a $23.7 million increase

(12%) over the FY2007 level of $204.5 million. The amounts enacted for specific activities are

being determined through the OMB report under §437. The Appropriations Committees directed

the BIA to use all available existing authorities to increase law enforcement and criminal

prosecutions, and to allocate the funding increases for tribal law enforcement outside the usual

methodology in order to serve areas with the greatest need, especially remote reservations.

The House total of $231.8 million included $9.5 million over the Administration’s request to

combat methamphetamine abuse. The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended

$225.8 million for BIA law enforcement. The Committee did not include funds specifically for

methamphetamine abuse, but instead increased funding for criminal investigations and for

detention/corrections by $2.0 million each over the requested and House-approved amounts. The

Senate committee also required the BIA to report on the needs of BIA- and tribally operated

detention facilities for staffing, operation and maintenance, and improvement and repairs (S.Rept.

110-91, p. 38).

For tribal courts, the FY2008 appropriations law provided $14.3 million, which was a $2.3

million (19%) increase over the FY2007 level of $12.0 million. The Administration had proposed

a small increase (0.4%), to $12.1 million, while Indian tribes and supporters urged greater

funding. The House had approved $17.1 million for tribal courts, while the Senate committee had

recommended $12.1 million.

Housing Improvement Program (HIP)

The major federal Indian housing program is the Indian Housing Block Grant administered by the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which funds all types of housing. BIA’s

Testimony of Jefferson Keel, National Congress of American Indians, “NCAI Testimony on the Administration’s

Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request for Indian Programs,” presented at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs committee,

Feb. 15, 2007, p. 3; available at http://indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Keel021507.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

HIP, an older and much smaller program, focuses on urgently needed repairs, renovations, or

modest new houses, on or near reservations, especially for the neediest families. BIA has

considered HIP a safety net for those not eligible for or not served by the HUD program. Total

HIP funding was $23.1 million in FY2007, split between the Tribal Government budget activity

($4.3 million) and the Human Services activity ($18.8 million). The Administration proposed

eliminating HIP for FY2008, contending that its recipients are not statutorily barred from the

HUD program, that it serves a limited number of tribes, and that other BIA programs are of

higher priority. Indian tribes and supporters opposed the elimination of HIP, asserting that HIP

meets a great need for rehabilitation of substandard housing, and questioning whether the HUD

program could fill the need for urgent housing repairs.

The FY2008 appropriations law contained $13.6 million for HIP for FY2008. The House had

declined to end HIP, approving $18.8 million in FY2008 in the Human Services budget activity

only, a slight increase ($6,000, or less than 1%) from the FY2007 Human Services portion, but a

decrease of $4.3 million from total HIP funding in FY2007. The House Appropriations

Committee directed the BIA and HUD to evaluate HIP’s effectiveness and determine whether HIP

and its eligibility criteria could be integrated into existing HUD programs (H.Rept. 110-187, p.

69). The Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended $9.4 million for HIP.

Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Process

Federal recognition brings an Indian tribe unique benefits, including partial sovereignty,

jurisdictional powers, and eligibility for federal Indian programs. Tribes have been acknowledged

in many ways, but it was not until 1978 that the Interior Department established a regulatory

process for acknowledgment decisions (25 CFR 83).27 First located within the BIA, the

recognition office is now in the office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, as the Office of

Federal Acknowledgment (OFA). OFA employs teams of expert ethnohistorians, genealogists,

and anthropologists to consider recognition petitions. The OFA process has been frequently

criticized for taking too long, one reason for which is a lack of resources.28 For FY2007, OFA

received $1.9 million within the Executive Direction budget activity, which funds the Assistant

Secretary’s office. The Administration requested, and the Senate committee recommended, the

same amount for FY2008. The House approved an amendment to designate an additional $1.0

million for OFA in FY2008, bringing OFA’s total to $2.9 million within the Assistant Secretary’s

office. The House’s goal was to add several teams of experts to increase the number of decisions

on recognition petitions. The FY2008 appropriations law provided $240.4 million for the

Executive Direction budget activity, within which OFA is funded, but the specific amount for

OFA is being determined through the OMB report under §437.

For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Education, see its website

at http://www.oiep.bia.edu.

For further information on the BIA acknowledgment process, see CRS Report RS21109, The Bureau of Indian

Affairs's Process for Recognizing Groups as Indian Tribes, by (name redacted).

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Indian Issues: Improvements Needed in Tribal Recognition Process (GAO-0249, November 2001), and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Indian Issues: Timeliness of the Tribal Recognition

Process Has Improved, But It Will Take Years to Clear the Existing Backlog of Petitions (GAO-05-347T, February

2005).

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

CRS Report RL34205, Federal Indian Elementary-Secondary Education Programs: Background

and Issues, by (name redacted).

Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs29

Office of Insular Affairs

The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial assistance to four insular areas—American

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands—as well as three former insular areas—the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the

Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of Palau. OIA staff manage relations

between each jurisdiction and the federal government and work to build the fiscal and

governmental capacity of units of local government.

Most of OIA’s budget is not subject to the annual appropriations process. Specifically, $324.1

million in OIA’s FY2008 budget request represented permanent and indefinite funding required

by statutes that provide various forms of financial assistance to current and former U.S.

territories. In the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, OIA received $83.1 million in

annually appropriated funds. That amount exceeded by $1.6 million (2%) the $81.5 million

enacted in FY2007. The $83.1 million is divided into two accounts: Assistance to Territories (AT)

and Compact of Free Association (CFA). AT funding provides grants for the operation of the

government of American Samoa, infrastructure improvement projects on many of the insular area

islands, and specified natural resource initiatives. The CFA account provides federal assistance to

the freely associated states pursuant to compact agreements negotiated with the U.S. government.

In FY2008, OIA will receive $77.8 million in AT funding (with the rescission), and $5.3 million

in CFA appropriations (with the rescission).

In both the AT and CFA accounts, approved funding levels remained largely consistent across the

House, Senate committee, and enacted appropriations bills for FY2008. The FY2008

appropriations law designated $70.1 million in AT funding (without the rescission) for technical

and maintenance assistance, disaster assistance, brown tree snake control and research, judiciary

grants in American Samoa, other grants to individual territories, and other territorial assistance.

Of the remaining AT funding, $8.5 million (without the rescission) was designated for OIA

salaries and expenses. The law specified conditions for release of AT funding, such as

Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits, and specified grants to the Northern Mariana

Islands, the Pacific Basin Development Council, and the Close Up Foundation. OIA funding has

been the subject of little congressional debate in recent years.

For additional information on Insular Affairs, see its website at http://www.doi.gov/oia/

index.html.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT)

For FY2008, the appropriation for PILT was $228.9 million, a drop of $3.6 million (2%) from the

FY2007 level of $232.5 million and 62.5% of the authorized amount. The Administration had

This section addresses selected activities/offices that fall under Departmental Offices or Department-Wide Programs.

Total funding for these entities is identified in Table 24 at the end of this report.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

requested $190.0 million for PILT, down $42.5 million (18%) from FY2007. The

Administration’s request would have provided approximately 51.9% of the authorized amount.

See Table 13.

The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their jurisdictions

which cannot be taxed. Since the beginning of the program in 1976, payments of more than $3.6

billion have been made. The PILT program has been controversial, because in recent years the

payment formula, which was indexed for inflation in 1994, has increased authorization levels.

However, appropriations have grown less rapidly, and substantially slower than authorized

amounts, ranging from 42% to 68% of authorized levels between FY2000 and FY2007.30 See

Table 13. County governments claim that the program as a whole does not provide funding

comparable to property taxes, and that rural areas in particular need additional PILT funds to

provide the kinds of services that counties with more private land are able to provide.

Table 13. Authorized and Appropriated Levels for Payments in Lieu of Taxes,

FY2000-FY2008

($ in millions)

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

358.3

232.5

64.9

2008 Request

366.2

190.0

51.9

2008 House Passed

366.2

252.7

69.0

2008 Senate Committee

366.2

232.5

63.5

P.L. 110-161

366.2

228.9

62.5

Notes: The FY2008 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, if only marginally. PILT payment levels

could become particularly difficult to predict in the future, depending on the enactment of legislation to amend

the Secure Rural Schools program. Some versions of this legislation would offer counties the choice of this

program’s payments or PILT payments. (See CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties, by (name redacted).)

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

authorized amount.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

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).

CRS Report RL33822, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of

2000: Forest Service Payments to Counties, by (name redacted).

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians

The Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST), in the Secretary of the Interior’s

office, was authorized by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of

1994 (25 U.S.C. §§4001, et seq.). The OST generally oversees the reform of Interior Department

management of Indian trust assets, establishment of an adequate trust fund management system,

and support of department claims settlement activities related to the trust funds. OST also

manages Indian funds directly. Indian trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in 1996

the Secretary transferred trust fund management to the OST.

Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by

about 300 tribes in approximately 1,450 accounts, with a total asset value of about $2.9 billion;

and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about

323,000 accounts with a current total asset value of about $400 million.31 The funds include

monies received from claims awards, land or water rights settlements, and other one-time

payments, and from income from land-based trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as

from investment income.

OST’s FY2007 appropriation was $223.3 million. For FY2008, the Consolidated Appropriations

Act provided $189.3 million for the OST, a decrease of $33.9 million (15%) from FY2007. The

Administration had proposed $196.2 million for FY2008, the House had approved $192.5

million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended $195.9 million. See Table

14. Key issues for the OST are an historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation

involving tribal and IIM accounts.

Table 14. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,

FY2007-FY2008

($ in thousands)

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

Federal Trust Programs

189,251

186,158

182,542

185,947

179,487

—Historical Accounting Office

56,384

60,000

56,384

60,000

55,504

Indian Land Consolidation

34,006

10,000

9,844

Total Appropriations

223,257

196,158

192,542

195,947

189,331

Office of Special Trustee for

American Indians

Figures are derived from the OST FY2008 Budget Justification.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Historical Accounting

For FY2008, the Administration and the Senate Appropriations Committee supported $60.0

million for historical accounting activities, an increase of 5% over FY2007. The House had

approved $56.4 million, the same as FY2007 and $3.6 million (6%) below the Administration’s

proposal. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act limited historical accounting to no more

than $56.4 million; the rescission reduced this amount to $55.5 million, $0.9 million (2%) less

than FY2007. The historical accounting effort seeks to assign correct balances to all tribal and

IIM accounts, especially because of litigation. Because of the long historical period to be covered

(some accounts date from the 19th century), the large number of IIM accounts, and the large

number of missing account documents, an historical accounting based on actual account

transactions is expected to be large and time-consuming. In 2003, DOI proposed an extensive,

five-year, $335 million project to reconcile IIM accounts. The plan has been revised to reflect

ongoing experience and to add additional accounts. The project seeks to reconcile all transactions

for certain types of accounts and all land-based transactions of $5,000 and over, but uses a

statistical sampling approach to reconcile land-based transactions of less than $5,000. OST

continues to follow this plan, subject to court rulings (see “Litigation,” below) or congressional

actions, and now estimates its completion in FY2011.

Plaintiffs in the Cobell litigation (discussed below) consider the statistical sampling technique

invalid. Tribal trust fund and accounting suits have been filed for over 300 tribes. Most of the

tribal suits were filed at the end of 2006, because the statute of limitations on such claims expired

then. OST has been allocating about $40 million of its historical accounting expenditures to IIM

accounts and the remainder to tribal accounts. In the past, the House Appropriations Committee

has expressed its intent to limit expenditures for historical accounting, asserting it reduces

spending on other Indian programs.

Litigation

An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Kempthorne) was filed in 1996, in the federal

district court for the District of Columbia, against the federal government by IIM account

holders.32 Many OST activities are related to the Cobell case, including litigation support

activities. The most significant issue for appropriations concerns the method for the historical

accounting to estimate IIM accounts’ proper balances. The DOI estimated its method would cost

$335 million over five years and produce a total owed to IIM accounts in the low millions. The

plaintiffs’ method, based on estimated rates of errors applied to an agreed-upon figure for IIM

throughput, was estimated to produce a total owed to IIM accounts of as much as $177 billion,

depending on the error rate used.

After a lengthy trial, the court, on September 25, 2003, rejected both the plaintiffs’ and DOI’s

historical accounting plans and ordered DOI to account for all trust fund and asset transactions

since 1887, without using statistical sampling. DOI estimated that the court’s choice for historical

accounting would cost $6 billion-$12 billion, and appealed the order. The U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia temporarily stayed the September 25 order and, on December 10,

2004, overturned much of the order. On February 23, 2005, however, the district court issued an

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.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

order on historical accounting very similar to its September 2003 order, requiring that an

accounting cover all trust fund and asset transactions since 1887 and not use statistical sampling.

The DOI, which estimated that compliance with the new order would cost $12-$13 billion,33

appealed the new order. The Appeals Court on November 15, 2005, vacated the district court’s

February 2005 order. The district court has not issued another order, and the OST continues its

historical accounting under its September 2003 plan. In 2006 the D.C. Circuit assigned a new

judge to the Cobell case. In October 2007 the judge held hearings on DOI’s historical accounting

obligations, methodology, and results.

Congress has long been concerned that the current and potential costs of the Cobell lawsuit may

jeopardize DOI trust reform implementation, reduce spending on other Indian programs, and be

difficult to fund. Besides the ongoing expenses of the litigation, possible costs include $12-$13

billion for the court-ordered historical accounting, a Cobell settlement that might cost as much as

(1) the court-ordered historical accounting, (2) the more than $100 billion that Cobell plaintiffs

estimate their IIM accounts are owed, or (3) the $27.5 billion that the Cobell plaintiffs have

proposed as a settlement amount. 34 The addition of tribal trust fund and accounting suits may

greatly enlarge the potential costs of a settlement, since tribes’ funds are far larger in size than

individuals’ funds.

Among the funding sources for these large costs discussed in a 2005 House Interior

Appropriations Subcommittee hearing were discretionary appropriations and the Treasury

Department’s “Judgment Fund,”35 but some senior appropriators consider the Fund insufficient

even for a $6-$13 billion dollar settlement.36 Among other options, Congress may enact another

delay to the court-ordered accounting, direct a settlement, or delineate the department’s historical

accounting obligations (which could limit, or increase, the size of the historical accounting).

Settlement bills in the 109th Congress would have established in the Treasury Department’s

general fund an IIM claim settlement fund with appropriations from the Judgment Fund, but did

not specify the dollar size of the fund. The Administration, on March 1, 2007, proposed a

comprehensive settlement and a settlement amount of $7 billion, but the proposed settlement

would not only cover both IIM and tribal accounting claims but would also settle all trust land

mismanagement claims. 37 At a March 29, 2007, hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs

Committee, both a Cobell plaintiff and a tribal representative opposed the Administration’s

proposal, and the Committee chair expressed numerous doubts.38 No trust fund settlement

legislation has been introduced thus far in the 110th Congress. The House Appropriations

Testimony from the Interior Department estimated the cost at $12-$13 billion. See James Cason, Associate Deputy

Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Statement before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, March 17, 2005. Previous Interior estimates of the cost were $6 billion$12 billion.

Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement Workgroup, “Principles for Legislation,” June 20, 2005, p. 2, at

http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20050620SettlementPrinciples.pdf.

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.)

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.

See letter to Sen. Byron Dorgan, Chairman, Senate Indian Affairs committee, from the Secretary of the Interior and

Attorney General, available at http://www.indianz.com/docs/cobell/bush030107.pdf.

“Bush Administration Won’t Admit Liability on Indian Trust,” Indianz.com (March 30, 2007), available at

http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/002150.asp.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Committee urged the parties to the litigation, and Congress, to settle trust litigation in its entirety

(H.Rept. 110-187, p. 80).

For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, see its website at

http://www.ost.doi.gov/.

CRS Report RS22343, Indian Trust Fund Litigation: Legislation to Resolve Accounting Claims in

Cobell v. Norton, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RS21738, The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v. Norton, by (na

me redacted).

National Indian Gaming Commission

The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988 (25 U.S.C. §§2701, et seq.) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of

tribal bingo and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming (e.g., casinos and

racing).39 The primary appropriations issue for NIGC is whether its funding is adequate for its

regulatory responsibilities.

The NIGC is authorized to receive annual appropriations of $2 million, but its budget authority

consists chiefly of annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II and III operations. During FY1999FY2008, all NIGC activities have been funded from fees, with no direct appropriations. Neither

the Administration, the House, nor the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a direct

appropriation for the NIGC for FY2008.

The NIGC in recent years had expressed a need for additional funding because it was

experiencing increased demand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field

investigations. IGRA formerly capped NIGC fees at $8 million per year, but Congress used

appropriations act language to increase the NIGC’s fee ceiling to $12 million for FY2004FY2007. In the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-221), Congress

amended IGRA to create a formula-based fee ceiling—0.08% of the gross gaming revenues of all

gaming operations subject to regulation under IGRA. This new fee ceiling applied to FY2007 and

subsequent fiscal years, superseding the previous dollar limitation for FY2007. The NIGC sets an

annual fee rate, which can be less than the ceiling rate.

For FY2007, based on the FY2007 fee rate of .059%, NIGC anticipated fee revenues of $16

million, about a one-third increase from its FY2006 fee revenues of $12 million. NIGC

anticipates FY2008 fee revenues of about $18 million.

For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its website at

http://www.nigc.gov.

Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but overlapping regulatory

responsibilities for each class.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Title II: Environmental Protection Agency

EPA was established in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control responsibilities that had been

divided among several federal agencies. EPA’s responsibilities grew significantly as Congress

enacted an increasing number of environmental laws as well as major amendments to these

statutes. Among the agency’s primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality, water

quality, pesticides, and toxic substances; the management and disposal of solid and hazardous

wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state

and local governments in controlling pollution.

EPA’s funding over time generally has reflected an increase in overall appropriations to fulfill a

rising number of statutory responsibilities. 40 Without adjusting for inflation, the agency’s

appropriation has risen from about $1.0 billion when the agency was established in FY1970 to a

high of $8.4 billion in FY2004. Title II of Division F of the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations

Act provided a total of $7.46 billion for EPA. Although the enacted funding level is an increase

above the President’s request of $7.20 billion, it is less than the $8.09 billion that the House had

proposed, the $7.77 billion that the Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended, and the

$7.73 billion that Congress had enacted for FY2007.

Congress allocated the FY2008 appropriation of $7.46 billion for EPA among eight statutory

accounts that fund the agency, and specified statutory funding levels within these accounts for a

relatively small number of selected programs and activities. As in past years, Congress specified

funding for most of EPA’s programs and activities within the explanatory statement

accompanying the FY2008 law,41 rather than in the statute itself. Among individual agency

programs and activities, there were varying decreases and increases in funding when comparing

the FY2008 enacted appropriation to the amounts that the House, Senate Appropriations

Committee, and President had supported for FY2008, and Congress had enacted for FY2007. For

some activities, funding enacted for FY2008 remained relatively flat, compared to the originally

proposed amounts and the prior year appropriation.

Table 15 lists the eight statutory accounts that currently fund EPA. 42 The table specifies the

amounts within each of these accounts that Congress enacted for FY2008, and compares these

amounts to the initial recommendations of the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee,

the President’s request, and the amounts that Congress enacted for FY2007. The House had

proposed to establish a ninth account in FY2008 to fund a new Commission on Climate Change

Adaptation and Mitigation, which is reflected in the following table. The FY2008 law did not

include a new account for the House’s proposed commission, nor did the law appear to provide

funding in any of the agency’s other accounts for this purpose. However, the law did provide

funding for many other activities related to climate change.

EPA’s funding was moved to the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittees beginning with the

FY2006 appropriations. In the beginning of the first session of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees abolished their respective Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban

Development, and Independent Agencies, which previously had jurisdiction over EPA.

See Congressional Record, December 17, 2007, H16131—H16136. The amounts in the narrative of the explanatory

statement do not reflect the 1.56% across-the-board rescission for discretionary accounts. However, the tables in the

statement reflect the rescinded amounts. See H16168—H16171.

Congress established these accounts in FY1996 as a result of a restructuring of the agency’s budget to more closely

align the accounts with the purposes of the activities funded within them.

Congressional Research Service

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Table 15. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency, FY2007-FY2008

($ in millions)

FY2007

Approp.

FY2008

Request

FY2008

House

Passed

FY2008

Senate

Comm.

FY2008

Approp.

—Base Appropriations

733.4

754.5

783.3

772.5

760.1

—Transfer in from Superfund

30.2

26.1

25.7

Science and Technology Total

763.6

780.6

809.4

798.6

785.8

0.0

50.0

0.0

2,358.4

2,298.2

2,370.6

2,384.1

2,328.0

—Base Appropriations

37.2

38.0

43.5

40.0

41.1

—Transfer in from Superfund

13.3

7.1

10.0

13.3

11.5

Office of Inspector General Total

50.5

45.1

53.5

53.3

52.6

Buildings & Facilities

39.6

34.8

34.3

Hazardous Substance Superfund Total (before transfers)

1,255.1

1,244.7

1,272.0

1,274.6

1,254.0

—Transfer out to Office of Inspector General

(13.3)

(7.1)

(10.0)

(13.3)

(11.5)

—Transfer out to Science and Technology

(30.2)

(26.1)

(25.7)

Hazardous Substance Superfund Net (after

transfers)

1,211.6

1,211.5

1,235.9

1,235.2

1,216.8

Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)

Programb

72.0

72.5

118.0

72.5

105.8

Oil Spill Response

15.7

17.3

17.5

17.1

—Clean Water SRF

1,083.8

687.6

1,125.0

887.0

689.1

—Drinking Water SRF

837.5

842.2

829.0

—Categorical Grantsb

1,113.1

1,065.0

1,113.8

1,118.4

1,078.3

—Other Grants

179.3

149.7

325.5

334.3

329.8

State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total

3,213.7

2,744.5

3,406.5

3,181.9

2,926.2

n/a

(5.0)c

7,725.1

7,199.4

8,090.9

7,772.9

7,461.5

Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology

Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and

Mitigationa

Environmental Programs and Management

Office of Inspector General

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)

Rescission (various EPA accounts)

Total EPA Accounts

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using information in the Explanatory Statement

accompanying Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161, H.R. 2764), as

published in the Congressional Record, December 17, 2007.

The House recommended a new account to establish a Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and

Mitigation. P.L. 110-161 did not fund the House proposal, and neither the Senate Appropriations

Committee nor the President proposed funding for such a commission.

Both the enacted and House-passed amounts for FY2008 include funding within the LUST Program account

for specific activities authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). All other amounts reflect

funding for these activities as Categorical Grants within the STAG account. Consequently, these amounts

vary partly because of the difference in the accounting of funds for these Energy Policy Act activities.

Congressio

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.