Order Code RL30506
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2001:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated September 22, 2000
Coordinated by Alfred R. Greenwood
Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations. It
summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels,
and related legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues
covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and on the
floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]
Appropriations for FY2001:
Interior and Related Agencies
Summary
The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funding for
agencies and programs in four separate federal departments as well as numerous
smaller agencies and diverse programs. The bill includes funding for the Interior
Department except the Bureau of Reclamation, but only segments of the funding of
the other three departments, Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services.
On February 7, 2000, President Clinton submitted his FY2001 budget to
Congress. The FY2001 request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $16.32
billion compared to the $14.91 billion enacted for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113), an increase
of $1.41 billion. (With scorekeeping adjustments, including an across-the-board cut
of 0.38% for FY2000, the figures are $16.49 billion requested for FY2001 compared
with $14.90 billion enacted for FY2000.)
The Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and the full
House Appropriations Committee marked up the FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill
on May 17, 2000 and May 25, 2000, respectively. On June 16, 2000, the House
passed H.R. 4578 (H.Rept. 106-646) by a vote of 204-172. The FY2001
recommended level of $14.6 billion is $1.7 billion below the President’s request and
$302 million below the FY2000 enacted level. The bill would also provide $350
million for emergency wildland firefighting (+ $200 million for the Department of the
Interior and $150 million for the Forest Service) as a FY2000 emergency
supplemental appropriation. The Office of Management and Budget has indicated
that the President would veto the House bill in its present form.
The Interior Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full
Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the Interior bill on June 20, 2000 and
June 22, 2000, respectively. On July 18, 2000, the Senate passed the bill by a vote
of 97-2. The FY2001 recommended level of $15.8 billion in total budget authority
is some $1.16 billion above the House-passed mark. The Senate recommended level
provides increases above the House-passed levels for most of the agencies within the
bill. For example: Forest Service (+ $251 million), Bureau of Indian Affairs (+ $205
million), Department of Energy (+ $172.8 million), Fish and Wildlife Service (+ $59.1
million), Geological Survey (+ $31.7 million), Bureau of Land Management (+ $28.1
million), and Smithsonian (+ $26.8 million). In addition, the Senate would provide
increases for the National Endowment for the Arts (+ $7 million) and the National
Endowment for the Humanities (+ $5 million). See Table 5 for the House- and
Senate-recommended levels.
A House-Senate conference met on September 20 and September 21 and agreed
to a funding level of approximately $18 billion, which includes $1.8 billion in
supplemental funding ($224 million above the President’s request) for expenditures
already incurred in firefighting and to restore areas damaged by Western wildfires.
The conference is continuing to work on the President’s request for the Lands Legacy
Initiative. This report will be updated in detail after the conference report is filed.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 22
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . 39
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Other Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Cross-cutting Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
The Lands Legacy Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Other References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1996 to FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 3. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY1999-FY2001 . . . . . . . 9
Table 4. Land Acquisition and Overall Lands Legacy Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 5. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations . . . . 57
Table 6. Congressional Budget Recap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 7. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1995 to FY2000 . . . . . . . . . 60
Appropriations for FY2001:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On June 16, 2000, the House passed the FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill,
H.R. 4578 (H.Rept. 106-646) by a vote of 204-172. The FY2001 recommended level
of $14.6 billion is $1.7 billion below the President’s request and $302 million below
the FY2000 enacted level. The Office of Management and Budget has indicated that
the President would veto H.R. 4578 as passed by the House. The Interior
Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate
Appropriations Committee marked up the bill on June 20, 2000 and June 22, 2000,
respectively. On July 18, 2000, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 97-2. The
FY2001-recommended level is $15.8 billion in total budget authority. A House-
Senate conference met on September 20 and September 21 and agreed to a funding
level of approximately $18 billion, which includes $1.8 billion in supplemental
funding ($224 million above the President’s request) for expenditures already
incurred in firefighting and to restore areas damaged by Western wildfires. The
conference is continuing to work on the President’s request for the Lands Legacy
Initiative. This report will be updated in detail after the conference report is filed.
Introduction
The annual Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funding
for agencies and programs in four separate federal departments, as well as numerous
smaller agencies and diverse programs. The bill includes funding for the Interior
Department except the Bureau of Reclamation, but only segments of the funding of
the other three departments, Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services.
The President’s FY2001 budget request for Interior and Related Agencies totals
$16.32 billion compared to the $14.91billion enacted by Congress for FY2000. Title
I of the bill includes agencies within the Department of the Interior which manage land
and other natural resource programs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Insular Affairs.
Title II of the bill includes the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture;
research and development programs of the Department of Energy, the Naval
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and the
Indian Health Services in the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition,
Title II includes a variety of related agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution,
National Gallery of Art, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the
National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and
the Holocaust Memorial Council.
CRS-2
Status
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2001
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conference
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Public Law
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
106-646
6/16/00
106-312
7/18/00
5/17/00 6/20/00
6/1/00
204-172
6/22/00
97-2
—
—
—
—
On February 7, 2000, President Clinton submitted his FY2001 budget to
Congress. The FY2001 request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $16.32
billion compared to the $14.91 billion enacted for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113), an increase
of $1.41 billion. (With scorekeeping adjustments, including an across-the-board cut
of 0.38% for FY2000, the figures are $16.49 billion requested for FY2001 compared
with $14.90 billion enacted for FY2000.)
Significant increases above the FY2000 enacted level include: the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (+ $331.9 million), the Forest Service (+ $290.1 million), the Fish and
Wildlife Service (+ $251.5 million), the National Park Service (+ $238.4 million), the
U.S. Geological Survey (+ $82.0 million), the Bureau of Land Management (+$127.6
million), the Indian Health Service (+ $229.7 million), the National Endowment for
the Arts (+ $52.4 million), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (+ $34.7
million). The only significant decrease involves Department of Energy programs (-
$65.3 million).
The Clinton Administration again introduced its Lands Legacy Initiative,
requesting $1.4 billion for FY2001. Almost $1 billion of this amount is requested in
Interior appropriations. Of this amount, $735 million is included for the Department
of Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National
Park Service), and another $236 million is for the U.S. Forest Service, within the
Department of Agriculture.
While a diverse array of issues are raised during consideration of Interior
appropriations legislation, a number have been perennially controversial. These
include funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Endangered Species program
(+$49 million), and for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
The Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee marked up
the FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill on May 17, 2000. The FY2001
recommended level of $14.6 billion is $1.7 billion below the President’s request and
$302 million below the FY2000 enacted level.
Increases were provided for National Park Operations (+ $62 million to $1.4
billion), Bureau of Land Management (+ $30 million to $1.3 billion), National Wildlife
Refuges (+ $22 million to $345 million), Indian Health Service (+ $30 million to $2.4
CRS-3
billion), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Operation of Indian Programs (+ $10 million
to $1.7 billion), BIA education (+ $6 million to $508 million), and weatherization
grants (+ $4 million to $139 million). The bill would also provide $350 million for
emergency wildland firefighting (+ $200 million for the Department of the Interior and
$150 million for the Forest Service) as a FY2001 emergency supplemental
appropriation. Major reductions include -$97 million for the Forest Service, -$101
million for land acquisition, and -$80 million for new construction for land
management agencies.
The full House Appropriations Committee marked up the bill on May 25, 2000.
No changes were made to the funding levels adopted at the Subcommittee level. The
Office of Management and Budget has indicated that the President would veto the
House bill in its present form. The Administration considers the funding levels to be
inadequate for such areas as land acquisition, Indian programs, and energy
conservation.
The Interior Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full
Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the Interior bill on June 20, 2000 and
June 22, 2000, respectively. On July 18, 2000, the Senate passed the bill by a vote
of 97-2. The FY2001 recommended level of $15.8 billion in total budget authority
is some $1.16 billion above the House-passed mark. The Senate recommended level
provides increases above the House-passed levels for most of the agencies within the
bill. For example: Forest Service (+ $251 million), Bureau of Indian Affairs (+ $205
million), Department of Energy (+ $172.8 million), Fish and Wildlife Service (+ $59.1
million), Geological Survey (+ $31.7 million), Bureau of Land Management (+ $28.1
million), and Smithsonian (+ $26.8 million). In addition, the Senate would provide
increases for the National Endowment for the Arts (+ $7 million) and the National
Endowment for the Humanities (+ $5 million). It should be noted that the Senate-
passed total includes an FY2001 Emergency Supplemental for wildland fire fighting
of $240.3 million ($120.3 million for the Bureau of Land Management and $120
million for the Forest Service for hazardous fuels reduction). See Table 5 for the
House- and Senate-recommended levels.
A House-Senate conference met on September 20 and September 21 and agreed
to a funding level of approximately $18 billion, which includes $1.8 billion in
supplemental funding ($224 million above the President’s request) for expenditures
already incurred in firefighting and to restore areas damaged by Western wildfires.
The conference is continuing to work on the President’s request for the Lands Legacy
Initiative. This report will be updated in detail after the conference report is filed.
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1996 to FY2000
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)a
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
$12.5
$13.1
$13.8
$14.3
$14.9
a These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.
CRS-4
Major Funding Trends
From FY1991 to FY1995, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations increased by 16%, from $11.7 billion to $13.5 billion, about 4%
annually. Adjusting for inflation, Interior appropriations remained essentially flat
during this period. However, the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134) provided funding of $12.54 billion,
reducing FY1996 budget authority 9% below the FY1995 level. FY1997 funding
increased to $13.1 billion, FY1998 to $13.8 billion, FY1999 to $14.3 billion, and
FY2000 to $14.9 billion. (See Table 5 for a comparison of FY2000 and FY2001
Interior Appropriations, and Table 7 for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau,
and program from FY1995 to FY2000.)
Key Policy Issues
Title I: Department of the Interior
For further information on the budget of the Department of the Interior, see the
World Wide Web site of DOI’s Office of the Budget at [http://www.doi.gov/budget/].
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.doi.gov].
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the DOI
or any of its bureaus, see DOI’s Strategic Plan Overview FY1998-FY2002 at
[http://www.doi.gov/fyst.html].
For information on the Department of the Interior annual performance plan, see
DOI’s FY1999 Annual Performance Report/FY2001 Annual Performance Plan at
[http://www.doi.gov/gpra/99apr01app.html].
Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
manages approximately 264 million acres of public land for a variety of uses, which
are sometimes at odds. These include extractive uses such as mining and energy
development, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting, as well as recreation, wild
horses and burros, fish and wildlife habitat, and preservation. The agency administers
federal mineral leases and supervises federal mineral operations on an additional 300
million acres underlying federal and private lands throughout the country, and handles
wildfire control and suppression on 388 million acres.
The House agreed to a total of $1.27 billion for the BLM for FY2001, while the
Senate approved a level of $1.30 billion. Both levels are higher than the amount
enacted for FY2000 ($1.23 billion), but less than requested by the President for
FY2001 ($1.36 billion). About half of the total approved by the House ($670.6
million) and by the Senate ($689.1 million) is for the management of lands and
resources. Again, both totals are more than enacted for FY2000 ($644.1 million) but
less than requested by the President for FY2001 ($715.2 million). The line item for
management of land and resources funds an array of BLM land programs, including
CRS-5
protection, use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM
administration. The President had sought increases virtually across-the-board, for a
variety of activities including revision of land use plans; managing special areas
designated by an act of Congress or by the President; protecting wild horses and
burros; protecting archaeological sites; weed control; water quality improvements;
and environmental assessment of energy and mineral development proposals. Both
the House and Senate recommended increases over last year for updating land
management plans, among other issues.
About a quarter of the House-approved total ($292.2 million) and the Senate-
passed amount ($292.7 million) is for wildland fire management. Both levels are less
than the amount requested by the President for FY2001 ($297.2 million), but slightly
higher than the amount initially enacted for FY2000 ($291.0 million). Congress also
enacted $200 million in emergency supplemental funding for FY2000 for BLM
wildland fire management (P.L.106-246). The funds are used for fire fighting on all
Interior Department lands, and cover preparedness, suppression of fires, emergency
rehabilitation of burned land, and reducing hazardous fuels. A focus of fire
management has been the fuels management program, which involves using both
prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments to remove vegetative fuels buildup that
can feed fires.
The House also agreed to an amendment to limit funds for BLM (as well as NPS
and Forest Service) prescribed burning on lands where the agency has not
implemented the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy, which in part requires
consultation with state, local, and tribal governments (§ 502, H.R. 4578). The Senate
agreed to an amendment (Title IV) providing an additional $120.3 million in
emergency funding to the BLM for wildland fire management (as well as $120.0
million in emergency funds to the Forest Service for its fire program; see below). The
money is for removing hazardous fuels in “urban wildland interface areas,” as defined
and identified by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture.
About 10% of the amount approved by the House ($144.4 million) and the
Senate ($148.0 million) is for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). These
levels reflect floor amendments in both chambers that increased PILT funding, and are
higher than the amount enacted last year ($134.4 million) and requested by the
President for FY2001 ($135.0 million). The PILT program compensates local
governments for federal land within their jurisdictions, because the federal
government does not pay taxes on its land. It has been controversial since its creation
in 1976. (For more information on PILT, see CRS Report 98-574, PILT (Payments
in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified.)
For the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands, the House approved
$100.5 million, and the Senate agreed to $104.3 million. Both amounts are higher
than the level enacted last year ($98.8 million). The Senate figure is identical to the
President’s request. In general, appropriations for O&C lands are used for
management, protection, and development of the resources on these highly productive
timber lands, which total about 3 million acres. Most of the increase sought by the
President was for conducting species surveys, in response to litigation, prior to
offering timber for sale under the President’s Northwest Forest Plan governing timber
CRS-6
production. The Senate Committee report states that part of the increase is for this
purpose. This issue has been contentious.
For land acquisition, both the House and Senate agreed to funding levels
substantially below the President’s request of $60.9 million. The House approved
$19.0 million, while the Senate approved $10.6 million, with each chamber directing
the funds to different acquisitions. Last year the level of funding for land acquisition
generally was contentious because the Administration had sought more money. The
original conference agreement for FY2000 contained approximately $15 million for
BLM land acquisition, but BLM ultimately received some $46 million. The largest
single proposed acquisition in the President’s FY2001 request was is in the California
Desert, in the form of a $14 million request to complete a land purchase from the
Catellus Corporation. The House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports do
not specify funds for this land purchase, likely because funds to complete the Catellus
Corporation acquisition became available by donation.
The Senate approved more money for construction ($15.4 million) than was
passed by the House ($5.3 million), enacted for FY2000 ($11.2 million), and
requested by the President for FY2001 ($11.2 million). Most of the House-approved
money would be used to construct a science center at the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument in Utah, and much of the Senate increase is to construct the
Coldfoot multi-agency visitor facility in Alaska.
For the four other activities, both chambers agreed to the levels requested by the
President: for the central hazardous materials fund, $10.0 million; for range
improvements, $10.0 million; for miscellaneous trust funds, $7.7 million; and for
service charges, deposits, and forfeitures, $7.5 million.
Issues. Several sections of H.R. 4578 as passed by the House and/or Senate
pertain to BLM-related issues. One of the most controversial issues in the House bill
pertains to funding for national monuments and the Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP); (§123, §334, §335, and §503). (For
more information on this issue, see CRS Report RS20625, Provisions on National
Monuments and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project in the
FY2001 Department of the Interior Appropriations Bill.) The ultimate meaning of
the provisions is not clear, but taken together, they may limit the use of funds in the
bill for issuing a record of decision or policy implementing ICBEMP unless
evaluations of the effects on small businesses are completed. ICBEMP would amend
several dozen BLM and Forest Service land use plans in the Northwest. In support
of the funding limitation, the report of the House Appropriations Committee states
a concern that these agencies "do not intend to comply with the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act by completing a regulatory flexibility analysis."
The House-passed bill ultimately allows agencies to use funds in the bill for
planning and managing national monuments created by the President since 1999,
under the Antiquities Act of 1906. However, the bill is not clear as to whether it 1)
allows funds to be used for planning and management of the lands generally and as
national monuments, or 2) only with respect to planning and management generally,
but not as national monuments. As reported by the House Appropriations
CRS-7
Committee, the bill limited funds for both monuments and ICBEMP, but the limitation
on funding for monuments was readdressed on the House floor. During 2000,
President Clinton proclaimed nine new national monuments and enlarged an existing
one. The new proclamations preserve the underlying reservations, with monument
management as overlying and dominant management direction. Section 335 limits
funding for managing the lands in question “as national monuments.” Section 123
allows funding for management “otherwise authorized by law,” which could refer only
to the general underlying management authority or could also include management
as monuments since the 1906 Act is part of current law. (For more on this issue, see
CRS Report RL30528, National Monuments and the Antiquities Act.)
The Senate-passed bill does not contain language on national monuments
generally. The Senate narrowly defeated an amendment (49-50) designed to prohibit
the President from using his authority to create or expand national monuments after
July 17, 2000, notwithstanding other provisions of law. The amendment would have
allowed monuments to be created or expanded only by an act of Congress.
Proponents of the amendment decried presidential creation of monuments without
congressional and public input. Opponents countered that Presidents since 1906 have
enjoyed the authority to create monuments and that adoption of the amendment
would provoke a veto of the bill.
Section 116 of both the House- and Senate-passed bills contain provisions on
grazing permits and leases that expire or are transferred. The Senate bill would
automatically renew grazing permits and leases issued under 43 U.S.C. 1752 (and
certain provisions of the California Desert Protection Act) that expire or are
transferred during FY2001, until the permit renewal process is completed under
applicable laws and regulations (including any necessary environmental analyses).
The terms and conditions in the expiring permit or lease would continue in effect
under the new permit or lease until the Secretary of the Interior completes the renewal
process. A Senate floor amendment to strike this section was defeated (38-62). The
House bill permits the renewal of such permits and leases, but does not automatically
extend them. Also, terms and conditions in expiring permits and leases may continue
in effect until the renewal process is completed. The provision could be interpreted
as allowing the Secretary to change the terms and conditions of permits and leases
that are renewed, pending the completion of the renewal process.
These renewal provisions were advocated as necessary to address heavy agency
workload in processing the grazing permits and leases that were up for renewal.
Some Members argued that delays in processing renewals threatened ranchers’ bank
loans. Opponents, including the Administration, argued that there was no longer a
backlog of permits and leases needing renewal, and feared that BLM could continue
permits with possibly detrimental terms or conditions. In a July 10, 2000 Statement
of Administration Policy on the Senate-passed bill, the Administration cited the
grazing language as among the “damaging” and “objectionable” provisions which
would lead the President’s advisers to recommend that the President veto the bill.
Section 312 of the House-passed bill and section 311 of the Senate Committee
reported bill contain identical language that would retain the moratorium (contained
in previous appropriation laws) on accepting and processing applications for patents
for mining and mill site claims on federal lands. However, applications meeting
CRS-8
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.
A BLM-related mining issue is contained in the appropriations bill for the
Department of Agriculture and related agencies, H.R. 4461, as passed by the Senate.
Section 3102 prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from using funds during FY2001
and FY2002 to promulgate final rules to revise or amend 43 C.F.R., subpart 3809, the
surface management part of hardrock mining regulations, except to make changes that
were recommended by the National Research Council (NRC) and are consistent with
law. The provision is intended to clarify congressional intent regarding §357 of the
FY2000 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 106-113), pertaining to hardrock mining
regulations. It seeks to make clear that the Secretary may publish final regulations
only on subjects included in the specific recommendations of the NRC, according to
the Senate Appropriations Committee report on S. 2536 (S. Rept. 106-288). The
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior had interpreted the FY2000 language as
allowing the BLM regulations to address other subjects, provided the NRC
recommendations were not directly contradicted.
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.blm.gov/].
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Administration requested $1.13 billion for
FWS—an increase of $251.5 million (28.7%) over FY2000.1 The House approved
a level of $861.9 million and the Senate approved $921.1 million. The largest line
item is Resource Management (which includes the endangered species program,
fisheries, law enforcement, and refuge management, among other items) which would
go from $714.5 million to $761.9 million, an increase of $47.4 million (6.6%). The
House approved $731.4 million, an increase of 2.4%. The Senate approved $763.4
million (+6.8%).
Funding for the Endangered Species Program is one of the perennially
controversial portions of the FWS budget. For FY2001, the Administration requested
that endangered species funding (including the Cooperative Endangered Species
Fund) increase from $131.3 million to $180.3 million. (See Table 3.) The House
approved $135.4 million (+3.1% over FY2000), while the Senate approved $146.1
million (+11.2%).
The Administration proposes to continue a strict limit (set in law, not report
language) on funding for the listing function, which is proposed for $7.2 million in
FY2001. The language, which was accepted by Congress in the FY2000
appropriations law, limits the discretion of the agency to transfer funds for additional
listings, e.g., if lawsuits mandate agency action on listing certain species. De-listing
and down-listing are not covered by the cap. Inclusion of this language in the law
means that a court order to carry forward a listing decision on particular species
makes listing a zero sum game, at least at a fiscal level. It causes the listing of some
1 Annual appropriations represented 58.2% of the agency’s funding in FY2000; the remainder
is in special or permanently appropriated accounts, and transfers from other agencies.
CRS-9
species or designation of their critical habitats to preclude the listing of others. FWS
supported this change as a protection of the budgets of other programs. The House
approved this limitation, and set funding for listing at $6.4 million. The Senate also
accepted it, with funding also set at $6.4 million.
The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund is proposed to increase
from $23 million to $65 million. Of this, $41 million would be spent on the program
of grants to states, and $21.1 million for land acquisition associated with Habitat
Conservation Plans. The House held funding at the FY2000 level, but the Senate
increased it to $26.9 million (+16.9).
Table 3. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY1999-FY2001
(x $1,000)
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
House
Senate
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Passed
Passed
Candidate Cons.
6,753
7,388
8,447
7,144
7,144
Listing
5,756
6,208
7,195
6,395
6,355
Consultation
27,231
32,342
39,400
39,206
39,900
Recovery
66,077
57,363
55,297*
54,662
60,754
Landowner Incentive
5,000
4,981
4,981
4,981
4,981
Subtotal
110,817
108,282
115,320
112,388
119,134
Coop. End. Spp.
14,000
23,000
65,000
23,000
26,925
Cons. Fund
Total
124,817
131,282
180,320
135,388
146,059
*The decrease shown for recovery is more apparent than real: in FY2000, recovery included certain
earmarks, which the Administration does not propose to continue.
The Administration proposed $10.0 million (-6.9%) for the National Wildlife
Refuge Fund, which provides payments to local governments in recognition of
reduction of the local tax base due to the presence of federal land. The FY2000 law
provided $10.74 million. The House approved $10.4 million, while the Senate
approved $10.0 million. The payment levels have been controversial, since the small
additions of land to the National Wildlife Refuge System over the last several years
mean that dollars (already reduced by inflation) must be spread still further. The
situation has produced calls for Congress to increase the appropriation, especially
since local governments often (incorrectly) view the payments as entitlements, even
though they are actually subject to annual appropriations. Payments under PILT (see
BLM, above) benefit some counties with land in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
However, those lands that are acquired rather than reserved from the public domain
are not eligible for PILT payments. (Western refuge lands are primarily reserved from
the public domain; eastern refuges are primarily acquired lands.)
CRS-10
Land acquisition for the National Wildlife Refuge System would increase from
$50.5 million2 to $111.6 million (+116%) under the President’s proposal. (For
additional information on other land acquisitions, and how these relate to the
President’s “Lands Legacy Initiative”, see p. 48.) The Administration’s proposals
include areas in Arizona, the lower Mississippi Delta, southern Florida, Hawaii,
Maine, parts of the Lewis and Clark Trail, Oklahoma, and Texas. In contrast, the
House approved areas in Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Total funding was set at $30.0
million, or 59.4% of the previous year.3 The Senate approved $46.1 million, 91.3%
of the FY2000 levels. Its proposed acquisitions were in Alabama, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire (and Vermont), New Jersey (and
New York), North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and West
Virginia. The Senate accepted a floor amendment decreasing the land acquisition
management account by $1 million and allocating $1 million for acquisition at Bon
Secour NWR The decrease, combined with a previous committee decrease, takes
acquisition management funding from $8.5 million in FY1999 to $6.5 million. This
program surveys land, prepares sales, and a variety of other functions in the
acquisition process. The House and Senate versions contain slightly different
prohibitions on the use of funds to establish a new National Wildlife Refuge in the
Kankakee River watershed.
A Statement of Administration Policy from the Office of Management and
Budget had cited objections to the House bill’s prohibitions on spending to create two
new wildlife refuges, one in California and the other in Illinois and Indiana. Rep. Ose
offered an amendment to strike a prohibition for the proposed refuge in the Yolo
Bypass area, west of Sacramento. In a colloquy, he established that FWS intends to
address flood control issues in the area and to postpone designation of a refuge there
until these needs are addressed. The amendment then passed on voice vote. The
prohibition on creation of the second refuge remains in the bill (§119), and is also
contained in the version of the bill passed by the Senate (also §119). Both would
require written certification that establishment of the refuge is consistent with efforts
by the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to control flooding and siltation. Neither bill
specifies who is to make the certification.
The Multinational Species Conservation Fund, which benefits Asian and African
elephants, tigers, and the six species of rhinoceroses, would increase from $2.4 million
2 An additional $1.2 million, for acquisition in the Wertheim NWR (NY), and an additional
$2.0 million, for the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, were included for
FY2000 in other titles of P.L. 106-113. Including these amounts would bring the FY2000
total to $53.7 million, and the increase for FY2001 would be 107.8%, rather than 116%.
3 Again, counting all $53.7 million for land acquisition in FY2000, the House passed an
FY2001 funding level that would total 55.9% of the previous year’s level. Also, the House
passed an amendment by Rep. Sununu which, among other things, added $10 million to
LWCF. How much, if any, of the $10 million would go to FWS land acquisition was not
specified.
CRS-11
to $3.0 million (+25%) under the President’s request. The House held funding at the
FY2000 level, while the Senate increased it to $2.5 million.
The budget request proposes a new program of grants to states, tribes, and
territories for conservation of non-game animals that are not covered under other
programs such as those for game birds and sport fish, endangered species, and marine
mammals. The proposed funding level is $100 million. No matching requirements
were specified in the FWS budget request. The request is considered part of the
President’s Lands Legacy Initiative. The House included no new funding for these
programs in the FWS portion of its bill, nor was any such funding included in the bill
passed by the Senate.
Some of the new initiatives (increased funding for endangered species, non-game
animals, and land acquisition) bear some resemblance to current initiatives in the
House and Senate to provide permanent appropriations for these and other programs.
(See CRS Report RL30444, Resource Protection: A Comparison of H.R. 701/S. 2567
and three other Senate Bills (S. 2123, S. 25, and S. 2181) with Current Law, for an
analysis of some of these bills.)
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.fws.gov/].
National Park Service. The National Park Service (NPS) currently manages
the 379 separate and very diverse units that comprise the National Park System,
including 55 “full or actual” National Parks, widely considered the premier units of
the System. In addition to the National Parks, the Park System includes national
preserves, recreation areas, reserves, monuments, battlefields, historic sites, seashores
and a number of other categories. The System has grown to more than 83 million
acres, in 49 states and the District of Columbia and several U.S. territories. In recent
years park recreation visits annually have totaled nearly 290 million.
The Service’s mission, adopted with its establishment in 1916, provides for the
continued protection and preservation of the National Parks for the benefit of, and
enjoyment by, the public in perpetuity. The NPS mission, of facilitating access and
serving Park System visitors while protecting and preserving the natural and cultural
resources entrusted to it, is inherently contradictory (protecting the parks for and
from the people) and constantly challenging to its professional staff.
According to the Administration and park advocacy groups, the Park Service has
operated with tight budgets over recent decades. During this period, Congress
restricted appropriations to operate and maintain the Park System while expanding
management responsibilities and continuing to add new units to the System. It was
asserted that restricted funding, combined with increased visitation, stretched
personnel, impaired operations, and generated a multibillion dollar backlog of deferred
maintenance. However, spending for the NPS now appears to have a higher priority.
Temporary closure of NPS units (part of a federal government-wide shutdown during
the budget debates of late 1995 and early 1996) helped galvanize public support for
expanding NPS funding. Congress heeded the expressed desire of the public to more
adequately care for the National Parks System and funding has increased annually
CRS-12
since FY1996. Once again the Administration has requested substantial increases in
spending for Park Service - managed programs in its FY2001 budget request.
The Administration’s FY2001 request for the NPS totals $2.04 billion, to
operate and protect parks and preserve their natural and cultural (historic) resources.
The request is $238.4 million above the $1.8 billion FY2000 enacted level. The
House-passed bill provides a total FY2001 appropriation for the NPS of $1.81 billion,
$234 million less than the Administration’s request, or $4.6 million more than FY2000
enacted. The Senate-passed bill also recommends $1.81 billion, up $8.7 million from
FY2000 enacted and $230 million below the budget request.
Park Operations are, by far, the largest component of the NPS budget request;
at $1.45 billion accounting for nearly three-fourth of the total NPS request. It covers
resource protection, visitor services and major park programs. The $90.3 million
proposed increase emphasizes park operating needs and resource management. This
increase includes $24 million to address specific needs at 77 park system units. These
funds would be directed to parks experiencing severe threats to natural and cultural
resources, with new responsibilities, and with high priority facility operation and
maintenance needs. The House agreed with the Administration’s request with respect
to specific needs; however, the Senate-passed bill provides an increase above base
operations of $25.5 million, or $1.5 million more than the budget request. Both the
House and Senate-passed bills provide $2 million for high priority projects, within the
NPS operations budget, to be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps.
The House-passed bill provides $1.5 billion for NPS operations, $138 million
more than for FY2000 enacted or $48 million more than the Administration’s request.
The Senate-passed bill provides a total of $1.44 billion for NPS operations, $80
million more than FY2000 enacted and $10.3 million below the budget request.
An FY2001 request of $68.6 million proposed for National Recreation and
Preservation, one of the Service’s five appropriations lines, would fund expanded
support of parks and greater partnership opportunities through added Regional Office
support and added assistance to partner organizations. Because the Administration
request would add $18 million additional for Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
grants, (see below) the total for this line is distorted, showing a $15.2 million increase.
In FY2000, UPARR got $2 million. Still, natural programs would receive a
substantial increase of $1.2 million, to $11.2 million from $10 million in FY2000
appropriations. And heritage projects would receive an increase of $2.1 million,
increasing to $8.9 million from $6.8 million in FY2000.
The House-passed bill provides $50 million for National Recreation and
Preservation, a decrease of $3.4 million below the FY2000 level and $18.7 million
below the budget request. The Senate-passed bill provides $63.2 million for this line
item, $9.9 million above FY2000 enacted, or $5.4 million less than the
Administration’s request.
The NPS Land Acquisition and State Assistance appropriation request is $297.5
million, a $176.7 million major increase in the Interior Department’s Land Legacy
Initiative which is now in its second year. The FY2000 appropriation for this line item
was $121 million. Acquisition funds are slated for protection of landscapes and
CRS-13
resources at the Mojave National Preserve, the Florida Everglades, lands associated
with the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and six Civil War Battlefield parks.
The House-passed bill recommends $104 million for Land Acquisition and State
Assistance, $16.7 million less than in FY2000 enacted and $193 million less than the
Administration’s request. The Senate-passed bill provides $87.1 million which is
$210 million below the budget request, and $33.6 million below the FY2000 enacted
level.
The budget request seeks $18 million for the Natural Resources Challenge, an
NPS program that emphasizes protection of natural resources, often in competition
with visitation rights. The $18 million would constitute the second year of a five-year
program to provide $100 million to identify and contain environmental hazards. The
program is designed to give the Park Service a better fix on off-highway vehicle use,
overflights and personal watercraft, so as to argue more persuasively for a reduction
in those activities. In FY2000 the administration requested $19.76 million for the
program and Congress approved $14.74 million. An amendment to the Senate
Committee-approved bill to block the National Park Service decision to enforce
existing regulations to limit snowmobile use in national parks was withdrawn from
floor consideration.
Maintenance Backlog. The Park System has a formidable maintenance burden,
with an infrastructure that includes thousands of miles of roads and thousands of
permanent structures, bridges, tunnels, employee housing units, water and waste
systems, etc. It is argued that park assets should all be maintained at an operational
level that ensures continued serviceability and use by the public. The NPS has valued
its assets at over $35 billion, but without adequate care and maintenance they are
subject to deterioration. Mounting concerns about the build-up of a multibillion dollar
backlog of unmet maintenance needs in the first half of the last decade has prompted
Congress to seek new funding sources and to attack the maintenance backlog. In
response to congressional appropriation leaders, the FY2000 budget proposal
highlighted an Interior Department-wide campaign to prioritize maintenance over a
five year period. Proposed funding for Construction and Major Maintenance
programs for FY2001 is $180 million, with an emphasis on projects that address the
most critical health and safety needs of parks, a key goal of the Interior Department’s
Safe Visits to Public Lands program. The proposed funding represents a $46.2
million decrease compared to FY2000. This decrease in a area that has received
special priority in recent years may seem puzzling, however, there is $8.3 million for
maintenance in the Operations component of the NPS request, and the anticipation
of revenues of approximately $148 million in FY2001 from the Congressionally
authorized Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (see below) which is to be used
to reduce the Agency’s backlog of health and safety deficiencies as well as resource
protection and programs in existing park facilities. In addition, the Congress has
historically increased construction appropriations as member projects have been added
near the end of the appropriations process.
In hearings before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for the
Department of Interior and Related Agencies (March 29, 2000) members warned the
National Park Service Director not to “lowball” maintenance needs requests with the
expectation that “Fee-Demo” revenues will make up the shortfall. The members
CRS-14
reiterated their desire that Fee-Demo monies be used to supplement, not replace,
appropriated maintenance monies so that major reductions in the backlog could be
accomplished. Also at issue is the size of the current NPS maintenance backlog. Park
Service officials agreed to provide the Subcommittee with an updated estimate within
two weeks of the Hearing. The Park Service subsequently provided the
Subcommittee with a current NPS maintenance backlog figure of $4.3 billion.
The House-passed bill provides $141 million for construction and major
maintenance, $39 million less than requested, or $80 million less than FY2000
enacted. The Senate-passed bills’ construction recommendation is $204.5 million, an
increase of $24.5 million above the Administration’s request and $16.7 million below
FY2000 enacted.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee-Demo). The NPS coordinated
Fee-Demo program, being tested by the NPS and three other federal land
management agencies, began in FY1996 to allow higher entrance and recreation user
fees, with most of the added fees being retained by the unit where the money is
collected, e.g. 80% of Fee-Demo goes back to the collecting unit and 20% goes to
the agency. Previously all Park fee revenue went to the Treasury Department general
fund. Under the existing program each agency is allowed to test up to 100 fee
projects each year. It was hoped that the additional fees would be incentives to
agency managers to be more aggressive in pursuing “self-financing” for operating and
maintaining their units. The program participants, in addition to the Park Service,
include: BLM, FWS, and the Forest Service. Supporters of a federal system of
recreation lakes would also like the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation included. The Interior Department agencies and the Forest Service
combined, collected $88 million in fees in FY1996, which are projected to increase
to $185.65 million in FY2001. In FY2001 the Park Service is projected to bring in
the most fee money by far, $148.4 million. The Administration is again (the same
request was made the last two years) asking Congress to make the Fee-Demo
program permanent for the four federal land management agencies. The program is
authorized through FY2002 but the Administration would like to lock it in place this
year. In a related development “interest groups” are circulating draft legislation that
would extend Fee Demo through September 30, 2004, while substantially altering and
expanding the program.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). This cost-sharing
Park Service managed program received a FY2000 appropriation of $2 million, the
first new funding in five years. Prior to FY1994, appropriations were about $5
million annually. Communities competed for more grants than there was money
available to fund them. This locally popular matching grant program (70%
federal/30% local) helps economically distressed urban governments rehabilitate
playgrounds, recreation centers, ball courts, playing fields and swimming pools in
urban areas.
For FY2000, the Administration requested a $4 million appropriation for
UPARR. Neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations Committee bills contained
separate funding for this program. H.Rept. 106-222 recommended that all NPS
funding increases be focused upon reducing operational shortfalls and serious
maintenance backlogs. An amendment to restore the requested $4 million for the
CRS-15
UPARR program was agreed to by voice vote during House floor action and the
Senate voted $1.5 million. These funds were included as a part of a major line item,
National Recreation and Preservation, instead of as previously as a free-standing
program. The conference agreed to $2 million for UPARR as part of this larger Park
Service appropriation line item and this amount was included in the final conference
package.
The FY2001 request of $20 million, for UPARR, also under the National
Recreation and Preservation line item, represents a significant $18 million increase.
The House-passed bill provides $2 million for UPARR or $18 million below the
requested amount. The Senate-passed bill also provides $2 million, the same as was
appropriated in FY2000. In related UPARR developments, as approved by the
House, May 11, H.R. 701, known popularly as the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act (CARA), would guarantee without appropriation review or approval, $125
million per year for the UPARR program. The Senate Energy Committee passed
version of CARA allocates $75 million annually for UPARR.
Related Legislation. Congress approved legislation (P.L. 105-391, the National
Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998) under expedited procedures at the end of
105th Congress. The Act provides for long anticipated park criteria and management
reforms and an overhaul of the Park Service’s concessions policy, a provision of
which would allow revenue generated from concession contracts to be returned to
appropriate National Park units without annual appropriations. In another “collateral
initiative,” National Park roads, considered an important maintenance priority,
received a substantial boost ($31 million in FY1998 and $81 million annually for the
next 5 fiscal years, nearly double previous funding) under the surface transportation
law (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178).
For further information on the National Park Service, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.nps.gov/].
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation fund, established within the
U.S. Treasury and administered by the National Park Service, provides grants-in-aid
to states (primarily through State Historic Preservation Offices), certified local
governments, and outlying areas (territories and the Federated States of Micronesia)
for activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act. Preservation grants
are normally funded on a 60% federal- 40% state matching share basis. Preservation
grants-in-aid also are provided to Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs) and to Indian Tribes.
The Administration’s FY2001 budget request would provide $72.07 million for
the Historic preservation fund total. Of this amount, $42.07 million is for the Fund’s
grants-in-aid program, and $30 million is to continue the Administration’s “Save
America’s Treasures” initiative, to provide assistance for commemorating the
Millennium by addressing the Nation’s most urgent preservation priorities. Save
America’s Treasures grants are given to preserve “nationally significant intellectual
and cultural artifacts and historic structures” including monuments, historic sites,
artifacts, collections, artwork, documents, manuscripts, photographs, maps, journals,
still and moving images, and sound recordings. The FY1999 appropriation was used
for restoration of the Star Spangled Banner, restoration of the Sewall-Belmont House,
CRS-16
the National Women’s Party headquarters, and for restoration of the Declaration of
Independence and the U.S. Constitution located in the National Archives. Although
the appropriation was continued for Save America’s Treasures for FY2000 ($30
million), the program was criticized as lacking geographic diversity in the FY1999
grants program.
The Administration’s budget for FY2001 for the Historic Preservation Fund
includes $7.9 million for HBCUs, for the preservation and restoration of historic
buildings and structures on their campuses. Funds in Section 507 of P.L.104-333 (the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996) were earmarked for
preservation projects for the following universities: Fisk University and Knoxville
College in Tennessee; Miles College, Talladega College, Selma University, Stillman
College, Concordia College in Alabama; Allen University, Claflin College, Voorhees
College in South Carolina; and Rust College and Tougaloo University in Mississippi.
Grants were awarded to complete repairs on HBCU buildings listed in the National
Register of Historic Places that required immediate repairs. An appropriation of $7.9
million for FY2001 represents the unused authorization remaining from P. L. 104-
333, and, according to the Administration, would fulfill that obligation.
The House-reported and House-passed FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill
provides $41.3 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, $30.7 million below the
enacted level for FY2000. It includes $31.6 million for state historic preservation
offices, $2.6 million for tribal grants and $7.2 million for historically black colleges
and universities. According to the House report, the bill would direct $.75 million of
the amount authorized for Selma University to be used for repair of historic buildings
on SU’s campus. The House-reported and House-passed Interior Appropriations bill
for FY2001 does not include funding for Save America’s Treasures.
The Senate-reported and Senate-passed FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill
would provide $44.3 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, a decrease of $30.4
million below the FY2000 enacted level. The Senate bill would increase by $3 million
the Grants- in-Aid to States program. and provide $7.2 million for restoration of
Historically Black Colleges, $.7 million less than the President’s request. The Senate-
passed bill would not provide funding for Save America’s Treasures.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 provided $74.79 million for
the Historic Preservation Fund, including $10.6 million for Historically Black Colleges
restoration, $2.6 million for tribal grants, $31.6 million for state historic preservation
offices, and $30 million for Save America’s Treasures.
There is no longer federal funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation
as part of the Historic Preservation Fund account. The National Trust was chartered
by Congress in 1949 to “protect and preserve” historic American sites significant to
the cultural heritage of the U.S. It is a private non-profit corporation and has not
received federal funding since FY1998, in keeping with Congress’ plan to replace
federal funds with private funding and to make the Trust self-supporting. The
National Trust still maintains several financial assistance programs including the
Preservation Services Fund, a program of matching grants to initiate preservation
projects, and the National Preservation Loan Fund, providing below-market-rate
loans to nonprofit organizations and public agencies to help preserve properties listed
CRS-17
in the National Register of Historic Places, particularly those on the “Most
Endangered Historic Places” list.
U.S. Geological Survey. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the Nation’s
primary science agency in providing earth and biological science 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. In further defining its role, the USGS offered an alternative crosscut of
its budget for FY2001 that emphasized providing the scientific information and tools
to assist managers and policymakers in support of the policy process in the
Department of the Interior. Core science and supporting research to back up those
applications were highlighted along with science support for the Department’s land
management bureaus and regional science programs that focus on specific place-based
studies. Research priorities for this crosscut were determined, in part, through a
consultative effort with the land and wildlife management bureaus, addressing their
most pressing needs. The four overarching initiatives that comprise this crosscut
presentation are: Safer Communities, Livable Communities, Sustainable Resources
for the Future, and America’s Natural Heritage.
The Administration requested $895.38 million for the U.S. Geological Survey
for FY2001, a net increase of $82 million over the FY2000 enacted level of $813.38
million and the largest increase in USGS history. This budget request was intended
to expand USGS core programs to promote understanding of the balance among
Earth’s living communities and to provide information to decisionmakers responsible
for managing those communities and associated lands. Included in this amount was
an increase of $18 million to cover such uncontrollable costs as salary increases.
Additionally, the budget contained decreases of $22.2 million representing projects
that were nearing completion or lower priority projects being ended in FY2001.
Notwithstanding the overarching initiatives mentioned above, the traditional
presentation of the budget for the USGS is in the appropriation category of Surveys,
Investigations, and Research, with six activities falling under that category: National
Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water Resources
and Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities. Each of
these activities showed a net increase in the FY2001 request. In H.R. 4578, the
House Committee on Appropriations recommended, and the full House approved,
$816.68 million for Surveys, Investigations, and Research – a decrease of $78.7
million from the budget request and an increase of $3.3 million above the FY2000
enacted level. In its action on H.R. 4578, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended, and the full Senate approved, $848.4 million for Surveys,
Investigations, and Research – a decrease of $47 million below the budget request
but an increase of $35 million above the FY2000 enacted level.
In the National Mapping Program activity, the Administration requested $155.28
million – $28.57 million over the FY2000 enacted level of $126.72 million. This
notable increase was sought to fund partnership arrangements with State and local
governments to collect and increase access to spatial data and maps and for USGS
assumption of management responsibility for the LANDSAT-7 mission as cited in a
1999 agreement signed by NASA, NOAA, and Interior. Under this activity, increases
were proposed to fund integrated studies of historical trends in land use change and
CRS-18
development for use in assessing consequences of alternative growth scenarios. The
House approved $122.82 million for the National Mapping Program, a decrease of
$32.49 million from the budget request and $3.9 million below the FY2000 enacted
level, including $3.4 million from the Hazard Support System and $.5 million resulting
from a transfer to the Geologic Hazards, Resource, and Processes activity. The
Senate approved $126.71 million for this program, an amount $28.57 million below
the budget request and the same level as the FY2000 enacted level. That Senate-
approved level included increases of $.5 million for further work on the National
Atlas and a restoration of $2.6 million for geospatial data production. In bill report
language, the Senate Committee chided Mapping Program staff for redirecting
substantial sums of money, without the Committee’s knowledge or consent, to
activities that were unauthorized and for which dollars were not appropriated.
In the Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activity, the Administration
requested $224.81 million – an increase of $13.59 million above the FY2000 enacted
level of $211.22 million. Proposed increases for this activity were to fund the
modernization of the seismograph and strong motion detector networks for San
Francisco, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Anchorage, Reno, and Memphis. A large proposed
increase was slated to expand the development of the Internet-based National
Geological Map Database and the production of digital geologic map data that are
both compliant with the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and that meet community
needs to address hazards, resources, and environmental management issues. The
House approved $211.3 million for Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes –
a decrease of $13.5 million from the budget request but similar to the FY2000 enacted
level. The House Committee on Appropriations emphasized in bill report language
that the Survey’s highest hazards-related priority should be to continue upgrading its
various hazards monitoring networks, to acquire quality hazards information, and to
engage in quality hazards-related research. The Senate approved $218.52 million for
this program, an amount $6.3 million below the budget request but $7.3 million above
the FY2000 enacted level. That Senate-approved level included increases of $2
million for seismographic equipment, $.5 million for volcano hazards work, and $.5
million for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping program to conduct projects
that will complement the groundwater studies to be undertaken by the Water
Resources Investigations program. Restorations amounting to $5.96 million were
entered for the Energy Resources program, the Minerals Resources program, and the
Volcano Hazards program.
In the Water Resources Investigations activity, the Administration requested
$197.58 million – an increase of $11.76 million over the FY2000 enacted level of
$185.82 million. In this activity, major increases were proposed for hydrologic
networks and for analysis of real-time hazards and of Interior science priorities.
Those increases were sought to enhance USGS ability to provide streamflow data for
flood forecasting and information for flood hazard mitigation by adding streamgages,
upgrading instruments, and adding telemetry. Scientific support for each of the
Interior bureaus also would have been augmented. Modest increases were requested
to facilitate data sharing in support of water information delivery for decision support
and resources management. The House approved $187.95 million for Water
Resources Investigations, a decrease of $9.63 million from the budget request and an
increase of $2.1 million above the FY2000 enacted level. The House-approved level
included increases above the FY2000 level of $1.7 million for the Real Time Hazards
CRS-19
Initiative, and $.4 million for water resources research institutes. The Senate
approved $196.66 million for this program – slightly below the budget request but
$10.84 million above the FY2000 enacted level. The Senate-approved amount
included increases of $3.1 million for new or upgraded stream gauging stations, $2
million to accelerate the groundwater studies program, $.3 million for new
investigations related to toxic materials in the Lake Champlain basin, $.45 million to
monitor and protect water resources in the State of Hawaii, and $.3 million for the
Lake Mead/Mojave Environmental Research Institute to conduct research on
environmental matters involving the ecosystems and watersheds of Lake Mead.
Restorations totaling $6.39 million were entered for the Toxic Substances Hydrology
program, for Hydrologic Research and Development, and for Hydrologic Networks
and Analysis.
In the Biological Research activity, the Administration requested $158.78 million
– an increase of $21.89 million above the FY2000 enacted level of $136.90 million.
A sizable portion of that increase would have been applied to biological research and
monitoring for Interior science priorities in support of each of the Department’s
bureaus. An increase for fish and wildlife disease was sought to expand research on
the West Nile encephalitis virus. A large increase was intended to fund matching
grants and other cooperative activities for States, local communities, academic
institutions, and other user groups to integrate and overlay more easily spatial and
biological data sets (e.g., invasive species distributions) with data from the holdings
of the USGS and other agencies. The House approved $140.42 million for
Biological Research – a decrease of $18.37 million from the budget request and an
increase of $3.5 million above the FY2000 enacted level. According to bill report
language, that House-approved level specifically provided an additional $3.4 million
to conduct mission-critical science support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
such needed areas as species at risk, invasive species, inventory and monitoring
protocols, and fisheries and aquatic resources. The Senate approved $147.77 million
for Biological Research, an amount $11 million below the budget request but $10.88
million above the FY2000 enacted level. The Senate-approved amount included
increases of $8 million for Science Centers and $.7 million for the Cooperative
Research Units. The increase for the Science Centers was proposed in response to
concerns expressed that insufficient base funding had eroded the centers’ core
capabilities and reduced their ability to address important long-term strategic research.
With the additional amount provided for core science support, those centers would
begin to stabilize their bases of operations.
Again this year, the USGS budget presentation retained two additional activity
categories in the FY2001 request: Science Support, at $70.90 million, and Facilities,
at $88.04 million. Separating out the costs associated with modernizing the
infrastructure for management and dissemination of scientific information and the
costs for maintenance and repair of facilities allows for a clearer view of the money
allocated directly for science. Both of these activities showed small increases over the
FY2000 enacted levels, $3.79 million and $2.42 million, respectively, mostly
associated with uncontrollable costs and technical adjustments. The House approved
$67.1 million for Science Support – a decrease of $3.79 million from the budget
request and the same as the FY2000 enacted level. The Senate approved $69.90
million for Science Support, an amount $1 million below the budget request but $2.79
million above the FY2000 enacted level. Those Senate-approved increases included
CRS-20
$.92 million to invest in infrastructure that would allow the USGS to increase data
transfer capacity. The House approved $87.12 million for Facilities – a decrease of
$.1 million from the budget request and $1.5 million above the FY2000 enacted level.
The Senate approved $88.04 million for Facilities, an amount that met the budget
request and was $2.42 million above the FY2000 enacted level. Within funds
provided by the Senate, $.92 million was designated for engineering and design work
associated with a proposed expansion of the Leetown, West Virginia, Science Center.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.usgs.gov/].
Minerals Management Service. The Minerals Management Service (MMS)
administers two programs: 1) Royalty, and 2) Offshore Minerals Management and Oil
Spill Research. The Offshore Minerals Management Program administers competitive
leasing on outer continental shelf lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas
and other minerals. The Royalty Management Program (RMP) seeks to ensure timely
and accurate collection and disbursement of revenues from all mineral leases on
federal and Indian lands (oil, gas, coal, etc.). MMS anticipates collecting about $6.0
billion in revenues in FY2001 from offshore and onshore federal leases. Revenues
from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were collected, the General
Fund of the U.S. Treasury, and various 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 Administration’s FY2001 request of $247.7 million would provide $241.6
million for the Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management Program and $6.1 million
for oil spill research. This request is $7.4 million more than the FY2000 appropriation
($240.3 million) excluding offsetting receipts. Total appropriations, however, would
increase by $23.9 million while the offsets would decrease by $17 million. An
additional $10 million in user fees is also requested. The offsets ($107.4 million)
would come from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues. The net amount of the
administration’s request is $140.2 million for FY2001 (excluding the request for $10
million in new user fees). Leasing activity in the Gulf of Mexico has significantly
declined from its FY1997 peak and is expected to remain flat in FY2001. According
to MMS, the decline in the offsets are needed to reflect the decline of new lease
activity in the region. The House Appropriations Committee mark and the House
approved funding level was about 5% less than the Administration’s request,
supporting a net amount of $133.3 million for MMS. The Senate approved $140.1
million for MMS which is much closer to the Administration’s request.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its World
Wide Web site at [http://www.mms.gov/].
Royalty Issues. Reported discrepancies between posted prices and fair market
value prices, that are the basis for royalty valuation, continue to be an issue in the
106th Congress. The Administration argued that the U.S. Treasury was being
underpaid at least $60 million annually. MMS’s final rule change for crude oil
valuation that relies less on posted prices and more on an index price to better reflect
fair market value went into effect March 15, 2000, as required by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113 ). Oil industry officials have criticized
CRS-21
using index prices as a benchmark and had offered a number of other options for
benchmarks. The MMS had an extensive comment period on the valuation rule
throughout the 105th and 106th Congresses to allow for additional industry and
congressional input. Industry representatives still believe further improvements are
necessary, particularly around the duty to market requirement. Further, they would
like the MMS to use the royalty in kind (RIK) approach that would allow MMS to
receive royalties in the form of oil produced, then resell the oil for cash.
In the Senate FY2000 Interior appropriations bill (S. 1292), a contentious debate
ensued over when to implement the new oil valuation rule. The Senate Appropriations
Committee approved an amendment by Senator Domenici (R-NM) to further
postpone the release of the oil valuation rule until June 30, 2001. Senator Hutchison
(R-TX) offered a floor amendment to extend the moratorium on the rules release
through FY2000. A filibuster by Senator Boxer (D-CA) to prevent the moratorium
amendment on the rules release stalled the Interior appropriation bill until a second
cloture vote (60-39) limited debate on the amendment. The Senate voted (51-47) to
extend the moratorium. Conference negotiators sustained the moratorium but only for
not more than six months, pending a General Accounting Office review and report to
Congress on the proposed oil valuation rule. The President threatened to veto the
Interior bill because of the rules moratorium, among other issues. However,
negotiators settled on implementing the new oil valuation rule on March 15, 2000,
and this provision was enacted into law in P.L. 106-113.
An MMS RIK Feasibility Study concluded that RIK could be workable and
generate positive revenue for the U.S. Treasury. The MMS has begun to conduct a
second pilot study on a RIK process that includes natural gas production in the Gulf
of Mexico, oil production in Wyoming, and Texas offshore natural gas. This pilot
began in 1998 with oil lease bids offered in Wyoming and is expected to take several
years to complete. The House supported the Committee amendment that would
allow the MMS to use a portion of its revenues to administer the RIK pilot program
now underway. However, a floor amendment limited the use of MMS revenues to pay
for transportation to wholesale market centers and for processing rather than the
Committee recommendation to pay for gathering and any contractor costs as well.
This would allow MMS to receive greater value for its RIK product at the market
center.
On a separate issue, legislation was enacted (P.L. 104-185) in the 104th
Congress to authorize interested states that demonstrate competence to collect
royalties from federal oil and gas leases. The MMS functions that could be delegated
to the states include: reporting of production and royalties, error correction, and
automated verification.
OCS Moratoria. During FY1996, as the 104th Congress revisited many
regulatory programs, the OCS moratorium on leasing activity was debated in some
depth but was extended in several areas. The extension was continued through
FY1999. It was supported by the House and the Senate for FY2000, and was
continued in the FY2000 appropriations law. In the FY2001 spending bill, the
moratoria is supported by the House and the Senate. In previous appropriations
since the early 1980s, the moratoria had been approved annually, without extensive
discussion. Each year, Congress banned the expenditure of appropriated funds for any
CRS-22
leasing activity in environmentally sensitive areas of the OCS. In 1990, President Bush
issued a directive which parallels the moratoria, essentially banning OCS leasing
activity in places other than the Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama offshore. The
executive branch ban remains in effect. The moratoria apply only to environmentally
sensitive areas. With the exception of the California OCS, little hydrocarbon
production has occurred in these regions.
Lease Sales in the Gulf of Mexico. Leasing in the Central and Western Gulf
of Mexico recently has declined, whereas lease sales were quite robust in FY1996 and
FY1997. During 1996, the spring (Central Gulf) sale resulted in 606 tracts leased for
total bonuses of $352 million. The fall (Western Gulf) sale resulted in 902 tracts
leased for $512 million. And the Central Gulf auction held March 5, 1997, set an all
time record, attracting 1,790 bids for 1,032 tracts. High bids totaled $824 million.
This was the last sale under the 1992-1997 leasing plan. FY1996 and FY1997
included four record breaking sales which produced over $2.4 billion in bonuses. The
OCS Leasing Plan for the FY1997 to FY2002 period included a Western Gulf auction
that took place in August, 1997. This record breaking August sale ($680 million) was
33 percent larger than the Western Gulf sale held a year earlier. However, the 333
tracts leased in 1999 were 81% lower than its peak of 1,778 tracts leased in 1997.
Production of deep water oil and gas has more than doubled between 1996 and 1999
because of new technology and public policy. Currently, the Gulf of Mexico
accounts for over half of the world’s drilling rigs operating in deepwater. The MMS
proposes to increase its effort in environmental issues associated with deep water
drilling.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87) 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. Congress’ intention was that individual states and Indian tribes would
develop their own regulatory programs to enforce uniform minimum standards estab-
lished by law and regulations. OSM is required to maintain oversight of state
regulatory programs.
The Administration’s request for the Office of Surface Mining for FY2001 —
at $309.2 million — is about $17.5 million above the FY2000 appropriation of $291.7
million. Most of the increase is targeted to accelerating the pace of abandoned mine
land reclamation by boosting the appropriation from the AML fund in 2001. The total
request included $98.0 million in funding for Regulation and Technology programs
and $211.2 million in appropriations from the AML fund. The request for Regulation
and Technology programs represents an increase of roughly $2.2 million from the
FY2000 level ($95.9 million). The Administration’s AML request reflects, an
increase of $15.3 million over adjusted FY2000 levels ($195.9 million). Included in
this figure is funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI), which was
$8 million in FY2000, and proposed for a further boost to $10 million in FY2001. The
House Committee on Appropriations reported $97.5 million for Regulation and
Technology and recommended $197.9 for AML, including $8 for ACSI. This level
CRS-23
of funding, approved by the House on June 15, 2000, is on a par with last year’s
enacted level, with an additional $2 million added to accelerate remediation of
problems associated with anthracite mines in Pennsylvania.
Appropriations for AML activities are based on states’ current and historic coal
production. “Minimum program states” are states with lower coal production that
nevertheless have sites needing reclamation. The minimum funding level for each of
these states was increased to $2 million in 1992. However, over the objection of
these states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program states since
FY1996. The Administration budget once again proposed to restore the minimum
funding level to $2 million in FY2001, but the House Committee has retained the $1.5
million level in its recommendation. These were the levels also adopted by the House,
for a total of $295.6 million for OSM.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $101 million for
Regulation and Technology, including an additional $3 million for State regulatory
grants. However, Committee recommendations of $201.4 million for the AML fund
“for additional environmental restoration work,” and a $1.6 million level for minimum
program States were adopted. The total for OSM approved by the Senate was
$302.5 million.
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm].
Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a wide
variety of services to federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes
and their members, and has historically 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, natural
resource and real estate management, economic development, employment assistance,
housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection, implementation of land and water
settlements, and partial gaming oversight, among others.
BIA’s FY2000 direct appropriations enacted to date are $1.869 billion. For
FY2001, the Administration proposed $2.2 billion, an increase of 17.8% over
FY2000. Included in the proposal were increases of 8.6% in Tribal Priority
Allocations (TPA) (to $761.2 million, including $128.7 million for self-determination
contract support costs, a 2.8% increase), 8.5% in BIA school operations (to $506.6
million), 8.2% in aid under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance
Act (to $38.2 million), and 85.4% in total BIA construction (to $365.9 million,
including $300.5 million in education construction, a 125.6% increase over FY2000).
The administration also proposed an increase of $18.8 million (to a total of $156.6
million) for the BIA for the third year of the Indian country law enforcement initiative,
jointly funded in BIA and Department of Justice (DOJ) appropriations, to reduce the
high rate of violent crime in Indian country. Proposed FY2001 DOJ spending on the
initiative, including Indian-country jail construction, totaled $173.3 million.
The House approved $1.881 billion for FY2001 BIA direct appropriations, an
increase of 0.6% over FY2000. Included are increases of 3.2% in TPA (to $702.2
million, including $125.2 million for self-determination contract support costs, the
CRS-24
same as FY2000), 1% in BIA school operations (to $471.7 million), 2.8% in aid
under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act (to $36.3 million),
and less than 1% for the Indian country law enforcement initiative (to $137.9 million).
The House approved a decrease of 6.6% in total BIA construction (to $184.4 million,
including $120.2 million in education construction, a 9.8% decrease below FY2000).
The Senate approved $2.086 billion for FY2001 BIA direct appropriations, an
increase of 11.6% over FY2000. The Senate included increases of 0.2% in TPA (to
$722.8 million, including $125.5 million for self-determination contract support costs,
a slight increase over FY2000), 2.6% in BIA school operations (to $479 million),
8.2% in aid under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act (to
$38.2 million), 5.8% for the Indian country law enforcement initiative (to $145.8
million), and 72.7% in total BIA construction (to $341 million, including $276.6
million in education construction, a 108% increase over FY2000).
The key issues for the BIA are the movement toward greater tribal influence on
BIA programs and expenditures (especially the role of contract support costs), BIA
reorganization and downsizing, the equitable distribution of BIA funding among
tribes, management of trust assets, law enforcement in Indian country, and repair and
replacement of BIA school buildings. Additional significant issues raised by proposed
provisions of previous Interior appropriations bills have included taxation of certain
Indian businesses, Indian gaming regulations, and tribal sovereign immunity from suit.
Tribal Control. Greater tribal control over federal Indian programs has been the
goal of Indian policy since the 1970s. In the BIA this policy has taken three forms:
tribal contracting to run individual BIA programs under the Indian Self-Determination
Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended); tribal compacting with the BIA to manage all or most
of a tribe’s BIA programs, under the Self-Governance program (P.L. 103-413); and
shifting programs into a portion of the BIA budget called Tribal Priority Allocations
(TPA), in which tribes have more influence in BIA budget planning and within which
each tribe has authority to reprogram all its TPA funds. In FY2000 TPA accounts for
42.7% of the BIA’s operation of Indian programs (including most of the BIA funding
for tribal governments’ operations, human services, courts, natural resources, and
community development) and for 37.5% of total BIA direct appropriations.
Contract support costs, authorized under the Indian Self-determination Act, fund
the non-operational and overhead costs incurred by tribes in administering programs
under self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts, and are calculated
using a negotiated tribal cost rate (a percentage of the funding base covered by a
tribe’s contracts or compact). Issues raised by contract support costs include the
consistent shortfall in contract support cost appropriations, tribes’ claim of entitlement
to full support cost funding, identity of programs included in tribes’ funding base, and
rate-setting methods. A 1997 court decision (Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan)
confirmed federal responsibility for certain unpaid contract support costs from
FY1989-1993 for primarily non-BIA and non-IHS programs, and a partial settlement
awarded the plaintiffs $82 million. Congress forbade use of FY1994-FY2000 BIA
funds to pay these costs, so the $82 million was paid from the federal Judgment Fund,
but the BIA and IHS may be required to reimburse the Fund. In the FY2001 Interior
appropriations bill, the Senate added a sense-of-the-Senate provision urging the
CRS-25
Secretary of the Interior to work with the Office of Management and Budget to
secure repayment from other agencies.
To allow the BIA and tribes to address the contract support costs problem and
to allow GAO to study the issue, Congress imposed a one-year moratorium on self-
determination contracts and self-governance compacts for FY1999. The GAO’s
report offered four alternative methods for funding contract support costs and
recommended that BIA and the Indian Health Service develop a standard policy on
funding contract support costs (Indian Self-Determination Act: Shortfalls in Indian
Contract Support Costs Need to be Addressed, June 1999, GAO/RCED-99-150).
Congress dropped the moratorium on contracts and compacts for FY2000. The
House has restored the moratorium for FY2001, but the Senate has not.
Reorganization. The BIA has been under pressure from tribes, the
administration, and Congress to reorganize, but proposals from the three sources have
not always been in agreement. Under the Clinton Administration’s National
Performance Review Reinventing Government initiative, the BIA had planned to
pursue restructuring and downsizing through the “tribal shares” process (in which
tribes and the BIA determine, first, which BIA functions are inherently federal and
which are available for tribal management, and, second, what each tribe’s share of
funds is for the latter functions), but the BIA has indicated that the Interior solicitor
has advised against such a procedure. Congress, through appropriations committee
reports, pressed the BIA to develop reorganization and consolidation plans. In
response BIA has reduced the number of both its agencies and employees. Congress
also approved the BIA’s commissioning of a 1999 study of BIA administration and
management by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). (A Study
of Management and Administration: The Bureau of Indian Affairs). The study
concluded that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs lacked necessary staff support
and that the BIA needed improvements in planning, budgeting, human resources
management, and information resource management. For FY2000, Congress directed
the Secretary of the Interior to reorganize the BIA based on the NAPA
recommendations and provided $5.2 million for this purpose. For FY2001, the
Administration requested $9.2 million for continued implementation of the NAPA
recommendations; the House agreed to this sum, as has the Senate.
Funding Distribution. The issue of the equitable distribution of BIA
funding—often referred to as “means-testing”—has two aspects, one relating to how
funds are distributed, the other relating to whether a tribe’s other financial resources
are taken into account. First, much if not most BIA funding, even while serving tribal
needs, is not required to be distributed on a national per capita or other formula basis.
Second, tribes’ own non-BIA resources, especially business revenues, are not always
required to be taken into account. A 1998 GAO study of TPA distribution found that
two-thirds of FY1998 TPA funds were distributed based on historical levels and one-
third was distributed based on formulas, that TPA distribution per capita varied
widely across BIA areas, and that tribal governments’ reporting of their revenues
were inconsistent in including or excluding non-federal revenues.
Supporters of TPA funding redistribution based on “means-testing” of tribes
claim that BIA funding is inequitably distributed, that poorer tribes do not receive
adequate funding, that tribal TPA funds received per capita do not correspond with
CRS-26
indicators of tribal need, that only 30 percent of TPA funding is based on formulas,
and that some rich tribes got more TPA funds in FY1998 than tribes with no outside
revenues. Opponents respond that almost all tribes are in poverty, that BIA funding
is insufficient to meet tribal needs, and that means-testing TPA funding would
penalize tribes who still have severe needs, would violate the federal trust
responsibility to tribes, and would be unfair since it is not required of state or local
governments receiving federal assistance.
Congress debated several proposals for reallocating TPA funding during its
consideration of the FY1998-FY2001 appropriation bills. For FY1998-FY1999,
Congress authorized a tribal-federal workgroup on TPA allocations and tribal needs
assessment, required that each tribe receive a certain minimum amount of funding, and
directed the BIA to develop TPA reallocation proposals. The BIA/tribal workgroup’s
report, in July 1999, concluded that variation in tribes’ circumstances made formula
distribution problematic; that TPA funding resulted from history, geography, and
policies; that current funding did not meet identified needs; and that measures of tribal
need and revenue were not fully available. The workgroup recommended that base
TPA funding should not be redistributed. For FY2000, Congress authorized (but did
not direct) the Secretary of the Interior to redistribute TPA funds to alleviate tribal
funding inequities–without reducing any tribe’s TPA share more than 10%, except in
certain situations–and directed the BIA to distribute funds to its two post-secondary
institutions based on a formula. The House retained these provisions for FY2001,
while the Senate kept only the post-secondary education provision. The Senate,
however, for FY2001, has approved a provision prohibiting Alaska Native tribes with
fewer than 25 members from receiving TPA funds; the funds would be transferred to
each tribe’s regional Native corporation.
Trust Asset Management. The BIA has historically mismanaged Indian trust
funds and trust assets. Reform of trust fund management is now the responsibility of
the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (see below). The BIA and the
Office of Special Trustee are together implementing the Secretary of the Interior’s
High Level Implementation Plan for the Trust Management Improvement Project.
The project includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, and procedures,
reduction of backlogs, and maintenance of the improved system. Trust asset
management includes real estate services, processing of transaction (sales, leases,
etc.), surveys, appraisals, probate functions, land title records, and other functions.
The BIA has contracted with a private developer for a new trust asset and accounting
management system (TAAMS). In the FY2000 Interior appropriations bill, Congress
prohibited the Secretary from deploying TAAMS, except at a test site, until the
Secretary certifies that the system meets contract requirements and users’ needs. The
test site is the BIA’s Billings region. The House bill for FY2001 does not include this
provision, nor does the Senate recommend it.
Law Enforcement. Because of reports of greatly increased crime rates and
inadequate law enforcement in Indian country, the Administration proposed for
FY1999 an initiative on law enforcement in Indian country. Under the initiative,
funds for Indian country would flow through both the BIA and the Department of
Justice. The funds would provide additional law officers, police facilities and
equipment, and jails and detention centers. BIA funding goes chiefly to ongoing
operation and improvement of reservation law enforcement functions, while the
CRS-27
Justice funds go to one-time improvement grants under its COPS program and to
construction of detention facilities.
School Construction. The BIA funds or operates 185 elementary and secondary
schools with over 2,000 education facilities. Many school facilities are old and
dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. The BIA estimates the backlog in
education facility repairs is $802 million. Education construction funding was
historically low and Congress had not accepted various proposals for alternate
funding mechanisms. For FY2000, the Administration proposed, and Congress
funded, a 74% increase in education facility construction (before internal transfers).
For FY2001, the Administration also proposes another large increase in education
construction funding. Within the FY2001 BIA education construction budget is a
proposed school construction bond initiative, where $30 million of the proposed
appropriations would help tribes participate in the president’s school construction
modernization initiative. Under this initiative, tribal bonds can be issued to help meet
the large backlog in school construction. The House Appropriations Committee
recommends no funding for the school bonding initiative until enactment of tax credit
provisions needed to give tribes the authority to issue such bonds. The Senate
Appropriations Committee does not discuss the tribal bonding initiative, but Senate
recommended more than doubling BIA education construction funding.
Other Issues. A number of additional Indian issues have arisen in congressional
consideration of recent Interior appropriations bills and may be proposed this year.
Among the major issues have been state taxation of retail sales in Indian country to
non-members, tribal sovereign immunity from suit, and regulations regarding state-
tribal gaming compacts. Congress has in past years defeated proposals to restrict the
taking of land into trust for Indian tribes unless the tribe agreed to state taxes, and to
waive tribal sovereign immunity if the tribe accepted TPA funds. Controversial Indian
gaming regulations – proposed by the Secretary in 1998, for considering and
approving gaming compacts where states had invoked immunity from tribal suit over
compact negotiations – were delayed by Congress until the second half of FY1999.
When the regulations were then promulgated, in April 1999, they were immediately
challenged in court by several states. Congress considered prohibiting FY2000 funds
to implement the regulations, but dropped the provision when the Interior Secretary
assured Congress that he would not implement the regulations until federal courts
ruled on their legality. For FY2001,the House defeated a proposed amendment that
would have prohibited implementation of the regulations until final adjudication of
their legality, but the Senate approved a prohibition on funding for publication of
procedures necessary to implement the regulations.
For further information on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html].
Departmental Offices.
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988
(P.L. 100-497) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of tribal bingo and other “Class II”
operations, as well as aspects of “Class III” gaming (casinos, racing, etc.). The NIGC
may receive federal appropriations but its budget authority has consisted chiefly of fee
CRS-28
assessments on tribes’ Class II operations. The FY1998 Interior Appropriations Act
amended the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to increase the amount of assessment fees
the NIGC may collect (to $8 million), to make Class III as well as Class II operations
subject to fees, and to increase the authorization of NIGC appropriations from $1
million to $2 million.
Beginning in FY1999, all NIGC activities have been funded from fees. No direct
appropriations were made for the NIGC in FY2000. Neither the Administration, the
House, nor the Senate proposed FY2001 appropriations for the NIGC.
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special Trustee
for American Indians, 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). The Office of Special Trustee (OST) is responsible for general oversight 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 numerous federal, tribal, and
congressional reports had shown severely inadequate management, with probable
losses to Indian tribal and individual beneficiaries. In 1996, at Congress’ direction and
as authorized by P.L. 103-412, the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust fund
management from the BIA to the OST.
Indian trust funds comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by about
315 tribes in approximately 1,600 accounts, with a total asset value of about $2.5
billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM)
accounts, in 341,645 accounts with a total asset value of $433.3 million. (Figures are
from the OST FY2000 budget justifications.) The funds include monies received both
from claims awards, land or water rights settlements, and other one-time payments,
and from income from physical trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as
investment income.
While a congressionally-required outside audit has been made of non-investment
transactions—deposits and withdrawals—in tribal trust fund accounts (for the 20-
year period 1973-1992), Congress did not require that the outside auditors examine
transactions in the IIM accounts, so their reconciliation status has been in doubt. On
June 11, 1996, a class-action suit was filed in federal court against the federal
government on behalf of all IIM account owners. The suit sought an accounting of
the IIM funds, establishment of adequate management systems, and full restitution of
any money lost from the IIM accounts. The case was certified as a class action in
February 1997. Because the BIA and the departments of the Interior and Treasury
were unable to produce the trust records for five named plaintiffs in the case, as had
been ordered by the federal court as part of trial preparation, the secretaries of the
Interior and Treasury and the Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs were held in
contempt of court on Feb. 22, 1999. The federal departments apologized and
promised to meet the judge’s concerns. The part of the IIM suit dealing with the
failures of the trust-fund system went to trial in June 1999 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, and the judge in December 1999 found that the
government mismanaged the IIM accounts and ordered that the system be fixed and
CRS-29
that the government provide quarterly reports on system improvements. Trial on the
amount of money owed to the plaintiffs is to begin in 2000.
In April 1997 the OST submitted its Strategic Plan for improving the
management of Indian trust funds and trust assets. The plan recommended creation
of a new federally chartered agency, to which trust funds and assets would be
transferred, and management and investment of the funds and assets to assist Indian
economic growth. While considering FY1998 Interior appropriations, Congress
noted departmental and some tribal opposition to the Strategic Plan, especially to the
proposed new agency. Congress directed the OST not to implement the proposed
new agency but to pursue trust funds systems improvements and OST responsibilities
relating to the settlement of financial claims made by tribal and individual
beneficiaries, before Congress and in court, because of BIA trust-funds
mismanagement. In August 1997 the Secretary of the Interior agreed to implement
aspects of the Strategic Plan dealing with trust management systems, data cleanup,
and trust asset processing backlogs, and in July 1998 he issued a “High-Level
Implementation Plan” for this Trust Management Improvement Project. On Jan. 5,
1999, the Secretary ordered a reorganization of the OST, creating a principal deputy
special trustee who would carry out policy and budget execution, budget formulation,
and day-to-day operations, and to whom would report the trust funds management
office and the new office for trust litigation support and trust records management
created by the same order. The Special Trustee, Paul Homan, resigned in protest
effective Jan. 7, 1999.
The FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee (S. 544, 106th Cong.) contained a provision prohibiting
the implementation of the Secretary’s reorganization of the OST; the bill enacted into
law (P.L. 106-31) did not include that provision, but the conference committee report
(H.Rept. 106-143) expressed concern about the Secretary’s order and the
department’s implementation of the trust fund reform act and the High Level
Implementation Plan.
FY2000 funding for the Office of Special Trustee was $95.03 million. The
President proposed a FY2001 budget of $95.13 million, an increase of 5.7% from
FY2000. Included in the FY2001 request were $82.63 million for federal trust
programs — trust systems improvements, settlement and litigation support, and trust
funds management — and $12.5 million for the Indian land consolidation pilot
project. The purpose of the land consolidation project, funded at $5 million for
FY2000, is to purchase and consolidate fractionated ownerships of allotted Indian
trust lands, thereby reducing the costs of managing millions of acres broken up into
tiny fractional interests. The House approved $87.43 million for FY2001, including
$82.43 million for federal trust programs and $5 million for land consolidation. The
Senate approved $92.63 million for FY2001, including $82.63 million for federal trust
programs and $10 million for land consolidation.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
Insular Affairs. Funding for the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) consists of two
portions—(1) permanent and indefinite appropriations that do not require action by
CRS-30
the 106th Congress or the Administration; and (2) discretionary and current mandatory
funding subject to the appropriations process. The current fiscal year (FY2000)
budget for the OIA totals roughly $300 million; the FY2001 budget request would
increase OIA funding 8% to $324.6 million.
Permanent and indefinite appropriations constitute the larger of the two portions.
For FY2000, they total $201 million, approximately 70% of the OIA budget. For
FY2001, the total will be $230.2 million, an increase of 14.5% over FY2000 and 71%
of the OIA budget.
The FY2001 permanent and indefinite appropriations that total $230.2 million
consist of the following divisions:
! $65 million to the Virgin Islands for estimated rum excise and income
tax collections;
! $41 million to Guam for income tax collections; and
! $124.2 million (total) to three freely associated states—Republic of
Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of
Micronesia (FSM)—as set forth in the Compact of Free Association
for each entity.
Two territories, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
and American Samoa, do not receive permanent and indefinite appropriations.
The smaller of the two portions allocated to the OIA—discretionary and current
mandatory funds—comprises roughly one-third of the federal assistance provided to
insular areas. The amount appropriated for FY2000 ($90.5 million) exceeded the
amount provided in recent years (roughly $88 million each year), and the $88.6
million requested by the Administration. The discretionary and current mandatory
funding request for FY2001 is $94.4 million, an increase of $3.9 million, or 4.4%.
The House approved an amount ($90.2 million) slightly below the FY2000
appropriation and 4.5% below the request. The Senate approved a total of $89
million.
Selected Issues. Perhaps the most significant issue of debate concerns the
amount to be allocated to mitigate the effects of immigration from the three freely
associated states, referred to as “Compact impact.” The term “Compact impact” has
been used to describe the burdens incurred by Guam and other islands, including
Hawaii, as non-citizens (notably from the FSM) relocate in search of job opportunities
due to the lack of basic industry and substantial economic development. Advocates
contend that Guam and other islands need assistance to provide social services
associated with the population influx.
Legislation enacted in 1996 (see 48 U.S.C. 1804(c)(1)) reallocates $4.6 million
each year (FY1996-FY2001) from the CNMI to Guam for Compact impact needs
such as hospital construction, education, and social services. The FY2001 request
includes an additional $5.4 million in Compact impact money for Guam. For FY2000,
Congress appropriated an additional $3 million in technical assistance grants for Guam
CRS-31
for this purpose. A DOI news release on the FY2001 budget request notes that the
$5.4 million increase “is a major priority of the Clinton Administration.” The House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee have rejected the $5.4 million increase,
contending that funding levels for Compact impact aid should be decided in the
ongoing Compact renegotiations. Instead of targeting impact aid to Guam, the House
approved an appropriation of $7.6 million for technical assistance grants that will
implement financial and government reforms in the territories, the same amount
requested by the Administration and an increase of $1 million over the FY1999
funding level. The Senate committee recommended $6.6 million for technical
assistance grants.
The “deteriorating financial condition of the insular governments” has been
identified as a matter of great concern in the FY2001 budget request. All these
entities remain dependent on federal assistance, despite past economic development
initiatives. For example, the Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands signed a
memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of the Interior in October 1999,
that established financial controls and performance standards to be achieved. The
FY2001 budget request includes an advance appropriation of $10 million for the
Virgin Islands, which would become available in FY2002 should the standards be met
in FY2001. The Virgin Islands would be expected to provide a 50% match. Also of
note, pursuant to the FY2000 appropriations legislation, American Samoa is to
receive a loan of $19 million for economic development and financial stability. The
loan is to be repaid from the territory’s expected share of the tobacco settlement
agreement.
Another issue concerns the proliferation of brown tree snakes on the Pacific
islands. The Administration seeks to continue funding in FY2001 for brown tree
snake control at the $2.35 million level approved for FY2000. For more information
on this issue, see CRS Report 97-507, Non-Indigenous Species: Government
Responses to the Brown Tree Snake and Issues for Congress.
In addition to these funding issues, some Members of Congress have expressed
concern with labor conditions and immigration laws in the CNMI as well as support
for the extension of federal minimum wage laws to the territory. On February 7,
2000, the Senate approved legislation (S. 1052) that would restructure United States
immigration policy as it applies to the CNMI. (For references to congressional
activity on the minimum wage issue see CRS Report RL30235, Minimum Wage in
the Territories and Possessions of the United States: Application of the Fair Labor
Standards Act).
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html].
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
Department of Agriculture. For information on the Department of
Agriculture, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.usda.gov/].
U.S. Forest Service. The Senate enacted Forest Service appropriations for
FY2001 of $2.99 billion (including $150 million in Wildland Fire Management
CRS-32
emergency contingency funds), $251 million more (+9%) than passed by the House
($2.739 billion) and $165 million more (+6%) than FY2000 (as adjusted, see below),
but $119 million less (–4%) than the Administration requested. State and Private
Forestry (S&PF) was funded at $226 million, $23 million more (+11%) than FY2000
and $29 million more than the House. The forest legacy program (to acquire
easements) was increased by $5 million (+20%) from FY2000 and by $20 million
(+200%) from the House, but is only about half of the requested amount. The
economic action and Pacific Northwest assistance programs (for economic assistance)
were increased by $5 million (+19%) from FY2000, by $9 million (+39%) from the
request, and by $12 million (+58%) from the House. The international forestry
program was funded independently (rather than from other appropriations, as in past
years) at $5 million, $0.5 million more (+11%) than the House, but $5.0 million less
(–50%) than requested.
For the National Forest System, the Senate passed $1,24 billion, $32 million
more (+3%) than the House ($1.21 billion), and $92 million more (+8%) than
FY2000, but $47 million less (–4%) than the Administration requested. All accounts
are increased from FY2000, but with $39 million more (+20%) than the House for
land management planning and for inventory and monitoring, and $15 million less
(–6%) for recreation, heritage and wilderness. The appropriations are higher than the
Administration’s request for forest products ($21 million, +9% including the $5
million Tongass timber pipeline) and land ownership management ($11 million,
+15%), but are substantially lower than requested for inventories and monitoring ($29
million, –15%), for planning ($9 million, –12%), for recreation ($35 million, –14%),
and for wildlife and fish habitat management ($16 million, –12%).
Changes were also passed for other accounts. Wildland fire management was
at $767.6 million, $60 million more (+8%) than FY2000 and $149 million more
(+24%) than the House ($618.3 million) and $3 million (less than –1%) less than
requested. However, this includes $150 million in contingent emergency
appropriations, as requested (and up 67% from $90 million in FY2000), but which
was not included by the House. The House also included supplemental appropriations
of $150 million for FY2000; however, this was enacted separately, in P.L. 106-246.
(This law also contained $200 million in emergency supplemental appropriations for
BLM wildland fire management and $661 million in emergency funding for disaster
relief for the Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico.)
Forest Service capital improvement and maintenance was set at $448.3 million,
$11 million more (+3%) than FY2000, $14 million more (+3%) than the House
($434.5 million), and $23 million more (+6%) than requested. Land acquisition from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (discussed later in this report) was passed at
$76.3 million, $80 million less (–51%) than FY2000 (including $76 million of land
acquisition in Title VI of the Interior Appropriations Act enacted in §1001 of P.L.
106-113). It is also $54 million less (–41%) than the Administration requested, but
$24 million more (+47%) than passed by the House ($52 million).
In addition, the Administration proposed a new budget structure for the Forest
Service. First, the agency proposed to shift from “benefitting function” allocations
(where project funds can be allocated to several line items) to “primary purpose”
allocations (where funds are allocated to the one primary purpose of the project).
CRS-33
Also, general administration would be eliminated, with the costs allocated across all
other budget line items. The House agreed and the Senate Committee recommended
agreeing with these proposed changes. Finally, the agency proposed collapsing the
20 budget line items for the National Forest System into 3 lines — Ecosystem
Assessment and Planning, Ecosystem Conservation, and Public Services and Uses —
and the 6 budget line items for Reconstruction and Maintenance into 3 lines
(eliminating the distinction between maintenance and construction/reconstruction).
The House rejected the Administration’s proposal, but the House and Senate
Committees agreed to modify the budget structure by reducing the National Forest
System to 10 line items, by combining rangeland and forest vegetation management
with watershed management and water, soil, and air operations under ‘vegetation and
watershed management,’ and by renaming ‘reconstruction and construction’ as
‘capital improvements and maintenance.’ The agency’s budget request also included
many performance measures, to attempt to inform Congress on what is being
purchased with the appropriations. The House and Senate committee reports note
concerns that the agency still lacks “strong and effective performance measurement
and evaluation.”
For further information on the U.S. Forest Service, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www.fs.fed.us/].
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the U.S.
Forest Service, see the USDA Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at
[http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm].
Timber Sales. Timber sales, especially salvage timber related to forest health,
have been debated repeatedly in Forest Service budget and authorizing legislation.
The FY2001 budget request proposes declines in salvage sales with dead and dying
trees (from 1.025 billion board feet, or BBF, to 0.857 BBF), in new green (live tree)
sales (from 2.549 BBF to 2.258 BBF), and in sales under the Timber Sales Pipeline
Restoration Fund (from 0.090 BBF to 0.063 BBF). However, the proposed FY2001
sale levels (3.178 BBF in total) are above the FY1999 results (2.300 BBF in total).
The House and Senate reports direct continuing the FY2000 sales level, and the both
committee reports note that the Committees are “discouraged” by the agency’s failure
to meet congressional timber sale targets. On the House floor, the Wu amendment
to transfer $14.7 million from forest products to fish and wildlife management was
defeated. In the Senate, the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment, to reduce timber sale funds
by $30 million and increase wildland fire management by $15 million, was similarly
defeated. The Senate included $5 million “in addition to its normal allocation” for
preparing timber sales in the Tongass (AK) National Forest.
Forest Health and Forest Fires. One forest-health related provision has been
included in recent appropriations acts, including the FY2001 Act: the 10% Roads and
Trails Fund has been altered annually to allow its use “to improve forest health
conditions and repair or reconstruct roads, bridges and trails …,” emphasizing the
wildland-urban interface and areas with abnormally high risk from potential wildfires.
On the Senate floor, Members debated whether increasing timber sales could improve
forest health or would lead to further deterioration; however, no actions on timber
sales ensued from the debate.
CRS-34
Following from the Cerro Grande escaped prescribed fire that destroyed more
than 200 homes in Los Alamos, NM, the House adopted a provision prohibiting
further use of prescribed burning until the agencies implement all provisions of the
1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy. The Senate took a different approach. Senator
Domenici offered a substitute for Senator Craig’s amendment requiring a review of
the Administration’s proposed roadless area conservation rule (see below); the
Domenici substitute was passed by voice vote as Title IV, providing $120 million to
the Forest Service and $120.3 million to the BLM to reduce hazardous fuels in the
“urban wildland interface area” and requiring the agencies to report on urban wildland
interface communities and projects and the Forest Service to publish its Cohesive
Strategy for Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted
Ecosystems. Also, as noted above, in P.L. 106-246, Congress included emergency
supplemental appropriations of $150 million for the Forest Service and $200 million
for the BLM for wildland fire management, and of $661 million for disaster relief for
victims of the Cerro Grande fire.
Land Management Planning. Management of the federal lands has been
controversial for decades. Increasing conflicts among users in the 1960s and early
1970s led Congress to enact the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)
and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) to establish and
guide land and resource management planning for the national forests and BLM lands.
Despite the goals of these laws, the public participatory planning processes have not
led to harmonious land management. Bills to improve planning, some emphasizing
forest health, have been introduced in both Houses in several Congresses, but none
have been enacted. The House and Senate bills direct the Forest Service to continue
management under existing plans (with numerous exceptions), and not revise those
plans, until new final or interim final rules are issued. In addition, the bill as reported
in the House would have prevented the Forest Service and BLM from completing the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (ICBEMP); an amendment to
provide funding was initially accepted, but later overturned. (For more, see the above
discussion under the BLM.) The Senate bill did not contain comparable ICBEMP
language, but would require a regulatory flexibility analysis for the White River (CO)
National Forest draft plan.
On October 5, 1999, the Forest Service proposed new planning regulations with
a greater emphasis on ecosystem management and protection of biological diversity.
The budget request describes this as part of the agency’s program for Sustainable
Forest Ecosystem Management. The public comment period on these regulations is
closed, and the draft regulations are being revised.
Forest Roads. Road construction in the national forests continues to be
controversial. Some interests oppose new roads because roads increase access to
areas they believe should be preserved in a pristine condition; because roads are a
major source of erosion, stream sedimentation, and other environmental degradation;
and because road funding is asserted to be a corporate subsidy for the timber industry.
Supporters argue that access roads are needed for forest protection (e.g., from
wildfire) and for timber harvesting and other on-site uses, and maintain that roads can
be built without causing significant environmental problems. The Administration
proposed, and the House Committee agreed with, a decrease of $10 million (–10%)
for road construction and reconstruction; in contrast, the Senate enacted an increase
CRS-35
of $6 million (+6%) for road construction over FY2000. The Administration also
proposed an increase of $13 million (+11%) in road maintenance and
decommissioning. The House Committee only recommended an increase of $3
million (+3%), but a floor amendment increased road maintenance funding by $10
million, to the requested level. The Senate Committee passed an increase of $7
million (+6%) from the FY2000 level.
In a separate initiative, but related to the proposed decrease in funding for road
construction, the Administration announced on October 13, 1999, a new approach to
managing roadless areas that may prohibit new roads in inventoried roadless areas,
and extend some protections to non-inventoried areas. The draft environmental
impact statement was released in May 2000, and the comment period ends on July 17.
The agency anticipates completing the rulemaking process in December. (See CRS
Report RL30647, The National Forest Roadless Area Initiative.) The Senate bill
included a section to prohibit funding to develop or implement the final rule for
roadless areas in the White Mountain (NH) National Forest. Senator Craig
announced at the Committee mark-up that he would offer an amendment related to
this initiative on the Senate floor; his amendment was offered and debated, but it was
replaced by a substitute enacting additional funds for hazardous fuel treatment.
Fiscal Management. The FY2001 Forest Service budget request identifies
several legislative proposals to change existing trust funds. For the third consecutive
year, the budget proposed “stable and permanent funding” for the agency’s payments
to states; legislation to alter this program has passed the House and is pending in the
Senate. (See CRS Report IB10057, Forest Service Revenue-Sharing Payments.)
In addition, the budget announces the intent to develop legislation to create a
new trust fund, Healthy Investments in Rural Environments (HIRE), from existing
trust funds. The new fund would emphasize reducing the backlog of maintenance
(identified at nearly $9 billion), reconstruction, and forest health projects, while
continuing to perform some of the tasks of the existing trust funds. The proposal
does not identify which trust funds would be affected. The request also announces
the intent to develop legislation for a Land Acquisition Reinvestment Trust Fund, for
land acquisition to be funded from expanded authority to sell national forest lands,
and for a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund, for constructing new
improvements and acquiring environmentally sensitive land to be funded from new
authority to sell unneeded facilities, buildings, constructed features, and land.
Legislative proposals to enact these ideas have, to date, not been made available.
Department of Energy. For further information on the Department of Energy,
see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.doe.gov/].
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the DOE
or any of its bureaus, see DOE’s Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm].
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The Clinton
Administration’s FY2001 budget request for fossil fuel research and development
(R&D) continued to reflect its energy and environmental priorities. Fossil fuel R&D
efforts will focus on environmental issues associated with electric power, particularly
CRS-36
global climate change concerns. Under the House bill, this account would be
combined with the Energy Conservation account and renamed the Energy Resource,
Supply and Efficiency account. The Senate retains the account as Fossil Energy
R&D.
The Administration requested a deferral of $221 million in funding for the Clean
Coal Technology Program because of scheduling delays. An additional $105 million
would be rescinded in FY2001 because of project savings, for a total of -$326 million
for Clean Coal Technology. At the end of FY2001, DOE anticipates that 32 out of
its 40 active projects will be completed. The House Committee however would defer
$67 million and would consider further rescissions unnecessary at this time. The full
House added $22 million for deferral, supporting a total of $89 million. The Senate
approved a deferral of $67 million for FY2001.
Overall, the Administration’s FY2001 request for fossil energy was $375.6
million, a 5% decline from the FY2000 appropriation of $393.4 million. Funding for
coal and power R&D projects would decrease by 8.8% but account for about one-half
of the fossil fuel R&D budget. Petroleum R&D would decrease by 8.2% and natural
gas R&D would increase by 22.6%. The House Committee supported funding at
$410.5 million for FY2001, a more modest decline of less than 2% from the FY2000
appropriation, for fossil fuel R&D programs (now a sub-category labeled Power
Generation and Large Scale Technologies). The House approved an amendment to
reduce fossil energy R&D funding by $45 million to $365.4 million. Increases for gas
and petroleum programs and a small decrease for the coal and power systems
program are supported. The Senate approved $401.3 million includes a $12 million
transfer of unobligated balances from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account.
For FY2001, the Administration’s request is focused on new technology that
would take advantage of natural gas as a clean fuel and would reduce or eliminate
many environmental problems associated with coal. Critics question the extent to
which fossil fuel R&D should be based on current trends and a view of natural gas as
a “transition fuel” to non-fossil fuels. They question whether the Administration is
taking too narrow a view of coal’s potential for electric generation and technology
exports and whether these changes will have a negative impact on jobs and the
economy or will develop new markets and opportunities.
For further information on Fossil Energy, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/].
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Sharp increases in the price of energy during the
winter of 1999-2000 have renewed attention on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
(SPR). The SPR, authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-
163) in late 1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally-occurring salt domes
in Louisiana and Texas in which more than 570 million barrels of crude oil is stored.
The purpose of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil which may
be tapped in the event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an
interruption threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the
Reserve. Purchases of oil for the Reserve were suspended in 1994 as part of a
broader effort to reduce federal spending. Maintenance of the SPR and upgrade of
some of its facilities was funded from sales of SPR oil in FY1997 and FY1998. The
CRS-37
105th Congress approved an appropriation of $160.1 million for the program in
FY1999 and $158.4 million for FY2000. The Administration has requested $158
million for FY2001. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended, and the
House approved $157 million, a decrease of nearly $1.4 million below the FY2000
enactment, and $1 million below the Administration request. The Senate Committee
on Appropriations also recommended $157 million, to which the full Senate added $4
million as starting costs for establishment of a home heating oil reserve in the
northeast to a level of $161 million. The Senate also agreed to a committee
recommendation that $12 million be transferred from unobligated funds in the SPR
petroleum account and spent instead on oil technology research and development.
For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.fe.doe.gov/spr/spr.html].
Naval Petroleum Reserves. The National Defense Authorization Act for
FY1996 (P.L. 104-106) authorized sale of the federal interest in the oil field at Elk
Hills, CA (NPR-1). On Feb. 5, 1998, Occidental Petroleum Corporation took title to
the site and wired $3.65 billion to the U.S. Treasury. P.L. 104-106 also transferred
most of two Naval Oil Shale Reserves to the Department of the Interior (DOI); the
balance of one of these was transferred to DOI in the spring of 1999. This leaves in
the program two small oil fields in California and Wyoming, which will generate
revenue to the government of roughly $6.4 million during FY2000, and one oil shale
reserve (NOSR-2) which is undeveloped. On January 14, 2000, DOE proposed
returning 84,000 acres including NOSR-2 to the Ute tribe, a transfer that will require
congressional approval. Congress appropriated no new funds for FY2000 and
requests none for FY2001; any expenses of the program are being funded from a
carryover balance created when Elk Hills was sold. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended a $7 million recission in carryover balances.
In settlement of a long-standing dispute between California and the federal
government over the state’s claim to Elk Hills as “school lands,” the California
Teachers’ Retirement Fund is to receive 9% of the sale proceeds after the costs of sale
have been deducted. The agreement between DOE and California provided for five
annual payments of $36 million beginning in FY1999, with the balance due to be paid
in equal installments in FY2004 and FY2005. However, for FY2000, the Senate
Appropriations Committee, citing "fiscal constraints," recommended no
appropriations to the school lands fund and none was restored by the Senate-passed
version of the Interior appropriations bill. The House Appropriations Committee,
however, provided for the second $36 million installment. The conferees did not
restore the money cut by the Senate. However, the conferees authorized the next
payment to be made on October 1, 2000, effectively postponing it into FY2001. This
language was enacted into law, and an additional $36 million payment, to be paid on
October 1, 2001, was requested by the Administration and approved by the House.
The Senate was in accord.
For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, see its
World Wide Web site at [http://www.fe.doe.gov/nposr/index.html].
Energy Conservation. The Clinton Administration sees energy efficiency (and
renewable energy) as a key technology for curbing air pollution and global climate
CRS-38
change, while contributing to the nation’s economic strength and technology
competitiveness. The President's State of the Union address reaffirmed these themes
and stressed "New technologies make it possible to cut harmful emissions and provide
even more [economic] growth.” This strategy is reflected in the Administration's
FY2001 budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE), which states, “ ... The
Administration’s energy efficiency programs produce substantial benefits for the
nation ... in terms of economic growth, increased national security and a cleaner
environment ... Furthermore, the technologies developed in these programs create
jobs and global market opportunities for U.S. firms. These programs are a major
component of the Administration’s climate change response ... “ (Budget Appendix,
p. 408).
The Administration’s FY2001 request for DOE’s Energy Efficiency Program
proposes to boost funding to $848.5 million (excluding a $2 million prior year
biomass transfer) — an increase of $152.3 million, or 22%, over the FY2000 level.
This includes $659.5 million for research and development (R&D) programs, an
increase of $82.8 million, or 14%. The R&D increase includes $24.7 million more
for Buildings Research and Standards programs, $5.6 million more for Federal Energy
Management Programs (FEMP), $22.3 million more for Industry Programs, $18.1
million more for Transportation Programs, and $3.5 million more for Policy and
Management. Also, the request includes $191.0 million for grants programs, an
increase of $22.5 million, or 13%. Most of this increase, $19 million, is for the
Weatherization Program.
For FY2000, P.L. 106-113 appropriated $696.2 million (excluding $49.0 million
from a prior year biomass transfer and excluding $13.5 million for an industrial black
liquor gasification program transfer from Fossil Energy) for DOE's Energy Efficiency
Program.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $752.7 million (excluding
a $2 million prior year biomass transfer). However, the Sununu floor amendment
(#30, passed 214-211) cut $126.5 million from the Partnership for a New Generation
of Vehicles under the Transportation Program. Further, the Sanders amendment
(#28, passed by voice vote) added $21.5 million through an offsetting reduction in the
Fossil Energy Program. Thus, the House-passed bill includes $647.7 million, a cut
of $48.6 million, or 7%, below the FY2000 level. This includes $472.6 million for
R&D programs, a decrease of $92.4 million, or 16% in current dollar terms. Also,
the recommendation includes $177.0 million for grants programs, including $140
million for Weatherization grants. However, the House recommendation for
Weatherization grants assumes that a $19 million advance appropriation in the
Emergency Supplemental bill (H.R. 3908) would be approved beforehand.
Passage of the Reed amendment (#3798, p. S6578) added $2 million for
Weatherization grants to the Senate Appropriation Committee’s recommendation and
brought the Senate-approved total to $761.9 million (excluding a $2 million prior
year biomass transfer and a $15 million use of prior year balances). Relative to the
House recommendation, the Senate seeks an increase of $114.3 million, or 18%. This
includes at least $126.5 million more for Transportation programs and $1.3 million
more for FEMP. Also, the Senate recommendation includes $11.7 million less (zero
funding) for the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative, $3.0 million less for grants, $1.4
CRS-39
million less for Policy & Management, $1.3 million less for Industry, and $0.5 million
less for Energy Star.
For further information on Energy Conservation, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www.eren.doe.gov/].
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service. The
Indian Health Service (IHS) carries out the federal responsibility of assuring
comprehensive preventive, curative, rehabilitative, and environmental health services
for approximately 1.49 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to
about 560 federally recognized tribes in 34 states. Care is provided through a system
of federal, tribal, and urban Indian operated programs and facilities that serves as the
major source of health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives. IHS provides
direct health care services in 37 hospitals, 58 health centers, 4 school health centers,
and 44 health stations. Tribes and tribal groups through contracts with IHS, operate
another 12 hospitals, 160 health centers, 3 school health centers and 236 health
stations (including 160 Alaska village clinics). IHS, tribes and tribal groups operate
7 regional youth substance abuse treatment centers and more than 2,200 units of staff
quarters.
IHS funding is separated into two budget categories: Indian Health Services and
Indian Health Facilities. Included in Indian Health Services are such services as
hospital and health clinic programs, dental health, mental health, alcohol and
substance abuse programs, preventive health services, urban health projects, and
funding for Indian health professions. The Indian Health Facilities category includes
funds for maintenance and improvement, construction of health facilities, sanitation
facilities, and environmental health support. The IHS program is funded through a
combination of federal appropriations and collections of reimbursements from
Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance for services provided to eligible patients
who have such insurance coverage.
The House has approved a FY 2001 appropriation level of $2.443 billion that
is $52 million over the FY 2000 appropriation of $2.391 billion. Of the total
appropriation, $2.106 billion, or 86%, is for the health services program budget
category, and $336 million, or 14%, is for the health facilities program. The Senate
approved a FY 2001 appropriation of $2.534 billion, an increase of $143 million over
FY 2000. The approved $2.534 billion is divided into $2.184 billion for the health
services program, and $349 million for the health facilities program. The President
had requested $2.620 billion in appropriations. The House’s total recommendation
was 93% of the requested amount, while the Senate approved 97% of the President’s
request.
The population served by the IHS has a higher incidence of illness and premature
mortality than other U.S. populations, although the differences in mortality rates have
diminished in recent years in such areas as infant and maternal mortality, as well as
mortality associated with alcoholism, injuries, tuberculosis, gastroenteritis, and other
conditions. Per capita health spending for IHS was $1,397 in FY1997, compared to
the U.S. per capita expenditure of about $3,900. However, Indians have a 249%
greater chance of dying from diabetes and a 204% greater chance of dying from
accidents than the general population. Moreover, the population eligible for IHS
CRS-40
services has increased by 27% since 1990. According to the IHS, the increases in
program funding over the past decade have failed to keep pace with increases in the
eligible population and with inflation. Again according to the IHS, American Indians
and Alaskan Natives also have less access to health care than does the general U.S.
population, with the number of IHS physicians and nurses per Indian beneficiary
dropping. This number was already below that of the general population in the
1980's.
For FY2001, the House approved a funding level for the health services program
of $2.106 billion, a 1.5% increase over the FY 2000 appropriation of $2.074 billion.
This recommendation includes $1.632 billion for clinical services, $92 million for
preventive health programs, $360 million for other health services, and $22 million for
services unspecified in an amendment adopted on the floor. For FY2001, the Senate
approved $2.184 billion for the health services program, a 5% increase over the FY
2000 appropriation. This appropriation includes $1.722 billion for clinical services,
and $94 million for preventive health programs, and $368 million for other health
services.
Clinical services include basic primary care inpatient and outpatient services in
IHS hospitals and clinics, dental services, mental health services, and alcohol and
substance abuse treatment. When IHS cannot provide medical care and specific
services within their system, they contract to purchase these services from local and
community health care providers. For these contract health services, the House
approved $406.8 million, the same level as the FY 2000 appropriation and the Senate
approved $426.8 million. The Senate Committee report added language to ensure
that funding appropriated to the Service was not used to pay for contract health
services in excess of the established Medicare and Medicaid rates for similar services.
With some of the IHS health delivery functions transferred by IHS to tribes and tribal
organizations, the Senate Committee report recommended that tribes be given access
to private vendor rates for the cost of pharmaceuticals on the same basis as the Indian
Health Service.
Preventive health services include public health nursing, health education in
schools and communities, and immunizations. In addition, these appropriations would
fund the community health representatives program, a tribally administered program
which, through various community initiatives, supports community members who
work to prevent illness and disease within their communities. The House funding level
is the same as FY 2000, $91.9 million, while the Senate increased this level by $2.5
million to $94.4 million.
Other health services are funded at a level of $360 million in the House bill and
$368 in the Senate bill. The category includes contract support costs (House, $229
million; Senate, $244 million); IHS’s direct operation (management and
administration) costs (House, $51 million; Senate $54 million); scholarships to health
care professionals (House and Senate the same at $30 million); support for health
related activities in off-reservation urban centers (House and Senate the same at $28
million); for costs associated with providing tribal management grants to tribes
(House and Senate the same at $2.4 million);support for IHS’s administration and
management of the Self-Governance Demonstration Project which gives tribal
CRS-41
governments the responsibility for health care programs ( House and Senate the same
at $9.6 million); and the House approved $10 million for the staffing of new facilities.
The distribution of contract support costs across all IHS self-determination
contracts and self-governance compacts is a contentious issue because funding has
been insufficient to cover all tribal costs. Contract support costs are the costs awarded
to a tribe for the administration of a program under a contract or compact authorized
by the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended). They are intended
to cover the expenses tribes incur for financial management, accounting, training, and
program start-up costs. Congress has tried in the past to ensure that the contract
support funds are distributed fairly. As mentioned above, the House provided $229
million, the same as the funding level for FY 2000, for contract support services,
while the Senate approved $244 million. [For further information, see General
Accounting Office GAO/RCED-99-271, August 3, 1999, Indian Self-Determination
Act: Shortfalls and Alternatives for Funding Indian Contract Support Costs. This
report contains recommendations on the distribution of contract support costs and
describes alternative methods for funding contract support costs.]
Many IHS health care facilities are reportedly in need of repair or replacement.
The House approved a total of $336.4 million for health care facilities, an increase
of $20 million over FY 2000, but $13 million less than the President’s request. The
Senate approved $349.4 million, the same funding level as requested. For facilities and
environmental health support, the House approved $116.3 million and the Senate
approved $125.7 million to support personnel costs for most of the management,
operations, and technical support for all IHS facilities including planning and design
of new facilities. The House approved $92.1 million to pay for the building of
sanitation systems for housing provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but not for
sanitation systems in housing funded by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development because HUD should provide the needed funds for this purpose. The
Senate approved $93.99 million for sanitation facilities.
For other major construction projects, the House approved a total of $69 million,
and the Senate approved $71 million, to be used to complete the construction of
hospitals at Ft. Defiance, Arizona, and Winnebago, Nebraska, and health clinics in
Parker, Arizona. The Senate also included a recommendation that funds be used for
a hospital in Pawnee, Oklahoma. The Senate also wants funds used to begin
construction of staff quarters in Bethel, Alaska, and to initiate a joint venture
construction program on a small scale. Both committees included funding for staff
quarters at Hopi, Arizona. For maintenance and improvements, the House approved
$43.4 million, and the Senate approved $46.4 million, and for the purchase and
replacement of medical equipment, the House approved $14.3 million, and the Senate
$12.2 million. The House alone recommended that $2 million be used to pay for staff
in the new facilities.
For further information on Department of Health and Human Services: Indian
Health Service, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.ihs.gov/].
For information on the GAO report on Contract Support Costs, see its World
Wide Web site at [http://www.gao.gov/].
CRS-42
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation. The Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation (ONHIR) was reauthorized for FY1995-2000 by P.L. 104-301.
The 1974 relocation legislation (P.L. 93-531, as amended) was the end result of a
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving land originally set aside by the
federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, lands were
partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe who ended up on the other
tribe’s land were to be relocated. ONHIR classifies families as relocated when they
occupy their replacement home. Most relocatees are Navajo. A large majority of the
estimated 3,477 Navajo families formerly on the land partitioned to the Hopi have
already relocated under the Act, but the House Appropriations Committee estimates
that 410 families (almost all Navajo) have yet to complete relocation, including about
71 Navajo families still on Hopi partitioned land (some of whom refuse to relocate).
The remaining 339 families are not on Hopi partitioned land but are in various stages
of acquiring replacement housing.
Negotiations had gone forward among the two tribes, the Navajo families on
Hopi partitioned land, and the federal government, especially regarding Hopi Tribe
claims against the United States. The United States and the Hopi Tribe reached a
proposed settlement agreement on Dec. 14, 1995. Attached to the settlement
agreement was a separate accommodation agreement between the Hopi Tribe and the
Navajo families, which provided for 75-year leases for Navajo families on Hopi
partitioned land. The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-
301) approved the settlement agreement between the United States and the Hopi
Tribe. Not all issues have been resolved by these agreements, however, and
opposition to the agreements and the leases is strong among some of the Navajo
families. Navajo families with homesites on Hopi partitioned land faced a March 31,
1997, deadline for signing the leases (accommodation agreements). According to
ONHIR, 70 of the 73 families on Hopi-partitioned land had signed accommodation
agreements by the end of September 1999.
The Hopi Tribe has called for enforcement of relocation against Navajo families
without leases. Like the FY1997-FY2000 Interior appropriations acts, the FY2001
Interior appropriations bill proposed by the President contained a proviso forbidding
ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi partitioned lands unless a
replacement home is provided. This language appears to prevent ONHIR from
forcibly relocating Navajo families, since ONHIR has a large backlog of other families
that need homes. The settlement agreement approved by P.L. 104-301, however,
allows the Hopi Tribe under certain circumstances to begin quiet-possession actions
against the United States after Feb. 1, 2000, if Navajo families on Hopi partitioned
land have not either relocated or entered into leases with the Hopi Tribe.
Congress has in the past been concerned by the slow pace of relocation, and by
relocatees’ apparent low level of interest in moving to the “new lands” acquired for
the Navajo reservation for relocatee use. Appropriations committees have from time
to time considered termination of the relocation program, but committee reports have
not discussed this option since FY1999.
For FY2000, ONHIR received appropriations of $8 million. For FY2001, the
administration proposed $15 million, an increase of 87.5%. The House approved $8
CRS-43
million, the same as FY2000. The Senate approved $15 million, the same as the
Administration’s proposal.
Other Related Agencies. One of the pervasive issues for the programs and
agencies delineated below is whether federal government support for the arts and
culture is an appropriate federal role, and if it is, what should be the shape of that
support. If the continued federal role is not appropriate, might the federal
commitment be scaled back such that greater private support or state support would
be encouraged? Each program has its own unique relationship to this overarching
issue.
Smithsonian. The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education and
research complex of 16 museums and galleries and the National Zoo. Nine of its
museums and galleries are located on the Mall between the U.S. Capitol and the
Washington monument, and SI counted 28.5 million visits/visitors in 1999 (The
National Zoo had 3 million “visits” in 1999, the Museum of Natural History had 7.1
million “visits”, and the Air and Space Museum had over 9 million “visits.”) The
Smithsonian is estimated to be 71% federally funded. A federal commitment was
established by initial legislation in 1846. In addition to receiving federal
appropriations, the Smithsonian has private trust funds, which include both
contributions from private sources and revenues from what the Smithsonian identifies
as “Business Ventures” operations (including the Smithsonian magazine, retail shops
and concessions, catalogs and entertainment initiatives; i.e. Resident Associates and
other entertainment programs.) In FY1999, contributions from private sources
totaled $61 million and sales from “Business Ventures” totaled $144 million. The
largest single contribution to the Smithsonian from a private donor—$60
million—was pledged to NASM’s Dulles Center in October, 1999. In addition, a cash
gift of $20 million was given by another donor for the renovation of the Natural
History Museum.
The FY2001 Clinton Administration budget would provide $463 million to the
Smithsonian, an increase of $24.9 million above the final FY2000 appropriation of
$438.1 million. Of the FY2001 request, $396.8 million is for Salaries and Expenses.
Of the total for the Smithsonian, no funds are requested this fiscal year for
construction of the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) on the Mall
($8.695 million is requested for the Cultural Resources Center and for operations,
research and exhibition planning for the NMAI museum on the Mall.) Initially, the
NMAI was controversial; opponents of the new museum argued that the current
Smithsonian museums needed renovation, repair, and maintenance of the collection
with an estimated 141 million items, more than the public needed another museum on
the Mall. Proponents argued, however, that there had been too long a delay in
providing a museum “in Washington” to house the Indian collection. Private
donations to the Smithsonian and a fund-raising campaign focusing on individuals,
foundations, and corporations totaled $36.7 million, representing one-third of the total
cost, and the amount required to meet the non-appropriated portion of project
funding. Of this amount, an estimated $15 million came from the Indian community
directly. The final FY2000 Interior appropriations provided $19 million for the
construction of the American Indian Museum. The groundbreaking ceremony for the
NMAI took place September 28, 1999.
CRS-44
The FY2001 budget request includes $62.2 million for repair, restoration and
alteration for Smithsonian buildings. The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with
6.6 million square feet of space. Four of the Smithsonian’s buildings plus the National
Zoo constitute approximately one-third of the SI’s public space: the National Museum
of Natural History (built in 1910), the American Art and Portrait Gallery (built
between 1836 and 1860), the Castle building (built 1846), and the Arts and Industries
building (1849). The Smithsonian contends that funding for repair and renewal of SI’s
facilities has not kept pace with need, resulting in increased deterioration of the
physical plant. In fact, the report of the Commission on the Future of the
Smithsonian concluded that a total of $50 million each year for the next decade would
be necessary to "assure that present facilities are restored to the point of being safe
for people and collections;" and considering the National Zoo separately, it would
need $10 million a year for the next 5 years. The FY2001 budget request of $62.2
million for repair, restoration, and alteration of facilities includes $52.2 million for
major repair and renovation for all Smithsonian buildings excluding the Zoo, and $10
million for the National Zoo repair. In addition, there is a request for an advance
appropriation of $17 million to become available October 1, 2001, and a request for
an advance appropriation for $18 million to become available October 1, 2002 to
complete the renovation of the American Art and Portrait Gallery (the Patent Office
Building).
The FY2001 SI construction account would be reduced to $4 million (from $19
million). However, it would include construction of a base facility for the
Smithsonian’s Astrophysical Observatory in Hilo, Hawaii, and for the National Zoo’s
“wonder of water” exhibit.
The House-reported and House-passed FY2001 Interior appropriations bill
would provide a total of $423.1 million for the Smithsonian, including $375.2 million
for Salaries and Expenses, a $4 million increase for the Salaries and Expenses account
above the enacted level for FY2000. It would include $2 million for the National
Museum of the American Indian collections move and $2 million for the Air and
Space Museum’s collections move from the Garber facility to the new Dulles
Museum. The House-reported and House-passed bill would provide $47.9 million for
repair, restoration and alteration of facilities (the same funding as provided in the
FY2000 appropriation). There is no recommendation for construction funds in the
House-reported or House-passed FY2001 Interior appropriations bill.
The Senate-reported and Senate-passed FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill
would provide a total of $ 449.9 million for the Smithsonian, including $387.8 million
for Salaries and Expenses, an increase of $16.5 million above the FY2000 enacted
level for Salaries and Expenses. As part of the Salaries and Expenses account, $47.1
million would be for collections acquisition, the Museum Support Center equipment
and move, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of the American Indian,
the repatriation of skeletal remains program, Latino programming, and funding for
the Council of American Overseas Research. The Senate-passed bill would provide
$57.6 million for repair, restoration and alteration of facilities including $7.6 million
for necessary repairs to the National Zoo. Finally, the Senate-passed bill would allow
$4.5 million for the Smithsonian’s Construction account.
CRS-45
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-113) provided
$438.1 million for the Smithsonian, including $371.2 million for salaries and expenses,
$47.9 million for repair and restoration, and $19 million for construction of the
National Museum of the American Indian.
The Smithsonian indicated that it has a 5-year strategic plan in accordance with
provisions of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and in keeping
with the Smithsonian’s mission. One of the goals is to increase and diversify the
visitor audience and to increase by 20% the number of rural communities hosting
exhibitions particularly through SITES, the Smithsonian Institution’s Traveling
Exhibition Service program.
For further information on the Smithsonian, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.si.edu/].
National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities,
and Institute of Museum and Library Services. One of the primary vehicles for
federal support for arts, humanities and museums 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
Services (IMS, now a newly constituted Institute of Museum and Library Services
(IMLS) with an Office of Museum Services (OMS)). The authorizing act, the
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, was last reauthorized in
1990 and expired at the end of FY 1993, but has been operating on temporary
authority through appropriations law since that time. The 104th Congress established
the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) under P.L. 104-208.
Among the questions Congress is considering is whether funding for the arts,
humanities, and museums is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Some
opponents to arts support argue that NEA and NEH should be abolished altogether,
contending that the federal government should not be in the business of supporting
arts and humanities. Other opponents argue that culture can and does flourish on its
own through private support. Proponents of federal support for arts and humanities
argue that the federal government has a long tradition of such support, beginning as
early as 1817, with congressional appropriations for works of art to adorn the U.S.
Capitol. Some spokesmen for the private sector say that they are unable to make up
the gap that would be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts. Some argue that
abolishing NEA and NEH would curtail or eliminate the programs that have national
significance and purpose (such as touring theater and dance companies, radio and
television shows, traveling museum exhibitions, etc.) The President’s Committee on
the Arts released a publication, Creative America that recommends that federal
funding be restored for NEA, NEH and IMLS to levels “adequate to fulfill their
national roles.” The goal expressed was for appropriations to equal $2.00 per person
by the year 2000 for all three agencies.
The Administration’s FY2001 budget provides $150 million for the NEA. This
would include $48.968 million for a Challenge America program providing “access
to the arts, arts education, positive alternatives for Youth (youth-at-risk), cultural
heritage preservation, and community arts development.” State arts agencies would
CRS-46
receive 40% of the funds, with over 1,000 communities participating nationwide,
particularly those from under-represented areas.
For the NEH, the FY2001 budget would provide $150 million. Of that amount,
$107.77 million would sustain NEH’s grant programs for humanities education,
research, preservation and public programming for programs of the 56 state
humanities councils, $12.53 million for the NEH Challenge Grants program to
stimulate private nonfederal donations in support of humanities institutions, and
special grants ($4 million) to support establishment of regional humanities centers.
For the IMLS, OMS would receive a total of $33.378 million for FY2001. Of
that amount $15.533 million would provide for General Operating Support (GOS) to
help over 400 museums annually to improve the quality of their services to the
public— they are already popular, serving over 600 million visitors annually. OMS
is helping to develop Museums Online, a package that will update Internet access
through the development of regional electronic networks of museums. The goal is to
bring the educational and cultural significance of museums to communities and
schools, with the potential to reach over 20 million people. OMS support of
Museum/school partnerships has helped over 200 schools, 80 museums, and 80,000
students.
The House-reported FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill would have provided
$98 million for the NEA (the FY2000 funding level prior to the rescission in
discretionary funding), $115.26 million for the NEH (the same as the FY2000 funding
level), and $24.3 million for the OMS (the same as the FY2000 funding level.) Two
Committee amendments by Representative Dicks were introduced to increase funding
for NEA and NEH with an offset through the Clean Coal deferral. These amendments
failed.
On June 15, 2000, as part of House passage of the FY2001 Interior
Appropriations bill (H.R. 4578), Rep. Dicks made a motion to recommit the bill with
instruction to increase funding by $15 million for NEA, $5 million for NEH and $2
million for OMS. His motion failed (188 noes to 184 ayes-- roll no 290). An
amendment by Rep. Stearns failed that would have reduced NEA funding by 2 percent
($1.96 million) and would have transferred that money to the wildland fire
management account (Rejected by256 noes-152 ayes, roll no. 282). An amendment
by Rep. Slaughter that defers an additional $22 million of prior year clean coal
technology funding was agreed to (by 207 ayes to 204 noes, roll no. 283) with the
implication from Rep. Slaughter’s statements in the Congressional Record that the
proposed use for the deferred funding would be to increase NEA, NEH and OMS.
However, subsequent to passage of Rep. Slaughter’s amendment, Rep. Nethercutt ’s
amendment passed that would use the clean coal deferred funding of $22 million for
the Indian Health Service, instead of NEA, NEH and OMS. Therefore, the
House-passed appropriations did not reflect any change from the House-reported
version–$98 million for NEA, $115.26 million NEH and $24.3 million for OMS.
The Senate-reported and Senate-passed Interior Appropriations bill for
FY2001 includes specific increases for NEA (increased to $105 million, an increase
of $7.372 million from the FY2000 funding level); for NEH (increased to $120.26
CRS-47
million, an increase of $5 million from the FY2000 funding level); and for OMS,
(increased to $24.9 million, an increase of $.6 million from the FY2000 level.)
Some controversy over previous questionable NEA grants seems to reappear
when congressional appropriations are considered, in spite of attempts to resolve
these problems through statutory provisions. To date, no NEA projects have been
judged obscene by the courts. On November 5, 1996, a federal appeals court upheld
an earlier decision, NEA v. Finley, ruling that applying the “general standards of
decency” clause to NEA grants was “unconstitutional.” However, in anticipation of
congressional reaction to NEA’s individual grants, NEA eliminated grants to
individuals by arts discipline, except to maintain Literature fellowships, Jazz masters
and National Heritage fellowships in the Folk and Traditional Arts. On June 25, 1998,
the Supreme Court reversed the federal appeals court decision for NEA v. Finley
(CA9,100F.3d 671) by a vote of 8 to 1, stating 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.”
Congress enacted NEA reform measures in the FY1998 Interior Appropriations
Act (P.L. 105-83). Among them were increases in funding allocations from 35% to
40% to states for basic state arts grants and for grants to under served populations.
In addition, language emphasizing arts education was included. The legislation placed
a 15% cap on NEA funds allocated to each state, exempting only those grants with
a national impact. Three members of the House and three members of the Senate were
added to the National Council on the Arts, but the size of the National Council was
reduced from 26 to 20. Both NEA and NEH were given specific authority to solicit
funding and to invest those funds.
In the 106th Congress, the FY2000 Interior appropriations funding became part
of the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-113. A House amendment
(to H.R.2466) by Representative Slaughter to increase funding for NEA and NEH by
$10 million each and to decrease Strategic Petroleum Reserve funding by $20 million
was rejected (207-217). An amendment by Representative Stearns to reduce funding
for NEA by $2 million was rejected (300-124). An additional amendment by
Representative Stearns, that was withdrawn, would have placed in a block grant to
states 95% of NEA funds, with allocations based on population. On September 14th,
1999, during consideration of H.R. 2466, the Senate adopted amendments (1493,
1597) to increase the NEA appropriation to $103 million and the NEH to $115.7
million. A Senate amendment (1569) to H.R. 2466 to eliminate funding for NEA was
defeated (80-16). The final FY2000 appropriation for NEA was reduced to $98
million in conference. As enacted, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000,
provided $97.628 million for the NEA, $115.260 million for NEH, and $24.307
million for OMS, which reflected an across the board rescission of .38% in
discretionary spending.
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its site at
[http://arts.endow.gov/].
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
site at [http://www.neh.gov/].
CRS-48
For further information on the Institute of Museum Services, see its site at
[http://www.imls.gov/].
Cross-cutting Issue
The Lands Legacy Initiative. The Clinton Administration reintroduced its
Lands Legacy as a part of the FY2001 budget proposal. This initiative would provide
funding totaling $1.4 billion to 21 resource protection programs, including the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), in the Departments of the Interior,
Commerce, and Agriculture. FY2000 funding for these programs was $727 million.
A majority of the FY2001 request would be funded through Interior Appropriations
legislation, including the Department of the Interior portion ($735 million) and the
Department of Agriculture portion, all of which would support U.S. Forest Service
activities that are funded under Title II of the Interior Appropriations ($236 million).
This initiative was initially announced on January 12, 1999, and proposed in the
FY2000 budget submission. The Administration had sought just over $1 billion for
the component programs, an increase of $571 million from the preceding year, but
Congress provided $727 million. For both FY2000 and FY2001, the Administration
did not suggest any legislative language to authorize new programs, redirect existing
programs, or increase authorization ceilings for existing programs. The FY2001
proposal adds 5 programs and deletes 3 programs, when compared with the initial
proposal.
Numerous related bills to increase and provide more certain funding for a wide
range of resource protection activities have been introduced in both chambers. In the
House, H.R. 701 passed after two days of debate, by a vote of 315-102; Senator
Boxer subsequently introduced an identical bill, S. 2567. In the Senate, Senator
Landreiu introduced S. 2123, which is identical to H.R. 701 as reported, and Senator
Bingaman introduced S. 2181, which is more like the Administration’s FY2001 lands
legacy proposal. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources completed
action on a substitute to H.R. 701 on July 25, and Majority Leader Trent Lott has
stated that he plans to take up this bill after the August recess.
One component of this legislation, addressed entirely in Interior Appropriations,
is to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which is the principal
source of federal land acquisition funding and provides grants to states, at $900
million. The Administration had requested a total of $600 million for LWCF in
FY2001. The House and the Senate both approved smaller amounts for land
acquisition for each of the four agencies than the President had requested. The
House and Senate responses and the Administration requests were:
! $19 million and $11 million for BLM instead of $61 million;
! $30 million and $46 million for FWS instead of $112 million;
! $104 million and $87 million for NPS (including state grants) instead
of $297 million and;
! $52 million and $76 million for FS instead of $130 million.
CRS-49
The House and Senate versions of H.R. 701 would change aspects of LWCF
funding. The House version would double the amount that goes to the LWCF. It
would provide $900 million for the federal land acquisition portion of LWCF, but
these funds still would be provided through annual appropriations and have new limits
placed on how they could be used. It would also provide $900 million to states for
land acquisition and related development. The Senate version of H.R. 701 would
provide $450 million for federal land acquisition and $450 million to the state grant
program.
Other components of the initiative, which would fall under the jurisdiction of
Interior Appropriations, include: (1) providing grants to states and localities to
acquire land and plan for open space; (2) expanding funding for other resource
protection efforts on forest land and range land, and in urban areas; (3) funding land
and resource restoration; and (4) funding smart growth partnerships. Funding for
federal land acquisition is shown as the first four lines in Table 4 and other
components are combined in the next three lines. The House Appropriations
Committee did not comment on the FY2001 lands legacy proposal directly, and
provided less or no funding for programs in it. No amendments referenced to any of
the Lands Legacy proposals were adopted on the House floor. The Senate
Appropriations Committee report included a lengthy discussion of the initiative. It
strongly objected to the Administration proposal to remove funding for its component
programs from the annual appropriations process so that the Appropriations
Committees would no longer be able to adjust funding levels as needs and priorities
change. As in the House, no amendments referenced to any of the Lands Legacy
proposals were adopted on the Senate floor.
Table 4. Land Acquisition and Overall Lands Legacy Funding
(in millions of dollars)
FY2000
FY2000
FY2001
Agency
Request
Appropriation
Request
BLM Land Acquisition
$49
$40
$61
FWS Land Acquisition
$74
$53
$112
NPS Land Acquisitiona
$172
$135
$147
FS Land Acquisition
$118
$156
$130
Other Interior Programs
$284
$116b
$415
Other USDA Programs
$150
$61
$106
Department of Commerce
$183
$165
$427
Programs
Totalc
$1,030
$727
$1,400
a Does not include state-side grant programs; the request for FY2001 is $150 million.
b Includes $20 million for land acquisition which was not allocated to a specific agency.
c May not add up exactly due to rounding.
CRS-50
For FY2001, areas identified for acquisition in the Lands Legacy Initiative are
located within: the California Desert, Southern California, the Lower Mississippi
Delta, the Everglades, the Lewis and Clark Trail, the Civil War Battlefields, the
Chesapeake Bay, and the New York-New Jersey Watersheds. In its only comments
on any aspect of the initiative, the House Appropriations Committee expressed
numerous concerns about spending related to the Everglades in its report. The Senate
Appropriations did not comment on any of these priority areas.
The lack of comment is in contrast to last year when, the House Appropriations
Committee listed several "troubling" aspects of the proposal in its committee report,
including that most of the funds would not go to federal agencies, the large
maintenance backlog would not be addressed, and some funds would be spent on
purposes that have little to do with the activities of these federal agencies. The Senate
Appropriations Committee commented that, if funded, the proposals would change
the purposes of the LWCF in many ways. It called for authorizing these changes
before funds are appropriated. The conference committee provided $245.2 million
to the federal agencies, which was higher than either the Senate or the House
amounts. Also, it provided $21 million to the state-side grant program, funding it for
the first time since FY1995.
When the Interior Appropriations bill became part of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000, a new Title VI was added to Interior Appropriations
to provide additional funding of $197.5 million for Lands Legacy programs. Most,
but not all, of these funds were dedicated for land acquisitions. The Forest Service
received $81 million; $61 million to complete the Baca Ranch acquisition, $5 million
for the Forest Legacy Program, and $15 million for additional unspecified
acquisitions. The three agencies in the Department of the Interior received $116.5
million; $20 million for the state-side grants program, up to $35 million for land
acquisition in Florida, up to $19.5 million for acquisition of mineral rights in the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, $10 million for the Elwa
River ecosystem restoration, $5 million for maintenance in the National Park System,
up to $5 million to acquire interests in the California desert, up to $2 million to
acquire interests in the Rhode Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, and $20
million for additional unspecified acquisitions.
For additional information on the funding request for the Lands Legacy Initiative
in FY2000 and FY2001, see CRS Report RS20471, The Administration’s Lands
Legacy Initiative in the FY2001 Budget Proposal – A Fact Sheet; for tracking the
Lands Legacy Initiative and related legislative proposals, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10015, Conserving Land Resources: Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress;
and for more detail on the provisions in the pending legislative proposals, see the June
2000 version of CRS Report RL30444, Resource Protection: A Comparison of H.R.
701/S. 2567 and Three Other Senate Bills (S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181) with Current
Law.
CRS-51
For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Report RL30206. Appropriations for FY2000: Interior and Related Agencies,
by Alfred R. Greenwood, 59 p.
CRS Report 97-684 GOV. The Congressional Appropriations Process: An
Introduction, by Sandy Streeter, 34 p.
CRS Report RL30343. Continuing Appropriations Acts: Brief Overview of Recent
Practices, by Sandy Streeter, 10 p.
CRS Report RS20403. FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide,
by Robert Keith, 3 p.
Title I: Department of the Interior.
CRS Report RS20471. The Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative in the FY2001
Budget Proposal – A Fact Sheet, by Jeffrey Zinn, 2 p.
CRS Issue Brief IB10015. Conserving Land Resources: Legislative Proposals in the
106th Congress, by Jeffrey A. Zinn, 12 p.
CRS Report RL30171. Department of the Interior Budget Request for FY2000: An
Overview, by Alfred R. Greenwood, 51 p.
CRS Issue Brief IB10009. Endangered Species: Continuing Controversy, by M.
Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 97-851 A. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy, 29 p.
CRS Report RS20002. Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer, by
Ross W. Gorte, 6 p.
CRS Report 98-991 ENR. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on
Land and Resources Management, by Betsy A. Cody, M. Lynne Corn, Ross W.
Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, Carol Hardy-Vincent, David Whiteman, and Pamela
Baldwin, 66 p.
CRS Report RL30335. Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol
HardyVincent, 25 p.
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, 19 p.
CRS-52
CRS Report 90-192 ENR. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by M. Lynne Corn, 37 p.
CRS Report 96-123 EPW. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by
Susan Boren, 5 p.
CRS Report 93-793 A. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Judicial and Administrative
Interpretations, by M. Maureen Murphy, 28 p.
CRS General Distribution Memorandum. Indian Issues in the 105th Congress, by
Roger Walke, 5 p.
CRS Report 97-792 ENR. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn, 6 p.
CRS Report RL30310. The Mining Law Millsite Debate, by Marc Humphries, 7 p.
CRS Report 94-438 ENR. Mining Law Reform: the Impact of a Royalty, by Marc
Humphries, 14 p.
CRS Report RL30069. Natural Resource Issues in the 106th Congress, by the
Natural Resources and Earth Sciences Section, 41 p.
CRS Report 98-574 ENR. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified,
by M. Lynne Corn, 10 p.
CRS Report RL30444. Resource Protection and Recreation: A Comparison of H.R.
701 (Amended) and S. 25 with Current Law, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne
Corn, 32 p.
CRS Report 98-293 STM. U.S. Geological Survey: Its Mission, Funding, and
Future under GPRA, by James E. Mielke, 6 p.
Title II: Related Agencies.
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Fact Sheet on Funding, by Susan
Boren 2 pages.
CRS Report 97-539 EPW. Arts and Humanities: Funding and Reauthorization in
the 105th Congress, by Susan Boren, 15 p.
CRS Report 95-15 ENR. Below-Cost Timber Sales: Overview, by Ross W. Gorte,
20 p.
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Climate Change, and
Electricity Restructuring Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report 95-548 ENR. Forest Health: Overview, by Ross W. Gorte, 5 p.
CRS-53
CRS Report 97-706 ENR. Forest Roads: Construction and Financing, by Ross W.
Gorte, 6 p.
CRS Report RS20486. Forest Service Accountability in Administering Its Trust
Funds, by Ross W. Gorte 6 p.
CRS General Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Budget Allocation Formula,
by Ross W. Gorte, 25 p.
CRS Report RS20496. Forest Service FY2001 Budget Issues, Including Proposals
for Land Sales and Trust Funds, by Ross W. Gorte, 6 p.
CRS General Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Performance Measures, by
Ross W. Gorte, 25 p.
CRS Report RS20158. Forest Service Receipt-Sharing Payments: Proposals for
Change, by Ross W. Gorte, 6 p.
CRS Report IB10057. Forest Service Revenue-Sharing Payments, by Ross W.
Gorte, 11 p.
CRS Report RL30480. Forest Service Revenue-Sharing Payments: Legislative
Issues, by Ross W. Gorte, 24 p.
CRS Report 94-866 EPW. Health Care Fact Sheet: Indian Health Service, by
Jennifer A. Neisner, 2 p.
CRS Report 96-191 SPR. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
(PNGV), by Fred Sissine, 24 p.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest Roadless Area Initiative, by Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report RS20150. Roadless Area Entry: The Administration's Moratorium, by
Ross W. Gorte, 6 p.
CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
Other References
Report of the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Reorganization of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior and the Appropriations
Committees of the United States Congress. [Washington: The Task Force].
August 1994.
CRS-54
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Information regarding the budget, supporting documents, and related
departments, agencies and programs is available at the following web or gopher sites.
House Committee on Appropriations.
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
[http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide.
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]
Congressional Budget Office.
[http://www.cbo.gov/]
General Accounting Office.
[http://www.gao.gov]
Office of Management and Budget.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/]
Title I: Department of the Interior.
Department of the Interior (DOI).
[http://www.doi.gov/]
Department of the Interior’s Office of the Budget.
[http://www.doi.gov/budget/]
Department of the Interior’s Strategic Plan Overview FY1998-FY2002.
[http://www.doi.gov/fyst.html]
Department of the Interior’s FY1999 Annual Performance Report/FY2001 Annual
Performance Plan.
[http://www.doi.gov/gpra/99apr01app.html]
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
[http://www.blm.gov/]
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
[http://www.fws.gov/]
National Park Service (NPS).
[http://www.nps.gov/parks.html]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
[http://www.usgs.gov/]
CRS-55
Minerals Management Service (MMS).
[http://www.mms.gov/]
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
[http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html]
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.
[http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
Insular Affairs.
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html]
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
[http://www.usda.gov/]
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service.
[http://www.fs.fed.us/]
USDA Strategic Plan.
[http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm]
Department of Energy (DOE).
[http://www.doe.gov/]
DOE Strategic Plan.
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm]
Fossil Energy.
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/]
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/spr/spr.html]
Naval Petroleum Reserves.
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/nposr/index.html]
Energy Efficiency.
[http://www.eren.doe.gov/]
Department of Health and Human Services.
[http://www.dhhs.gov]
Indian Health Service (IHS).
[http://www.ihs.gov/]
CRS-56
Smithsonian.
[http://www.si.edu/newstart.htm]
National Endowment for the Arts.
[http://arts.endow.gov/]
National Endowment for the Humanities.
[http://ns1.neh.fed.us:80/]
Institute of Museum Services.
[http://www.imls.gov/]
CRS-57
Table 5. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2001
Bureau or Agency
Enacted
compared
House Bill
Senate Bill
Request
(P.L. 106-113)
with FY2000
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1,231,402
1,358,955
+ 127,553
1,267,120
1,295,239
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
875,093
1,126,601
+ 251,508
861,921
921,067
National Park Service
1,803,847
2,042,285
+ 238,438
1,808,424
1,813,181
U.S. Geological Survey
813,376
895,379
+ 82,003
816,676
848,396
Minerals Management Service
116,318
140,246
+ 23,928
133,318
140,128
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
291,733
309,234
+ 17,501
295,626
302,514
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1,869,052
2,200,956
+ 331,904
1,880,861
2,085,888
Departmental Offices
319,869
332,248
+ 12,379
311,706
318,118
Total, Title I
7,320,690
8,405,904
+ 1,085,214
7,375,652
7,724,531
Title II: Related Agencies
Forest Service
2,819,933
3,110,053
+ 290,120
2,739,351
2,990,750
Department of Energy
(1,226,393)
(1,161,070)
(-65,323)
(1,188,471)
(1,361,275)
Clean Coal Technology
Rescission
-38
-105,000
-104,962
—
—
Deferral
-156,000
-221,000
-65,000
-89,000
-67,000
Fossil Energy R & D
393,433
375,570
-17,863
365,439
401,338
Alternative Fuels Production
—
-1,000
-1,000
-1,000
-1,000
Energy Conservation
696,242
848,500
+128,258
647,672
761,937
Economic Regulation
1,992
2,000
+ 8
1,992
2,000
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)
158,396
158,000
-396
157,000
161,000
Energy Information Administration
72,368
75,000
+ 2,632
70,368
74,000
Indian Health Service
2,390,728
2,620,429
+ 229,701
2,442,601
2,533,771
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation
8,000
15,000
+ 7,000
8,000
15,000
Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development
2,125
4,250
+ 2,125
—
4,125
Smithsonian
438,130
463,000
+ 24,870
423,130
449,855
National Gallery of Art
67,590
78,949
+ 11,359
70,182
75,652
John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts
33,871
34,000
+ 129
33,871
34,000
Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars
6,763
7,310
+ 547
6,763
7,310
CRS-58
FY2000
FY2001
FY2001
Bureau or Agency
Enacted
compared
House Bill
Senate Bill
Request
(P.L. 106-113)
with FY2000
National Endowment for the Arts
97,628
150,000
+ 52,372
98,000
105,000
National Endowment for the Humanities
115,260
150,000
+ 34,740
115,260
120,260
Institute of Museum and Library
Services
24,307
33,378
+ 9,071
24,307
24,907
Commission of Fine Arts
1,021
1,078
+ 57
1,021
1,078
National Capital Arts and Cultural
Affairs
6,973
7,000
+ 27
6,973
7,000
D.C. Arts Education Grants
—
1,000
+ 1,000
—
—
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
2,989
3,189
+ 200
2,989
3,189
National Capital Planning Commission
6,288
6,198
-90
6,288
6,500
Holocaust Memorial Council
33,161
34,564
+ 1,403
33,161
34,439
Presidio Trust
44,300
33,400
-10,900
33,400
33,400
Total, Title II: Related Agencies
7,325,460
7,913,868
+ 558,408
7,233,768
7,807,511
Title IV: FY2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Bureau of Land Management
—
—
—
—
120,300
Forest Service
—
—
—
—
120,000
Total, Title IV: FY2001 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations
—
—
—
—
240,300
Title IV: FY2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Bureau of Land Management
—
—
—
200,000
Forest Service
—
—
—
150,000
7,249
Total, Title IV: FY2000 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations
—
—
—
350,000
7,249
Title V: United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund
Emergency Appropriations
68,000
—
—
—
—
Title VI: Priority Land Acquisitions and Exchanges
Priority Land Acquisitions and
Exchanges
197,500
—
-197,500
—
—
Grand Total (Amounts in Bill)
14,911,650
16,319,772
+ 1,408,122
14,959,420
15,772,342
FY2001
—
—
—
(14,609,420)
(15,765,093)
FY2000
—
—
—
(350,000)
(7,249)
Source: House Appropriations Committee.
CRS-59
Table 6. Congressional Budget Recap
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2001
FY2000 Enacted
FY2001
Bureau or Agency
compared
House
Senate
(P.L. 106-113)
Estimates
with FY2000
Scorekeeping adjustments
Clean coal (advance appropriation)
10,000
171,000
+ 161,000
171,000
—
Elk Hills School (advance appropriation, FY2001)
-36,000
36,000
+ 72,000
36,000
—
Elk Hills School (advance appropriation, FY2002)
—
-36,000
-36,000
-36,000
—
Northern Marianas Covenant
—
-5,000
-5,000
—
—
Sec. 144 Valuation of crude oil
11,000
—
-11,000
—
—
Environmental improvement and restoration fund
2,000
—
-2,000
—
—
Rights-of-way and other land use
7,000
—
-7,000
—
—
National recreation and preservation fees
1,000
—
-1,000
—
—
Supplemental appropriations (P.L. 106-113)
1,250
—
-1,250
—
—
OMB adjustment
52,761
—
-52,761
—
—
Across-the-board cut (0.38%) (P.L. 106-113)
-58,000
—
+ 58,000
—
—
FY2001 carryover (BLM emergency supplemental)
—
—
—
—
—
FY2000 emergency supplementals in this bill
—
—
—
-350,000
—
Total, adjustments
-8,989
166,000
+ 174,989
-179,000
—
Total (including adjustments)
14,902,661
16,485,772
+ 1,583,111
14,780,420
—
Amounts in this bill
(14,911,650) (16,319,772) (+ 1,408,122)
(14,959,420)
—
Scorekeeping adjustments
(-8,989)
(166,000)
(+ 174,989)
-179,000
—
Total mandatory and discretionary
14,902,661
16,485,772
+ 1,583,111
14,780,420
—
Mandatory
(57,420)
(57,840)
(+ 420)
(57,420)
—
Discretionary
(14,845,241) (16,427,932) (+ 1,582,691)
(14,723,000)
—
Source: House Appropriations Committee.
CRS-60
Table 7. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1995 to FY2000
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2000
Agency or Bureau
FY1995a
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
Enacted
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1,099,005
1,105,955
1,195,648
1,137,852
1,183,895
1,231,402
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
671,038
645,831
670,596
745,387
839,804
875,093
National Biological Survey
162,041
—
—
—
—
—
National Park Service
1,387,329
1,367,667
1,435,858
1,646,926
1,764,224
1,803,847
U.S. Geological Survey
571,462
732,163
740,051
759,160
798,896
813,376
Minerals Management Service
194,621
188,995
163,395
143,639
124,020
116,318
Bureau of Mines
152,427
64,000
—
—
—
—
Office of Surface Mining/Rec
293,407
269,857
271,757
273,061
278,769
291,733
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1,730,970
1,588,412
1,618,274
1,701,991
1,746,428
1,869,052
Territorial and Int’l Affairsb
124,679
—
—
—
—
—
Departmental Offices
124,022
236,242
240,020
241,195
394,199
319,869
Total for Department
6,507,897
6,199,122
6,335,599
6,649,211
7,130,235
7,320,690
Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
2,803,602
2,363,173
2,919,564
2,506,568
2,757,464
2,819,933
Department of Energy
1,265,887
1,179,156
992,097
1,048,151
1,316,878
1,226,393
Indian Health Service
1,963,062
1,986,800
2,054,000
2,098,612
2,242,287
2,390,728
Indian Educationc
81,341
52,500
61,000
—
—
—
Office of Navajo and Hopi
24,888
20,345
19,345
15,000
13,000
8,000
Inst. of Amer. Indian and Alaska
11,213
5,500
5,500
4,250
4,250
2,125
Smithsonian
362,706
376,092
371,342
402,258
412,254
438,130
National Gallery of Art
56,918
58,286
60,223
62,029
64,350
67,590
JFK Center for Performing Arts
19,306
19,306
24,875
20,375
32,187
33,871
W. Wilson Center for Scholars
8,878
5,840
5,840
5,840
5,840
6,763
National Endowment for the Arts
162,358
99,494
99,494
98,000
98,000
97,628
National Endowment Humanities
172,044
110,000
110,000
110,700
110,700
115,260
Institute of Museum Services
28,715
21,000
22,000
23,280
23,405
24,307
Commission of Fine Arts
834
834
867
907
898
1,021
Nat. Cap. Arts and Cultural Aff.
7,500
6,000
6,000
7,000
7,000
6,973
Advisory Council on Hist. Preserv.
2,947
2,500
2,500
2,745
2,800
2,989
Nat. Cap. Planning Commission
5,655
5,090
5,390
5,740
6,335
6,288
FDR Memorial Commission
48
147
500
—
—
—
Penn Ave Development Corp.
6,822
—
—
—
—
—
Holocaust Memorial Council
26,609
28,707
31,707
31,707
35,007
33,161
Presidio Trust
—
—
—
—
34,913
44,300
Total for Related Agencies
7,011,333
6,340,770
6,792,244
6,443,162
7,167,568
7,325,460
Grand Total for All Agenciesd
13,519,230
12,539,892
13,127,843
13,791,373
14,297,803
14,911,650
a Incorporates reductions included in the FY1995 Rescissions Bill, H.R. 1944 (P.L. 104-19).
b Beginning in FY1996, appropriations for the territories and other insular areas were consolidated within the Departmental Offices account.
c Beginning in FY1998, Indian Education was funded in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations.
d The FY1997 enacted amount totals $13,514,435 with funding of $386,592 included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill (P.L. 105-18).