Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations

CRS Report for Congress
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Updated February 3, 2006
Carol Hardy Vincent, Co-coordinator, Robert Bamberger,
M. Lynne Corn, Robert Esworthy, Ross W. Gorte, Marc Humphries,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, David Whiteman, and Jeffrey A. Zinn
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Susan Boren, Co-coordinator, Donna U. Vogt, and Roger Walke
Domestic Social Policy Division
Keith Bea
Government and Finance Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation,
other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs
and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing
statutes. Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the
submission of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional
practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are
rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. It summarizes the
status of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, its scope,
major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events
warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS
products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.aspx?P RDS_CLI _ITEM_ID=73].

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Summary
The FY2006 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
includes funding for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of
Reclamation, and for two agencies within other departments — the Forest Service
within the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service within the
Department of Health and Human Services. It also includes funding for arts and
cultural agencies; the Environmental Protection Agency, which was newly-
transferred to the Appropriations subcommittees that deal with Interior and Related
Agencies; and numerous other entities and agencies.
On August 2, 2005, H.R. 2361 was signed into law as P.L. 109-54, containing
approximately $26.20 billion in FY2006 appropriations for Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies. Congress also included in this law $1.50 billion in
supplemental funds to cover a shortfall in veterans’ health care resources. On July

28, 2005, the House approved the conference agreement (410-10), and on July 29,

2005, the Senate agreed to the conference report (99-1). The FY2006 appropriations
law provided an increase of 2% over the President’s request for FY2006 of $25.72
billion, but a decrease of 3% below the FY2005 enacted level of $27.02 billion. The
FY2006 total appropriation reflects an across-the-board rescission of 0.476% ($126.0
million) to be applied across accounts. However, it does not reflect rescissions and
emergency supplemental appropriations contained in P.L. 109-148. Further, the
figures used throughout this report do not reflect the supplemental appropriations or
the rescissions in either law because their effect on individual agencies, programs,
and activities has not yet been calculated.
The FY2006 appropriation reflected lower funding than the FY2005 enacted
level in areas including
^!$-507.1 million for the Forest Service (FS);
^!$-294.1 million for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
^!$-75.8 million for the National Park Service (NPS); and
^!$-36.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The FY2006 appropriation reflected higher funding than the FY2005 enacted
level in areas including
^!$105.7 million for the Indian Health Service (IHS);
^!$31.5 million for the United States Geological Survey (USGS);
^!$12.5 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and
^!$9.2 million for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).
During consideration of FY2006 funding, Congress debated many issues
including appropriate funding for wildland fire fighting, land acquisition, NEA, select
FWS programs, BIA schools, IHS hospitals, the Superfund, wastewater/drinking
water needs, agency competitive sourcing activities, maintenance backlogs, Indian
trust fund management, Outer Continental Shelf leasing, the Abandoned Mine Lands
fund, and EPA’s human dosing studies. This report is not expected to be updated.

^{Area of E}^x^pertis^e^N^am^e^CRS^Dⁱ^vi^sⁱ^on^a^Te^l.^E-^m^a^il
^In^t^e^ri^{or Bu}^dg^et^C^a^rol^Hardy^RSI^7-⁸⁶⁵¹^ch^vⁱⁿ^cen^t@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Data/Co^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^to^r^s^Vin^cen^{t an}^{d Su}^s^aⁿ^DSP^7-⁶⁸⁹⁹^s^boren^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Boreⁿ
^A^r^{t, Hu}^m^aⁿ^ities,^S^u^s^aⁿ^Boren^D^S^P^7-⁶⁸⁹⁹^s^boren^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Cu^ltu^r^a^{l A}^f^f^a^ir^{s an}^d
^Histo^r^{ic P}^r^eser^v^a^tioⁿ
^B^u^reau^of^L^aⁿ^d^C^a^rol^Hardy^R^S^I⁷^-⁸⁶⁵¹^ch^vⁱⁿ^cen^t^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^Vin^cen^t
^Co^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n Sp}^eⁿ^dⁱ^ng^Jef^f^r^ey^Zⁱⁿⁿ^R^S^I⁷^-⁷²⁵⁷^j^zⁱⁿⁿ^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Ca^te^go^r^y
^E^nvi^r^o^nm^eⁿ^t^a^l^R^obert^Es^w^o^rt^h^y^R^S^I⁷^-⁷²³⁶^res^w^ort^h^y^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^P^r^otection^A^g^en^cy
^Ev^erg^l^ades^R^e^s^t^oration^P^erv^{aze S}^h^eik^h^R^S^I⁷^-⁶⁰⁷⁰^ps^h^e^ik^h^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Fish^an^d^W^ild^lif^e^{M. L}^yⁿⁿ^e^C^o^rn^R^S^I⁷^-⁷²⁶⁷^l^c^orn^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Ser^v^ice
^F^o^res^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^R^os^s^{W. G}^o^rt^e^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁶⁶^rg^ort^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^In^di^an^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^R^og^{er Wal}^k^e^D^S^P^7-⁸⁶⁴¹^rw^al^k^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^In^di^an^H^eal^t^h^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^D^onⁿ^a^V^o^g^t^D^S^P⁷^-⁷²⁸⁵^dv^og^t^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^In^s^u^l^a^{r A}^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^K^ei^t^h^Bea^G^&^F^7-⁸⁶⁷²^k^b^ea@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^L^aⁿ^d^A^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^C^ar^o^l^Har^d^y^R^S^I⁷^-⁸⁶⁵¹^ch^vⁱⁿ^cen^t^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Vin^cen^t
^Mⁱ^ne^r^a^l^s^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^{Marc H}^u^m^p^h^rⁱ^e^s^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁶⁴^m^h^u^m^ph^ri^es^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Ser^v^ice
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Park^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^D^avⁱ^d^Whⁱ^t^e^m^aⁿ^R^S^I^7-⁷⁷⁸⁶^dw^hⁱ^t^e^m^aⁿ^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Su^rf^{ace Min}ⁱⁿ^g^an^d^R^obert^Bam^b^erg^e^r^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁴⁰^rbam^berg^er@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^R^eclam^ation
^U.S^.^Geolog^{ical S}^u^rv^ey^P^e^rv^{aze S}^h^eik^h^R^S^I⁷^-⁶⁰⁷⁰^ps^h^e^ik^h^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
a. Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance;
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
In troduction ......................................................1
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations...................................2
Current Overview..............................................2
Earlier Action.................................................3
Major Issues..................................................5
Status of Bill.................................................7
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
Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands.....................10
Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................11
Endangered Species Funding................................12
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement..........13
Land Acquisition.........................................13
Wildlife Refuge Fund.....................................14
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF)...............14
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.............................15
National Park Service.........................................16
Operation of the National Park System........................17
United States Park Police (USPP)............................18
National Recreation and Preservation.........................19
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR).................19
Construction .............................................19
Land Acquisition and State Assistance........................20
Historic Preservation......................................20
U.S. Geological Survey........................................23
Enterprise Information.....................................23
National Mapping Program.................................24
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes...................25
Water Resources Investigations..............................25
Biological Research.......................................26
Science Support and Facilities...............................26
Minerals Management Service...................................27
Budget and Appropriations.................................27
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore...............................29
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement..............31
Bureau of Indian Affairs.......................................33
BIA Reorganization.......................................35
BIA School System.......................................36

Insular Affairs...........................................37
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT)....................38
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.................39
National Indian Gaming Commission.........................43
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency.............................44
EPA Appropriation Accounts...............................45
Key Funding Issues.......................................47
Title III: Related Agencies.........................................52
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service.........................52
Forest Fires and Forest Health...............................53
State and Private Forestry..................................55
Infrastructure ............................................57
Land Acquisition.........................................57
Other Accounts..........................................57
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ......58
Health Services..........................................60
Facilities ................................................61
Diabetes ................................................61
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.......................62
Smithsonian Institution........................................64
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations..........................64
Facilities Capital.........................................64
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI)..............64
National Museum of African American History and Culture.......64
National Zoo............................................65
Trust Funds.............................................65
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities .............................................66
NEA ...................................................67
NEH ...................................................68
Cross-Cutting Topics..............................................69
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)...................69
Overview ...............................................69
FY2006 Appropriations....................................70
Conservation Spending Category.................................72
Everglades Restoration........................................74
Overview of Appropriations................................75
FY2006 Funding.........................................75
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation........................78
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs.........................79
For Additional Reading............................................83
Title I: Department of the Interior................................83
Land Management Agencies Generally............................84
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency.........................84
Title III: Related Agencies.....................................85

Figure 1. EPA FY2006 Appropriations (P.L. 109-54) by Appropriations Account
(includes transfers between accounts and reflects an $80.0 million rescission of
prior years appropriated funds)..................................47
List of Tables
Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 to FY2006...5
Table 2. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2006........................................7
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................10
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................12
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................14
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2006..................15
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................16
Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service, FY2005-FY2006.....18
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................22
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2005-FY2006..27
Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................29
Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2005-FY2006..34
Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians, FY2005-FY2006......................................40
Table 14. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................45
Table 15. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan, FY2002-FY2006.......54
Table 16. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry, FY2005-FY2006..56
Table 17. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service, FY2005-FY2006 ....59
Table 18. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, FY2005-FY2006...66
Table 19. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities, FY2005-FY2006........68
Table 20. Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2006 .............................................70
Table 21. FY2006 Funding for Other Programs from the LWCF............72
Table 22. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2005-FY2006 .............................................76
Table 23. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2004-FY2006 .............................................81

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2006 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On August 2, 2005, H.R. 2361, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for FY2006, was enacted as P.L. 109-54. The law contained a
total of $26.20 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The law also
contained $1.50 billion in supplemental funds to cover a shortfall in veterans health
care resources.
On December 30, 2005, H.R. 2863 was signed into law as P.L. 109-148. The
law affected funding levels enacted in P.L. 109-54, through rescissions and
emergency supplemental funds, which are not reflected in this report.
Introduction
The FY2006 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law
included funding for agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as
well as numerous related agencies and bureaus. The law provided funding for
Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except for the Bureau of Reclamation,
funded in Energy and Water Development appropriations laws), many of which
manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs. The law also
provided funds for agencies in two other departments: for the Forest Service in the
Department of Agriculture, and the Indian Health Service in the Department of
Health and Human Services, as well as funds for the Environmental Protection
Agency. Further, the FY2006 law included funding for arts and cultural agencies,
such as the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, National Endowment
for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities, and for numerous other
entities and agencies.
In recent years, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies
provided funds for several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE),
including research, development, and conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum
Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, at the outset of the 109^th
Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the House and Senate
Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to consolidate jurisdiction¹
over DOE. At the same time, jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection

¹ In the 109^th Congress, the House Appropriations panel is called the Subcommittee on
(continued...)

Agency (EPA), and several smaller entities, was moved to the House and Senate
Appropriations subcommittees covering Interior and Related Agencies.² This change
resulted from the abolition of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees
on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies,
which previously had jurisdiction over EPA.
In the recent past, Interior and Related Agencies appropriations acts typically
contained two primary titles providing funding. Title I provided funds for Interior
agencies, and Title II contained funds for other agencies, programs, and entities. The
FY2006 appropriations law contained three primary titles providing funding. This
report is organized along the lines of the law. Accordingly, the first section (Title I)
provides information on Interior agencies; the second section (Title II) discusses
EPA; and the third section (Title III) addresses other agencies, programs, and entities
funded in the FY2006 law. A fourth section of this report discusses cross-cutting
topics that encompass more than one agency.
In general, in this report the term appropriations represents total funds
available, including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as
rescissions, transfers, and deferrals, but excludes permanent budget authorities.
Increases and decreases generally are calculated on comparisons between the funding
levels enacted for FY2006, requested by the President, recommended by the House
and Senate for FY2006, and appropriated for FY2005. The House Committee on
Appropriations is the primary source of the funding figures used throughout the
report. Other sources of information include the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, agency budget justifications, and the Congressional Record. In the
tables throughout this report, some columns of funding figures do not add to the
precise totals provided due to rounding. Finally, some of the DOI websites provided
throughout the report have not been consistently operational due to a court order
regarding Indian trust funds litigation. Nevertheless, they are included herein for
reference when the websites are operational.
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R.
2361) was signed into law on August 2, 2005 as P.L. 109-54. On July 28^th, 2005, the
House approved the conference agreement (410-10), and on July 29^th, 2005, the
Senate agreed to the conference report (99-1). Congress also included in this law
$1.50 billion in supplemental funds to cover a shortfall in veterans’ health care

¹ (...continued)
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies and the Senate panel is entitled the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water.
² In the 109^th Congress, the House Appropriations panel is called the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, while the Senate panel is entitled the
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies.

resources. The FY2006 appropriations law provided $26.20 billion, an increase of
2% over the President’s budget request for FY2006 of $25.72 billion, but a decrease
of 3% below the FY2005 enacted level of $27.02 billion. The FY2006 total
appropriation reflects an across-the-board rescission of 0.476% to be applied across
accounts. However, it does not reflect a 1% across-the-board rescission, other
rescissions, and emergency supplemental funds contained in P.L. 109-148. Further,
the figures used throughout this report do not reflect these supplemental funds or the
rescissions in either law because their effect on individual agencies, programs, and
activities has not yet been calculated.
The FY2006 appropriations law reflected lower funding as compared to the
FY2005 enacted level in areas including:
^!$-507.1 million for the Forest Service (FS);
^!$-294.1 million for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
^!$-75.8 million for the National Park Service (NPS); and
^!$-36.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management.
The FY2006 appropriations law reflected higher funding than the FY2005
enacted level in areas including
^!$105.7 million for Indian Health Service;
^!$31.5 million for the United States Geological Survey (USGS);
^!$12.5 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and
^!$10.0 million total for National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
Earlier Action
During initial consideration of H.R. 2361, on June 29^th, 2005, the Senate passed
H.R. 2361 unanimously (94-0). As passed by the Senate, H.R. 2361 would have
provided appropriations of $26.26 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. On May 19, 2005, the House had passed H.R. 2361 (329-89) containing
$26.16 billion in FY2006 appropriations. The House-passed level was a 3% decrease
from the FY2005 enacted level and a 0.4% decrease from the Senate-passed total, but
a 2% increase over the President’s request for FY2006.
During Senate debate on H.R. 2361, the Senate had considered about four dozen
floor amendments, some of which addressed major issues and activities of agencies
that are discussed in relevant sections of this report. Amendments generally not
discussed in this report include those that dealt with Interior appropriations more
generally or were cross-cutting in nature. Examples include an amendment to reduce
each appropriation in the bill by 1.7% (withdrawn) and another to require limitations,
directives, and earmarks in committee reports to be included also in conference
reports in order to be regarded as having been approved by Congress (not agreed to).
Still other amendments not covered in this report are those that did not relate directly
to Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Examples include an amendment
seeking to facilitate family travel to Cuba (not agreed to) and an amendment
providing emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2005 for the Veterans
Health Administration (agreed to).

During floor debate, the House considered about two dozen amendments before
voting on final passage of the FY2006 appropriations bill. Many of these
amendments are discussed in pertinent sections throughout this report. In some
cases, the inclusion of legislation in the bill was controversial. The presiding officer
sustained points of order against several provisions in the bill on the grounds that
House rules bar legislation on an appropriations bill, thereby striking the provisions
from the bill. These points of order were raised by chairmen of authorizing panels,
namely the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. The inclusion in the bill of appropriations not
previously authorized by law also was controversial in some instances. The
Chairman of the House Resources Committee offered an amendment seeking to
prevent money in the bill from being spent for 10 programs within the Committee’s
jurisdiction which are not authorized to be appropriated in FY2006, according to the
Chairman.³ The presiding officer sustained a point of order against the amendment
on the grounds that it too constituted legislation, so it was not in order to be
considered.
In earlier action, on June 10, 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee
unanimously reported (28-0) H.R. 2361 (S.Rept. 109-80), providing $26.27 billion
for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. On May 13, 2005, the House
Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2361 (H.Rept. 109-80) with $26.16 billion
in FY2006 Interior appropriations. Both the House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees on Interior had marked up funding bills and held hearings on the
President’s budget request for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
Hearings examined the requests for individual agencies and programs as well as
cross-cutting issues.
For FY2006, the President had sought $25.72 billion, a 5% decrease from the
FY2005 enacted level of $27.02 billion. The FY2005 total reflects two across-the-
board rescissions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447)
of 0.594% and 0.80%.⁴
The President’s FY2006 budget had recommended depositing, into the general
fund of the Treasury, 70% of receipts from BLM land sales under the Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA). This issue is covered briefly in
the “Bureau of Land Management” section below. (For more information, see CRS
Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National
Forests, coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.) The budget also
assumed enactment of legislation to open part of the Coastal Plain in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development. This issue is
covered briefly in the “Fish and Wildlife Service” section below. (For more

³ Rep. Richard Pombo, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily ed., 151, (19
May 2005): H3670.
⁴ The 0.594% rescission applied to agencies and programs funded in the Interior and Related
Agencies portion of the consolidated law, thus the EPA and several smaller entities that^th
were transferred to the Interior Subcommittees in the 109 Congress were not affected by
this cut.

information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
Controversies for the 109^th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and
Pamela Baldwin.)
Table 1 below shows the budget authority for Interior and Related Agencies for
FY2004-2006. See Table 23 for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau, and
program for FY2004 and FY2005; the President’s budget request for FY2006; the
FY2006 House- and Senate-passed levels; and the FY2006 levels enacted into law.
Table 1. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004 to FY2006
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2006
$27.33 $27.02 $26.20
^No^te:^T^h^{ese f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{es ex}^clu^d^{e p}^e^r^m^an^en^{t b}^u^d^g^{et au}^th^o^r^{ities, an}^d^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly^d^oⁿ^o^t^r^e^f^l^{ect sco}^r^ek^eepⁱⁿ^g
^ad^j^u^stm^eⁿ^t^{s. T}^h^ey^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly^r^e^f^l^ect^r^e^scissioⁿ^{s an}^d^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^to^d^a^{te, ex}^cep^{t th}^at
^t^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^fⁱ^g^u^r^e^ex^cl^u^d^es^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^an^{d em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^con^t^aiⁿ^e^{d i}ⁿ^P.L^.
^109-^148.
Major Issues
Controversial policy and funding issues typically have been debated during
consideration of the annual Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bills.
Current debate on FY2006 funding levels encompasses a variety of issues, many of
which have been controversial in the past, including the issues listed below.
^!Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Fund, including whether, as part of
AML reauthorization, to change the program as sought by the
Administration to address state and regional concerns, including a
change to return unobligated state share balances in the fund to the
states. (For more information, see the “Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement” section in this report.)
^!Arts and Humanities, including whether funding for the arts and
humanities is an appropriate federal responsibility, and, if so, what
should be the proper level of federal support for cultural activities.
(For more information, see the “National Endowment for the Arts
and National Endowment for the Humanities” section in this report.)
^!BIA Schools and IHS Hospitals, particularly whether to enact
funding cuts proposed in the President’s FY2006 budget. (For more
information, see the “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and the “Indian
Health Service” sections in this report.)
^!Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially
the adequacy of funding to meet state and local wastewater and
drinking water needs. These state revolving funds provide seed
monies for state loans to communities for wastewater and drinking

water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see the
“Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)
^!Competitive Sourcing, namely the extent to which government
functions should be privatized, agency funds can and should be used
for such efforts, and agencies are communicating appropriately with
Congress on their competitive sourcing activities. (For more
information, see the “Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs”
section in this report.)
^!Fish and Wildlife Service Programs, including the appropriate levels
of funding for the endangered species program, state and tribal
wildlife grants, and the multinational species conservation fund, and
whether changes to the endangered species program are warranted.
(For more information, see the “Fish and Wildlife Service” section
in this report.)
^!Indian Trust Funds, especially the method by which an historical
accounting will be conducted of Individual Indian Money (IIM)
accounts to determine correct balances in the class-action lawsuit
against the government involving tribal and IIM accounts. (For
more information, see the “Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians” section in this report.)
^!Intentional Human Dosing Studies, in particular the adequacy of
health safety standards for research subjects and general ethical
questions with respect to EPA’s use of data from such studies,
whether conducted by EPA or others, for determining associated
human health risks of pesticides. (For more information, see the
“Environmental Protection Agency” section in this report.)
^!Land Acquisition, including the appropriate level of funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and
the state grant program, and extent to which the fund should be used
for activities not involving land acquisition. (For more information,
see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in
this report.)
^!Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly the moratoria on
preleasing and leasing activities in offshore areas, and oil and gas
leases in offshore California. (For more information, see the
“Minerals Management Service” section in this report.)
^!Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet
hazardous waste cleanup needs, and whether to continue using
general Treasury revenues to fund the account or reinstate a tax on
industry that originally paid for most of the program. (For more
information, see the “Environmental Protection Agency” section in
this report.)

^!Wild Horses and Burros, particularly the sale of excess animals
under new authority and the slaughter of some animals. (For more
information, see the “Bureau of Land Management” section in this
report.)
^!Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate
level of funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of
borrowing funds from other agency programs to fight wildfires;
implementation of a new program for wildland fire protection and
locations for fire protection treatments; and impact of environmental
analysis, public involvement, and challenges to agency decisions on
fuel reduction activities. (For more information, see the “Bureau of
Land Management” and “Forest Service” sections in this report.)
Status of Bill
Table 2 below contains information on congressional consideration of the
FY2006 Interior appropriations bill.
Table 2. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2006
Subcom m i t t e e Conf erence
MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.Report ApprovalPublic
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t LawH ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
H.R.H.R.

2361,2361,

H.Rept.S.Rept.P.L. 109-
5/4/05 6/7/05 109-80 5/19/05 109-80 6/29/05 H.Rept. 7/28/05 7/29/05 54
5/13/05 (329-89) 6/10/05 (94-0) 109-188 (410-10) (99-1) 8/2/05
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Overview. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately
261 million acres of public land for diverse and sometimes conflicting uses, such as
energy and minerals development, livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation.
The agency also is responsible for about 700 million acres of federal subsurface
mineral resources throughout the nation, and supervises the mineral operations on an
estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another key BLM function is
wildland fire management on about 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, and
certain nonfederal land.

For FY2006, the appropriations law included $1.78 billion for BLM, a reduction
from the FY2005 enacted level of $1.82 billion. The original House-passed bill had
included $1.76 billion and the original Senate-passed bill had contained $1.79 billion.
See Table 3 below.
The Administration’s FY2006 budget supported amending the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) to change the allocation of proceeds of
BLM land sales in Nevada. Under current law, none of the funds are deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury. The President supported depositing 70% of the receipts
there, instead of using the money in Nevada, for instance, to buy environmentally
sensitive lands. The House-passed bill had sought to require the Secretary of the
Interior to report to the House Appropriations Committee on past expenditures under
SNPLMA during FY2003 and FY2004. This provision was not included in the
FY2006 law. (For information on this issue, see CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests, coordinated by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.)
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the FY2006 law contained $860.8 million, an increase of 3% over
FY2005. The House originally had approved $845.8 million for FY2006, while the
Senate had supported $867.0 million. This line item includes funds for an array of
BLM land programs, including protection, recreational use, improvement,
development, disposal, and general BLM administration. The FY2006 law would
increase some programs over FY2005, including resource protection and law
enforcement; resource management planning; and management of forests,
rangelands, riparian areas, recreation, wildlife, and oil and gas. The law provided a
35% increase to the Challenge Cost Share Program, rather than the 89% increase that
had been sought by the Administration. Through this program, BLM and local
communities and citizens jointly fund and carry out conservation programs. The law
did not fund the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, for which the Administration
had requested $6.0 million for restoration and conservation projects. The FY2006
law decreased funds for some other programs from FY2005, including Alaska
minerals, wild horses and burros, and deferred maintenance.
Energy. The FY2006 appropriations law continued to bar funds from being
used for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of national monuments, as
they were on January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the presidential
proclamations that created the monuments. The law also continued the moratorium
on accepting and processing applications for patents for mining and mill site claims
on federal lands. However, applications meeting certain requirements that were filed
on or before September 30, 1994, would be allowed to proceed, and third party
contractors would be authorized to process the mineral examinations on those
applications. In report language, the House Appropriations Committee directed BLM
to report by December 31, 2005, on the steps that may be needed to proceed with oil
shale development. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in report language,
supported accelerating oil shale development.
Wild Horses and Burros. The FY2006 law did not include a limitation on
funds for wild horses and burros, as originally passed by the House. Specifically, the
House language would have prohibited funds in the bill from being used for the sale

or slaughter of wild horses and burros (as defined in P.L. 92-195). Proponents of the
amendment had sought to prevent BLM from selling, during FY2006, excess wild
horses and burros under new authority enacted in last year’s appropriations law (P.L.
108-447). According to BLM, 41 animals that were sold under the new authority
were subsequently resold or traded, and then sent to slaughterhouses by the new
owners. Advocates of the amendment asserted that there are alternatives for
controlling populations of wild horses and burros on federal lands, such as through
the adoption program. Opponents of the amendment contended that BLM’s recent
efforts to revise the sale procedure will prevent sold animals from ending up in
slaughterhouses. They maintain that the new sale authority is needed because
adoptions and other efforts to reduce herd sizes have been insufficient. Further, they
assert that significant funds used for caring for animals in holding facilities could be
redirected to other government priorities. The report of the Senate Appropriations
Committee encouraged BLM to fund the pilot adoption program of the National Wild
Horse Association in Nevada. (For information on this issue, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests,
coordinated by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent.)
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2006,
the appropriations law contained $766.6 million as previously passed by the Senate.
This is a decrease of 8% from the FY2005 level (including emergency
appropriations). The original House-passed bill was similar to the Senate-passed
version, but contained $761.6 million due to less funding for state and local fire
assistance. The Administration sought to zero out funds for state and local fire
assistance, on the grounds that the fire assistance programs of the Forest Service (FS)
and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) address the needs of local fire
departments. The House originally supported $5.0 million while the Senate had
approved $10.0 million, essentially the same as the FY2005 appropriation ($9.9
million). The $10.0 million was included in the FY2006 law. In report language, the
Senate Appropriations Committee expressed “dismay” at the proposal to eliminate
this rural fire assistance (S.Rept. 109-80, p. 12). (For additional information on
wildland fires, see the “Forest Service” section in this report.)
For FY2006, the appropriations law included $272.9 million for fire
preparedness — 5% over the FY2005 enacted level of $258.9 million. The increase
was sought to cover aviation support contracts and firefighter training, among other
costs. For fire suppression, the FY2006 law provided $234.2 million, a 26%
decrease from the FY2005 enacted level of $317.1 million (including emergency
funds) and a 40% decrease from FY2004. While the average annual cost of fire
suppression has increased overall over the past decade, the FY2006 request
represents the ten-year average cost of fire suppression, according to the
Administration. In report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed
continued concern with the high costs of fire suppression, and directed DOI and the
FS to examine fires with suppression costs exceeding $10.0 million.
For other fire operations during FY2006, the law included $259.5 million. This
constitutes a 2% increase over the FY2005 level of $255.3 million. It contained an
increase of 5% for hazardous fuels reduction, for an FY2006 level of $211.2 million.

The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all
Interior Department lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for
wildland fire management to the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire
programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments is implementing the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire Plan,
which emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to catastrophic fires.
Construction. For FY2006, the appropriations law included $11.9 million for
BLM construction, a 5% increase over the FY2005 level. The original House-passed
bill had contained $11.5 million while the Senate-passed bill had contained $10.0
million. The President had sought a reduction of 43% from FY2005.
Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition for FY2006, the law included $8.8
million, 22% less than the FY2005 enacted level. Within that total, funding was
provided for five specific acquisitions. The House originally had approved $3.8
million, providing funds for management of the acquisition program and emergencies
rather than specific new acquisitions. The original Senate-passed bill had contained
$12.3 million, and had funding for specified new acquisitions. A Senate amendment
had sought to eliminate funds for BLM land acquisition, and reduce or eliminate
acquisition funds for other land management agencies, while providing additional
funds for certain Indian health programs. The amendment fell on a point of order.
The appropriation for BLM acquisitions fell steadily from $49.9 million in
FY2002 through the FY2005 enacted level. Money for land acquisition is
appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information,
see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)
Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands. For the O&C Lands, which
include highly productive timber lands, the FY2006 law contained $110.1 million for
FY2006, an increase of 2% over the FY2005 enacted level of $107.5 million. The
House, Senate, and Administration had supported that level. This activity funds
programs related to revested Oregon and California Railroad grant lands and related
areas, including for land improvements and for managing, protecting, and developing
resources on these lands.
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Bureau of Land ManagementFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop.
Passed Passed
Management of Lands and$836.8$850.2$845.8$867.0$860.8
Resources
Wildland Fire Management 831.3756.6761.6766.6766.6
Central Hazardous Materials9.9^b — ^d — ^d — ^d — ^d
Fund
Construction 11.3 6.5 11.5 10.0 11.9

Land Acquisition 11.213.43.812.38.8
Oregon and California Grant107.5110.1110.1110.1110.1
Lands
Range Improvements10.010.0 10.010.010.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and^a0.00.00.00.00.0
Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Trust Funds 12.412.412.412.412.4
Total Appropriations$1,816.9^c$1,759.0$1,755.1$1,788.31,780.5
^{a. T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^of^“⁰^{” are a res}^u^{lt of}^an^{appropriation}^m^a^tch^e^{d by}^of^f^s^ettin^g^f^ees^.
^b^.^A^r^e^scissioⁿ^o^f^$^-¹³^.⁵^m^illioⁿ^{is n}^o^{t r}^e^f^l^ected^{, b}^u^{t is in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e co}^lu^mⁿ^to^tal.
^c.^Iⁿ^c^l^ud^e^s^$^{98.6 m}^illion^f^o^{r em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^tin^gⁱⁿ^{FY2005, an}^{d a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^$-^{13.5 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^e
^C^eⁿ^t^{ral Hazardou}^s^Materials^Fuⁿ^d^.
^{d. T}^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^F^Y^{2006 bu}^dg^et^propos^es^t^r^an^s^f^erriⁿ^g^t^hⁱ^s^Fun^d^t^o^t^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^al^O^f^fⁱ^ces^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^h^e
^Dep^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^o^f^th^{e In}^terio^r^{, an}^d^acco^rdⁱⁿ^g^l^yⁱⁿ^clu^d^{es $}⁹^.⁹^m^illioⁿ^f^o^{r th}^{e Fu}ⁿ^d^uⁿ^d^{er DOI’}^s^Dep^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^al
^O^f^fⁱ^ces^{. T}^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^t^ook^t^hⁱ^s^approach^.
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its website at
[ http://www.doi.gov] .
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index .htm].
CRS Report RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau
of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands,
by Marc Humphries.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National
Forests, by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2006, the President requested $1.32 billion for the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), slightly less (0.7%) than the enacted level for FY2005 ($1.33
billion). The FY2006 House-passed level was $1.31 billion; the Senate-passed level
was $1.32 billion. P.L. 109-54 contained $1.33 billion. By far the largest portion of
the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources Management account. The
President’s FY2006 request was $985.6 million, a 2% increase over the FY2005 level
of $962.9 million. The House approved $1.01 billion, a 4% increase over FY2005.
The Senate-passed level was $993.5 billion, a 3% increase over FY2005. The
FY2006 appropriations law provided $1.01 billion, a 5% increase over FY2005.
Among the programs included in Resources Management are the Endangered Species
program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement.
The President’s FY2006 budget proposed enacting legislation to open part of
the Coastal Plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration

and development.⁵ The budget proposed that the first lease sale would be held in
2007. Under the proposal, this and subsequent sales were estimated to generate $2.4
billion in federal revenues from bonus bids over the next five years. While no such
provision was included in H.R. 6, as signed by the President on August 8, 2005,
many expect to see such a measure included in a reconciliation bill in the fall of
2005. (For information on the debate over whether to approve energy development
in the Refuge, see CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR): Controversies for the 109^th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb,
and Pamela Baldwin.)
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The
Administration proposed to reduce the program (by 2%) from $143.2 million in
FY2005 to $140.1 million in FY2006. The FY2006 law contained $151.6 million,
a 6% increase over FY2005. See Table 4 below.
A number of other related programs also benefit conservation of species that are
listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The President’s
request would have increased the Landowner Incentive Program from $21.7 million
in FY2005 to $40.0 million in FY2006. Congress approved $24.0 million for the
program. Stewardship Grants would have risen from $6.9 million in FY2005 to $10.0
million under the President’s request. The final bill contained $7.4 million. The
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and
territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) would have fallen from
$80.5 million in FY2005 to $80.0 million for FY2006 under the Administration’s
request. In the end, Congress appropriated $82.2 million for FY2006. See Table 4
below.
Under the President’s request, total FY2006 funding for the Endangered Species
program and related programs would have increased to $270.1 million. Congress
increased these programs overall to $265.2 million.
Table 4. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
Endangered SpeciesFY2005FY2006FY2006FY2006FY2006
and RelatedApprop.RequestHouseSenateApprop.
P r ograms P assed P assed
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate$9,255$8,252$8,852$8,752$8,852

Conservation
⁵ The proposed authorization for exploration and development is not a part of the Interior
appropriations bill. Development supporters anticipate an authorization either as a part of
an energy bill, or as part of a possible reconciliation measure later in the session. H.R. 6,
an omnibus energy bill as passed by the House, would open the Refuge to development.
The Senate version contains no similar provision.

Endangered SpeciesFY2005FY2006FY2006FY2006FY2006
and RelatedApprop.RequestHouseSenateApprop.
P r ograms P assed P assed
— Listing15,96018,13018,13018,13018,130
— Consultation48,12949,48449,48449,48449,484
— Recovery69,87064,24370,44372,54175,159
Subtotal, Endangered143,214140,109146,909148,907151,625
Species Program
Related Programs
— Landowner21,69440,00023,70025,00024,000
Incentive Program
— Private6,90310,0007,3867,5007,386
Stewardship Grants
— Cooperative80,46280,00084,40080,00082,200
Endangered Species^a
Conservation Fund
Subtotal, Related109,059130,000115,486112,500113,586
Programs
Tot a l $252,273 $270,109 $262,395 $261,407 $265,211
Appropriations
^{a. T}^h^{e FY2006 requ}^es^{t called f}^o^{r $49.4 m}^illion^{to be deriv}^e^d^fr^o^m^LW^C^F^{. T}^h^{e Hou}^s^{e v}^e^rs^ion
^d^e^rⁱ^v^e^d^th^{e p}^o^r^tioⁿ^s^f^o^r^sp^{ecies r}^eco^v^e^r^y^lan^d^acq^uⁱ^sitioⁿ^an^d^h^a^b^{itat co}ⁿ^s^e^r^v^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^p^l^an^lan^d
^acquⁱ^s^ition^{($64.2 m}^illion⁾^f^r^om^L^W^C^F^{. T}^h^{e Sen}^a^{te called}^f^o^r^$45.7^m^illion^{to be deriv}^e^{d f}^r^om
^L^W^C^F^{, an}^{d s}^p^ecifⁱ^{ed th}^{at s}^u^ch^am^ouⁿ^t^w^a^s^to^b^e^use^d^fo^r^ha^bⁱ^t^a^t^c^o^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n p}^l^aⁿ^l^a^nd
^acquⁱ^s^ition^.^P^.^L.^109-^{54 called}^f^o^{r $62.0 m}^illion^{to be deriv}^e^{d f}^r^om^L^W^C^F^{, w}^ithⁿ^o^oth^e^r
^earm^a^rk^.
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement. For refuge
operations and maintenance in FY2006, the President proposed $393.9 million, an
increase from $381.0 million in FY2005. The President’s request restructured the
account, dividing it into several new subaccounts. The House approved $394.4
million; the Senate-passed level was $393.9 million. The FY2006 appropriations law
bill contained $393.4 million. The President proposed $57.6 million for Law
Enforcement — an increase of $2.0 million from the FY2005 level ($55.6 million).
The House-passed level was $57.8 million, and the Senate-passed level was $57.6
million. The FY2006 appropriations law contained $57.7 million.
Land Acquisition. For FY2006, the Administration proposed $41.0 million
for Land Acquisition, 11% over FY2005, but 5% less than the FY2004 level of $43.1
million. (See Table 5.) P.L. 109-54 reduced the program to $28.4 million. This
program is funded from appropriations from LWCF. In the past, the bulk of this
FWS program had been for specified acquisitions of federal refuge land, but a portion
was used for closely related functions such as acquisition management, land
exchanges, emergency acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, and general overhead
(“Cost Allocation Methodology”). In recent years, less of the funding has been

reserved for traditional land acquisition. Congress continued this trend for FY2006,
reserving $13.7 million for specified acquisitions, and funding the remainder of the
program at $14.7 million. (For more information, see the “Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)
Table 5. Appropriations for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
FWS LandFY2005FY2006FY2006HouseFY2006SenateFY2006
Acqui si t i on Approp. Request P assed P assed Approp.
Acquisitions — $22,593$26,029$0$25,364$13,695
Federal Refuge Lands
Inholdings 1,479 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,500
Emergencies &9861,7501,7501,7501,500
Hardships
Exchange s 1,726 1,750 1,724 1,750 1,500
Acquisition 8,249 7,893 7,893 8,393 8,393
Management
Cost Allocation1,9721,8201,8201,8201,820
Methodology
Total Appropriations$37,005$40,992$14,937$40,827$28,408
Wildlife Refuge Fund. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates counties for the presence of the non-
taxable federal lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). A portion
of the fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of receipts from various
activities carried out on the NWRS. However, these receipts are not sufficient for
full funding of authorized amounts, and county governments have long urged
additional appropriations to make up the difference. Congress generally provides
additional funding. The President requested and Congress enacted $14.4 million for
FY2006; the FY2005 level was $14.2 million. This FY2006 level, combined with
expected receipts, would provide about 41% of the authorized full payment, down
from 44% in FY2005 and 47% in FY2004.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has
generated considerable constituent interest despite the small size of the program. It
benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, great apes, and marine
turtles. The President’s FY2006 budget again proposed to move funding for the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. Congress
has rejected the proposed transfer annually from FY2002 to FY2006. For FY2006,
the President proposed $8.3 million for the MSCF (including the proposed transfer
of the NMBCF to this program). The proposal included cuts in programs for great

apes, rhinos, tigers, and African and Asian elephants, in contrast to increases in
programs for marine turtles and neotropical migratory birds. Congress enacted
modest increases over FY2005 for the subprograms. (See Table 6 below.)
Table 6. Appropriations for Multinational Species Conservation
Fund and Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
Multinational SpeciesFY2005FY2006FY2006HouseFY2006SenateFY2006
Conservation FundApprop.RequestPassedPassedApprop.
African elephant$1,381$1,000$1,400$1,400$1,400
Tiger and Rhinos1,4771,1001,4001,6001,600
Asian elephant1,3811,0001,4001,4001,400
Great Apes1,3819001,4001,4001,400
Marine turtles99300300700700
[Neotropical Migratory[3,944][4,000][4,000][4,000][4,000]
Birds]
Total Appropriations$5,719$4,300$5,900$6,500$6,500
^No^te:^T^h^{e N}^e^ot^ropi^cal^Mi^g^r^at^ory^Bi^rd^prog^ram^w^a^s^fⁱ^rs^t^au^t^h^ori^{zed i}ⁿ^F^Y^{2002, an}^{d i}^sⁿ^o^t^part^of
^t^h^e^M^S^CF,^a^l^t^h^o^{ugh t}^h^e^t^r^aⁿ^sfe^r^ha^{s b}^e^eⁿ^p^r^opos^edⁱⁿ^t^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^bu^dg^et^s^f^r^om^F^Y^2002-^F^Y^2006.
^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^h^a^s^rej^ect^{ed t}^h^{e propos}^al^fⁱ^v^e^tⁱ^m^es^{, an}^{d t}^h^{e prog}^ramⁱ^sⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^{e col}^u^mⁿ^t^o^t^a^l^s^.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
program helps fund efforts to conserve species (including non-game species) of
concern to states and tribes. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior
appropriations law (P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior
appropriations bills. (It lacks any separate authorizing statute.) Funds may be used
to develop conservation plans as well as to support specific practical conservation
projects. A portion of the funding is set aside for competitive grants to tribal
governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining state portion is for matching
grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined by formula. The President
proposed $74.0 million, an increase from $69.0 million in FY2005. The FY2006
appropriations law decreased the program to $68.5 million. See Table 7 below.

Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
State and TribalFY2005FY2006FY2006HouseFY2006SenateFY2006
Wildlife GrantsApprop.RequestPassedPassedApprop.
State Grants$61,040$65,437$59,000$66,000$62,500
Tribal Grants5,9176,3436,0006,0006,000
Administration1,9472,092 — ^a — ^a — ^a
Cost allocation124128 — ^a — ^a — ^a
methodology (CAM)
Total Appropriations$69,028$74,000$65,000$72,000$68,500
^{a. A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tiv^{e co}^{sts ar}^e^lim^ited^to³^%^,^af^ter^th^e^$⁶^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r^tr^ib^{al g}^r^an^{ts is d}^e^d^u^cted^f^r^o^m^th^e
^{total. C}^o^m^m^{ittee reports}^an^{d th}^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report did n}^o^{t s}^p^ecif^y^h^o^w^m^u^c^h^w^a^s^{to be}
^a^l^l^o^c^a^t^e^d^t^o^a^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^r^t^o^t^h^e^c^o^s^t^a^l^l^o^c^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^m^e^t^h^odol^o^g^y^.^P^.^L^.^109-^{54 requ}ⁱ^r^{ed t}^h^at
^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e cos}^t^s^an^{d C}^A^{M be tak}^eⁿ^f^r^om^th^{e s}^t^{ate s}^h^{are on}^ly^.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at
[ http://www.fws.gov/] .
CRS Issue Brief IB10136. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies^th
for the 109 Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10144. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109^th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Pamela Baldwin, and Robert Meltz.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System,
currently comprising 388 separate and very diverse park units with more than 84
million acres. The NPS and its 20,000 employees protect, preserve, interpret, and
administer the park system’s diverse natural and historic areas representing the
cultural identity of the American people. The Park System has some 20 types of area
designations, including national parks, monuments, memorials, historic sites,
battlefields, seashores, recreational areas, and other classifications. The NPS also
supports resource conservation activities outside the Park System.
The FY2006 Interior appropriations law provided $2.29 billion for the NPS, a
decrease of $75.8 million from the FY2005 enacted level ($2.37 billion), but $40.6

million more than the request ($2.25 billion). (See Table 8 below.) The FY2006
request had sought increases for the operations line item, but decreases or level
funding for most other line items. This year, enhanced security and infrastructure
upgrades are planned for certain parks. The original House-passed bill contained
$2.23 billion, while the Senate originally approved $2.32 billion.
Issues affecting the NPS but not tied to specific funding accounts were
addressed. One provision included in the FY2006 Interior appropriations law would
prevent the NPS from studying or implementing any plan to reduce the water level
of Lake Powell below levels required to operate Glen Canyon Dam. The law also
contained a Senate-backed provision of $10.0 million, which must be matched with
nonfederal contributions, for a Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial in Washington,
DC. Another provision extended the controversial rule to allow individual
snowmobiles into Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks for another year
(covering the upcoming winter season of 2005-2006). Congress enacted a similar
provision as part of the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) to
prevent lawsuits from blocking snowmobile access to those parks last winter. Not
included in the law was House language that had sought to prohibit DOI funds from
being used for concession contracts except those that require that souvenir-type
merchandise sold at NPS units be made in the United States. Instead, conference
report language directed the NPS to explore ways to encourage the sale of American-
made souvenirs by NPS concessioners, with a written progress report by December

1, 2006.

Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line-item
is the primary source of funding for the national parks and accounts for more than
two-thirds of the total NPS budget. It supports the activities, programs, and services
essential to the day-to-day operations of the Park System, and covers resource
protection, visitors’ services, facility operations, facility maintenance, and park
support programs, as well as employee pay, benefits, and other fixed costs. The
majority of operations funding is provided directly to park managers. The FY2006
Interior appropriations law provided $1.74 billion for park operations, or $60.5
million more than the FY2005 enacted level ($1.68 billion). The FY2006 request for
NPS operations was $1.73 billion, and the House and Senate originally had passed
funding of about $1.75 billion. Park advocacy groups have estimated that, in recent
years, the national parks operate, on average, with two-thirds of needed funding. The
condition of the national parks and the adequacy of their care and operation continue
to be controversial.

Table 8. Appropriations for the National Park Service,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
National ParkFY2005FY2006FY2006HouseFY2006SenateFY2006
Service Approp.RequestPassedPassedApprop.
Operation of the$1,683.6$1,734.1$1,754.2$1,748.5$1,744.1
National Park System
U.S. Park Police80.180.482.480.481.4
National Recreation61.036.849.056.755.0
and Preservation
Historic Preservation71.766.272.774.573.3
Fund
Construction^a353.0307.4291.2299.2301.3
Land and Water^b-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0
Conservation Fund
Land Acquisition and
State Assistance
— Assistance to91.21.61.630.030.0
States
— NPS Acquisition55.152.97.8^c56.034.9^c
Subtotal, Land146.354.59.486.064.9
Acquisition and State
Assistance
Tot a l $2,365.7 $2,249.3 $2,229.0 $2,315.3 $2,290.0
Appropriations
^{a. In}^clu^d^es^{$50.8 m}^illion^of^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r FY2005 en}^{acted in}^P^.^L^.^108-^324.^FY2006^fⁱ^g^u^r^es
^{do n}^o^{t ref}^l^{ect an}^addition^a^{l $17.0 m}^illion^f^r^om^{prior y}^{ear balan}^ces^.
^{b. Fig}^u^r^es^ref^l^{ect a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^con^t^{ract au}^th^ority^.
^{c. T}^h^{ese f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{es d}^oⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e $}⁹^.⁹^m^illioⁿ^f^r^o^m^p^r^io^r^y^ear^b^a^lan^ces.
United States Park Police (USPP). This budget item supports the U.S.
Park Police, a full-service, uniformed law enforcement entity of the NPS with
primary jurisdiction at park sites within metropolitan areas of Washington, DC; New
York City; and San Francisco. The USPP also provides specialized law enforcement
services to other park units when requested, through deployment of professional
police officers to support law enforcement trained and commissioned park rangers
working in park units system-wide. The enacted level for FY2005 was $80.1 million.
For FY2006, the Senate approved $80.4 million, the same as the request, but $2.0
million below the House allowance of $82.4 million. The conferees split the
difference and the law provided $81.4 million for FY2006. An internal review
concluded in December 2004 reportedly addressed long-standing fiscal and
management problems and redefined USPP priorities to be: 1) protection of “iconic,”
symbols of democracy park units and their visitors, 2) patrol of the National Mall and

adjacent parks, 3) special events and crowd management, 4) criminal investigations,
and 5) traffic control and parkway patrol.
National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds a variety of
park recreation and resource protection programs and an international park affairs
office, as well as programs connected with state and local community efforts to
preserve natural, cultural, and heritage resources. The FY2006 request was $36.8
million, a decrease of $24.2 million (40%) from the FY2005 appropriation of $61.0
million. The request did not seek funds for statutory or contractual aid. The
Administration has previously proposed discontinuing these programs, requesting
no funds for FY2005, but Congress provided $11.2 million. For FY2006, the
original House-passed bill contained $49.0 million for National Recreation and
Preservation, but no funds for statutory or contractual aid. The original Senate-
passed bill contained $8.2 million for statutory or contractual aid, with $56.7 million
for the entire line item. The FY2006 Interior appropriations law provided $7.1
million for statutory or contractual aid and $55.0 million for the whole line item,
which is $6.0 million below FY2005.
The FY2006 request proposed $5.0 million for funding the 27 existing National
Heritage Areas (NHAs), a reduction of $9.6 million (66%) from the FY2005 enacted
level ($14.6 million). In recent years, the Administration’s requests for heritage area
partnerships have been significantly lower than the previous year’s appropriation, but
Congress has maintained or increased NHA funding. The House included $15.0
million for Heritage Partnership Programs for FY2006, while the Senate approved
$13.6 million for NHAs. The FY2006 law provided $13.5 million for NHAs. DOI
officials had testified that the $12.5 million requested for FY2006 for Preserve
America, a proposed program that was not funded in FY2005, could be used in part
to fund NHAs. The original House-passed bill did not contain FY2006 funding for
Preserve America, while the Senate-passed bill had allowed that not more than $7.5
million of the allocation to Save America’s Treasures could be used for Preserve
America pilot grants. The FY2006 Interior appropriations law did not fund Preserve
America.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This once-popular
matching grant program, created in 1978, provided direct federal assistance to urban
localities to rehabilitate recreational facilities. In FY2001 and FY2002, Congress
appropriated $30.0 million annually for UPARR. Since then, no money has been
provided for new grants. For FY2006, neither the President, the House, nor the
Senate sought funds for new grants and none was provided. The grant administration
portion of the program was transferred to the National Recreation and Preservation
line item in FY2005. Administration of more than 100 active grants approved in
FY2000-FY2002 continues. The enabling legislation, the Urban Park and Recreation
Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625, title X; 16 U.S.C. §§2501-2514), requires that grant-
assisted sites remain recreation facilities and ongoing NPS stewardship and
protection activities continue for the 1,528 recreation sites.
Construction. The construction line item funds new construction, as well as
rehabilitation and replacement of park facilities. The FY2006 Interior appropriations
law provided $301.3 million for NPS construction, $10.1 million more than the
House and $2.1 million above the Senate, but $51.7 million less than FY2005

enacted. In addition, the law provided $17.0 million from prior year balances, which
had been requested by the Administration and approved by the House and Senate (but
is not included in the figures herein). For FY2006, the Administration had requested
$307.4 million for NPS construction for high priority health, safety, and resource
protection needs. This was a decrease of $45.6 million from the FY2005 enacted
appropriation of $353.0 million (including $50.8 million in emergency funding for
disaster response). The original House-passed bill contained $291.2 million while
the original Senate-passed bill included $299.2 million. (For information on NPS
maintenance, see CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated
by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. For FY2006, appropriations
under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) totaled $64.9 million, with
$34.9 million for NPS land acquisition and $30.0 million for state assistance
programs, known as stateside assistance. An additional $9.9 million from prior year
balances is to be used for land acquisition. The land acquisition funds are used to
acquire lands, or interests in lands, for inclusion within the National Park System.
State assistance is for recreation-related land acquisition and recreation planning and
development by the states, with the funds allocated by a formula and states
determining their spending priorities. The FY2006 total was $81.4 million below the
FY2005 enacted level. The Administration had requested $54.5 million.
For FY2006, the House originally had approved $9.4 million, while the Senate-
passed bill included $86.0 million. The sizable reduction in the original House-
passed level in large part stemmed from not providing funds for new LWCF State
Assistance Grants, as had been recommended by the President. However, the House
did include $1.6 million, as requested, to administer existing grants. FY2005 funding
for state assistance programs was $91.2 million. The Senate approved $30.0 million
for the state assistance program, and this amount prevailed in conference.
Administration representatives had testified that state project grants are more
appropriately funded through other means, and that in a period of budgetary
constraint, such programs should have a lower priority than other NPS activities.
(For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)”
section in this report.)
The reduction proposed by the House was due also to a reduction for federal
land acquisition. The FY2006 budget request was $52.9 million. The original
House-passed bill contained $7.8 million for NPS land acquisition management
activities (plus $9.9 million of prior year appropriations), but did not include money
for specified acquisitions. The Senate had approved $56.0 million for NPS land
acquisition and provided specific park unit recommendations. A Senate amendment
to cut NPS land acquisition, and reduce or eliminate acquisition funding for other
land management agencies, fell on a point of order.
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid to states (primarily through State Historic
Preservation Offices), territories, the Federated States of Micronesia, and certified
local governments, for activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act
(P.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. §470). These activities include protecting cultural resources
and enhancing economic development by restoring historic districts, sites, buildings,

and objects significant in American history and culture. Preservation grants are
normally funded on a 60% federal/40% state matching share basis. HPF also
provides funding for cultural heritage projects for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and
Native Hawaiians.
For FY2006, the final appropriation was $73.3 million for the HPF, including
$36.3 million for grants-in aid to states, $4.0 million for tribal grants, $30.0 million
for Save America’s Treasures and $3.0 million for HBCUs. The FY2006
appropriation for HPF reflected an increase over the FY2006 House-passed bill
($72.7 million), the FY2006 Administration request ($66.2 million), and the FY2005
level ($71.7 million). However, it was a decrease from the Senate-passed bill ($74.5
million.)
The FY2006 enacted appropriation for HPF included $30.0 million for Save
America’s Treasures, which the President had proposed to cut in half. The Save
America’s Treasures program preserves nationally significant intellectual and cultural
artifacts and historic structures. Due to concerns that the program did not reflect
geographic diversity, annual appropriations laws have required that project
recommendations be subject to approval by the Appropriations Committees prior to
distribution of funds. From the total for Save America’s Treasures for FY2006,
$13.3 million would be for competitive grants with $16.8 million specified by
Congress for designated projects.
The House-passed bill did not specify funding for a proposed “Preserve
America” program. However, the Senate-passed bill provided that not to exceed $7.5
million of the funding for Save America’s Treasures may be allocated to Preserve
America pilot grants. The FY2005 appropriations law did not fund these grants. The
FY2006 appropriation provided that not to exceed $5.0 million could be allocated to
Preserve America grants. Preserve America grants-in-aid would supplement Save
America’s Treasures in supporting community efforts to develop resource
management strategies and to encourage heritage tourism. Preserve America grants
would be competitively awarded on a matching basis, as one-time seed money grants.
(See Table 9 below.) The Senate Appropriations Committee report stated that the
consideration in this session of a bill to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation
Act would likely include discussion of the Preserve America program and Save
America’s Treasures.
An issue that is often considered during the appropriations process is whether
historic preservation programs should be funded by private money rather than the
federal government. Congress eliminated permanent federal funding for the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, but has funded on a temporary basis the Trust’s
endowment fund for endangered properties. Also, HPF previously included funds
for preserving and restoring historic buildings and structures on HBCU campuses.
An appropriation in FY2001 of $7.2 million represented the unused authorization
remaining under law. There was no funding for HBCUs under HPF for FY2002 or
FY2003. The FY2004 appropriations law provided $3.0 million through competitive
grants administered by the NPS, and the FY2005 law provided $3.4 million. For
FY2006, the Administration did not propose funding for HBCUs under HPF, but the
House-passed bill would have provided $3.5 million. During Senate floor

consideration, an amendment was agreed to that would provide $2.0 million for
HBCUs. The final FY2006 law provided $3.0 million for HBCUs.
During House debate on FY2006 Interior appropriations, the Chairman of the
House Resources Committee objected to the appropriation for the Historic
Preservation Fund (and other programs) on the grounds that it was not authorized for
FY2006 and that there should be no appropriation without an authorization. His
amendment on this issue was ruled out of order as constituting legislation on an
appropriations bill.
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Historic PreservationFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Grants-in-Aid to States and^a$35,500$35,500$36,000$38,500$36,250
Territories
Tribal Grants3,2053,2053,2054,0004,000
Save America’s Treasures29,58315,00030,00030,000^b30,000^b
Preserve America Grants-In-0 12,5000 0^b 0^b
Aid
HBCUs3,4510 3,5002,000 3,000
National Historic Trust
Endowment Grant/Historic 0 0 0 0 0
Sites Fund
Total Appropriations$71,739$66,205$72,705$74,500$73,250
^{a. T}^h^{e ter}^m^“^G^r^aⁿ^t^s-ⁱⁿ^-^A^id^to^{States an}^d^T^e^r^r^ito^rⁱ^es^”^is^u^s^{ed in}^con^j^uⁿ^c^tion^w^ith^th^{e bu}^dg^{et an}^{d ref}^e^rs
^{to th}^{e s}^a^m^e^prog^ram^as^Gran^ts^-ⁱⁿ^-^Aⁱ^d^{to State His}^t^{oric P}^r^es^erv^a^tion^Of^fⁱ^ces^.
^b^.^T^h^{e Sen}^a^te-^p^assed^b^{ill p}^r^o^v^id^ed^th^{at p}^a^{rt o}^f^th^{e Sav}^e^A^m^erica’^{s T}^r^easu^r^{es allo}^catioⁿ^,ⁿ^o^{t to}^ex^ceed
^{$7.5 m}^illion^,^m^a^y^{be u}^s^{ed t}^o^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^fo^r^P^r^es^erv^e^A^m^{erica pilot g}^r^an^ts^{. T}^h^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^{l FY2006}
^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^w^o^u^l^d^allo^wⁿ^o^{t to}^ex^ceed^$⁵^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^to^b^e^u^s^ed^f^o^r^P^r^eserv^e^A^m^erica^g^r^an^ts.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at
[ http://www.nps.gov/] .
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website at
[ http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/] .
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Issue Brief IB10145. National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.

CRS Issue Brief IB10141. Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori
Calvert and Carol Hardy Vincent.
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation’s premier science agency in
providing physical and biological information related to natural hazards; certain
aspects of the environment; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In
addition, it is the federal government’s principal civilian mapping agency and a
primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s water resources.
Funds for the USGS are provided in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and
Research, for seven activities: the National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; Biological Research;
Enterprise Information; Science Support; and Facilities. For FY2006, P.L. 109-54
appropriated $976.0 million for the USGS, which is an increase of $31.5 million over
the FY2005 enacted level of $944.6 million, and $42.5 million over the
Administration’s request of $933.5 million. See Table 10 below.
P.L. 109-54 provided $131.2 million for the National Mapping Program; $238.8
million for Geologic Hazards, Resource, and Processes; $214.9 million for Water
Resources Investigations; $177.5 million for Biological Research; $47.1 million for
Enterprise Information; $70.3 million for Science Support; and $96.2 million for
Facilities. All of these accounts received funding above their FY2005 enacted levels.
In this past year, more than 27 major disasters were declared in the United States
from earthquakes to landslides, hurricanes, fires, and floods. Further, the United
States and its territories have 169 volcanoes considered to be active, more than any
other country in the world. USGS has the lead federal responsibility under the
Disaster Relief Act (P.L. 93-288, popularly known as the Stafford Act) to provide
notification for earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides and reduce losses through
effective forecasts and warnings based on the best possible scientific information.
The FY2006 budget request sought to address these responsibilities by proposing
funding increases to assist in the development and use of tsunami monitoring
systems, seismic activity monitoring, and geothermal assessments. P.L. 109-54
provided approximately $6.2 million more than the FY2005 enacted level for the
account that addresses natural hazards.
Of the proposed reductions in the Administration’s FY2006 budget, the largest
would have been for $28.3 million in the Geologic Hazards, Resource, and Processes
line item due to cuts in programs related to mineral resources. Both the House- and
Senate-passed bills recommended restoring this funding, and in the enacted
legislation funding was restored for FY2006. The FY2006 request also proposed to
eliminate funding for the Water Resources Research Institutes, which the
Administration claims have been generally self-supporting. The Institutes were
funded at $6.4 million in FY2005. P.L. 109-54 provided $6.5 million to these
institutes for FY2006.
Enterprise Information. In FY2005, the Administration proposed a new
line item for funding within the USGS called Enterprise Information. This program

consolidates funding of all USGS information needs including information
technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as capital asset
planning. Funding for these functions previously was distributed among several
different USGS offices and budget subactivities. P.L. 109-54 provided $47.1 million
for this account, which is $2.7 million above the FY2005 enacted level and $0.7
million less than the Administration’s request.
There are three primary programs within Enterprise Information: (1) Enterprise
Information Security and Technology, which supports management and operations
of USGS telecommunications (e.g., computing infrastructure and email); (2)
Enterprise Information Resources, which provides policy support, information
management, and oversight over information services; and (3) Federal Geographic
Data Coordination, which provides operational support and management for the
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The FGDC is an interagency,
intergovernmental committee that encourages collaboration to make geospatial data
available to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as communities.
National Mapping Program. The National Mapping Program aims to
provide access to high quality geospatial information to the public. P.L. 109-54
provided $131.2 million for FY2006, which was $12.5 million above the FY2005
enacted level of $118.8 million and $2.3 million below the Administration’s request
of $133.5 million.
The FY2006 appropriations law reflected an increase of $11.7 million over the
FY2005 enacted level to support land remote sensing archives and capability. This
increase is anticipated to allow the continued availability of Landsat data and provide
the necessary resources for data reception, processing, and archiving. As part of the
budget response to a funding shortfall in Landsat 7, due to fewer purchases of the
data, the USGS sought $6.0 million in FY2006 for the Landsat Program. Landsat 7
is a satellite that takes remotely-sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and
surrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring. Last year,
approximately 25% of the data from the Landsat 7 Satellite began showing signs of
degradation. Nevertheless, an interagency panel concluded that the Landsat 7
Satellite data “continues to provide a unique, cost-effective solution to operational⁶
and scientific problems.” In report language, the House Appropriations Committee
commended the Administration and the USGS for providing a proposal to continue
Landsat operations.
In contrast to the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed bill would have provided
a reduction of $6.0 million from the Administration’s request for the Landsat 7
program. Although in report language the Senate Appropriations Committee
commended the DOI and others for working out a plan for the program, it expressed
that the plan is no different from previous recommendations which amounted to a
subsidy of current operations. The Committee stated that it expected the USGS and
the DOI to provide more explanation of this proposal before the FY2006 Interior bill

⁶ U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Budget Justification and Performance
Information: Fiscal Year 2005 (Reston, VA: 2004).

was conferenced, and before it gave the Administration’s request more consideration
(S.Rept. 109-80, p. 33-34).
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, P.L. 109-54 provided $238.8 million, which was
$9.6 million above the FY2005 enacted level of $229.2 million, and $30.7 million
above the Administration’s request. This line item covers programs in three
activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource
Assessments.
P.L. 109-54 provided funding of $77.7 million for the Resource Assessments
line item, although the Administration had sought a reduction of $28.3 million for
FY2006. Both the House and Senate-passed bills would have restored funding for
this program. According to the Administration, proposed cuts in the mineral
resources program would terminate the collection of basic geologic and mineral
deposit data for the nation, the internationally-coordinated global mineral resource
assessment, and many mineral commodity reports. The approximately $25 million
the Administration had sought for the minerals program was to continue funding
minerals surveys and studies relevant to ongoing federal land management,
regulatory, and remediation activities. The conference committee report stated that
it would seem “irresponsible for the Administration to decrease or eliminate funding
for what is clearly an inherently Federal responsibility.” (H.Rept. 109-188, p. 89).
The House Appropriations Committee, in report language, asserted that minerals and
mineral products are important to the U.S. economy, and that minerals resources
research and assessments are a core responsibility of the USGS. The House
Committee further stated that objective data on mineral commodities cannot be
generated by the private sector.
The Geologic Hazards Assessments program received $82.2 million from P.L.
109-54, as recommended by the Administration, an increase of $6.2 million over the
FY2005 enacted level. This reflected increased attention to monitoring natural
hazards and mitigating their effects.
Water Resources Investigations. For Water Resources Investigations,
P.L. 109-54 provided $214.9 million for FY2006, which was $3.7 million above the
FY2005 enacted level, and $10.8 million above the Administration’s request. The
Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments, and Research activity was funded at $144.7
million for FY2006, $2.2 million above the FY2005 enacted level.
As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2005 budget requests, the
FY2006 request sought to discontinue USGS support for Water Resources Research
Institutes because, the Administration alleged, most institutes have succeeded in
leveraging sufficient funding for program activities from non-USGS sources.
However, Congress provided funding for the institutes from FY2002 to FY2005.
P.L. 109-54 funded the institutes at a level of $6.5 million.
The National Assessment of Water Availability and Use is a program under
Water Resources that is being implemented this year. This program aims to provide
a better understanding of the nation’s water resources, trends in water use, and
forecasting water availability. In FY2005, the program began a $1.2 million pilot

study in the Great Lakes Basin to evaluate water resources and use. The FY2006
budget proposed to extend the program to the western United States through a pilot
effort that would provide and analyze information to characterize changes in ground-
water availability in large regional aquifer systems. In report language, the House
Appropriations Committee stated an expectation that USGS continue this project,
implement a second pilot project, and continue to expand this program to other parts
of the country.
Conference managers expressed concern over reports that suggest that the
USGS water resources program is providing, or seeking to provide, commercial
services to federal and non-federal entities in competition with the private sector.
The managers expect that the USGS will use the services of the private sector to the
best of its ability whenever feasible, cost effective, and consistent with the principles
of government standards.
Biological Research. The Biological Research Program under the USGS
generates and distributes information related to the conservation and management of
the nation’s biological resources. P.L. 109-54 provided $177.5 million for this
activity for FY2006, which is $5.8 million above the FY2005 enacted level of $171.7
million and $4.6 million above the requested amount of $172.9 million. The
activities under Biological Research include Biological Research and Monitoring,
Biological Information Management and Delivery, and Cooperative Research Units.
The FY2006 request had proposed increases for projects and research in deepwater
fisheries in the Great Lakes, freshwater fisheries in the western United States, and
control of invasive species, such as the tamarisk in the Rio Grande Basin.
Conference managers included funding increases for the invasive species
initiative within this program and directed the USGS to fund leafy spurge eradication.
Further, the managers included funding for surveying efforts to describe the
population range of the ivory-billed woodpecker. In concordance with the Senate
Appropriations Committee, conference managers expressed concern that no
coordinated budgetary and programmatic plan has been made for the expansion of
the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). The NBII is a program
that provides increased access to data on the nation’s biological resources.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for managing and disseminating
scientific information. P.L. 109-54 provided $70.3 million for Science Support for
FY2006, which was an increase of $4.8 million from the FY2005 enacted level of
$65.6 million, and a decrease of $2.0 million from the Administration’s request of
$72.3 million.
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. P.L. 109-
54 provided $96.2 million for facilities, which was $1.5 million over the
Administration request of $94.7 million, and $1.6 million over the FY2005 enacted
level of $94.6 million.

Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
U.S. Geological SurveyFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Enterprise Information$44.4$47.8$47.1$47.1$47.1
National Mapping
Program 118.8133.5133.2127.2131.2
Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and
Processes 229.2 208.1 239.2 237.2 238.8
Water Resources
Inve stigations 211.2 204.2 211.7 214.8 214.9
Biological Research171.7172.9174.8174.3177.5
Science Support65.672.372.366.370.3
Facilities 94.6 94.7 96.2 96.2 96.2
Total Appropriations$944.6^a$933.5$974.6$963.1$976.0
^{a. T}^h^{e total in}^clu^d^es^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^{appropriation}^s^of^{$1.0 m}^illion^prov^{ided in}^P^.^L^.^108-^{324 an}^{d $8.1}
^m^illionⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^109-^13.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at
[ http://www.usgs .gov/] .
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the
Offshore Minerals Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue
Management (MRM) Program. OMM administers competitive leasing on Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas, and other
minerals. MRM collects and disburses bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal
onshore and OCS leases and Indian mineral leases. Revenues from onshore leases
are distributed to states in which they were collected, the general fund of the U.S.
Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated
among the coastal states, Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic
Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
The MMS estimates that it collects and disburses over $6 billion in revenue
annually. This amount fluctuates based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas.
Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40%
to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties have been not more than 25%.
Budget and Appropriations. The Administration submitted an FY2006
total MMS budget of $290.2 million. This included $7.0 million for Oil Spill

Research and $283.1 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. The
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management total budget would have included
$148.3 million for OMM, $87.3 million for MRM, and $47.5 million for general
administration. The total FY2006 budget of $290.2 million in the Administration
request reflected $167.4 million in appropriations and an additional $122.7 million
from offsetting collections which MMS has been retaining since 1994. The
Administration’s total budget was 5% above the $277.6 million provided for
FY2005. The Administration proposed to reduce the FY2006 appropriations by 4%,
from $173.8 million enacted for FY2005 to $167.4 million for FY2006.
The House-passed version contained $282.4 million for MMS programs
(including Oil Spill Research). The major differences between the Administration’s
request and the House bill were in two Royalty Management programs: the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve to Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) conversion and the Compliance and
Asset Management (CAM) initiative. The House considered the $9.8 million in the
budget request to fund these programs unnecessary, because the House had included
a provision to allow the RIK program to recover its costs directly. Thus, while the
President requested $51.9 million for CAM, the House bill would have provided
$42.1 million. The Senate-passed version included a total of $282.2 million for
MMS programs (including Oil Spill Research) and would have funded the CAM
initiative at $43.1 million. The Senate bill generally would have funded MMS
programs at or near the requested or House-passed levels in all other categories. See
Table 11 below.
The conferees settled on a total MMS budget of $283.4 million. This included
$149.9 million for OMM, $78.5 million for MRM, $47.9 million for General
Administration, and $7.0 million for oil spill research. They supported the use of
$122.7 million in offsetting collections, for a net appropriation of $160.7 million.
These were the levels enacted in the FY2006 appropriations law, making the FY2006
appropriation 8% lower than the FY2005 level.

Table 11. Appropriations for the Minerals Management Service,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Minerals Management Service FY2005Approp. FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
— OCS Lands (OMM) $148.3$148.3$149.5$149.2$149.9
— Royalty Management (MRM)75.487.377.578.578.5
— General Administration46.947.548.447.547.9
— Gross, Royalty and Offshore
Minerals Management270.6283.1275.4275.2276.4
— Use of Receipts-103.7-122.7-122.7-122.7-122.7
Total, Royalty and Offshore
Minerals Management
Appropriations 166.9 160.4 152.7 152.5 153.7
Oil Spill Research7.07.07.07.07.0
Total Appropriations$173.9$167.4$159.7$159.5$160.7
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts were once again considered during the FY2006 appropriations process, as
they were in recent years. Oil and gas development moratoria along the Atlantic and
Pacific Coasts, parts of Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) have been in place
since 1982, as a result of public laws and executive orders of the President.
The FY2006 moratoria language, in virtually every respect, was in agreement
with the House- and Senate-passed bills. The FY2006 appropriations law retained
the moratorium on funding preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico (GOM), as had the FY2005 appropriations law. Sales in the Eastern GOM
have been especially controversial. There are several blocks that were removed by
the Administration from Eastern GOM sale 181 that could become available for
release after 2007, as part of the Administration’s new five-year leasing program.
Industry groups contend that Eastern GOM sales are too limited, arguing that the
resource potential is significant. Environmental groups and some state officials
contend that the risks of development to the environment and local economies are too
great. The FY2006 appropriations law included House- and Senate-passed language,
which continued leasing moratoria in other areas, including the Atlantic and Pacific
Coasts, as did the FY2005 appropriations law.
The House- and Senate-passed versions of the FY2006 Interior Appropriations
bill did not include language to prohibit funding for preleasing and leasing activity
in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, nor did the FY2006 appropriations law.
The FY2005 and FY2004 appropriations laws also omitted this language. However,
the issue remains controversial. There is some industry interest in eventually opening
the area to oil and gas development as an offset to the depressed fishing industry in
the Bristol Bay area. Environmentalists and others oppose this effort. The North

Aleutian Basin Planning Area, containing Bristol Bay, is not in the MMS current
five-year (2002-2007) leasing plan. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of
1953 (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. §1331), the Secretary of the Interior submits five-year
leasing programs that specify the time, location, and size of lease sales to be held
during that period.
Industry groups are seeking legislation to allow natural-gas-only drilling in areas
currently under the moratoria. The industry proposal would allow state governors to
veto any proposal within 60 miles of their shores and would extend states’ coastal
boundaries up to 12 miles to increase the potential of generating more revenue for the
states.
During the FY2006 House Appropriations Committee markup, an amendment
that would lift the moratoria in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico if U.S. oil imports reach
two-thirds of consumption was withdrawn. Another amendment, also withdrawn,
would have allocated $50.0 million to inventory offshore natural gas. The
amendment to lift the moratoria in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico was offered again on
the House floor (by Representative Istook), but a point of order was sustained on the
grounds that it constituted legislation on an appropriations bill. A second amendment
(by Representative John E. Peterson) that would have lifted the moratorium on
offshore natural gas was defeated (157-262).
Oil and gas leasing in offshore California also has continued to be a
controversial issue. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
§1451), development of federal offshore leases must be consistent with state coastal
zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended 36 of the 40 leases at issue in
offshore California by granting lease suspensions, but the State of California
contended that it should have first reviewed the suspensions for consistency with the
state’s coastal zone management plan. In June 2001, the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of California agreed with the State of California and struck down the MMS
suspensions.
The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 9, 2002, to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after the state rejected a more limited lease
development plan that involved 20 leases using existing drilling platforms. However,
on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the District
Court decision.⁷ The Department of the Interior did not appeal this decision and is
currently working with lessees to resolve the issue. The breach-of-contract lawsuit
that was filed against MMS by nine oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in
compensation for their undeveloped leases is pending further action.
Several oil and gas lessees submitted a new round of suspension requests to
prevent lease termination and loss of development rights. The MMS has prepared
six environmental assessments and found no significant impact for processing the
applications for Suspension of Production or Operations. Under the Coastal Zone
Management Act, a consistency review by MMS and the state’s response to that
review will occur before a decision is made to grant or deny the requests.

⁷ Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, California v. Norton, 01-16637.

For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website
at [http://www.mms.gov].
CRS Report RL31521. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas: Energy Security and
Other Major Issues, by Marc Humphries.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-
87; 30 U.S.C. §1201 note) established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM) to ensure that land mined for coal would be returned to a
condition capable of supporting its pre-mining land use. SMCRA also established
an Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to
reclaim abandoned sites that pose serious health or safety hazards. The law provided
that individual states and Indian tribes would develop their own regulatory programs
incorporating minimum standards established by law and regulations. Fee collections
have been broken up into federal and state shares. Grants are awarded to the states
after applying a distribution formula to the annual appropriation and drawing upon
both the federal and state shares. In instances where states have no approved
program, OSM directs reclamation.
Several states have been pressing in recent years for increases in the AML
appropriations, with an eye on the unappropriated balances in the state-share accounts
that now exceed $1 billion. The total unappropriated balance — including both
federal and state share accounts in the AML fund — was nearly $1.7 billion by the
end of FY2004. Western states are additionally critical of the program because, as
coal production has shifted westward, these states are paying more into the fund.
They contend that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation
burden as more of the sites requiring remediation are in the East.
In both the 108^th and 109^th Congresses, legislation was introduced to reauthorize
fee collections and make a number of changes to the program to address state and
regional concerns. Other legislative proposals for reauthorization of AML^th
collections were introduced in the House and Senate. The 108 Congress was unable
to reach a resolution of the issues surrounding the structure of the program.
In light of the narrowing prospects that a broader AML bill would be enacted^th
before the conclusion of the 108 Congress, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
added a short-term extension — to May 31, 2005 — during its markup of the
FY2005 Interior appropriations bill. The House version of the bill had no
comparable language. However, authorization for collection of AML fees was
extended to the end of June 2005 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005
(P.L. 108-447). Pending a longer-term settlement of unresolved issues about the
structure of the AML program, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
FY2005 (P.L. 109-13) extended authorization for collection of the fees that are
deposited to the AML reclamation fund to the end of FY2005. As passed by the
Senate, the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill sought to provide a further extension
of the AML fund to June 30, 2006. The House bill included no similar provision.

The FY2006 appropriations law included the Senate language extending the
authorization for collections to the end of June 2006.
The FY2005 budget request, which included a proposal to restructure the
program to return the unobligated balances to the states, totaled $243.9 million for
the AML fund. However, neither the House nor Senate embraced the
Administration’s plan. The final appropriation for the fund for FY2005 was $188.2
million. The FY2006 request again sought to return unobligated state-share balances
to the states over ten years. This part of the request accounted for $58.0 million of the
Administration’s total FY2006 OSM request of $356.5 million. The FY2006
request for additional funds to begin return of unobligated state share balances also
was rejected by both the House and Senate. With that exception, the House and
Senate were in agreement with the levels requested by the Administration for OSM,
including $188.0 million for the AML fund. This was the level enacted.
The other component of the OSM budget is for regulation and technology
programs. For regulation and technology, Congress provided $108.4 million in
FY2005. The House and Senate agreed to the Administration’s request for $110.5
million for FY2006 and that level was enacted into law. Included in the FY2006
request was $10.0 million for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI), the
same level as in FY2002-FY2005. This figure was retained in the FY2006
appropriations law.
Owing to the Administration proposal to return unobligated state balances, and
as noted above, the Administration requested $356.5 million for OSM, a 20%
increase over the FY2005 level of $296.6 million. However, the total for OSM
enacted for FY2006 was $298.5 million, reflecting House and Senate agreement with
the other components of the Administration’s request.
In its FY2006 budget, the Administration requested $1.5 million for minimum
program states. These states have significant AML problems, but insufficient levels
of current coal production to generate significant fees to the AML fund. Currently,
grants to the states from the AML fund are based on states’ current and historic coal
production. The minimum funding level for each of these states was increased to
$2.0 million in 1992. However, over the objection of those states who would have
preferred the full authorization, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum
program states since FY1996. While the Administration sought $2.0 million for
minimum program states in its FY2005 request, it returned to $1.5 million for
FY2006. This level was provided in the FY2006 law. Also, SMCRA included a
provision for a $10.0 million allocation from the AML collections for the Small
Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). However, no appropriation was requested
for FY2006, and none was included in the FY2006 appropriations law.
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its website at [http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm].
CRS Report RL32373. Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected
Issues, by Robert L. Bamberger.

Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally-
recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and
historically has been the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs
provided or funded through the BIA include government operations, courts, law
enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education, roads, economic
development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection,
implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust assets (real estate
and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.
BIA’s FY2005 direct appropriations are $2.30 billion. For FY2006, the
Administration proposed $2.19 billion, a decrease of $108.2 million (5%) below
FY2005. The House approved $2.32 billion, an increase of $22.3 million (1%) over
FY2005 and of $130.5 million (6%) over the Administration’s proposal. The Senate
approved $2.27 billion, which was $26.3 million (1%) less than FY2005, $81.9
million (4%) more than the FY2006 proposal, and $48.6 million (2%) less than the
House FY2006 amount. Congress enacted an FY2006 total of $2.31 billion, an
increase of $12.5 million (less than 1%) over FY2005 and of $120.8 million (6%)
over the Administration’s proposal. For the BIA, its major budget components, and
selected BIA programs, Table 12 below presents figures for FY2005-FY2006 and
the percentages of change from FY2005 to FY2006 for the enacted levels. Decreases
are shown with minuses.
Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of the
Bureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in the BIA
school system.

Table 12. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
Percent
Bureau of IndianFY2005FY2006FY2006HouseFY2006SenateFY2006Change:
Affairs Approp. Request P assed P assed Approp. F Y 2005-
FY2006
Operation of Indian Programs
— Tribal Priority$769,543$760,149$778,069$775,407$777,3191%
Allocations
——Contract Support134,420134,609134,609134,609134,609<1%
Costs
— Other Recurring612,919602,301636,337621,295634,7954%
Programs
——School Operations517,647521,633544,993521,633531,4933%
——Tribally- 53,141 43,375 43,375 56,375 56,375 6%
Controlled Colleges
— Non-Recurring75,98565,32567,69170,47571,371-6%
Programs
— Central Office140,021151,534151,534151,534151,5348%
Operations
——Office of Federal1,2801,2801,2801,2801,2800%
Acknowledgment
——Trust Services19,07127,16927,16927,16927,16942%
——Information 58,092 58,288 58,288 58,288 58,288 <1%
Resources Technology
— Regional Office41,36241,59041,59041,59041,5901%
Operations
— Special Programs286,261303,331317,516310,831314,88110%
and Pooled Overhead
——Public Safety and180,063192,265200,765192,265196,2659%
Justice
——Tribal Vocational5,17705,1775,3005,3002%
Colleges
Subtotal, Operation of1,926,0911,924,2301,992,7371,971,1321,991,4903%
Indian Programs
Construction 319,129 232,137 284,137 267,137 275,637 -14%
— Education263,372173,875225,875198,875209,875-20%
Construction
——Replacement 105,550 43,494 75,494 58,494 65,494 -38%
School Construction
——Education 142,531 128,381 147,381 138,381 142,381 -<1%
Facilities Improvement
and Repair
— Law Enforcement3,8338,2238,2238,2238,223115%

Facilities Improvement
and Repair

Percent
Bureau of IndianFY2005FY2006FY2006HouseFY2006SenateFY2006Change:
Affairs Approp. Request P assed P assed Approp. F Y 2005-
FY2006
Land and Water Claim44,15024,75434,75424,75434,754-21%
Settlements and
Miscellaneous
Payments
Indian Guaranteed6,3326,3486,3486,3486,348<1%
Loan Program
Total Appropriations$2,295,702$2,187,469$2,317,976$2,269,371$2,308,229<1%
BIA Reorganization. In April 2003, Secretary of the Interior Norton began
implementing a reorganization of the BIA, the Office of Assistant Secretary-Indian
Affairs (AS-IA), and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) in the
Office of the Interior Secretary (see “Office of Special Trustee” section below). The
reorganization arises from issues and events related to trust funds and trust assets
management, and is integrally related to the reform and improvement of trust
management. Historically, the BIA has been responsible for managing Indian tribes’
and individuals’ trust funds and trust assets. Trust assets include trust lands and the
lands’ surface and subsurface economic resources (e.g., timber, grazing, or minerals),
and cover about 45 million acres of tribal trust land and 10 million acres of individual
Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate services, processing
of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), surveys, appraisals, probate functions, land
title records activities, and other functions.
The BIA, however, has been frequently charged with mismanaging Indian trust
funds and trust assets. Investigations and audits in the 1980s and after supported
these criticisms, especially in the areas of accounting, linkage of owners to assets,
and retention of records. This led to a trust reform act in 1994 and the filing of an
extensive court case in 1996. (See “Office of Special Trustee” section below.) The
1994 act created the OST, assigning it responsibility for oversight of trust
management reform. In 1996, trust fund management was transferred to the OST
from the BIA, but the BIA retained management of trust assets.
Unsuccessful efforts at trust management reform in the 1990s led DOI to
contract in 2001 with a management consultant firm. The firm’s recommendations
included both improvements in trust management and reorganization of the DOI
agencies carrying out trust management and improvement.⁸ Following nearly a year
of DOI consultation on reorganization with Indian tribes and individuals, DOI
announced the reorganization in December 2002, even though the department and
tribal leaders had not reached agreement on all aspects of reorganization. DOI,
however, faced a deadline in the court case to file a plan for overall trust management
reform, and reorganization was part of DOI’s plan.

⁸ The report is available on the DOI website at [http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/
pdf/roadmap.pdf].

The current reorganization plan of BIA, AS-IA, and OST — which DOI expects
to complete in FY2005 — chiefly involves trust management structures and
functions. Under the plan, the BIA’s trust operations at regional and agency levels
remains in those offices but is split off from other BIA services. The OST adds trust
officers to BIA regional and agency offices to oversee trust management and provide
information to Indian trust beneficiaries. Certain tribes, however, that had been
operating trust management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices
under self-governance compacts were excluded from the reorganization, under the
FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations acts. The BIA, OST, and AS-IA, together with
the Office of Historical Trust Accounting in the Secretary’s office, also are
implementing a separate trust management improvement project, announced in
March 2003, which includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, and
procedures, historical accounting for trust accounts, reduction of backlogs,
modernization of computer technology (the court case led in 2001 to a continuing
shutdown of BIA’s World-Wide-Web connections), and maintenance of the
improved system.
Many Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the plaintiffs in the court case,
have been critical of the new reorganization and have urgently asked that it be
suspended. Tribes argue that the reorganization is premature, because new trust
procedures and policies are still being developed; that it insufficiently defines new
OST duties; and that other major BIA service programs are being limited or cut to
pay for the reorganization. For FY2004-FY2005, Congress responded to tribal
concerns by excluding from BIA reorganization certain tribes that have been
operating trust management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices.
Congress retained this exclusion for FY2006. Congress has not, however, suspended
or stopped the reorganization, and Congress agreed with the Administration’s
proposed FY2006 funding for BIA Central Office trust reform and reorganization.
BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools
and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating about 48,000
students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-determination
contracts and other grants, operate 120 of these institutions; the BIA operates the
remainder. BIA-funded schools’ key problems are low student achievement and,
especially, a large number of inadequate school facilities.
Some observers feel tribal operation of schools will improve student
achievement. To encourage tribal boards to take over operation of current BIA-
operated schools, for FY2004-FY2005, Congress created an administrative cost fund
to pay tribal school boards’ start-up administrative costs. The fund’s FY2005
appropriation was $986,000. The Administration’s FY2006 proposal reduced this
fund to $500,000, and Congress agreed.
Many BIA school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety
deficiencies. BIA education construction covers both construction of new school
facilities to replace facilities that cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair of
existing facilities. Schools are replaced or repaired according to priority lists. The
BIA has estimated the current backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million,
but this figure changes as new repair needs appear each year.

Table 12 above shows FY2005 education construction funds, and for FY2006
the Administration’s proposal, the House and Senate amounts, and the enacted level
for education construction. The Administration proposed reducing the total FY2006
appropriation for education construction by $89.5 million (34%). Included in the
proposal was a reduction for replacement-school construction of $62.1 million
(59%); the Administration asserted that a majority of school replacement projects
funded in previous years are still under construction and that BIA needed to focus on
completing them. Congress disagreed with the Administration’s assertion and partly
restored the Administration’s cuts, reducing FY2006 total education construction by
$53.5 million (20%) and replacement-school construction by $40.1 million (38%)
from the FY2005 enacted levels.
In response to the Administration’s position that some projects under self-
determination contracts have been too slow in commencing, the FY2005
appropriations act authorized the BIA to reassume management of school
construction projects that are under tribal self-determination contracts if the
construction does not begin within 18 months of funding availability. Congress
retained this provision for FY2006.
Because construction appropriations are, in some tribes’ views, not reducing
construction needs fast enough, Indian tribes have urged Congress to explore
additional sources of construction financing. In the FY2001-FY2005 Interior
appropriations acts, Congress authorized a demonstration program that allows tribes
to help fund construction of BIA-funded, tribally-controlled schools. For FY2005,
Congress funded the program at $12.3 million (earmarking all the funding for three
projects). For FY2006, the Administration proposed no funding for this program and
Congress agreed.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109^th Congress, by Roger Walke.
Departmental Offices
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to four insular areas — American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands — as well as
three former insular areas — the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Palau, and
the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). OIA staff also manages relations
between these jurisdictions and the federal government and works to build the fiscal
and governmental capacity of units of local government.
Funding for the OIA consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite
appropriations and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the
appropriations process. The total request for FY2006 was $392 million; of this total,
$345.5 million (88%) is mandated through statutes. A total of $343 million in
permanent funding would be provided in FY2006 as follows:

^!$198 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau)
under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free
Association;⁹
^!$115 million in fiscal assistance, divided between the U.S. Virgin
Islands for estimated rum excise and income tax collections and
Guam for income tax collections; and
^!$30 million in each year for American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, or the
state of Hawaii, from FY2004 through FY2023, for health,
educational, social, or public safety services, or infrastructure costs,
associated with the residence of “qualified nonimmigrants” from the
RMI, FSM, or Palau.¹⁰
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the balance of the OIA budget. Two accounts — Assistance to Territories
(AT) and the Compact of Free Association (CFA) — comprise discretionary and
current mandatory funding. AT funding is used to provide grants for the operation
of the government of American Samoa, infrastructure improvement projects on many
of the insular area islands, and specified natural resource initiatives. The CFA
account provides federal assistance to the freely associated states pursuant to compact
agreements negotiated with the federal government.
Appropriations for FY2005 total $81.0 million, with AT funded at $75.6 million
and CFA at $5.5 million. The FY2006 request sought to reduce AT funding to $74.3
million, and CFA assistance to $4.9 million, for a total of $79.1 million. The House
approved amounts higher than requested for AT ($76.6 million) and CFA ($5.4
million), resulting in total recommended discretionary and mandatory funding of
almost $82 million. The Senate approved a total of $81.6 million, $76.7 million for
AT and $4.9 million for CFA. Little debate has occurred in recent years on funding
for the territories and the OIA. For FY2006, Congress enacted a total of $82.2
million for the Insular Affairs account — $76.9 million for AT, and $5.4 million for
CFA.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[ http://www.doi.gov/oia/index .html] .
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For FY2006, Congress
enacted $236.0 million for PILT. Originally the House had passed $242.0 million
for PILT, while the Senate had approved $235.0 million. The FY2006 enacted level
is an increase over the FY2005 level ($226.8 million) and a larger increase over the
Administration’s FY2006 request ($200.0 million). The Administration had

⁹ Legislation to approve the amended compacts was enacted in the 108^th Congress (P.L. 108-

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

Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the United States, by Thomas Lum.
The Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994 and will terminate in FY2009.
¹⁰ P.L. 108-188, 117 Stat. 2739, 2742.

recommended cutting PILT as part of an effort to reduce the deficit and to provide
funding at a level that is more consistent with historical appropriations levels.
In earlier action, the House Appropriations Committee had recommended
$230.0 million for PILT, but the House agreed to a floor amendment to increase PILT
funding by $12.0 million with an offset in the DOI Departmental Management
account. The amendment was supported on the grounds that local governments need
additional PILT funds to provide vital services, and that additional funds would help
close the gap between authorized and appropriated funding. The amendment was
opposed on the assertion that there were insufficient funds in the bill overall to direct
more money to PILT, and that it would have an adverse impact on management of
important DOI programs and result in the elimination of staff positions. The House
subsequently rejected another amendment that sought to increase PILT funding by
an additional $4.8 million, with an offset in funds for the National Endowment for
the Arts. A Senate amendment seeking to increase PILT funding to $242.0 million,
equal to the House passed level, was withdrawn.
The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their
jurisdictions because federal land is not taxed. Since the beginning of the program
in 1976, payments of more than $3 billion have been made. The PILT program has
been controversial, because in recent years appropriations have been substantially
less than authorized amounts, ranging from 42% to 68% of authorized levels between
FY2000 and FY2004 (the most recent year available). County governments claim
that rural areas in particular need additional PILT funds to provide the kinds of
services that counties with more private land are able to provide.
Beginning in FY2004, the Administration proposed, and Congress agreed, to
shift the program from the BLM to Departmental Offices in DOI. The shift was
supported because PILT payments are made for lands of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Park Service, Forest Service, and certain other federal lands, in
addition to BLM lands.
For further information on the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, see the BLM
website at [http://www.doi.gov/pilt/].
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians (OST), in the Secretary of the Interior’s office, was
authorized by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act
of 1994 (P.L. 103-412; 25 U.S.C. §§4001 et seq). The OST generally oversees the
reform of Interior Department management of Indian trust assets, the direct
management of Indian trust funds, establishment of an adequate trust fund
management system, and support of department claims settlement activities related
to the trust funds. Indian trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in 1996,
as authorized by P.L. 103-412, the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust fund
management from the BIA to the OST. (See “Bureau of Indian Affairs” section
above.)

Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal
funds owned by about 300 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset
value of about $3 billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual
Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 245,000 accounts with a current total asset
value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2006 budget
justifications.) The funds include monies received from claims awards, land or water
rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from income from land-based
trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as from investment income.
OST’s FY2005 appropriation was $228.1 million. The Administration proposed
$303.9 million for FY2006, an increase of $75.9 million (33%). Congress approved
$226.1 million, a decrease of $1.9 million (1%) from FY2005 and of $77.8 million
(26%) from the Administration’s proposal. Table 13 below presents figures for
FY2005-FY2006 for the OST. Key issues for the OST are its current reorganization,
an historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal
and IIM accounts.
Table 13. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
Office of SpecialFY2006FY2006Percent
Trustee forFY2005FY2006HouseSenateFY2006Change
Am erican Approp. Re que s t P assed P assed Approp. F Y 2005-
IndiansFY2006
Federal Trust
Programs $193,540 $269,397 $191,593 $191,593 $191,593 -1%
— Historical
Accounting 57,194 135,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 1%
Indian Land
Consolidation 34,514 34,514 34,514 34,514 34,514 0%
Total
Appropriations $228,054 $303,911 $226,107 $226,107 $226,107 -1%
Reorganization. Both OST and BIA began a reorganization in 2003 (see
“Bureau of Indian Affairs” section above), one aspect of which is the creation of OST
field operations. OST is installing fiduciary trust officers and administrators at the
level of BIA agency and regional offices. OST and BIA plan on completing the
reorganization in FY2005. Many Indian tribes disagree with parts of the OST and
BIA reorganization and have asked Congress to put it on hold so that OST and BIA
can conduct further consultation with the tribes.
Historical Accounting. The historical accounting effort seeks to assign
correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especially because of litigation.
Because of the long historical period to be covered (some accounts date from the 19^th
century), the large number of IIM accounts, and the large number of missing account
documents, an historical accounting based on actual account transactions is expected

to be large and time-consuming. The Interior Department in 2003 proposed an
extensive, five-year, $335 million project to reconcile IIM accounts. OST continues
to follow this historical accounting plan for IIM accounts, subject to court rulings
(see “Litigation” below) or congressional actions. All of the increase that the
Administration sought for the OST for FY2006 was for historical accounting, which
was proposed to increase from $57.2 million in FY2005 to $135.0 million in
FY2006. Of the proposed $135.0 million, $95.0 million was to be for IIM accounts
and $40.0 million for tribal accounts. The House and Senate rejected the
Administration’s proposed $77.8 million increase for historical accounting and
instead capped FY2006 historical accounting funds at $58.0 million (the FY2005 pre-
rescission level). The House Appropriations Committee’s report recommended using
the $77.8 million to restore the Administration’s proposed cuts in BIA education and
Indian Health Service funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report also
cited “ongoing litigation and uncertainty” as reasons for not funding the
Administration’s full request for historical accounting (S.Rept. 109-80, p. 50). The
FY2006 Interior appropriations law capped funding for historical accounting
activities at $58.0 million.
Litigation. An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Norton) was
filed in 1996, in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the¹¹
federal government by IIM account holders. Many OST activities are related to the
Cobell case, including litigation support activities, but the most significant issue for
appropriations concerns the method by which the historical accounting will be
conducted to estimate IIM accounts’ proper balances. The DOI estimated its
proposed method would cost $335 million over five years and produce a total owed
to IIM accounts in the low millions; the plaintiffs’ method, the cost of which is
uncertain, was estimated to produce a total owed to IIM accounts over $100 billion.
In 2003, the district court conducted a lengthy trial to decide which historical
accounting method to use in estimating the IIM accounts’ proper balances. The
court’s decision on historical accounting was delivered on September 25, 2003. The
court rejected both the plaintiffs’ and DOI’s proposed historical accounting plans and
instead ordered DOI to account for all trust fund and asset transactions since 1887,
without using statistical sampling. The Interior Department estimated that the court’s
choice for historical accounting would cost $6-12 billion.
In the FY2004 Interior appropriations act, Congress enacted a controversial
provision aimed at the court’s September 25, 2003 decision. The provision directed
that no statute or trust law principle should be construed to require the Interior
Department to conduct the historical accounting until either Congress had delineated
the department’s specific historical accounting obligations or December 31, 2004,
whichever was earlier. Based on this provision, the DOI appealed the court’s
September 25, 2003 order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
temporarily stayed the September 25 order. During the stay, on April 5, 2004, the

¹¹ 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].

IIM plaintiffs and the federal government announced agreement on two mediators in
their case and mediation commenced. Meanwhile, no bill was introduced in the 108^th
Congress to delineate the government’s historical accounting obligation. On
December 10, 2004, the Appeals Court overturned much of the September 25 order,
finding among other things that the congressional provision prevented the district
court from requiring DOI to follow its directions for a historical accounting. The
Appeals Court noted that the provision expired on December 31, 2004, but did not
discuss the district court’s possible reissue of the order. On February 23, 2005, the
district court issued an order on historical accounting very similar to its September
2003 order, requiring that an accounting cover all trust fund and asset transactions
since 1887 and not use statistical sampling. The DOI, which estimates that
compliance with the new order would cost $12-13 billion,¹² appealed the order. The
district court did not stay its order during the appeal, however, so various deadlines
that DOI must meet are still in effect. One news story suggests DOI is seeking
congressional action to delay the court-ordered accounting, similar to the provision
in the FY2004 Interior appropriations act.¹³
Congress has long been concerned that the current and potential costs of the
Cobell lawsuit may jeopardize DOI trust reform implementation, reduce spending on
other Indian programs, and be difficult to fund. Besides the ongoing expenses of the
litigation, possible costs include $12-13 billion for the court-ordered historical
accounting, a Cobell settlement that might cost as much as the court-ordered
historical accounting, the over-$100 billion that Cobell plaintiffs estimate their IIM
accounts are owed, or the $27.5 billion that the Cobell plaintiffs have proposed as a
settlement amount.¹⁴ Among the funding sources for these large costs discussed in
a recent House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing were discretionary
appropriations and the Treasury Department’s “Judgment Fund,”¹⁵ but some senior
appropriators consider the Fund insufficient even for a $6-$13 billion dollar
settlement.¹⁶ Among other options, Congress may await a stay, reversal, or other
appeals court action, or it may enact another delay to the court-ordered accounting,
or it may take other actions such as directing a settlement or delineating the
department’s historical accounting obligations. In their reports for FY2006, both the
House Appropriations Committee and the conference committee stated that they
rejected the position that Congress intended in the 1994 Act to order an historical

¹² Recent testimony from the Interior Department estimated the cost at $12-13 billion (James
Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior, Statement before the House
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, March 17, 2005). Previous Interior estimates of the cost were $6-12 billion.
¹³ Spangler, Matt, “Senator Says Government Cannot Afford to Settle 9-Year-Old Indian
Trust Case,” Inside Energy with Federal Lands (March 14, 2005), p. 10.
¹⁴ Trust Reform and Cobell Settlement Workgroup, “Principles for Legislation,” June 20,
2005, p. 2, available at [http://www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs
/20050620SettlementPrinciples.pdf].
¹⁵ The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation for paying judgments against,
and settlements by, the U.S. Government.
¹⁶ Spangler, Matt, “Treasury Fund May Be Short of Cash Needed to Settle Indian royalty
Case,” Inside Energy with Federal Lands (March 21, 2005), p. 6.

accounting on the scale of that ordered by the district court. The House
Appropriations Committee also noted that House and Senate authorizing committees
are committed to developing a legislative solution, and a settlement bill (S. 1439) has
been introduced and received hearings. No language in the FY2006 appropriations
law either delayed the court-ordered historical accounting or otherwise settled the
suit.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its website at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
CRS Report RS21738. The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v.
Norton, by Nathan Brooks.
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109^th Congress, by Roger Walke.
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)
of 1988 (P.L. 100-497; 25 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq) to oversee Indian tribal regulation
of tribal bingo and other Class II operations, as well as aspects of Class III gaming
(e.g., casinos and racing).¹⁷ The primary appropriations issue for NIGC is whether
its funding is adequate for its regulatory responsibilities.
The NIGC is authorized to receive annual appropriations of $2 million, but its
budget authority consists chiefly of annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II and III
operations. IGRA currently caps NIGC fees at $8 million per year. The NIGC in
recent years has requested additional funding because it has experienced increased
demand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field investigations.
Congress, in the FY2003-FY2005 appropriations acts, increased the NIGC’s fee
ceiling to $12 million, but only for FY2004-FY2006. The FY2006 NIGC budget
proposal requested that this increased fee ceiling be continued through FY2007, and
Congress agreed in the FY2006 appropriations law.
In the FY2006 budget, as in its FY2005 request, the Administration proposed
language amending IGRA to create an adjustable, formula-based ceiling for fees
instead of the current fixed ceiling. The Administration contends that a formula-
based fee ceiling would allow NIGC funding to grow as the Indian gaming industry
grows. Gaming tribes do not support the increased fee ceiling or the proposed
amendment of IGRA’s fee ceiling, arguing that NIGC’s budget should first be
reviewed in the context of extensive tribal and state expenditures on regulation of
Indian gaming, and that changes in NIGC’s fees should be developed in consultation
with tribes. Congress did not agree to the Administration’s proposed amendment to
IGRA in the FY2005 or FY2006 appropriations laws.
During FY1999-FY2005, all NIGC activities have been funded from fees, with
no direct appropriations. The Administration did not propose a direct appropriation
for the NIGC for FY2006, nor did Congress consider one.

¹⁷ Classes of Indian gaming were established by the IGRA, and NIGC has different but
overlapping regulatory responsibilities for each class.

For further information on the National Indian Gaming Commission, see its
website at [http://www.nigc.gov/nigc/index.jsp].
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
In the first session of 109th Congress, EPA’s funding was moved to the
jurisdiction of the Interior subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations.
This was the result of 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.
EPA’s responsibilities have grown since it was established in 1970, as Congress
has enacted an increasing number of environmental laws, as well as major
amendments to these statutes. The Agency’s primary responsibilities include 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, tribal and local
areas in controlling pollution.
Without adjusting for inflation, the agency’s appropriation has risen from $1.0
billion when the agency was established in FY1970 to $8.03 billion in FY2005. For
FY2006, P.L. 109-54 provided $7.81 billion for EPA, including $80.0 million in
funds rescinded from past fiscal year appropriations. In effect, the rescinded funds
are an offset in the FY2006 appropriations resulting in a net appropriation of $7.73
million.
The rescissions of previous years appropriations are to be taken from grants,
contracts, and interagency agreements for various program activities, whose
availability under their original agreements has expired. Although included in the
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account, the joint explanatory statement
in the conference report (H.Rept. 109-188, p.112) emphasized that the provision
applies to all EPA appropriations accounts. Unlike the House-passed bill, neither
text of P.L. 109-54 nor the joint explanatory statement specify redirecting the
rescinded funds for specific EPA activities for FY2006. The House-passed bill had
specified that a rescission of $100.0 million in unobligated funds from past
appropriations be used for increased support for the clean water State Revolving
Fund (SRF) under the STAG account (see discussion under “Water Infrastructure”
in this EPA section of the report). The Senate-passed bill included $58.0 million in
“rescinded” previous year funds within the STAG account but did not specify its
allocation for FY2006.
P.L. 109-54 contained significant increases for some activities and programs
within each of the EPA appropriations accounts, while calling for sizeable decreases
or similar funding in other areas when compared to the President’s FY2006 request
and the FY2005 appropriations.

EPA Appropriation Accounts. Traditionally, EPA’s annual appropriation
has been requested and enacted according to various line-item appropriations
accounts, of which there currently are eight:
^!Science and Technology;
^!Environmental Programs and Management;
^!Office of Inspector General;
^!Buildings and Facilities;
^!Hazardous Substance Superfund;
^!Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program;
^!Oil Spill Response; and
^!State and Tribal Assistance Grants.
Table 14 presents a breakdown of appropriations for EPA by account for FY2005
and FY2006. Figure 1 displays the portion of the FY2006 appropriations provided
to EPA in P.L. 109-54 that was allocated for each account.
Table 14. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency, FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Environmental Protection AgencyFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Science & Technology
— Direct Appropriations$744.1$760.6$765.3$730.8$741.7
— Transfer in from Superfund35.830.630.630.630.6
Subtotal, Science & Technology 779.9791.2795.9761.4772.3
Environmental Programs and2,294.9^b^b^b^b
Manage me nt 2,353.8 2,389.5 2,333.4 2,381.8
Office of Inspector General
— Direct Appropriations37.737.038.037.037.5
— Transfer in from Superfund12.913.513.513.513.5
Subtotal, Office of Inspector50.6
General 50.551.550.551.0
Buildings and Facilities41.740.240.240.240.2
Hazardous Substance Superfund
— Direct Appropriations1,247.51,279.31,258.31,256.21,260.6
— Transfers out from Superfund-48.7-44.1-44.1-44.1-44.1
Subtotal, Hazardous Substance
Superfund 1,198.81,235.21,214.21,212.11,216.5
Leaking Underground Storage Tank69.4
Program 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0
Oil Spill Response15.915.915.915.915.9

F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Environmental Protection AgencyFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Pesticide Registration Fund19.215.015.015.015.0
Pesticide Registration Fees-19.2-15.0-15.0-15.0-15.0
State & Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
— Clean Water State Revolving^c
Fund 1,091.2 730.0 850.0 1,100.0 900.0
— Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund843.2850.0850.0850.0850.0
— Categorical and Other Grants1,640.91,380.81,527.81,503.61,511.7
— Funds Previously^c^c^c
Appropriated to EPA — — -100.0 -58.0-80.0
Subtotal, State & Tribal Assistance
Grants (STAG) 3,575.32,960.83,127.83,395.63,181.7
Total Appropriations$8,026.5^a$7,520.6$7,708.0$7,882.0$7,732.4
S^ource:^{Prepared by}^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce (C}^R^S^{) bas}^e^{d on}^am^ouⁿ^t^s^f^r^om^P.L^.^109-⁵⁴
^an^d^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e an}^d^Sen^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittees.
^{a. T}^h^{e FY2005 total in}^clu^d^es^{a s}^u^pplem^en^{tal em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^{appropriation}^(P^.L^{. 108-}^{324) of}^{$3.0 m}^illion
^p^r^o^v^id^edⁱⁿ^th^{e B}^u^ildⁱⁿ^g^s^an^d^{Facilities acco}^uⁿ^t^.
^b.^T^h^{e FY2006 requ}^es^{t in}^clu^d^{ed $50.0 m}^illionⁱⁿ^rev^eⁿ^u^e^s^to^be^deriv^e^d^f^r^om^propos^ed^legⁱ^s^l^ativ^e
^ch^an^g^e^s^{to pes}^{ticide an}^{d tox}ⁱ^{c ch}^em^{ical m}^aⁿ^u^f^actu^r^{e f}^ees^{, w}^h^ich^h^a^v^eⁿ^o^{t been}^en^{acted. T}^h^e
^an^{ticipated rev}^eⁿ^u^e^s^{are ref}^l^{ected as}^a^dedu^ctionⁱⁿ^th^e^f^o^rm^of^of^f^s^ettin^g^receipts^.^Neith^{er P}^.^L^.
^109-^{54 n}^o^{r th}^{e orig}ⁱⁿ^{al Hou}^s^e-^an^{d Sen}^a^te-^p^a^s^s^e^{d bills}ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed th}^{e $50.0}^m^illion^of^f^s^ettin^g
^r^e^ve^nue^s.
^{c. P}^.^L^.^109-^{54 in}^clu^d^{ed an}^{$80.0 m}^illion^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^{prior y}^{ear f}^uⁿ^d^s^th^{at w}^e^{re n}^o^{t oblig}^{ated to}
^ex^pi^{red con}^t^ract^s^,^g^r^an^t^s^{, an}^dⁱⁿ^t^e^r^-^a^g^en^cy^ag^reem^en^t^s^{, as}^an^of^f^s^et^t^o^t^h^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰⁶
^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^th^{e ST}^A^G^acco^uⁿ^t^{. T}^h^{e Sen}^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee rep}^o^r^{t sh}^o^w^ed^an
^of^f^s^{et of}^{$58.0 m}^illion^,^an^{d th}^{e Hou}^s^{e C}^o^m^m^itt^{ee s}^h^ow^{ed $100.0}^m^illion^.^T^h^{e Hou}^s^{e s}^p^ecifⁱ^ed
^t^h^e^u^s^e^of^t^h^es^e^f^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^r^t^h^e^cl^ean^w^a^t^e^{r S}^R^F^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2006. N}^eⁱ^t^h^{er t}^h^{e S}^eⁿ^a^t^eⁿ^o^{r P.L}^.^109-⁵⁴
^s^p^ecifⁱ^{ed th}^{e allocation}^of^th^{e res}^cⁱⁿ^{ded f}^uⁿ^d^s^.

Figure 1. EPA FY2006 Appropriations (P.L. 109-54) by Appropriations Account
^{(includes transfers betw}^{een acc}^{ounts and reflects an $80.0 milli}^{on rescission of prior y}^ears
^a^ppr^opr^ia^te^{d funds}⁾

Total FY2006 Funding Level = $7.73 billion
State & TribalLeaking Underground
Assistance GrantsStorage Tanks Program
$3.18 billion$73.0 million

41.1%0.9%

Hazardous SubstancesInspector General
Superfund $51.0 million
0.7%$1.22 billion

15.7%

10.0%

Science & Technology
0.5%$772.3 million
Building & Facilities
0.2%$40.2 million
30.8%Oil Spill Response $15.9 million
Environmental Programs
& Management
$2.38 billion
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on information from P.L. 109-54.
Key Funding Issues. Funding for water infrastructure, cleanup of hazardous
waste sites under the Superfund program, and the Brownfields program have been
among the prominent issues of debate. Other areas debated include funding for
EPA’s homeland security activities, “congressional project priorities” or earmarks,
EPA’s use and consideration of intentional human dosing studies, and EPA’s
implementation of Clean Air Act provisions. These funding issues are discussed
below. (For more information on these and other issues, see CRS Report RL32856,
Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for FY2006, by Robert Esworthy
and David Bearden.)
Water Infrastructure. Appropriations for water infrastructure projects are
allocated within EPA’s STAG account. P.L. 109-54 provided $900.0 million for the
clean water SRF for FY2006, compared to $1.1 billion in the Senate-passed bill and
$850.0 million in the House-passed bill. The FY2006 President’s request was $730.0
million, and Congress appropriated $1.09 billion for FY2005. As noted earlier, the
House total for the clean water SRF included $100.0 million in the form of redirected
unobligated balances from past EPA appropriations. P.L. 109-54 provided $850.0
million for the drinking water SRF, the same as the House- and Senate-passed bills
and the President’s FY2006 request. For FY2005, Congress appropriated $843.2
million for the drinking water SRF. Together, these funds provide seed monies for
state loans to communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects.

Reducing funding for the clean water SRF has been contentious, as there is
disagreement over the adequacy of funding to meet these needs. In recent years,
Congress has appropriated significantly more funding than the Administration has
requested for the clean water SRF. There has been less disagreement between
Congress and the Administration about the appropriate funding level for the drinking
water SRF, although some Members support higher funding to meet local needs, such
as assistance to help communities comply with new standards for drinking water
contaminants (e.g., arsenic and radium).
Two amendments to further increase FY2006 funding for the clean water SRF
were offered during the House floor debate. One amendment which would have
increased the clean water SRF by $500 million was ruled out of order. A second
amendment would have increased funding by $100 million but was not adopted. An
amendment introduced during the Senate debate that would have modified the
formula for distributing SRF funds to the states was withdrawn. Earlier this year, in
agreeing to the FY2006 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18), the Senate agreed to a
floor amendment recommending $1.35 billion for the clean water SRF in FY2006,
$620 million more than the FY2006 request. Although the amendment was not
included in the final FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95), the Senate approved
$1.1 billion for FY2006 for the clean water SRF in passing its version of H.R. 2361.
Congressional Priorities (Earmarks). In past EPA appropriations,
Congress has set aside or designated funds for individual projects, locations, or
institutions (sometimes referred to as earmarked funding¹⁸) within the various
accounts. For FY2006, funding has been reduced below FY2005 appropriations for
these types of projects, defined in the conference report as “high priority projects.”
The House Appropriations Committee had recommended a different approach for
allocating some of this funding, which was not adopted in conference.
The conference report provides an allocation of $33.3 million within the Science
and Technology (S&T) account for “research/congressional priorities,” and $50.5
million within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account for
“environmental protection/congressional priorities.” The House-passed bill had
included $40.0 million for each account, and the Senate-passed bill included $50.0
million. The FY2005 appropriations included $65.7 million in the S&T account and
$92.3 million in the EPM account, for these “congressional priority” projects. The
President’s FY2006 request did not include funding for these projects.
Unlike most grant funding, these types of congressional designations have
traditionally been awarded non-competitively. The conferees did not agree to
competitive solicitation for these projects within the EPM and S&T accounts as
recommended by the House Appropriations Committee in its report (H.Rept. 109-80,
p. 105-106). Instead, funding was designated for specified projects or locations
within these two accounts in the conference report.

¹⁸ See CRS Report 98-518, Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriations Bills, by Sandy
Streeter.

P.L. 109-54 allocated $200.0 million for special project grants in the STAG
account for FY2006 as proposed by both the House- and Senate-passed bills. These
projects, referred to in the conference report tables as “STAG infrastructure
grants/congressional priorities,” include wastewater, drinking water, and storm water
infrastructure projects. Communities compete for loan funds provided through the
SRFs which must be repaid. Funding designated by Congress for specific locations
and communities (earmarked funding) has been awarded noncompetitively as grants
that require matching funds but not repayment. Whether these needs should be met
with SRF loan monies or grant assistance has become an issue of debate.¹⁹ Congress
designated (earmarked) $309.5 million within the STAG account for specified
projects for FY2005. The President’s FY2006 budget did not include funding for
these projects.
In past years, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have proposed
designated funding for specific projects in the reports on their respective bills.
However, in reporting its FY2006 bill, the House Appropriations Committee did not
allocate the $200.0 million for FY2006 among specific community projects. Rather
the House Committee commented in its report that the allocation of these funds
would be determined later in conference. The $200.0 million included in the Senate-
passed bill was designated for specific projects in the Senate Appropriations
Committee report. The conference report (H.Rept. 109-188, p. 106-112) specified
individual projects for allocations of the $200.0 million appropriated in P.L. 109-54
for FY2006.
EPA’s Homeland Security Activities. FY2006 funding for EPA’s
homeland security activities are allocated within five of the eight EPA appropriations
accounts: S&T, EPM, Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund), Building and
Facilities, and STAG. This funding would support various activities, including
critical infrastructure protection, laboratory preparedness, decontamination,
protection of EPA personnel and operations, and communication. P.L. 109-54
provided $130.1 million for EPA’s homeland security activities in the five accounts
combined, the same as proposed in the House-passed bill. The Senate-passed bill
would have provided a total of $116.0 million, while the FY2006 President’s request
included $184.6 million. Congress had appropriated $106.2 million for FY2005. In
P.L. 109-54, the reductions in funds provided to support EPA homeland security
activities below the FY2006 requested level are within the S&T and the Superfund
accounts.
Superfund. P.L. 109-54 provided $1.22 billion for the Hazardous Substance
Superfund account after total transfers of $44.1 million to the S&T account and to
the Office of the Inspector General account. The Senate- and House-passed bills
would have provided similar amounts of $1.21 billion after transfers to these
accounts. The President’s FY2006 request included $1.24 billion and Congress
appropriated $1.20 billion for FY2005.

¹⁹ See CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Project Earmarks in EPA
Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications, by Claudia Copeland.

A prominent issue is the adequacy of funding for the Superfund program to
clean up the nation’s most hazardous waste sites. Some Members have asserted that
more funds are necessary to speed the pace of remediation at contaminated sites,
while other Members contend that steady funding allows a pace of cleanup that
protects human health and the environment. An amendment offered during the
House floor debate, but not adopted, would have provided an additional $130.0
million for the Superfund account by reducing funding in the S&T account by the
same amount.
Another ongoing issue has been whether the Superfund program should
continue to be funded with general Treasury revenues or a tax on industry should be
reinstated (which originally supported the program). The amounts in P.L. 109-54 are
provided from general Treasury revenues as the Administration proposed and as
recommended in the House-passed and the Senate-passed bill. Some Members of
Congress advocate reinstating the Superfund taxes and contend that the use of
general Treasury revenues undermines the “polluter pays” principle. Other Members
and the Administration counter that viable parties are still required to pay for the
cleanup of contamination and that polluters are therefore not escaping their
responsibility. According to EPA, responsible parties pay for the cleanup at more
than 70% of Superfund sites.
Brownfields. P.L. 109-54 provided a combined $165.0 million for EPA’s
Brownfields Program for FY2006, the same as the Senate-passed bill. The
House-passed bill proposed $172.1 million; the FY2005 appropriation was $163.2
million; and the FY2006 budget request included $210.1 million. This program
provides assistance to states and tribes for the assessment, cleanup and
redevelopment of abandoned or underutilized commercial and industrial sites.
Funding for the Brownfields Program is allocated within the EPM account to cover
EPA’s costs of administering the program, and the STAG account for grants to
perform brownfield assessments, establish revolving loan funds, clean up sites, create
job training programs, and assist states and Indian tribes in establishing or enhancing
their voluntary response (cleanup) programs.
Human Dosing Studies. There is significant interest in Congress regarding
EPA’s policies for use of intentional human dosing studies in regulatory decision
making for pesticides. P.L. 109-54 (Sec. 201) included an administrative provision
prohibiting EPA’s use of FY2006 appropriations to conduct or to accept, consider or
rely on third-party, intentional human dosing studies for pesticides until the Agency
issues relevant final rulemaking on the subject. The provision further stipulated that
the final EPA rule will not permit pregnant women, infants, and children to be used
as subjects in such testing, and will be consistent with National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) 2004 recommendations²⁰ and human experimentation principles of the

²⁰ For more information on EPA’s efforts as well as a direct link to the National Academy
of Sciences Report “Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes:
Scientific and Ethical Issues,” National Academies Press, Washington DC, see
[ ht t p: / / www.epa.gov/ oppf ead1/ gui dance/ human-t est .ht m] .

Nuremberg Code.²¹ The provision included in P.L. 109-54 reflected a combination
of a Senate- adopted amendment regarding the rulemkaing, and identical House- and
Senate-adopted amendments that would have prohibited EPA’s use of FY2006 funds
to conduct or consider intentional human dosing studies for pesticides for the fiscal
year.
Some manufacturers, scientists, and Members assert that human dosing studies
provide valuable scientific evidence regarding risks of certain chemicals that can not
be obtained with non-human research. Others recognize the potential value and
validity of such studies but advocate the establishment of strict safeguards and
protocols to protect the health of those subjects participating in such studies. Some
scientists, public interest groups, and Members counter that, given ethical questions
and potential economic motivation, caution and substantial further evaluation is
needed to ensure alternative approaches have been exhausted. Others suggest that
purposefully exposing humans is not worth the potential risk under any
circumstances.
Clean Air Act Implementation and Research. EPA’s implementation
of, and proposed changes to, several Clean Air Act provisions, as well as efforts to
address climate change, have elevated interest in funding for air quality programs
among Members of Congress. Prominent air quality issues include the adequacy of
new ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter; how best to
reduce human exposure to mercury; and proposed regulations and legislation
regarding the control of emissions from power plants, vehicles, and other sources.
(See CRS Issue Brief IB10137, Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th Congress, by James
E. McCarthy; and CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality: Multi-Pollutant Legislation
in the 109th Congress, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.)
As indicated in the conference report, P.L. 109-54 provided a total of $528.1
million within the S&T, EPM, and Superfund accounts for air quality programs for
FY2006. Funding supports various programmatic implementation, research, and
monitoring activities including air toxics and air quality, radiation, climate
protection, indoor air quality, and radon. An additional $249.2 million was provided
in the STAG account for FY2006, primarily to support grants for state, local, and
tribal air quality management. Comparatively, for FY2005 Congress appropriated
a total of $506.8 million in the three accounts and $248.3 million in the STAG
account.
In addition, an administrative provision in P.L. 109-54 (Sec. 205), similar to a
provision included in the Senate-passed bill, would impact a pending EPA regulation²²
to reduce emissions of new small engines (less than 50 horsepower). This provision
would prohibit the use of FY2006 appropriated funds in P.L. 109-54 or any other Act

²¹ For a brief description of the Nuremberg Code, see Appendix B of CRS Report RL32909,
Federal Protection for Human Research Subjects: An Analysis of the Common Rule and Its
Interactions with FDA Regulations and the HIPAA Privacy Rule, Erin D. Williams.
²² Pursuant to §428(b) of Division G of P. L. 108-199, codified in 40 CFR part 90, subparts
D and E. For more information on EPA’s small non-road engines regulations, see
[ h t t p : / / www.e p a . go v/ ot a q / t e s t i n gr e gs .ht m] .

to publish a proposed, or final, small engine emissions regulation until the Agency
completes a study of safety issues associated with compliance, including potential
risks of fire and burns to individuals. Existing state standards for these small
engines, currently only in California, would not be impacted by this provision. The
small engine issue was not addressed in the House-passed bill.
For further information on the Environmental Protection Agency and its budget,
see its websites [http://www.epa.gov] and [http://epa.gov/ocfo/budget/].
CRS Report RL30798. Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered
by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by Susan Fletcher.
CRS Report RL32856. Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for
FY2006, by Robert Esworthy and David Bearden.
CRS Report RS22064. Environmental Protection Agency: FY2006 Appropriations
Highlights, by David Bearden and Robert Esworthy.
CRS Issue Brief IB10146. Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress,
coordinated by Susan R. Fletcher and Margaret Isler.
Title III: Related Agencies
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The FY2006 Interior Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-54, provided $4.26 billion
for the Forest Service (FS). This is $547.1 million (11%) less than total FY2005
appropriations of $4.81 billion.²³
Title V of the act is the Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement
Act of 2005. This provision authorizes the FS to dispose of “administrative sites”
by sale, lease, or exchange at least their fair market value. Receipts would be
permanently appropriated to acquire, improve, maintain, or construct/reconstruct
facilities; to make improvements within the National Forest System; or to proceed
with further administrative site disposals.
Several amendments pertaining to FS programs were considered on the House
and Senate floor. Two House amendments altered funding for the National Forest
System; the net effect was a decline of $6.0 million in funding from the level
recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. A House amendment (by
Representative Chabot) would have prohibited funds for designing or building forest
development roads for timber harvesting in the Tongass National Forest (AK); a
point of order, asserting that the amendment was legislation on an appropriations bill,
was raised and sustained, preventing the amendment from being considered. A
similar amendment was agreed to in the House during consideration of the FY2005

²³ Figures in the Forest Service section include $40.0 million in transferred appropriations
from the Department of Defense (§8098 of P.L. 108-287) for FY2005.

Interior appropriations bill, but it was not included by the Senate or in the conference
agreement for FY2005. The Senate also considered an amendment to the FY2006
bill (by Senator Sununu) to prohibit timber road construction in the Tongass, but it
was defeated 39-59. The conference did not include Senate language on the Biscuit
fire (OR) recovery, but the report directed a study of the issue by March 1, 2006.
Forest Fires and Forest Health. Fire funding and fire protection programs
have been controversial. The ongoing discussion includes questions about funding
levels and locations for various fire protection treatments, such as thinning and
prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and clearing around structures to protect them
during fires. Another focus is whether, and to what extent, environmental analysis,
public involvement, and challenges to decisions hinder fuel reduction activities. (For
historical background and descriptions of funded activities, see CRS Report
RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)
The National Fire Plan comprises the FS wildland fire program (including fire
programs funded under other line items) and fire fighting on DOI lands; the DOI
wildland fire monies are appropriated to BLM. Congress does not fund the National
Fire Plan in any one place in Interior appropriations acts. The total can be derived
by combining the several accounts which the agencies identify as National Fire Plan
funding. Total FY2006 funding was $2.56 billion, $76.7 million (3%) more than
requested, and $413.2 million (14%) less than appropriated for FY2005 (including
$524.1 million in emergency and supplemental appropriations enacted in FY2005).
See Table 15 below.
The act provided BLM wildfire funding for FY2006 of $766.6 million, more
than the request, and less than the FY2005 appropriation (including emergency and
supplemental funding). The act contained $1.82 billion for the FS for FY2006. This
included $286.0 million in fuel reduction which the FS proposed to fund under the
National Forest System line item, but Congress did not include it in the FY2006 law.
The FS total also was more than the request, and less than FY2005 funding. The
lower FY2006 funding for both agencies’ wildfire budgets was primarily due to the
emergency funding enacted for FY2005. The FS and BLM wildfire line items
include funds for fire suppression (fighting fires), preparedness (equipment, training,
baseline personnel, prevention, and detection), and other operations (rehabilitation,
fuel reduction, research, and state and private assistance).

Table 15. Appropriations for the National Fire Plan,
FY2002-FY2006
($ in millions)
^b^FY²⁰⁰⁴^c^FY²⁰⁰⁵^d^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^N^a^ti^on^al^Fi^{re Pl}^an^FY²⁰⁰²^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰³^Appro^p^.^Appro^p^.^Appro^p^.^Request^Appro^p^.
^Fores^{t Service}
^{— W}ⁱ^l^d^fⁱ^r^{e Suppr}^es^sⁱ^on^$255.3^$418.0^$597.1^$648.9^$700.5^$700.5
^{— Em}^er^{gency Fundi}^ng^a^266.0^919.0^748.9^425.5⁰^.0^0.0
^{— Pr}^epar^ednes^s^622.6^612.0^671.6^676.5^676.0^676.0
^{— O}^t^her^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^e^446.8^371.5^392.6^416.5^375.6^442.3
^S^u^bt^ot^al^{, F}^o^res^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹^,590.7²^,320.5²^,410.3²^,167.3¹^,752.1¹^,818.8
^BL^M
^{— W}ⁱ^l^d^fⁱ^r^{e Suppr}^es^sⁱ^on^127.4^159.3^192.9^218.4^234.2^234.2
^{— Em}^er^{gency Fundi}^ng^a^54.0^225.0^198.4^98.6⁰^.0^0.0
^{— Pr}^epar^ednes^s^f^280.8^275.4^254.2^258.9^272.9^272.9
^{— O}^t^her^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^f^216.2^215.4^238.1^255.3^249.5^259.5
^S^u^bt^ot^al^{, BL}^M^678.4^875.2^883.6^831.3^756.6^766.6
^T^o^tal^N^a^ti^on^al^Fi^{re Pl}^an
^{— W}ⁱ^l^d^fⁱ^r^{e Suppr}^es^sⁱ^on^382.7^577.3^790.0^867.3^934.7^934.7
^{— Em}^er^{gency Fundi}^ng^a^320.0¹^,144.0^947.3^524.1⁰^.0^0.0
^{— Pr}^epar^ednes^s^903.4^887.4^925.8^935.4^948.9^948.9
^{— O}^t^her^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^663.0^586.9^630.7^671.8^625.1^701.9
^T^o^tal^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^$2,269.1^$3,^195.6^$3,293.9^$2,998.6^$2,508.7^$2,585.4
^No^tes:^In^clu^d^es^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^B^L^{M an}^{d FS W}^ildlan^d^{Fire Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^accouⁿ^t^s^,^f^r^om^FS^State^an^d
^Pri^v^at^{e F}^o^res^t^ry^(C^ooperatⁱ^v^{e F}ⁱ^{re Prot}^ectⁱ^oⁿ⁾^{, an}^{d f}^o^{r F}^Y^2006,^fr^om^F^S^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^F^o^res^t^S^y^s^t^em
^(Hazardou^s^Fu^els^R^e^du^ction⁾^.
^T^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^{e di}^f^f^e^rs^f^r^om^t^h^{e det}^aⁱ^l^e^{d t}^a^bl^esⁱⁿ^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^S^21544,^Wⁱ^l^d^fⁱ^r^{e Pr}^ot^ectⁱ^{on Fundi}^ng^{, by}
^Ro^{ss W}^.^Go^r^t^e,^b^{ecause that r}^e^p^o^r^{t r}^ear^r^a^{nges d}^a^ta^to^dⁱ^stinguish^f^und^{ing f}^o^r^p^r^o^t^{ecting f}^e^d^e^r^a^{l land}^s,
^f^o^r^assistin^gⁱⁿⁿ^oⁿ^f^ed^er^{al lan}^d^p^r^o^t^ectioⁿ^,^an^d^f^o^r^fⁱ^r^e^r^e^sear^ch^an^d^o^t^h^e^r^activ^ities.
^{a. Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal an}^{d con}^tin^g^eⁿ^t^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^ar^{e in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^ag^en^cy^to^tals.
^{b. In}^clu^d^es^s^u^pple^m^eⁿ^t^a^l^o^f^$⁶^{36.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS an}^{d $189.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^L^{M ($825.0}
^m^illion^{total) in}^P^.^L^.^108-^{7 an}^{d of}^{$283.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS an}^{d $36.0}^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r^t^h^e^BL^M
^{($319.0 m}^illion^total)ⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^83.
^{c. In}^clu^d^es^repay^m^en^{t of}^{$299.2 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS an}^d^$98.4^m^illion^f^o^r^th^e^B^L^M^{($397.6 m}^illion
^t^o^t^a^l⁾^of^earlⁱ^e^{r borrow}ⁱⁿ^g^s^f^o^{r f}ⁱ^{re s}^u^ppres^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^P.L^.^108-^108,^an^d^a^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^of^$49.7
^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS in}^P^.^L^.^108-^{199. A}^l^s^oⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^{$400.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS an}^{d $100.0 m}^illion
^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^L^{M ($500.0 m}^illion^{total), in}^clu^d^{ed in}^th^{e Departm}^eⁿ^t^of^Def^eⁿ^s^e^A^ppropriation^s^A^c^t
^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2005 (P.L}^{. 108-}^{287), f}^o^{r em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^tⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^F^Y^2004.
^{d. In}^clu^d^es^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^{$1.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS}ⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{324 an}^{d of}^$30.^{0 m}^illion^f^o^r
^f^u^{el red}^u^ctioⁿ^,^h^azard^m^itig^atioⁿ^,^an^d^reh^a^b^ilitatioⁿⁱⁿ^th^{e San}^B^e^rn^ardⁱⁿ^o^(CA⁾^{NF tran}^sf^erred
^t^o^t^h^{e F}^S^uⁿ^d^{er P.L}^.^108-²⁸⁷^.^Excludes^{$10.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r a w}^ildfⁱ^{re train}ⁱⁿ^g^f^acilityⁱⁿ^San
^Bern^ardin^o^C^o^uⁿ^t^y^,^C^A^{, tran}^s^f^{erred to th}^{e F}^S^C^a^{pital accou}ⁿ^t^uⁿ^d^{er P}^.^L^.^108-^287.
^{e. In}^cl^u^d^es^f^u^el^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿ^f^uⁿ^d^s^.^T^h^{e F}^S^h^a^s^propos^ed^t^o^m^o^ve^fuel^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿ^f^uⁿ^d^s^f^r^om^O^t^h^e^r
^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^o^t^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^F^o^res^t^S^y^s^t^emⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2006, bu}^t^t^hⁱ^s^ch^an^g^e^w^a^sⁿ^o^t^en^act^edⁱⁿ^t^o^l^a^w^.

^f^.^Fir^e^r^e^sear^ch^an^d^f^u^el^r^e^d^u^ctioⁿ^f^uⁿ^d^s^ar^{e in}^clu^d^ed^uⁿ^d^er^Oth^e^r^Op^er^atioⁿ^s^{. T}^h^{e B}^L^{M tr}^ad^itioⁿ^a^lly
^h^a^sⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed f}ⁱ^{re res}^earch^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^uⁿ^d^{er P}^r^eparedn^e^s^s^.
Wildfire suppression funding for FY2006 totaled $934.7 million, equal to the
request, and less than FY2005 suppression funding, with emergency appropriations.
The decrease from FY2005 is greater for the FS (35%) than for the BLM (26%). The
request was based on an average fire year, with no contingent or emergency funding
($524.1 million enacted for FY2005). If the fire season is worse than average, the
agencies have the authority to borrow unobligated funds from any other account to
pay for firefighting. Such borrowing typically is repaid, commonly through
subsequent emergency appropriations bills.
The act provided $948.9 million for fire preparedness for FY2006, equaling the
request, and more than the FY2005 appropriation. The Administration’s request and
the enacted increase were entirely for the BLM.
The act contained a total of $701.9 million for FY2006 for other fire operations,
more than the request, and more than the FY2005 appropriation. The conference
restored most of the programs that the Administration proposed to terminate. Fuel
reduction funding (under the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003, P.L. 108-148) was approved at $497.2 million, $5.0
million more than the request, and $33.3 million more than for FY2005. The
increase over FY2005 was greater for the FS (9%) than for the BLM (5%). The
conference report directed that $5.0 million of FS fuel reduction funding be used for
community fire protection, and up to $5.0 million more could be used to encourage
use of biomass fuels removed from the national forests. Both of these programs were
authorized in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center
of debate, the Administration proposed many controversial changes in State and
Private Forestry (S&PF) — programs that provide financial and technical assistance
to states and to private forest owners. The FY2006 Interior Appropriations Act
included passed total S&PF funding of $283.6 million — substantially (more than
10%) more than the Senate, the House, and the requested level, and substantially
(17%) less than the FY2005 appropriations (including $49.1 million of emergency
S&PF appropriations). However, the conference shifted funds among forest health
management, cooperative fire assistance, cooperative forestry, and international
programs as compared with the request.
The FY2006 Interior Appropriations Act provided $101.9 million for forest
health management (insect and disease control on federal and cooperative
[nonfederal] lands), matching the FY2005 funding, and substantially more than the
Administration had requested. In addition, funds for forest health management are
included in the National Fire Plan, under Other Operations (see above). For FY2006,
the act accepted the House-passed level for these additional forest health
management funds, which was slightly higher than FY2005 and substantially above
(more than double) the Senate-passed and requested amounts.

For S&PF Cooperative Fire Assistance to states and volunteer fire departments,
the act included $39.4 million, more than the FY2005 level and substantially (47%)
more than the request. Nearly all the differences are in assistance to states, with
assistance to volunteer fire departments differing by less than 2%. In addition, funds
for cooperative fire assistance are included in the National Fire Plan, under Other
Operations (see above). The FY2006 Act included funding of $54.4 million for these
programs, substantially (46%) more than the request, and 13% above FY2005.
For FY2006, for Cooperative Forestry (assistance for forestry activities on state
and private lands), the act provided $135.3 million. Forest Legacy (for purchasing
title or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, such as for
residences) was appropriated at $57.4 million, between the House- and Senate-passed
levels, and substantially less than the request of $80.0 million. For FY2006, Forest
Stewardship (for states to assist private landowners) was funded at $34.7 million,
more than the FY2005 level, and less than the request. Urban and Community
Forestry (financial and technical assistance to localities) was funded at $28.9 million,
more than the request, and less than FY2005. The act funded resource inventory at
the requested level, and less than the FY2005 amount. The Administration again
proposed to terminate the Economic Action Program (EAP; for rural community
assistance, wood recycling, and Pacific Northwest economic assistance); the act
provided $9.7 million for FY2006, more than the House-passed level and less than
the Senate, and substantially below FY2005 funding of $19.0 million.
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations), the
act provided $7.0 million, more than requested by the Administration and enacted for
FY2005.
Table 16. Appropriations for FS State & Private Forestry,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
State and Private ForestryFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Forest Health Management$101.9$72.3$103.0$72.6$101.9
— Federal Lands ^a54.250.055.050.054.2
— Cooperative Lands ^a47.622.348.022.647.6
Cooperative Fire Assistance ^a38.826.841.432.539.4
— State Assistance ^a 32.920.935.426.533.4
— Volunteer Asst. ^a5.95.96.06.06.0
Cooperative Forestry ^a145.4149.2103.6142.5135.3
— Forest Stewardship32.337.137.432.334.7
— Forest Legacy57.180.025.062.657.4
— Urban & Community32.027.528.228.728.9

Forestry

F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
State and Private ForestryFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
— Economic Action^a19.00.08.014.29.7
(Program)
— Forest Resource Info. &5.04.75.04.74.7
Analysis
International Programs6.45.06.97.07.0
Emergency Appropriations49.10.00.00.00.0
Total State & Private Forestry $341.6$253.4$254.9$254.6$283.6
^{a. Ex}^clu^d^es^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^prov^{ided u}ⁿ^d^{er th}^{e W}^ildlan^d^{Fire Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^accouⁿ^t^.
Infrastructure. The act provided total FY2006 funding of $441.2 million for
FS Capital Improvement and Maintenance, $73.5 million (14%) below regular
FY2005 funding of $514.7 million, and $148.7 million (25%) below total FY2005
funding, including $85.2 million in emergency and supplemental funding. The
primary difference from the regular FY2005 funding was the decline in funds for
constructing and maintaining facilities. The Administration had proposed cutting
regular FY2005 facility funding by 41%, road funding by 16%, and trail funding by
16%. The FY2006 funds were 36% below regular FY2005 funds for facilities, and
nearly matched regular FY2005 funds for roads and trails. The act also included
$13.0 million for infrastructure improvement, to reduce the agency’s backlog of
deferred maintenance (estimated at $6.5 billion), slightly (6%) less than appropriated
for FY2005.
Land Acquisition. The FY2006 Interior appropriations act included $42.5
million for FS Land Acquisition from the Land and Water Conservation Fund —
$30.0 million for acquisitions (including cash equalization payments and critical
inholding acquisitions) and $12.5 million for acquisition management. This was
nearly triple the House-passed level of $15.0 million, which included $13.0 million
for acquisition management, and slightly lower than the Senate-passed level of $44.9
million (with $12.5 million for acquisition management). FY2005 appropriations for
FS land acquisition totaled $61.0 million (including $12.8 million for acquisition
management). (See the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in
this report.)
Other Accounts. The FY2006 Interior appropriations act included $283.1
million for FS research, $6.7 million (2%) more than FY2005; fire research funding
in the National Fire Plan, under Other Operations (see above) was approved at $31.2
million, $1.6 million (5%) more than FY2005. National Forest System (NFS)
funding was supported at $1.42 billion, $31.4 million (2%) more than the FY2005
level. Except for minerals and geology management (which rose by $30.1 million,
54%, from FY2005), most changes in NFS funding from FY2005 were relatively
modest.

For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its website at
[ h ttp://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome] .
For further information on the U.S. Forest Service, see its website at
[ http://www.fs.fed.us/] .
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National
Forests, by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
Department of Health and Human Services:
Indian Health Service
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is responsible for providing comprehensive
medical and environmental health services for approximately 1.8 million American
Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) who belong to 561 federally recognized tribes
located in 35 states. Health care is provided through a system of federal, tribal, and
urban Indian-operated programs and facilities. IHS provides direct health care
services through 34 hospitals, 59 health centers, 3 school health centers, 50 health
stations, and 5 residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribal groups, through IHS
contracts and compacts, operate another 14 hospitals, 179 health centers, 3 school
health centers, 297 health stations (including 180 Alaska Native village clinics), and
28 residential treatment centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also operate 9 regional
youth substance abuse treatment centers and 2,252 units of residential quarters for
staff working in the clinics.
P.L. 109-54 contained an FY2006 IHS appropriation of $3.09 billion, a 4%
increase from the FY2005 appropriation of $2.99 billion. The Administration had
proposed $3.05 billion for FY2006, an increase of 2% over FY2005. (See Table 17
below.) IHS funding is separated into two budget categories: Health Services, and
Facilities. Of the total IHS appropriation enacted for FY2006, 88% will be used for
health services and 12% for the health facilities program. For the Health Services
budget, the FY2006 enacted and Administration’s requested levels were the same.

Table 17. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in millions)
Percent
Indian Health ServiceFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestFY2006Approp.ChangeFY2005-
FY2006
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health Clinic$1,289.4$1,359.5$1,359.55%
Programs
— Dental Health109.0119.5119.510%
— Mental Health55.159.359.38%
— Alcohol and Substance Abuse139.1145.3145.34%
— Contract Care480.3507.0507.06%
— Catastrophic Health17.818.018.01%
Emergency Fund
Subtotal, Clinical Services2,090.62,208.72,208.76%
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health Nursing45.049.749.710%
— Health Education12.413.813.811%
— Community Health51.453.753.74%
Representatives
— Immunization (Alaska)1.61.71.76%
Subtotal, Preventive Health110.4118.9118.98%
Other Services
— Urban Health Projects31.833.233.24%
— Indian Health Professions30.431.531.54%
— Tribal Management2.32.42.44%
— Direct Operations61.663.163.12%
— Self-Governance5.65.85.84%
— Contract Support Costs 263.7268.7268.72%
Subtotal, Other Services395.5404.7404.72%
Subtotal, Indian Health2,596.492,732.32,732.35%
Services
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and49.249.952.47%
Improvement
— Sanitation Facilities91.893.5 93.52%
Construction
— Health Care Facilities88.63.338.3-57%
Construction
— Facilities and Environmental141.7151.0153.08%

Health Support

Percent
Indian Health ServiceFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestFY2006Approp.ChangeFY2005-
FY2006
— Equipment17.318.021.323%
Subtotal, Indian Health388.6315.7358.5-8%
Facilities
Total Appropriations$2,985.07$3,047.97$3,090.784%
Medicare/Medicaid (598.7) (648.2) (648.2) 8%
Reimbursements
Special Diabetes Program for^a150.0150.0150.00%
Indians
^{a. T}^h^{e Special Diabetes}^P^r^og^ram^f^o^{r In}^di^an^s^h^a^s^an^au^th^orization^of^{$150 m}^illion^f^o^r^each^o^f^t^h^e
^fⁱ^s^cal^y^ears^F^Y^{2004 t}^h^ro^{ugh FY}^{2008 (P.L}^{. 107-}^{360). F}^uⁿ^d^{ed t}^h^ro^{ugh t}^h^e^G^e^ne^r^a^l^T^r^e^a^s^ur^y^,
^t^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^cos^t^doesⁿ^o^t^{appear i}ⁿ^t^h^{e IH}^S^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{. (S}^{ee bel}^o^w^.⁾
Health Services. IHS Health Services are funded not only through
congressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from private health
insurance and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Estimated total reimbursements were $598.7
million in FY2005 and are expected to be $648.2 million in FY2006.
For the FY2006 Health Services budget, Congress enacted the same amount as
the Administration requested, $2.73 billion, a 5% increase over the FY2005
appropriation of $2.60 billion. The IHS Health Services budget has three
subcategories: clinical services; preventive health services; and other services.
The clinical services budget includes by far the most program funding. The
clinical services budget enacted for FY2006 was $2.21 billion, an increase of 6%
over $2.09 billion in FY2005. Clinical services include primary care at IHS and
tribally run hospitals and clinics. Hospital and health clinic programs make up 62%
of the clinical services budget. For hospitals and clinic programs, the FY2006
appropriation was $1.36 billion, a 5% increase over $1.29 billion in FY2005. For
other programs within clinical services in FY2006, dental programs will receive
$119.5 million, mental health programs $59.3 million, alcohol and substance abuse
programs $145.3 million, and the catastrophic health emergency fund $18.0 million.
Contract care, another clinical services budget item, refers to health services
purchased from local and community health care providers when IHS cannot provide
medical care and specific services through its own system. Contract care will receive
$507.0 million for FY2006, 6% more than the appropriation for FY2005 of $480.3
million.
For preventive health services, Congress enacted $118.9 million, an 8% increase
for FY2006 over the $110.4 million for FY2005. Approved funding for the
programs within preventive health services in FY2006 was $49.7 million for public
health nursing, $13.8 million for health education in schools and communities, $1.7
million for immunizations in Alaska, and $53.7 million for the tribally administered

community health representatives program that supports tribal community members
who work to prevent illness and disease in their communities.
For other health services, the law contained $404.7 million for FY2006, a 2%
increase over the FY2005 appropriation of $395.5 million. The largest item in this
category is contract support costs, with $268.7 million for FY2006. Contract support
costs are awarded to tribes for administering programs under contracts or compacts
authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended). They
pay for costs tribes incur for financial management, accounting, training, and
program start up. Most tribes and tribal organizations are participating in new and
expanded self-determination contracts and self-governing compacts. The law
provided FY2006 funding of $31.5 million for health-care scholarships, $2.4 million
for tribal management grants, $33.2 million for urban Indian health, $63.1 million for
direct operations, and $5.8 million for self-governance technical assistance.
The FY2006 conference agreement noted that both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees expect IHS to recommend, by December 31, 2005, how
to improve secondary and tertiary health care in Nevada, including facility needs and
the contract health services program, after consulting with representatives of the 22
tribes of that state.
Facilities. The IHS’s facilities category includes money for the equipment,
construction, maintenance, improvement of both health and sanitation facilities, and
environmental health support programs. While the Administration’s proposal was
$315.7 million, a 19% decrease from the total FY2005 appropriation of $388.6
million, the conference agreed to $358.5 million, 8% less than FY2005. Of this
amount, the managers agreed to use of $38.3 million to fund the following facilities:
Barrow Hospital, AK ($8.0 million); Fort Belknap, MT staff quarters ($3.3 million);
Kayenta, AZ Health Center ($3.9 million); mobile dental units ($2.0 million);
Phoenix Indian Medical Center, AZ ($8.0 million); San Carlos, AZ Health Center
($6.1 million); and small ambulatory centers ($7.0 million). See Table 17 below.
The FY2006 appropriations law included language to replace a health facility
in Nome, Alaska. The conferees also expect that IHS will include a “much more
aggressive” proposal to fund health facility construction in future budget
submissions, as expressed in the joint explanatory statement.
Diabetes. Indians suffer from a disproportionately high rate of Type 2
diabetes. In fact, diabetes mortality is 4.3 times higher in the Indian population than
in the general U.S. population. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33),
Congress created two programs for diabetes: the IHS Special Diabetes Program for
Indians, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Special Research Program for
Type 1 Diabetes. The law required that the SCHIP appropriation for FY1998 through
FY2002 be reduced by $60 million each year, with $30 million allocated to the IHS
diabetes program and $30 million going to the NIH Type 1 research program. In
2000, the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (part of P.L. 106-534) increased
funding for each of these diabetes programs and extended authority for grants to be
made under both. For each grant program, total funding was increased to $100
million for FY2001, FY2002, and FY2003. For FY2001 and FY2002, $30 million
of the $100 million came from the SCHIP program appropriation and $70 million

came from the general Treasury. In FY2003, the total $100 million for each program
was drawn from the general Treasury.
In December 2002, Congress extended the funding for these special diabetes
programs through amendments to the Public Health Service Act (P.L. 107-360),
authorizing $150 million for each of the programs each year for FY2004 through
FY2008. This funding from the general Treasury is separate from regular IHS and
NIH appropriations, as noted in Table 17.
A December 2004 Interim Report to Congress on the Special Diabetes Program
for Indians gave an accounting of how the money has been distributed to
communities through grants. The formula for distribution of these grants depended
on the prevalence and mortality or the disease burden; the number of active users of
IHS services in a tribe; and a tribal size adjustment for very small communities. The
funding is being used to provide prevention services. Both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee reports on FY2006 legislation mentioned this interim
report.
For further information on the Indian Health Service, see its website at
[ http://www.ihs.gov/] .
CRS Report RL33022. Indian Health Service: Health Care Delivery, Status,
Funding, and Legislative Issues, by Donna U. Vogt and Roger Walke.
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109^th Congress, by Roger Walke.
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) and its predecessor
were created pursuant to a 1974 act (P.L. 93-531, as amended) to resolve a lengthy
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originally set aside by
the federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, the lands
were partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe living on land
partitioned to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes, and
bonuses, at federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary.
ONHIR’s chief activities consist of land acquisition, housing acquisition or
construction, infrastructure construction, and post-move support, all for families
being relocated, as well as certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.
Congress has been concerned, at times, about the speed of the relocation process and
about avoiding forced relocations or evictions.
For FY2005, ONHIR received an appropriation of $4.9 million, a 63% reduction
from FY2004, when it received $13.4 million. Congress reduced funding because
it anticipated that carryover funds from previous fiscal years would offset the
reduction in appropriations. ONHIR estimates it will use $18.9 million in carryover
funds in FY2005. For FY2006, the Administration proposed $8.6 million in
appropriations, a 74% increase from FY2005. (ONHIR’s proposal included using
$10.4 million in carryover funds in FY2006.) Congress approved the
Administration’s proposed FY2006 appropriations for ONHIR.

Navajo-Hopi relocation began in 1977 and is not yet complete. ONHIR has a
backlog of relocatees who are approved for replacement homes but have not yet
received them. Most families subject to relocation were Navajo. An estimated 3,400
eligible Navajo families resided on land partitioned (or judicially confirmed) to the
Hopi, while only 26 eligible Hopi families lived on Navajo partitioned land,
according to ONHIR data. Moreover about 250 Navajo families — only some of
them among the 3,400 eligible families — signed “accommodation agreements” in
the late 1990s under P.L. 104-301 (a 1996 settlement of related Hopi-U.S. issues)
that allowed them to stay on Hopi land under Hopi law. About half of them,
however, may wish to opt out of these agreements and relocate using ONHIR
benefits, according to ONHIR.
Of the 26 Hopi families on Navajo partitioned land, 100% were relocated to
replacement homes by the end of FY2004, according to ONHIR. While 96% of the
Navajo families have completed relocation, ONHIR estimates that 130 Navajo
families were awaiting relocation as of the end of FY2004. Of these 130 remaining
Navajo families, 119 are not currently residing on Hopi partitioned land but are in
various stages of acquiring replacement housing (50 of the 119 families are currently
having homes built, or seeking homes; others are in earlier stages). Eleven of the 130
Navajo families are still residing on Hopi partitioned land, according to ONHIR.
Three of these 11 Navajo families are having homes built or seeking homes, but the
other eight families refuse to relocate or sign an accommodation agreement. ONHIR
and the U.S. Department of Justice are negotiating with the Hopi Tribe to allow the
eight families to stay on Hopi land, as autonomous families, in return for ONHIR’s
relocating off Hopi land those families who signed agreements but wish to opt out.
ONHIR estimated in its FY2006 budget justification that relocation moves for
currently eligible families will be completed by the end of FY2006. The addition of
Navajo families who have opted out of accommodation agreements, and of Navajo
families who filed late applications or appeals but whom ONHIR proposes to
accommodate to avoid litigation — together estimated at 210 families — would
mean that all relocation moves would not be completed until the end of FY2008,
according to ONHIR. However, this schedule would depend on infrastructure needs
and relocatees’ decisions. Required post-move assistance to relocatees would
necessitate another two years of expenditures after the last relocation move (whether
in FY2006 or FY2008), according to ONHIR. ONHIR contends that the government
would be vulnerable to litigation if the 210 families were not accommodated.
Congress has at times expressed impatience at the speed of relocation, and legislation
has been introduced in this Congress (S. 1003) to sunset ONHIR in 2008 and transfer
any remaining duties to the Secretary of the Interior.
A long-standing proviso in ONHIR appropriations language, retained for
FY2006 in the appropriations law, prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family
from Hopi partitioned lands unless a replacement home were provided. This
language appears to prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families in the
near future, because of ONHIR’s backlog of approved relocatees awaiting
replacement homes. As the backlog is reduced, however, forced eviction may
become an issue, if any remaining Navajo families refuse relocation and if the Hopi
Tribe were to exercise a right under P.L. 104-301 to begin legal action against the
United States for failure to give the Hopi Tribe “quiet possession” of all Hopi

partitioned lands. The agreement that ONHIR reports it is negotiating with the
Justice Department and the Hopi Tribe seeks to avoid this.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education, and research complex
of 18 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and 9 research facilities throughout
the United States and around the world, plus 138 affiliate museums. Nine of its
museums and galleries are located on the National Mall between the U.S. Capitol and
the Washington Monument. The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with
approximately 8 million square feet of space. It is estimated to be over two-thirds
federally funded, and also is supported by various types of trust funds. A federal
commitment to fund the SI was established by legislation in 1846.
FY2006 Budget and Appropriations. For FY2006, the Congress enacted
$624.3 million for the Smithsonian Institute, an increase over the enacted FY2005
level ($615.2 million), the Administration budget ($615.0 million), the House-passed
bill ($615.3), and the Senate-passed bill ($624.1 million). (See Table 18 below.)
For Salaries and Expenses, Congress enacted $524.3 million, a 7% increase over the
FY2005 amount of $489.0 million. Salaries and Expenses cover administration of
all of the museums and research institutions that are part of the Smithsonian
Institution. It also includes program support and outreach, and facilities services
(security and maintenance).
Facilities Capital. For FY2006, Congress enacted $100.0 million for
Facilities Capital, 21% less than the $126.1 million enacted for FY2005, due in part
to the completion of the renovation of the Patent Office Building. The appropriation
for FY2006 consisted of $73.9 million for revitalization, $18.1 million for
construction, and $8.0 million for facilities planning and design. Revitalization funds
are for addressing advanced deterioration in SI buildings, helping with routine
maintenance and repair in SI facilities, and making critical repairs. These funds
would support projects at the National Museum of American History and the
National Museum of Natural History.
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The FY2006
appropriations law provided $30.5 million for operating resources for the National
Museum of the American Indian. For FY2005, Congress enacted $31.7 million. The
estimated total cost of construction for the NMAI was approximately $219.3 million.
The groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI took place September 28, 1999, and the
grand opening ceremony was September 21, 2004, beginning with a celebration
called the “First Americans Festival.” Other groups, such as Latinos, have been
seeking museum space on the Mall.
National Museum of African American History and Culture. A new
National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) has been
authorized within the Smithsonian Institution through P.L.108-184. The museum
will collect, preserve, study, and exhibit African American historical and cultural
material and will focus on specific periods of history, including the time of slavery,
Reconstruction, the Harlem Renaissance, and the civil rights movement. For
FY2006, Congress enacted $3.9 million for the NMAAHC, the same as the FY2005

appropriation but $1.2 million below the Administration’s request of $5.1 million.
In report language, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed support for this
new museum and an intention to “make every effort to meet future requests for
additional funds” (S.Rept. 108-90, p. 97). The funding would cover operating costs,
including personnel for planning, site selection, and capital fund raising. The
opening of the National Museum of the American Indian brings with it the question
of space left on the Mall for the NMAAHC. The House Appropriations Committee’s
report for FY2006 stipulated that the Smithsonian’s purchase of any additional
buildings would require initial consultation with the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations. The FY2006 appropriations law contained the same provision.
National Zoo. For FY2006, P.L.109-54 provided $20.2 million for salaries
and expenses at the National Zoo, the same as the FY2006 Administration request,
and a $2.6 million increase over the $17.6 million enacted for FY2005. Recently,
Congress and the public have expressed increased concern about the National Zoo’s
facilities and the care and health of its animals. The Smithsonian Institution has a
plan to revitalize the zoo, to make the facilities safer for the public and healthier for
the animals. The Administration’s FY2006 request estimated $13.0 million (under
the Facilities Capital account) to begin the revitalization, to include renovation of the
wetlands area of the bird exhibit that was destroyed by fire ($8.4 million); new roofs,
skylights, and facades at Rock Creek ($2.0 million); and an upgrade of critical
infrastructure ($2.4 million), including to install fire protection systems and upgrade
the water, sewer, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. Site planning
continues for several projects, including the construction of the new elephant yard to
provide ample space for the elephants (Asia II). The new construction will help the
Zoo come into compliance with the Department of Agriculture and American Zoo
and Aquarium Association standards, and help correct “infrastructure deficiencies”
found throughout the National Zoo. The House concurred with the redirection of $8
million under Facilities Capital from the wetland exhibit at the Zoo to the Asia II
exhibit project to allow the elephants to stay together in a family group while the
work is being completed. The Senate-passed bill did not contain instructions about
the National Zoo’s construction projects, except to state in report language (S.Rept.

109-80) that there is a base of $13.0 million for the Zoo’s facilities capital projects.

The FY2006 appropriations law did not contain instruction about the Zoo’s
construction projects, except to state that funds could not be used for the Holt House
on the Zoo’s property unless it was to minimize water damage.
Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian
Institution receives income from trust funds to expand its programs. The SI trust
funds include general trust funds, contributions from private sources, and government
grants and contracts from other agencies. General trust funds include investment
income and revenue from business ventures such as the Smithsonian magazine and
retail shops. There are also private donor-designated funds that typically specify the
purpose of funds. Government grants and contracts are provided by various
government agencies for projects specific to the Smithsonian Institution. For
FY2005, the trust funds available for operations were estimated at $254.9 million,
comprised of $54.9 million for general trust, $124.7 million for government grants
and contracts, and $75.3 million for donor-designated funds.

Of concern to Congress is the extent to which the Smithsonian Institution has
control when donor- and sponsor-designated funds put restrictions on the use of that
funding. There is concern that donor-designated funding may require a building to
be renamed for that individual or corporate donor, even if an appropriate name is
already being used. In addition, there is debate over whether companies who are
allowed to advertise at cultural events might in some way compromise the integrity
of the Smithsonian Institution. Congress has considered these issues as part of
appropriations debates in recent years.
Table 18. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Smithsonian Institution (SI)FY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Salaries and Expenses$489,035$524,135$524,381$524,135$524,281
Facilities Capital
— Revitalization110,35572,90073,90072,90073,900
— Construction7,8799,0009,00018,10018,100
— Facilities Planning and7,8899,0008,0009,0008,000
Design
Subtotal, Facilities Capital126,12390,90090,900100,000100,000
Total Appropriations$615,158$615,035$615,281$624,135$624,281
For further information on the Smithsonian Institution, see its website at
[ http://www.si.edu/] .
National Endowment for the Arts and
National Endowment for the Humanities
One of the primary vehicles for federal support for the arts and the humanities
is the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, composed of the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA); the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH);
and the Institute of Museum and Library Services with an Office of Museum
Services. The NEA and NEH authorization (P.L. 89-209; 20 U.S.C. §951) expired
at the end of FY1993, but the agencies have been operating on temporary authority
through appropriations law. The Institute of Museum and Library Services and the
Office of Museum Services were created by P.L. 104-208, and reauthorized by P.L.

108-81. They receive appropriations through acts for the Departments of Labor,

Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies. (For further
information on IMLS appropriations, see CRS Report RL32952, Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education: FY2006 Appropriations, by Paul M. Irwin.)

Among the questions Congress continually considers is whether funding for the
arts and humanities is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Some opponents
of federal arts funding argue that NEA and NEH should be abolished altogether.
Other opponents argue that culture can and does flourish on its own through private
support. Proponents of federal support for arts and humanities contend that the
federal government has had a long tradition of support for culture and that abolishing
NEA and NEH could curtail or eliminate programs that have national significance
and purpose, such as national touring theater and dance companies. Some
representatives of the private sector say that they would be unable to make up the
funding gap that would be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts.
NEA. The NEA is a major federal source of support for many arts disciplines
through grants for the arts. Since 1965 it has provided over 120,000 grants that have
been distributed to all states.
For FY2006, Congress enacted $126.3 million for NEA, $5.0 million above the
Administration’s FY2006 request and the FY2005 appropriation, and the same as the
Senate-passed bill. The conference agreement included the additional funding that
the Senate appropriations Committee and full Senate had agreed to that added $5.0
million in general increases to NEA and NEH. In earlier action, a House floor
amendment had increased NEA’s appropriation by $10.0 million (to $131.3 million)
and the NEH by $5.0 million (to $143.1 million), but the Senate figures were
sustained in conference.
The FY2006 appropriations law allowed $17.9 million (including $3.0 million
of the general increase) to be used for Challenge America grants. The Challenge
America Arts Fund is a program of matching grants for arts education, outreach, and
community arts activities for rural and under-served areas. The FY2006
appropriations law also included $10.0 million for the American Masterpieces
program (including an additional $2.0 million from the $5.0 million general
increase). It is funded jointly under NEA grants and state partnerships. This
national initiative includes touring programs, local presentations, and arts education
in the fields of dance, visual, arts and music. (See Table 19 below.)
Although there appears to be congressional support for the NEA, concern often
arises about previous questionable NEA grants when appropriations are considered.²⁴
In the past, Congress continued to restate the language of NEA reforms in
appropriations laws. For example, both the FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations laws
retained language on funding priorities and restrictions on grants. The FY2006
appropriations law does not contain the restrictive language that the House-passed
bill included, as the formal NEA guidelines now officially state that no grant may be
used generally for seasonal support to a group, and no grants may be for individuals

²⁴ The debate involved whether or not some of the grants given were for artwork that might
be deemed obscene, culminating in a 1998 Supreme Court decision (NEA v. Finley
(CA9,100F.3d 671)) that the NEA “can consider general standards of decency” when
judging grants for artistic merit and that the decency provision does not “inherently interfere
with First Amendment rights nor violate constitutional vagueness principles.” No NEA
projects have been judged obscene by the courts. Also, NEA eliminated grants to
individuals by arts discipline with some exceptions.

except for literature fellowships, National Heritage fellowships, or American Jazz
Master fellowships.
NEH. The NEH generally supports grants for humanities education, research,
preservation and public humanities programs; the creation of regional humanities
centers; and development of humanities programs under the jurisdiction of the 56
state humanities councils. Since 1965, NEH has provided approximately 61,000
grants. NEH also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match private
donations in support of humanities institutions.
For NEH, for FY2006, Congress enacted $143.1 million, the same as the House-
and Senate-passed bills and $5.0 million above the FY2006 request and the FY2005
appropriation. The FY2006 appropriations law, like the House- and Senate-passed
bills, provided $15.4 million for matching grants, and $127.6 million for grants and
administration. (See Table 19 below.) The FY2006 law would allow $11.2 million
for the “We the People” initiative. These grants include model curriculum projects
for schools to improve course offerings in the humanities — American history,
culture, and civics.
Table 19. Appropriations for Arts and Humanities,
FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Arts and HumanitiesFY2005AppropFY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop
Passedpassed
NEA
— Challenge America Arts^a$21,427$14,922$14,922$14,922$14,922^b
Fund
— National Initiative:^a1,9728,0008,0008,0008,000^b
American Masterpieces
Subtotal Grants99,45298,14898,14898,14898,148
Program support1,2701,4701,4701,4701,470
Admi nistration 20,542 21,646 21,646 21,646 21,646
Total, NEA121,264121,264131,264^c126,264^d126,264^d
NEH
— NEH Grants and122,156122,605127,605^e127,605^e127,605^e
Administration
— NEH Matching Grants15,89815,44915,44915,44915,449
Total, NEH138,054138,054143,054143,054143,054
Total Appropriations NFAH$259,318$259,318$274,318$269,318$269,318
^{a. I}ⁿ^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e NEA}^to^tal.
^b.^T^h^e^FY2006^{appropriation}^con^t^ain^e^{d a g}^eⁿ^e^{ral in}^creas^{e of}^{$5.0 m}^illion^,^{$3.0 m}^illion^of^w^h^ich^w^a^s
^to^g^o^to^Ch^allen^g^e^A^m^{erica g}^r^an^{ts an}^d^$²^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^to^A^m^erican^Masterpⁱ^eces.
^{c. T}^h^{e Hou}^s^e-^pas^s^e^{d bill added $10.0 m}^illion^to^N^E^A,^s^p^e^c^if^yⁱⁿ^g^th^{at th}^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^o^u^l^{d g}^o^{to th}^e
^C^h^al^l^eⁿ^g^e^A^m^eri^{ca prog}^ram^.^H^o^w^e^v^e^{r, t}^h^{e C}^h^al^l^eⁿ^g^e^A^m^eri^ca^fⁱ^g^u^r^e^doesⁿ^o^t^ref^l^ect^t^h^{e $10.0}
^m^illioⁿⁱⁿ^cr^{ease; o}ⁿ^ly^th^{e NEA}^to^{tal r}^e^f^l^{ects th}^{e in}^cr^ease.

^{d. T}^h^{e Sen}^a^te-^p^as^s^e^{d bill an}^{d th}^{e FY2006 appropriation}^s^law^{added a g}^eⁿ^e^{ral in}^creas^{e of}^{$5.0 m}^illion
^t^o^g^r^an^t^s^an^d^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^{r N}^E^A^,^w^hⁱ^c^hⁱ^s^ref^l^ect^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^{e t}^o^t^a^l^.^T^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^l^a^w^di^rect^ed
^$³^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^to^Ch^allen^g^e^A^m^{erica g}^r^an^{ts an}^d^$²^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^to^A^m^erican^Masterpⁱ^eces.
^{e. I}ⁿ^clu^d^{es a g}^eⁿ^e^r^a^{l in}^cr^{ease f}^o^r^{NEH o}^f^$⁵^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^.
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its website
at [http://arts.endow.gov/].
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
website at [http://www.neh.gov/].
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by
Susan Boren.
Cross-Cutting Topics
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
Overview. The LWCF is authorized at $900 million annually through
FY2015. However, these funds may not be spent without an appropriation. The
LWCF is used for three purposes. First, the four principal federal land management
agencies — Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, and Forest Service — draw primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The
sections on each of those agencies earlier in this report identify funding levels and
other details for their land acquisition activities. Second, the LWCF funds
acquisition and recreational development by state and local governments through a
grant program administered by the NPS. Third, Administrations have requested, and
Congress has appropriated, money from the LWCF to fund some related activities
that do not involve land acquisition. This third use is a relatively recent addition,
starting with the FY1998 appropriation. Programs funded have varied from year to
year. Most of the appropriations for federal acquisitions generally are specified for
management units, such as a specific National Wildlife Refuge, while the state grant
program and appropriations for related activities are rarely earmarked.
Through FY2005, the total authorized amount that could have been appropriated
from the LWCF since its inception in FY1964 was $28.1 billion. Actual
appropriations totaled $14.2 billion. Table 20 shows recent funding for LWCF. For
the five years ending in FY2001, appropriators had provided generally increasing
amounts from the fund for federal land acquisition. The total had more than
quadrupled, rising from a low of $138.0 million in FY1996 to $453.2 million in
FY2001. However, since then the appropriation for land acquisition has declined,
to $114.6 million for FY2006 (plus $9.9 million in prior year balances). The table
shows that in FY2006, the Administration requested a much larger amount from the
Fund for other programs than Congress provided, due in part to different spending
priorities and views on how the fund should be used, as well as concerns over the
budget deficit.

Table 20. Appropriations from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, FY2004-FY2006
($ in millions)
FY2006FY2006
Land and WaterFY2004FY2005FY2006HouseSenateFY2006
Conservation FundApprop.Approp.RequestPassedPassedApprop.
Federal Acquisition
— BLM$18.4$11.2$13.4$3.8$12.3 $8.8
— FWS 43.137.041.014.940.8 28.4
— NPS 41.855.152.97.8^a56.0 34.9^a
— FS 66.461.040.015.044.942.5
Subtotal, Federal169.7164.3147.341.5154.0114.6
Acquisition
Grants to States93.891.21.61.630.030.0
Other Programs433.2203.4531.7185.3220.2219.3
Total Appropriations$696.7$458.9$680.6$228.4$404.2$363.9
S^ource:^D^a^t^a^f^o^r^F^Y^2004-^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^{are f}^r^om^H^o^u^s^{e an}^{d S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^docu^m^en^t^s^{, ex}^cept^t^h^at^dat^a^f^o^{r t}^h^e
^F^Y^{2006 requ}^es^t^{are f}^r^om^U^.^S^.^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e In}^t^e^ri^or,^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar^{2006: T}^h^e^Int^e^rⁱ^or^Budgetⁱⁿ
^Br^ief^(Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^{, D}^.^C^.^:^F^e^bru^a^ry^2005).
^a.^T^h^{is f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e d}^o^e^{s n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e $}⁹^.⁹^m^illioⁿⁱⁿ^p^r^io^r^y^ear^b^a^lan^{ces p}^r^o^v^id^edⁱⁿ^th^e^Ho^u^s^e-^p^a^ssed^b^ill
^an^{d t}^h^{e F}^Y^{2006 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^.
Reductions of the magnitude that have occurred since FY2002 for federal land
acquisition and state grants were last seen in the early and mid 1990s as part of
efforts to address the federal budget deficit. Not only did the total for federal land
acquisition and grants to states (excluding other programs) decline each year from
FY2002 to FY2006, but each of the five component accounts (except NPS from
FY2004 to FY2005) also declined each year. Currently, the federal budget deficit has
drawn increased attention, as it did during the early and mid 1990s. Also, there has
been enhanced interest in funding unrelated national priorities, mostly tied to the war
on terrorism.
FY2006 Appropriations. P.L. 109-54 contained $363.9 million for LWCF
for FY2006, plus $9.9 million in prior year balances for the NPS for land acquisition.
This figure was between the original House-passed level of $228.4 million (plus $9.9
million in prior year balances) and the Senate-passed level of $404.2 million. It was
a sizeable decrease from the FY2005 appropriation ($458.9 million) and the
Administration’s request for FY2006 ($680.6 million).
In report language, the House Appropriations Committee explained that in
general its FY2006 budget recommendations reflected the need to stay within a
constrained allocation and that new land acquisition is a low priority. Accordingly,
appropriations in the original House-passed bill generally mirrored, or were
reductions from, the Administration’s FY2006 request and the FY2005
appropriation. The Senate originally provided more than the Administration’s

FY2006 request for federal land acquisition and stateside grants, but less for other
programs. A Senate amendment to reduce funds for land acquisition fell on a point
of order. It had sought to eliminate BLM and FS land acquisition funding and
significantly reduce FWS and NPS acquisition funds, and to increase funds for the
Indian Health Service.
For federal land acquisition, the FY2006 appropriations law provided $114.6
million, plus $9.9 million for the NPS from prior year balances. The enacted level
was between the original House-passed level of $41.5 million (plus $9.9 million in
prior year balances) and the Senate-passed figure of $154.0 million. It was a
decrease from the FY2006 Administration’s request ($147.3 million) and the FY2005
appropriation ($164.3). For each agency, the conference report earmarked a portion
of the funds for particular acquisitions. The original House-passed bill had included
funds for management of the acquisition program and for emergencies, but did not
earmark funds for specified federal acquisitions, as typically has been the case. By
contrast, the Senate had sought to earmark the bulk of the funds for specific federal
land acquisitions.
For the stateside grant program, the FY2006 appropriations law provided $30.0
million, a large reduction from the $91.2 million appropriated for FY2005. The
original Senate-passed bill also had contained $30.0 million, and an amendment
seeking to augment money for the stateside program through state retention of certain
recreational user fees was withdrawn. The House, as in the Administration request,
had included $1.6 million for administration of the stateside grant program, but did
not include funding for new state grants. The Administration did not seek funds for
state grants in FY2006, on the grounds that large federal deficits require a focus on
core federal responsibilities, state and local governments have alternative sources of
funding for parkland acquisition and development, and the current program could not
adequately measure performance or demonstrate results. This is not a new
phenomenon; the Clinton Administration, in FY2000 and several preceding years,
also proposed eliminating funding for the stateside program, and Congress concurred.
The largest appropriation for the LWCF for FY2006 was for purposes other than
land acquisition and stateside grants — that is, for other programs. The FY2006
appropriations law contained $219.3 million for several programs, an increase over
the FY2005 level of $203.4 million. The FY2006 enacted level was sizeably smaller
than the Administration’s request of $531.7 million for other programs, the second
largest such request in the history of the LWCF. As shown in Table 21, the FY2006
appropriations law provided the indicated programs with no funding from the LWCF
or with less than the Administration requested. In some cases, however, Congress
provided these programs with non-LWCF funding. The Senate originally had
approved $220.2 million in LWCF funding for other programs, while the House had
supported $185.3 million.

Table 21. FY2006 Funding for Other Programs from the LWCF
($ in millions)
FY2006 FY2006
F Y 2006 House Senat e F Y 2006
Other ProgramsRequestPassedPassedApprop.
Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI)
— Cooperative Conservation$125.7$0.0$0.0$0.0
Programs
— State and Tribal Wildlife74.065.072.068.5
Grants
— Landowner Incentive Grants40.023.725.024.0
— Private Stewardship Grants10.07.47.57.4
— Cooperative Endangered80.064.245.762.0
Species Grants
— North American Wetlands 49.90.00.00.0
Conservation Fund Grants
— Other (Salaries and Expenses)7.40.07.40.0
Forest Service (USDA)
— Forest Legacy Program80.025.062.657.4
— Forest Stewardship Program37.10.00.00.0
— Urban and Community Forestry27.50.00.00.0
Program
Total Appropriations$531.7$185.3$220.2$219.3
^No^tes:^T^h^{is tab}^l^{e id}^en^tif^{ies f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^th^{e in}^dⁱ^cated^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^th^{at w}^o^u^l^d^b^e^d^e^rⁱ^v^e^d^f^r^o^m^L^W^CF,
^a^l^t^h^o^{ugh i}ⁿ^so^m^e^c^a^s^e^s^a^d^d^itioⁿ^a^l^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^w^a^s^s^o^ught^aⁿ^d^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^d^o^u^t^sⁱ^d^e^o^f^LW^CF.^Fund^s
^p^r^o^v^id^edⁱⁿ^th^e^Ho^u^s^e-^p^a^ssed^b^{ill w}^ithⁱⁿ^th^{e Fo}^{rest Serv}^ice’^{s State an}^d^P^r^iv^{ate Fo}^restry^acco^uⁿ^t^are
^p^r^e^s^um^e^d^t^o^b^eⁱⁿ^c^l^ud^e^d^fo^r^t^h^e^F^o^r^e^st^Le^ga^c^y^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^,^b^a^se^d^oⁿ^r^e^p^o^r^t^l^a^ngua^ge^o^f^t^h^e^H^o^use
^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
Conservation Spending Category
Congress created the Conservation Spending Category (CSC) as an amendment
to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in the FY2001
Interior appropriations law (P.L. 106-291). It is authorized for five years, and would
terminate at the end of FY2006, unless reauthorized. The CSC, which is also called
the Conservation Trust Fund by some, combines funding for more than two dozen
resource protection programs including the LWCF. (It also includes some coastal

and marine programs funded through Commerce Department appropriations). This
action was in response to both the Clinton Administration request for substantial
funding increases in these programs under its Lands Legacy Initiative, and
congressional interest in increasing conservation funding through legislation known
as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), which passed the House in the
106th Congress. The FY2001 Interior appropriations law authorized that total
spending for CSC would increase each year by $160.0 million, from $1.6 billion in
FY2001 (of which $1.2 billion would be through Interior appropriations laws) to $2.4
billion in FY2006. All CSC funding is subject to the appropriations process.²⁵ The
appropriations history through FY2006 is as follows.
The FY2001 laws exceeded the target of $1.6 billion by appropriating a total of
$1.68 billion; $1.20 billion for Interior appropriations programs and $0.48 billion for
Commerce appropriations programs. (Totals for Interior and Commerce funding
were both increases from FY2000, when the CSC did not exist, with funding of $566
and $160 million, respectively.)
The FY2002 request totaled $1.54 billion for this group of programs, and
Congress appropriated $1.75 billion, thus almost reaching the target of $1.76 billion
for FY2002. The appropriation for the Interior portion was $1.32 billion, reaching
the authorized target amount.
The FY2003 request totaled $1.67 billion for this group of programs, a decrease
from FY2002 funding, and below the target of $1.92 billion for FY2003. Congress
appropriated a total of $1.51 billion. For the Interior portion, Congress provided
$1.03 billion, about $410 million less than the authorized target of $1.44 billion.
The FY2004 request totaled $1.33 billion, according to estimates compiled by
Interior and Commerce appropriations subcommittee staffs. This amount was below
the FY2004 target of $2.08 billion. For the Interior portion, the request was $1.00
billion and the target was $1.56 billion. The Administration had an alternative
estimate that increased the total FY2004 request to $1.22 billion for Interior
programs, but it was based on some different assumptions about which programs to
include. The total appropriation was not specified in congressional documents.
The FY2005 request from the Department of the Interior included $1.05 billion
for the CSC, an increase of $140 million over the FY2004 appropriation for the same
group of programs, according to the Department. However, this total did not include
requests from the Forest Service or Department of Commerce. Neither the Forest
Service nor the Department of Commerce used the CSC as a structure for organizing
or tabulating their requests. The total appropriated amount credited to the CSC in
FY2005 is unclear, as the only bill or accompanying committee report to identify
funding levels for the CSC was the House Appropriations Committee’s report. In
this report, the CSC is mentioned in the minority views, where Representatives Obey
and Dicks state that the bill would fund the CSC at $850 million below the $1.7

²⁵ How programs are categorized, or “scored,” matters; the Administration and the
Appropriations Committees have disagreed on whether all or portions of funding for some
programs should be credited to the CSC.

billion target for FY2005 (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 180-181). The report did not include
other CSC funding levels or broader discussions of the CSC. The Senate
Appropriations Committee’s report included a discussion of conservation funding
(S.Rept. 108-341, p. 5), but did not mention CSC. It stated that the committee
“remains concerned” about proposals to create “direct entitlement funding” for
selected conservation programs, thereby removing them from the annual oversight
of the appropriations process. It noted that the Committee continues to provide
funding for many of these programs.
For FY2006, the appropriations law did not appear to delineate funding for CSC,
nor did the request from DOI , or the House- or Senate-passed bills. Therefore, it
appears that Congress is discontinuing use of the CSC structure for appropriations
decisions.
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey Zinn.
Everglades Restoration
Altered natural flows of water by a series of canals, levees, and pumping
stations, combined with agricultural and urban development, are thought to be the
leading causes of environmental deterioration in South Florida. In 1996, Congress
authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to create a comprehensive plan to
restore, protect, and preserve the entire South Florida ecosystem, which includes the
Everglades (P.L. 104-303). A portion of this plan, the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP), was completed in 1999, and provides for federal
involvement in restoring the ecosystem. Congress authorized the Corps to implement
CERP in Title IV of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000,
P.L. 106-541). While restoration activities in the South Florida ecosystem are
conducted under several federal laws, WRDA 2000 is considered the seminal law for
Everglades restoration.
Based on CERP and other previously authorized restoration projects, the federal
government, along with state, local, and tribal entities, is engaged in a collaborative
effort to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The principal objective of CERP is to
redirect and store “excess” freshwater currently being discharged to the ocean via
canals, and use it to restore the natural hydrological functions of the South Florida
ecosystem. CERP seeks to deliver sufficient water to the natural system without
impinging on the water needs of agricultural and urban areas. The federal
government is responsible for half the cost of implementing CERP, and the other half
is borne by the State of Florida, and to a lesser extent, local tribes and other
stakeholders. CERP consists of 68 projects that are expected to be implemented over
approximately 36 years, with an estimated total cost of $7.8 billion; the total federal

share is estimated at $3.9 billion.²⁶ WRDA 2000 authorizes $1.4 billion (the federal
share is $700 million) for an initial set of projects under CERP.
Overview of Appropriations. Appropriations for restoration projects in the
South Florida ecosystem have been provided to various agencies as part of several
annual appropriations bills. The Interior and Related Agencies appropriations laws
have provided funds to several DOI agencies for restoration projects. Specifically,
DOI conducts CERP and non-CERP activities in southern Florida through the
National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and
Bureau of Indian Affairs. (For more on Everglades funding, see CRS Report
RS22048, Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.)
From FY1993-FY2005, federal appropriations for projects and services related
to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem exceeded $2.3 billion dollars, and
state funding topped $3.6 billion.²⁷ The average annual federal cost for restoration
activities in southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to be approximately
$286 million per year.²⁸ For FY2006, the Administration requested $220.0 million
for the Department of the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers for restoration
efforts in the Everglades. Of this total, $76.6 million was to implement CERP.
FY2006 Funding. For DOI, the Administration requested $83.5 million for
CERP and non-CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida ecosystem
for FY2006. Of this total, the NPS requested $62.7 million for land acquisition,
construction, and research activities; the FWS requested $12.5 million for land
acquisition, refuges, ecological services, and other activities; the USGS requested
$7.9 million for research, planning, and modeling; and the BIA requested $0.4
million for water projects on Seminole Tribal lands. For conducting activities
authorized by CERP, DOI requested $8.6 million for FY2006. See Table 22 below.
P.L. 109-54 provided $84.0 million for Everglades restoration for FY2006,
according to a press release of the House Committee on Appropriations. This is
$18.5 million above the FY2005 enacted level of $65.5 million and similar to the
Administration’s request. Funding for specific restoration projects is unclear since
figures are not specified in either the FY2006 law or the conference report. The
amounts for specific agencies that conduct restoration in the Everglades typically are
not available in law or report language and funding for specific restoration activities
included in Administration requests generally is not known until a period after
enactment of appropriations legislation. Funding for two components of Everglades
restoration is specified in P.L. 109-54 or in the accompanying conference report
language. The Modified Water Deliveries project (Mod Waters) would receive $25.0

²⁶ CERP is the first stage in a three-stage process to restore the Everglades. The estimated
total cost of the entire restoration effort in the Everglades (i.e., all three stages) is $14.8
billion.
²⁷ These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
²⁸ This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.

million, of which $17.0 million would come from a transfer of unobligated balances
in the Land Acquisition and State Assistance account for Everglades National Park
land acquisitions. The law set out conditions on the availability of this funding, as
discussed below. P.L. 109-54 also would provide $9.9 million to the National Park
Service for planning and interagency coordination in support of Everglades
restoration. Programs included in this funding were not specified and therefore could
not be compared to the Administration’s request or FY2005 enacted level.
Table 22. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget, FY2005-FY2006
($ in thousands)
F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Everglades Restoration in DOIFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop
PassedPassed.
National Park Service ^a
— CERP$5,213$5,245n/an/an/a
— Park Operations ^b 25,26625,854n/an/an/a
— Land Acquisition00n/an/an/a
— Everglades Acquisitions1,5001,400n/an/an/a
Management
— Modified Water Delivery7,96525,00017,00017,00025,000
— Everglades Research3,8823,898n/an/an/a
— South Florida Ecosystem Task1,2901,305n/an/an/a
Force
Subtotal, NPS 45,11662,702n/an/an/a
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP3,3043,351n/an/an/a
— Land Acquisition7400n/an/an/a
— Ecological Services2,5182,554n/an/an/a
— Refuges and Wildlife4,7875,787n/an/an/a
— Migratory Birds0103n/an/an/a
— Law Enforcement627636n/an/an/a
— Fisheries99100n/an/an/a
Subtotal, FWS 12,07512,531n/an/an/a
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and7,7387,738n/an/an/a
Coordination
— Biological Research0150n/an/an/a
Subtotal, USGS 7,7387,888n/an/an/a
Bureau of Indian Affairs

F Y 2006 F Y 2006 F Y 2006
Everglades Restoration in DOIFY2005Approp.FY2006RequestHouseSenateApprop
PassedPassed.
— Seminole, Miccosukee Tribe536388n/an/an/a
Water Studies and Restoration
Subtotal, BIA536388n/an/an/a
Total Appropriations$65,465$83,509$84,000^cn/a$84,000^c
^Source:^U^.^S^.^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e In}^t^e^ri^or,^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar^{2006, T}^h^{e Int}^e^rⁱ^or^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f⁽^W^a^s^hi^ngt^oⁿ^,
^D^C^:^F^e^bru^a^ry^{2005), C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2005, an}^{d P.L}^.^109-^{54. N}^/^{a i}^sⁿ^o^t
^av^ailable.
^{a. T}^h^{e $}⁹^.⁹^m^illioⁿ^th^{at w}^o^u^l^d^b^e^p^r^o^v^id^ed^b^y^th^{e Ho}^u^s^e-^p^a^sse^d^b^{ill an}^d^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^C^o^m^m^{ittee f}^o^r
ⁱⁿ^t^e^r^a^g^eⁿ^c^y^c^o^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^aⁿ^d^s^u^pport^of^E^v^e^r^g^l^a^d^e^s^r^e^s^t^o^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^w^a^sⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^dⁱⁿ^t^h^e^t^a^b^l^e
^becau^s^e^the^c^o^m^p^oⁿ^eⁿ^ts^of^th^is^lin^{e item}^w^e^reⁿ^o^{t s}^p^ecifⁱ^{ed an}^{d cou}^l^{d n}^o^{t be related to th}^e
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^’^{s r}^e^q^u^est.
^b^.^T^h^{is in}^clu^d^{es to}^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^p^a^r^k^o^p^e^r^a^tioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^Ev^er^g^l^ad^{es Natio}ⁿ^a^l^P^a^r^k^,^Dr^y^T^o^r^t^u^g^a^s^Natioⁿ^a^l
^P^a^r^k^{, B}ⁱ^scayⁿ^e^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^a^r^k^{, an}^d^Bⁱ^g^Cy^p^r^{ess Natio}ⁿ^a^{l P}^r^eser^v^e^.
^{c. T}^h^{e total appropriation}^fⁱ^g^u^r^{e is}^according^t^o^{a pres}^s^releas^{e f}^r^om^th^{e Hou}^s^{e A}^ppropriation^s
^Co^m^m^ittee.
The primary increase in funding for Everglades restoration for FY2006
compared to FY2005 was due to increased funding for the Modified Water Deliveries
Project (Mod Waters) under NPS, where $25.0 million was funded for constructing
the restoration project — an increase of approximately $17.0 million over the
FY2005 enacted level. This project is designed to improve water deliveries to
Everglades National Park, and to the extent possible, restore the natural hydrological
conditions within the Park.[ftn29] The completion of this project is required prior to
the construction of certain projects under CERP. In addition, the Corps requested
$35.0 million for Mod Waters for FY2006. According to DOI, from 2007 to 2009,
the Corps is expected request an additional $89.0 million, and DOI $42.0 million, for
the project.²⁹ Under P.L. 109-54, funds provided for the construction of Mod Waters
will not be available if matching funds appropriated to the Corps become unavailable
for implementing Mod Waters, including funds that would support the creation of
detailed design documents for a bridge or series of bridges for the Tamiami Trail
highway in southern Florida.
A funding issue receiving broad attention is the level of commitment by the
federal government to implement restoration activities in the Everglades. Some
observers measure commitment by the frequency and number of projects authorized
under CERP, and the appropriations they receive. Because no restoration projects
have been authorized since WRDA 2000, these observers are concerned that federal
commitment to CERP implementation is waning. Others assert that the federal
commitment will be measurable by the amount of federal funding for construction,
expected when the first projects break ground in the next few years. Some state and

²⁹ U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2006: The Interior Budget in Brief (Washington,
DC: Feb. 2005).

federal officials contend that federal funding will increase compared to state funding
as CERP projects move beyond design, into construction. Still others question
whether the federal government should maintain the current level of funding, or
increase its commitment, because of escalating costs and project delays.
In report language, the House Appropriations Committee noted that there are
challenges to restoration, but emphasized that they must be overcome and restoration
goals must be achieved. The House Committee expressed concern that the
restoration initiative may not be achieving the primary federal interest — the
restoration of the Everglades. The House Appropriations Committee cited concerns
expressed by stakeholders that a new Florida initiative termed Acceler8 is focused
too heavily on water storage projects that do not provide anticipated natural benefits.
The House Appropriations Committee directed the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to submit a report on the status of
Everglades projects underway including on anticipated environmental benefits,
collaborative efforts, and any changes needed to be made in project implementation
priorities. The Senate Appropriations Committee report did not comment on
restoration activities in the Everglades.
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation. P.L. 109-54 conditioned funding
for the Modified Water Deliveries Project based on meeting state water quality
standards. It provided that funds appropriated in the act and any prior Acts for the
Modified Water Deliveries Project would be provided unless administrators of four
federal departments/agencies (Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of the Army,
Administrator of the EPA, and the Attorney General) indicate in their joint report (to
be filed annually until December 31, 2006) that water entering the A.R.M.
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park do not meet
state water quality standards, and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations respond in writing disapproving the further expenditure of funds.
This same provision also was enacted in the FY2004 and FY2005 Interior
appropriations laws.
These provisions were enacted based on concerns regarding a Florida state law
(Chapter 2003-12, enacted on May 20, 2003) that amended the Everglades Forever
Act of 1994 (Florida Statutes §373.4592) by authorizing a new plan to mitigate
phosphorus pollution in the Everglades. Phosphorus is one of the primary water
pollutants in the Everglades and a primary cause for ecosystem degradation. Some
Members of Congress expressed disapproval with the Florida laws.³⁰ Provisions
conditioning funds on the achievement of water quality standards were not requested
in the Administration’s budget for FY2006. (For more information see CRS Report
RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and
Barbara Johnson.)
In report language, the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern over
efforts to improve water quality in the Everglades. The House Committee noted that

³⁰ Joint statement by Reps. C.W. Bill Young, David Hobson, Ralph Regula, Charles Taylor,
Clay Shaw, and Porter Goss, released by the House Committee on Appropriations, April 29,

2003.

efforts by the State of Florida to reduce phosphorus have not been successful and that
the state may not be fully achieving its obligations under a 1992 consent decree. The
House Committee directed the FWS to keep the Committee fully appraised of water
quality modeling and monitoring in the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge, and to provide monitoring and modeling information in annual and quarterly
reports of the refuge.
For further information on Everglades Restoration, see the website of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program at [http://www.sfrestore.org] and the website
of the Corps of Engineers at [http://www.evergladesplan.org/].
CRS Report RS22048. Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by
Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole
T. Carter.
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs
The Bush Administration’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative would subject
diverse commercial activities to public-private competition. The goal of this
government-wide effort, first outlined in 2001, is to save money through competition
between government and private businesses in areas where private businesses might
provide better commercial services, for instance law enforcement, maintenance, and
administration. The initiative has been controversial, with concerns including
whether it would save the government money and whether the private sector could
provide the same quality of service in certain areas.
For agencies funded by the Interior appropriations bill, concern has centered on
the National Park Service and the Forest Service. The FY2006 appropriations law
placed a cap of $3.45 million on DOI competitive sourcing studies during FY2006.
The cap applies to FY2006 funds for DOI in the law or any other act. The portion
that would be allocated to the NPS was not specified. The law also contained
language on reprogramming funds. FS spending for competitive sourcing activities
during FY2006 would be limited to no more than $3.0 million. In Statements of
Administration Policy, the Administration had urged the House and Senate to remove
the funding limitations during initial floor action, on the grounds that they would
restrict agencies from improving program management through competitive sourcing.
The FY2004 and FY2005 Interior appropriations laws also contained spending limits
for competitive sourcing studies of agencies, as well as other provisions on
competitive sourcing.

The FY2006 law also specified that agencies include, in any reports to the
Appropriations Committees on competitive sourcing, information on the costs
associated with sourcing studies and related activities. The language had been
included in the original Senate-passed bill. During initial House floor consideration,
similar language was removed on a point of order that it constituted legislation on an
appropriations bill. Further, the FY2006 law contained Senate-passed language
related to the effect of Forest Service competitive sourcing on wildland fire
management activities. The language directed the Secretary of Agriculture to
determine whether FS employees affected by competitive sourcing studies are
qualified to participate in wildland fire management, and to consider the effect that
contracting out would have on the FS’s ability to suppress and manage wildfires.
For FY2006, the FS budget justification stated that the agency will conduct its
FY2005 studies within the $2.0 million cap for FY2005. The agency did not request
funds for competitive sourcing studies during FY2006, to focus on implementing
completed studies and analyzing study results. The FS did ask that the limitation on
funding for competitive sourcing be removed.³¹ For FY2006, the NPS requested
$956,000 for competitive sourcing activities, nearly the same as the agency received
for FY2005 ($957,000). The agency plans to examine a total of 955 full-time
equivalent positions (FTEs), through a preliminary planning effort for 150 FTEs, four
standard studies for 549.5 FTEs, and six streamlined studies for 255.5 FTEs. (For
more information on competitive sourcing generally, see CRS Report RL32017,
Circular A-76 Revision 2003: Selected Issues, by L. Elaine Halchin, and CRS Report
RL32079, Federal Contracting of Commercial Activities: Competitive Sourcing
Targets, by L. Elaine Halchin.)

³¹ U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fiscal Year 2006 President’s Budget: Budget
Justification (Washington, DC: 2005), p. 14-16.

Table 23. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, FY2004-
FY2006
($ in thousands)
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^B^u^{reau or Agency}^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Appro^p^.
^P^a^sse^d^P^a^sse^d
^:^Departm^e^{nt of the I}ⁿ^terior
^reau^of^L^aⁿ^d^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^$1,893,²³³^$1,816,910^$1,759,042^$1,^755,115^$1,788,310^$1,780,506
^.^Fⁱ^s^h^an^{d Wi}^l^d^lⁱ^f^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹^,^308,405^1,332,591^1,322,894^1,^306,168^1,315,037^1,330,179
^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Park^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,258,581^2,^365,683^2,249,275^2,228,⁹⁶³^2,315,332^2,289,900
^.^G^e^ol^ogⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^937,985^944,564^933,515^974,586^963,057^976,035
ⁿ^e^ral^s^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^170,297^173,826^167,422^159,682^159,522^160,657
ⁱ^{ce of}^Su^rf^{ace Min}ⁱⁿ^g
^am^atⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d En}^f^o^rcem^en^t^295,975^296,573^356,549^298,549^298,549^298,549
^reau^of^In^di^an^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s²^,300,⁸¹⁴^2,295,702^2,187,469^2,^317,976^2,269,371^2,308,229
^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^ces^a^682,674^729,379^815,903^758,654^780,563^782,052
^tal^Tⁱ^tl^{e I}⁹^,847,964^9,955,228^9,792,069^9,799,693^9,889,741^9,926,107
^I^:^Eⁿ^vironm^{ental Protection}^c
^en^cy^8,365,817^8,026,485^7,520,600^7,^708,027^7,881,989^7,732,354
^l^e^III:^Re^la^t^e^{d Ag}^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s
^.^F^o^res^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e⁴^,939,899^4,770,598^d^4,065,000^4,241,358^4,122,767^4,263,489
^an^H^eal^t^h^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,921,715^2,985,066^3,047,966^3,103,⁰⁷²^3,067,966^3,090,783
ⁿ^a^{l I}ⁿ^stitu^{te o}^f^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^tal
^t^h^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^ces^78,309^79,842^80,289^80,289^80,289^80,289
^en^cy^f^o^{r T}^o^xⁱ^{c Su}^bs^tan^ces^an^d
^eas^{e R}^e^gⁱ^s^t^ry^73,034^76,041^76,024^76,024^76,024^76,024
^uⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^{tal Qu}^ality
^Of^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^en^{tal Qu}^ality³^,²¹⁹³^,²⁵⁸²^,⁷¹⁷²^,⁷¹⁷²^,⁷¹⁷²^,⁷¹⁷
^em^{ical Saf}^e^ty^an^{d Hazard}
^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ^Board⁸^,648^9,424^9,200^9,200^9,200^9,200
ⁱ^{ce of}^N^a^v^a^j^o^an^{d H}^opi^In^di^an
^o^catⁱ^oⁿ^13,366^4,930^8,601^8,601^8,601^8,601
^{te o}^f^A^m^er^ican^Iⁿ^dⁱ^an^an^d
^a^Nativ^{e Cu}^ltu^r^e^an^d^A^r^ts
^v^e^l^opm^en^t⁶^,173^5,916^6,300^6,300^6,300^6,300
^ith^s^oⁿⁱ^an^In^s^titu^tion^596,279^615,158^615,035^615,281^624,135^624,281
^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^a^l^l^e^ry^of^A^r^t^98,225^102,654^113,300^113,300^111,600^112,800
^K^e^nne^d^y^Ce^nt^e^r^fo^r^t^h^e
^ormⁱⁿ^g^A^r^t^s^32,159^33,021^33,000^27,800^33,000^30,800
^Wi^l^s^on^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l
^t^{er f}^o^{r S}^c^h^o^l^a^rs^8,498^8,863^9,201^9,085^9,201^9,201
^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^En^dow^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r t}^h^{e A}^r^t^s^120,972^121,264^121,264^131,264^126,264^126,264
ⁿ^a^{l En}^d^o^w^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^r^th^e
^m^aⁿ^ities^135,310^138,054^138,054^143,054^143,054^143,054
^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^Fⁱⁿ^e^A^r^t^s^1,405^1,768^1,893^1,893^1,893^1,893
ⁿ^a^{l Cap}^{ital A}^r^{ts an}^d^Cu^ltu^r^a^l
^aⁱ^r^s⁶^,914^6,902^7,000^7,000^7,492^7,250

^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁶
^B^u^{reau or Agency}^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁶^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Appro^p^.
^P^a^sse^d^P^a^sse^d
^vi^so^r^y^Co^uncⁱ^l^oⁿ^Hⁱ^st^o^rⁱ^c
^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ³^,951^4,536^4,988^4,860^4,943^4,860
ⁿ^a^{l Cap}^{ital P}^l^anⁿⁱⁿ^g
^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^7,635^7,888^8,344^8,177^8,244^8,244
^.^H^o^l^o^cau^s^t^Mem^o^ri^al^Mu^s^e^u^m^39,505^40,858^43,233^41,880^43,233^42,780
ⁱ^dⁱ^o^T^r^u^s^t^20,445^19,722^20,000^20,000^19,722^20,000
^{ite Ho}^u^s^{e Co}^m^mⁱ^ssioⁿ^oⁿ^th^e
^t^l^.^Mom^eⁿ^t^of^R^e^m^e^m^b^ran^c^e^—²⁴⁸²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰²⁵⁰
^tal^Tⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^I^9,115,661^9,036,011^8,411,659^8,651,405^8,506,895^8,669,080
^V^{: V}^e^ter^a^ns^{’ Health]}^—^—^—^—^[1,500,000]^[1,500,000]
^a^{nd To}^t^a^{l (}ⁱ^{n B}^ill)^b^$27,329,442^$27,017,724^$25,724,³²⁸^$26,159,125^$26,258,625^e^$26,201,541^f
^Ho^u^s^{e an}^d^Sen^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittees.
^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^cesⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^In^s^u^{lar A}^f^f^a^irs^,^th^e^P^a^y^m^en^tsⁱⁿ^Lⁱ^eu^of^T^a^x^e^s^P^r^og^ram^(P^IL^T⁾^{, an}^{d th}^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Special}^Tr^u^s^t^e^e
^f^o^{r A}^m^erican^In^dian^s^.
^gur^e^s^ge^ne^r^a^l^l^y^d^o^no^t^r^e^fl^e^c^t^sc^o^r^e^k^e^e^pⁱ^{ng a}^d^j^u^st^m^e^nt^s.
^e^ri^v^e^{d f}^r^om^t^h^{e report}^of^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on}^H^.^R^.^{5041 (H}^.R^ept^.^108-^674).
^clu^d^es^{$40.0 m}^illionⁱⁿ^tran^s^f^{erred f}^uⁿ^d^s^f^r^om^th^{e Departm}^eⁿ^t^of^Def^eⁿ^s^{e (§8098, P}^.^L^.^108-^287.)
^h^{e Sen}^a^{te total does}ⁿ^o^{t ref}^l^{ect a $1.50 billion}^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^{appropriation}^f^o^{r v}^e^teran^s^’^h^ealth^{. It}^ref^l^ects^{a $22.0 m}^illioⁿ^r^e^d^u^ctioⁿⁱⁿ
^D^O^I^a^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^r^a^tⁱ^v^e^e^x^p^eⁿ^s^e^s^,^a^s^aⁿ^o^f^f^s^e^t^t^oⁱⁿ^c^r^e^a^s^e^sⁱⁿ^t^h^e^b^ill,^an^d^a^$²^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^ad^j^u^stm^eⁿ^t^f^o^r^Fo^r^e^{st Ser}^v^{ice f}^acility
^en^h^aⁿ^cem^en^{t. T}^h^es^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^{are n}^o^{t ref}^l^{ected in}^th^{e in}^divⁱ^du^{al ag}^en^cy^fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^th^{e colu}^mⁿ^.
^h^e^to^tal^d^o^e^{s n}^o^{t r}^e^f^l^{ect a $}¹^.⁵⁰^b^illioⁿⁱⁿ^em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^f^o^r^v^e^ter^aⁿ^’^{s h}^ealth^{. I}^t^r^e^f^l^{ects a}^r^e^scissioⁿ^o^f⁰^.^476%^al^t^h^ou^g^h
^th^is^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^(totalin^g^{$126.0 m}^illion⁾^isⁿ^o^t^ref^l^ectedⁱⁿ^th^eⁱⁿ^divⁱ^du^{al ag}^en^cy^fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^th^{e colu}^mⁿ^{. Fu}^rth^e^{r, n}^e^ith^er^th^{e to}^{tal n}^o^r
^t^h^e^fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^t^h^e^col^u^mⁿ^ref^l^ect^an^acros^s^t^h^{e board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^1.0%^{or ot}^h^e^{r res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^{or em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropr^iatioⁿ^s
ⁱⁿ^P.L^.^109-^148.

For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL32373. Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected
Issues. By Robert L. Bamberger.
CRS Issue Brief IB10136. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies
for the 109^th Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106^th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10144. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109^th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Pamela Baldwin, and Robert Meltz.
CRS Report RS22048. Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role in Funding, by
Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau
of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RS21738. The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v.
Norton, by Nathan Brooks.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109^th Congress, by Roger Walke.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10145. National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL32699. Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109^th Congress,
coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands,
by Marc Humphries.

CRS Report RL31521. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas: Energy Security and
Other Major Issues, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole
T. Carter
Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National
Forests, by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS20002. Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer,
coordinated by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL32393. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL30335. Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze
Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10141. Recreation on Federal Lands, coordinated by Kori
Calvert and Carol Hardy Vincent.
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency
CRS Report RL30798. Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered
by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by Susan Fletcher.
CRS Report RL32856. Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for
FY2006, by Robert Esworthy and David Bearden.
CRS Report RS22064. Environmental Protection Agency: FY2006 Appropriations
Highlights, by David Bearden and Robert Esworthy.

CRS Issue Brief IB10146. Environmental Protection Issues in the 109^th Congress,
coordinated by Susan R. Fletcher and Margaret Isler.
Title III: Related Agencies
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS22056. Major Indian Issues in the 109^th Congress, by Roger Walke.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS22024. Wildfire Protection in the 108^th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.