Order Code RL31306
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
April 9, 2002
Carol Hardy Vincent, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Susan Boren, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy 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, consolidated, and continuing) bills,
rescissions, and budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget
request and is bound 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 considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Interior Appropriations Subcommittees. 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 committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
a v a i l a b l e t o c o n g r e s s i o n a l s t a f f a t :
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].
Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
Summary
The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funds for the
Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and funds
for some agencies or programs within three other departments—Agriculture, Energy,
and Health and Human Services. It also funds numerous smaller agencies.
On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget for Interior
and related agencies, totaling $18.95 billion compared to $19.17 billion enacted for
FY2002 (P.L.107-63). For agencies within DOI, the President requests a total of
$9.46 billion, including funds for the National Park Service ($2.36 billion), Bureau of
Indian Affairs ($2.25 billion), Bureau of Land Management ($1.83 billion), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service ($1.28 billion), and $867.3 million for the U.S. Geological
Survey. For related agencies, the FY2003 budget would provide $3.95 billion for the
Forest Service, $2.82 billion for the Indian Health Service, and $1.72 billion for
Energy programs. For other related agencies, the Smithsonian Institution would
receive $528.0 million; the National Endowment for the Humanities, $125.8 million;
and the National Endowment for the Arts, $99.5 million. These totals do not include
amounts for President Bush’s FY2003 proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of
federal employee pensions and health benefits.
On February 27th, 2002, the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee began
hearings on the FY2003 budget for Interior and Related agencies. Interior Secretary
Norton testified on several programs including the Cooperative Conservation
Initiative, landowner partnerships and other conservation tools, Indian trust funds,
Indian education, the maintenance backlog of the National Park Service, the Natural
Resource Challenge, Everglades restoration, funds for the National Wildlife Refuge
System, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, energy and minerals
programs and activities, land use planning, wildland fire management, homeland
security, and assistance to territories and freely associated states. Members
questioned the Secretary regarding proposed cuts to the U.S. Geological Survey and
the proposed transfer of its toxic substances program to the National Science
Foundation; the budget for the strategic petroleum reserve; oil and gas exploration,
including the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve; the Klamath Basin; the proposed
elimination of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program, and the possible
privatization of DOI jobs, among other issues.
The House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee continues to hold hearings on
the budget request for the Department of the Interior and related agencies, and has
scheduled hearings through April.
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Divisiona
Tel.
Interior Budget
Carol Hardy-Vincent
RSI
7-8651
Data/Coordinators
and Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
Art, Humanities, Cultural Affairs
Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
and Historic Preservation
Bureau of Land Management
Carol Hardy-Vincent
RSI
7-8651
Energy Conservation
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
Fish and Wildlife Service
M. Lynne Corn
RSI
7-7267
Forest Service
Ross W. Gorte
RSI
7-7266
Fossil Energy
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
Indian Affairs
Roger Walke
DSP
7-8641
Indian Health Service
Donna Vogt
DSP
7-7285
Insular Affairs
Keith Bea
G&F
7-8672
Land Acquisition
Jeffrey Zinn
RSI
7-7257
Minerals Management Service
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
National Park Service
David Whiteman
RSI
7-7786
Naval/Strategic Petroleum
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
Reserve
Surface Mining and Reclamation
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
U.S. Geological Survey
John Justus
RSI
7-7078
Report Preparation and Support
Sandra Burr
RSI
7-7005
a Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance;
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Funding to Combat Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations to Combat Terrorism . 4
FY2002 Regular Appropriations to Combat Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The FY2003 Budget to Combat Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 21
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . 33
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Smithsonian, National Endowment for the Arts, and
National Endowment for the Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Cross-Cutting Topics: The Land and Water Conservation Fund
and the Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1998 to FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . 10
Table 5. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund,
FY 2001-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 6. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund
(FY2001-FY2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 7. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2001-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 8. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 9. LWCF Funding (Federal Land Acquisition Only):
FY2000 through FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 10. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations . . . 49
Table 11. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriationsa . . . . . . . 51
Table 12. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1997 to FY2002 . . . . . . . . 54
Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On February 4th, 2002, President Bush submitted the FY2003 Budget containing
$18.95 billion for those agencies and programs funded in the Interior and related
agencies appropriations bill. It includes $9.46 billion for DOI, $3.95 billion for the
Forest Service, $1.72 billion for Energy programs, $2.82 billion for the Indian
Health Service, $528.0 million for the Smithsonian Institution, and $99.5 million and
$125.8 million respectively for the National Endowment for the Arts and the
National Endowment for the Humanities. These funding figures do not include
amounts from President Bush’s FY2003 proposal to shift to agencies the full cost
of federal employee pensions and health benefits.
On February 27th, 2002, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
began hearings on the FY2003 budget for DOI and related agencies. The Secretary
of the Interior testified. The Subcommittee has continued to hold budget hearings
with additional hearings scheduled through April 18, 2002.
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 bureaus. The bill includes funding for the Interior Department,
except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and funds for some agencies or programs in
three other departments—Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services. Title
I of the bill includes agencies within the Department of the Interior which manage land
and other natural resource or regulatory programs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
insular areas. Title II of the bill includes the Forest Service of the Department of
Agriculture; several activities within the Department of Energy, including research
and development programs, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, and the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and the Indian Health Service 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, FY2003
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conference
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Public Law
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
On February 4th, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget to
Congress. The FY2003 request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $18.95
billion compared to the $19.17 billion enacted for FY2002 (P.L. 107-63), a decrease
of $221.0 million. For agencies within DOI, it requests a total of $9.46 billion,
including $2.36 billion for the National Park Service; $2.25 billion for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs; $1.83 billion for the Bureau of Land Management; $1.28 billion for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; $867.3 million for the U.S. Geological Survey; $423.5
million for Departmental Offices (including $159.0 million for the Special Trustee for
American Indians); $279.4 million for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement; and $170.3 million for the Minerals Management Service. For related
agencies, the FY2003 budget would provide $3.95 billion for the Forest Service;
$2.82 billion for the Indian Health Service; and $1.72 billion for Energy programs.
For other related agencies, the Smithsonian Institution would receive $528.0 million;
the National Endowment for the Humanities $125.8 million; and the National
Endowment for the Arts, $99.5 million.
In this report, the FY2003 budget totals do not include amounts for President
Bush’s proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of federal employee pensions and
health benefits.1 The term “appropriations” generally represents total funds available,
including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as rescissions,
transfers, and deferrals. Increases and decreases are calculated on comparisons
between the funding levels appropriated for FY2002 and requested by the President
or recommended by Congress for FY2003. The FY2003 requests contained some
substantial changes in agencies’ budgets from the FY2002 levels. Increases were
proposed for some agencies, including the Indian Health Service ($+57.3 million),
Bureau of Indian Affairs ($+22.9 million), Minerals Management Service ($+13.6
million), Smithsonian Institution ($+ 9.1 million), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service ($+6.9 million). Decreases were proposed for other agencies, such as Forest
Service ($-181.7 million), Department of Energy ($-49.2 million), U.S. Geological
Survey ($-46.7 million), Bureau of Land Management ($-39.3 million), Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ($-27.1 million), and National Park
Service ($-24.5 million),
1 The FY2003 Administration proposal to shift the full cost of the Civil Service Retirement
System and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program to salaries and expenses accounts
of agencies would likely add $246 million to DOI’s budget request for FY2003 (excluding the
Bureau of Reclamation). For an explanation of this proposal, see CRS Report RL30023,
Federal Employee Retirement Programs: Budget and Trust Fund Issues.
CRS-3
On February 27th, 2002 the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee began
hearings on the FY2003 budget for Interior and related agencies. Interior Secretary
Norton testified on topics including the Cooperative Conservation Initiative,
landowner partnerships and other conservation tools, Indian trust funds, Indian
education, the maintenance backlog of the National Park Service, the Natural
Resource Challenge, Everglades restoration, funds for the National Wildlife Refuge
System, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, energy programs
and activities, land use planning, wildland fire management, homeland security, and
assistance to territories and freely associated states. Members also questioned the
Secretary regarding proposed cuts to the U.S. Geological Survey and the proposed
transfer of its toxic substances program to the National Science Foundation, and the
Administration’s examination of workforce restructuring and privatizing jobs. Also
addressed during questioning were the strategic petroleum reserve; oil and gas
exploration, including the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve; the Klamath Basin; and
the proposed elimination of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program. The
House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee has scheduled budget hearings through
April.
Debate on the FY2002 Interior and related agencies appropriations (P.L. 107-
63) addressed a number of controversial issues, which may arise during consideration
of FY2003 funding. Many of them were energy related. P.L. 107-63 included
provisions to bar the use of funds for offshore preleasing, leasing, and related
activities in several areas, and for such energy activities within presidentially-
proclaimed national monuments as they were on January 20, 2001 (with exceptions).
The law also extended the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for two years,
and retained the Senate’s provision to extend and modify the Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee Program. Ultimately dropped from the bill before enactment were
provisions that barred funds from being used to: suspend or revise existing hardrock
mining regulations, implement the Kyoto Protocol, or execute a final lease agreement
for oil and gas drilling in the “Lease Sale 181" area of the Gulf of Mexico. Other
controversial issues during the FY2002 funding cycle included oil and gas exploration
and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; the value of oil received as
royalty-in-kind; and levels of funding for the arts, energy conservation, fossil energy
research, weatherization assistance programs, and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
Program.
Title VIII of the FY2001 Interior Appropriations law (P.L.106-291) created an
additional category of discretionary spending for “conservation” and identified the
specific activities that would be included within this “conservation spending category”
in each of the next 5 years. This spending is subject to annual appropriations each
year. This category essentially includes those conservation activities identified by
Congress in particular budget accounts (or portions thereof) providing appropriations
to preserve and protect lands, habitat, wildlife, and other natural resources; to provide
recreational opportunities; and for other purposes. Table 11 shows a distribution of
these conservation funds for FY2001-FY2003.
CRS-4
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1998 to FY2002
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)a
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
$13.8
$14.3
$14.9
$18.9
$19.2
a These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. However, they reflect rescissions.
Major Funding Trends
During the ten year period from FY1993 to FY2002, Interior and related
agencies appropriations increased by 57% in current dollars, from $12.2 billion to
$19.2 billion. In constant dollars, which adjusts for inflation, the appropriation
increased 26%. Most of the growth occurred during the latter years. For instance,
during the five year period from FY1993 to FY1997, appropriations increased by 8%
in current dollars, from $12.2 billion to $13.1 billion, but decreased by 3% in constant
dollars. By contrast, during the most recent five years, from FY1998 to FY2002,
funding increased by 39% in current dollars, from $13.8 billion to $19.2 billion, or
27% in constant dollars. The single biggest increase during the decade occurred from
FY2000 to FY2001, when the total appropriation rose 27% in current dollars, from
$14.9 billion to $18.9 billion, or slightly less—22%—in constant dollars. Much of the
increase was provided to land management agencies for land conservation and
wildland fire management. See Table 10 for a comparison of FY2001-FY2003
Interior Appropriations, and Table 12 for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau,
and program from FY1997 to FY2002.
Funding to Combat Terrorism
FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations to Combat
Terrorism
On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted a $40 billion Emergency
Supplemental Appropriation, P.L.107-38,2 in response to the terrorist attacks on the
United States on September 11th, 2001. The $40 billion package was constructed in
three phases. First, $10 billion was to be immediately available and dispersed by the
President in consultation with the House and Senate Appropriations Committee
leaders. Second, an additional $10 billion was available to be obligated following a
15-day notification to the Congress. Third, a final $20 billion could be obligated only
after money was allocated in another emergency appropriations act. For more
information, see CRS Report RL31173, Terrorism Funding: Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations-Distribution of Funds to Departments and Agencies.
2 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist
Attacks on the United States.
CRS-5
For more general information on terrorism issues, see the CRS Electronic Briefing
Book on Terrorism at [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebter1.shtml].
Of the $20 billion provided by P.L. 107-38 that did not need additional
legislation, programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior and Related
agencies appropriations received $3.1 million. Specifically, there was $1.7 million for
the National Park Service, Operations of the National Park System, and $1.4 million
for the U.S. Park Police (National Park Service) for emergency response costs in New
York City and Washington, D.C.3
Of the $40 billion appropriated by P.L. 107-38, $20 billion could not be
obligated until allocations were specified in another appropriations Act. Also, P.L.
107-38 required OMB to submit to the Congress a proposal for the allocation of these
funds. The OMB submitted its $20 billion proposal on October 17, 2001.
On January 10, 2002, Congress enacted P.L. 107-117.4 The law contained $88.1
million in total appropriations for anti-terrorism activities for the programs in the
Department of the Interior5 and related agencies appropriations bills.
FY2002 Regular Appropriations to Combat Terrorism
Although the FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations Acts contained
funds for anti-terrorism activities, it is not clear what additional funding for anti-
terrorism came from the regular FY2002 Interior appropriations law, P.L. 107-63.
The annual appropriations laws, as well as agency budgets, typically include money
for combating terrorism as part of larger line items or program requests. One
example is the $3 million provided to the Bureau of Land Management to identify and
evaluate oil and gas resources and reserves on public lands in light of terrorist attacks
on the United States. The Administration asserts that such attacks have potential for
disruptions to America’s energy supply.
3 The U.S. Park Police are authorized to prevent acts of terrorism at monuments and
buildings owned and managed by the NPS, including monuments, memorials, and associated
facilities in Washington D.C., New York City, and San Francisco. Among the protected
entities are the White House, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Washington Monument,
Statue of Liberty, Presidio, and areas around the U.S. Capitol.
4 Department of Defense (Division A) and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations (Division
B) for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the U.S. Act.
5 The Bureau of Reclamation (receiving $30.2 million in the FY2002 supplemental) is not
discussed in this report because although it is part of the Department of the Interior, it is not
funded by Interior and related agencies appropriations bills. For a discussion of funding for
the Bureau of Reclamation, see CRS Report RL31307, Appropriations for FY2003: Energy
and Water Development.
CRS-6
The FY2003 Budget to Combat Terrorism
The FY2003 Budget provides $37.7 billion for homeland security of which $25.2
billion is discretionary budget authority for non-Department of Defense operations.6
Among the categories for homeland security funding are: supporting first responders,
defending against bio-terrorism, securing our borders, sharing information and using
technology, aviation security and “other homeland security.” However, the FY2003
budget does not specify the responsibilities of homeland security that would be carried
out by agencies funded in the Interior and related agencies bill. The FY2003 Interior
budget does mention in general terms that there will be continued concern for
heightened security and terrorist prevention in the operation of parks, to protect “the
symbols and icons of American Freedom that are contained in the National Park
System.” It would provide $12.6 million to the U.S. Park Police for counter-
terrorism activities and to augment security in urban areas.
Key Policy Issues
Title I: Department of the Interior
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.doi.gov].
Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
manages approximately 264 million acres of public land for diverse, and at times
conflicting uses, such as minerals development, energy development, livestock
grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also is responsible for about 700
million acres of federal subsurface mineral resources throughout the nation, and
supervises the mineral operations on an estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust
lands. Another key BLM function is wildland fire management on about 370 million
acres of DOI, other federal, and certain non-federal land.
The Bush Administration requests a total of $1.83 billion for FY2003 for the
BLM, a $39.3 million decrease (2%) from the FY2002 level ($1.87 billion) and a
$313.9 million decrease (15%) from the FY2001 level ($2.15 billion). See Table 1.
Proposed reductions for wildland fire management and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
Program account for most of the decrease from FY2002. By contrast, a significant
increase is proposed for the Management of Lands and Resources line item, with
other line items proposed for level, or nearly level, funding.
Management of Lands and Resources. The Administration’s request
includes $813.0 million for Management of Lands and Resources, a $37.4 million
increase (5%) over FY2002 ($775.6 million). This line item funds an array of BLM
land programs, including protection, recreational use, improvement, development,
disposal, and general BLM administration.
Energy and Minerals. For the energy and minerals program, including Alaska
minerals, the Administration is seeking $107.1 million, a $7.5 million (8%) increase
6 See The Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2003, table S-5, p. 399.
CRS-7
over FY2002 ($99.6 million). The additional funds are sought to increase the
availability of oil and gas on federal lands—a goal of the President’s National Energy
Plan—including Alaska North Slope oil and gas development. In particular, the
Administration requests additional monies to expedite the permitting and rights of
way processes, increase oil and gas lease sales, evaluate and eliminate barriers to
energy production, and increase environmental inspections.
Land Use Planning. The Administration recommends $47.3 million for land
use planning, an increase of $14.3 million (43%) over FY2002 ($33.0 million). The
additional funds are to be used to initiate new land use plans and to accelerate the
development or amendment of land use plans that are underway to reflect current
conditions, requirements, and issues. The priority is to address plans for areas
regarding increased energy development, enhanced protection from wildfire, and
resolution of resource conflicts, among other issues. The additional funds are being
sought as part of a multi-year effort to update land use plans, about half of which are
out of date, according to the BLM.
Other Issues. Some programs would be reduced, including riparian
management ($1.0 million), recreation management ($1.6 million), and wildlife and
fisheries management ($3.7 million). Some funds are proposed to be transferred to
a new program called “Challenge Cost Share,” which seeks to improve cooperative
conservation and cost sharing opportunities. Proposed total funding for the program
is $19.0 million.
Wildland Fire Management. For wildland fire management, the
Administration requests $653.7 million, a $24.7 million reduction (4%) from FY2002
($678.4 million). The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire
fighting on all Interior Department lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide
funds for wildland fire management to the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture)
for fire programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments is the National
Fire Plan, developed after the 2000 fire season, which emphasizes reducing hazardous
fuels, among other provisions. (For more information, see “U.S. Forest Service”
below.)
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For PILT, the
Administration seeks $165.0 million, a decline of $45.0 million (21%) from FY2002
($210.0 million). The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land
within their jurisdictions, and has been controversial because in recent years
appropriations have been substantially less than authorized amounts.
Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition, the Administration recommends
$44.7 million, which is $5.2 million (10%) less than FY2002 ($49.9 million). The
money would be appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and
divided among 22 projects in 11 states. The BLM seeks to emphasize alternatives to
fee title land purchases, such as land exchanges and purchase of conservation
easements and development rights, which it asserts are less expensive approaches.
(For more information, see the “Land Acquisition” section below.)
CRS-8
Construction. The FY2003 request contains $11.0 million for construction,
a decrease of $2.1 million (16%) from FY2002 ($13.1 million). The funds will be
used to construct or repair 35 facilities in 9 states.
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2001-FY2003
($ in millions)
Bureau of Land
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Management
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Management of Lands and
$753.3
$760.3
$775.6
$813.0
Resources
Wildland Fire Management
977.1
658.4
678.4
653.8
Central Hazardous Materials
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Fund
Construction
16.8
11.0
13.1
11.0
Payments in Lieu of Taxes
199.6
150.0
210.0
165.0
Land Acquisition
56.5
47.7
49.9
44.7
Oregon and California Grant
104.0
105.2
105.2
105.6
Lands
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits,
7.5
8.0
8.0
7.9
and Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
11.0
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriations
2,147 a
1,772
1,873 a
$1,833
a Includes contingent emergency appropriations.
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm].
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report 98-574. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS-9
Fish and Wildlife Service.7 For FY2003, the Administration requests $1.28
billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a slight increase (0.5%) over FY2002
($1.28 billion).8 With the addition of some large accounts that are permanently
appropriated (and therefore do not require action in an annual appropriation bill), total
FWS spending would remain flat, at $1.94 billion.
By far the largest proportion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the
Resources Management account. The request for this portion of the FWS budget is
$903.6 million, up from $850.6 million in FY2002.9 Below are some of the programs
whose funding may spark special interest in the coming appropriations cycle. Unless
noted, figures do not include the proposed employee benefits change.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. For
FY2003, the Administration has proposed that the program remain at the FY2002
level of $125.7 million, although its subprograms would show significant changes
from previous years. A number of related programs also benefit conservation of
species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act, or are proposed for listing.
The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and
territories) would decrease from $96.2 million to $91.0 million. See Table 4. The
Landowner Incentive Program would increase by $10 million to $50 million, and
Stewardship Grants would remain at $10 million. Overall, funding for the
Endangered Species program and related programs within the FWS budget would
increase by 1.7%, from $272.0 million to $276.7 million.
Certain other endangered species conflicts, especially concerning the Klamath
River and Canadian Lynx may become issues in the appropriations context. (For
more information on the Klamath River, See CRS IB10019, Western Water Resource
Issues, and CRS Report RL31098, Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of
Water Use Conflicts. For more information on the Canadian Lynx, see CRS IB10072,
Endangered Species: Difficult Choices.) Other likely subjects of controversy include
limitations on listing of new species or designating critical habitat.
7 Due to a court order, the FWS website (as well as several other DOI websites) was
unavailable for some months. Some portions of it recently have been brought on line. The
FWS Budget Justification and other funding information can not be searched on-line at this
time, but soon may be. Thus, the information in this section is based on a manual review of
the Budget Justification, and funding for issues that might be included in several programs
(e.g., law enforcement, lynx recovery, etc.) may be difficult to locate and could be missed.
8 These figures do not include the President’s proposal to shift to the FWS (and other
agencies) the full cost of the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees
Health Benefits program. Including these costs, the request is $1.316 billion for FY2003, up
from $1.308 billion enacted for FY2002.
9 If the employee benefits proposal is included, these figures are, respectively, $934.7 million
and $880.8 million.
CRS-10
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2001-
FY2003
($ in thousands)
FY2001 Enacted
FY2002 Enacted
FY2003 Request
Endangered Species
Program
Candidate
$7,052
$7,620
$8,682
Conservation
Listing
6,341
9,000
9,077
Consultation
42,750
45,501
47,770
Recovery
59,835
63,617
60,215
Subtotal
(115,978)
(125,738)
(125,744)
Related Programs
Cooperative Endangered
104,694
96,235
91,000
Species Conservation
Fund
Landowner Incentive
4,969a
40,000
50,000
Program
Stewardship Grants
0
10,000
10,000
Total
225,641
271,973
276,744
aIn FY2001, this program was funded through the Endangered Species Program itself. In the
following year, while the purpose was the same, it became a grant program to states.
National Wildlife Refuge System. On March 14, 2003, the nation will
observe the centennial of the creation by President Theodore Roosevelt of the first
National Wildlife Refuge on Pelican Island in Florida. Accordingly, various
renovations and improvements are planned and the President proposes to increase
funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) from $242.9 million to
$268.7 million (10.6%). The FWS Budget Justification notes a number of activities
or projects which are planned partly in light of celebrating this event.
The maintenance portion of the NWRS budget is proposed for funding at $107.7
million, up $30.7 million for FY2002. Of the increase, $27.2 million is for deferred
maintenance, for a total of $75.3 million for deferred maintenance. The remainder of
the increase is for annual maintenance and equipment replacement. The FWS Budget
Justification (p. 141) ties much of the increase to preparations for national observance
of the centennial.
The FY2003 Budget Justification also addresses the impact on FWS law
enforcement of recent terrorist attacks in the United States. It states:
CRS-11
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks continue to have rippling effects on law
enforcement programs throughout the country, including the [NWRS], which has
increased security at refuge facilities. The refuge system has responsibilities to
provide protection for the resources, visitors, and facilities along coastal areas, the
Mexico and Canada borders, and urban areas. In addition, many refuge officers
are being sent on temporary assignments throughout the U.S. to support the
Department of the Interior’s national security efforts to protect employees and
visitors, and other facilities. [p. 119.]
There are a large number of Refuges along the U.S. coasts. One Refuge—Cabeza
Prieta—is bounded by the Mexican border, and several are near the Canadian border.
It is not clear what portion of the NWRS request is to be spent on increased security
in these border areas or in general.
While interest in energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) in Alaska is intense, no money is earmarked in the FWS budget to support
studies or preparation for such legislation. However, it is proposed that the allocation
for management of ANWR increase from $2.19 million to $2.38 million.
Wildlife Refuge Fund. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates counties for the presence of the non-
taxable federal lands of the NWRS. A portion of the Fund is supported by the
permanent appropriation of receipts from various activities carried out on the NWRS.
However, these receipts are not sufficient for full funding of authorized amounts.
Congress generally makes up some of the difference in annual appropriations. The
Administration requests $14.4 million, identical to the FY2002 enacted level. When
combined with the receipts, the appropriation would cover 55% of the authorized full
payment.
Land Acquisition. For FY2003, the Administration proposes $70.4 million,
a 29.0% decrease from the FY2002 level of $99.1 million. For more information, see
the “Land Acquisition” section below.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has
generated tremendous constituent interest despite the small size of the program. It
benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, the six species of rhinoceroses, and great
apes. The President’s budget moves into the MSCF the funding for the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF). For FY2003, the President proposes
$5.0 million for the MSCF. Older portions of the MSCF would receive level funding
while the NMBCF portion would be reduced 67%—from $3.0 million in FY2002 to
$1.0 million in FY2003. See Table 1.
CRS-12
Table 5. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund,
FY2001-2003
($ in thousands)
Multinational Species
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Conservation Fund
Enacted
Enacted
Request
African elephant
$999
$1,000
$1,000
Tiger and Rhinos
748
1,000
1,000
Asian elephant
748
1,000
1,000
Great Apes
748
1,000
1,000
Neotropical Migratory Birdsa
NA
[3,000]
1,000
Total
3,243
4,000
5,000
aThis program was first authorized in FY2002, and at that time was not part of the MSCF. For this
reason, the FY2002 appropriation of $3 million is not included in the FY2002 column total.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.fws.gov/].
CRS Report RL31278. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues.
M. Lynne Corn, coordinator.
CRS Issue Brief IB10094. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Legislative Issues, by
M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by Eugene H.
Buck and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 90-192. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne
Corn.
National Park Service. The National Park Service (NPS) has stewardship
responsibilities for a park system currently comprising 385 separate and diverse units
covering 84 million acres. In addition to the national park designation, the park
system has more than 20 other types of designations used to classify park sites. The
NPS protects, interprets, and administers the park system’s diversity of natural and
historic areas representing the cultural identity of the American people. The NPS also
provides limited, temporary funding support and technical assistance to 22 national
heritage areas outside of the park system. Park System recreation visitors annually
total more than 285 million.
The Administration requests a total of $2.36 billion for the NPS for FY2003, a
$24.5 million decrease from the FY2002 level ($2.38 billion). The President has
CRS-13
pledged to eliminate the NPS multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog over the next
few years, improve security at NPS sites in response to terrorist attacks on the United
States, and get more non-government groups involved in park support.
An environmental coalition, comprised of some Members of Congress and park
support and environmental groups, contends that aside from the Department-wide
Cooperative Conservation Initiative and increases for park security, the NPS FY2003
budget request is essentially the same as last year’s funding and compromises the
agency’s ability to protect park resources.10 The coalition, Americans for National
Parks, seeks a $280 million increase in the NPS operating budget to fund science,
resource protection, and education, in addition to repair and enhancement of park
infrastructure, an Administration priority.
Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line item
accounts for roughly two-thirds of the total NPS budget. It covers resource
protection, visitors’ services, facility operations, facility maintenance, and park
support programs. The Administration’s FY2003 request for operations—$1.58
billion—is $97.5 million above the amount provided in FY2002 ($1.49 billion).
Additional funds are targeted for increased security at key park sites, as well as cyclic
maintenance, repair and rehabilitation projects, and an assessment of the condition of
facilities. For the Natural Resource Challenge, the budget proposes a substantial $18
million increase to $67.5 million. This program is designed to improve natural
resource protection and management throughout the park system by developing
measurements of the ecology in parks and the needed managerial resources.
Additional monies are included for the new Cooperative Conservation Initiative which
would provide matching funds for park projects undertaken by nonprofit and private
entities.
Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds the
construction, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. For this line item, for
FY2003 the Administration requests $322.4 million, a decrease of $65.3 million from
the FY2002 level ($387.7 million). Funds for the construction line item have tended
to be substantially increased during the appropriations process. The Administration
requests an additional $529.4 million for facility operation and maintenance, an
activity funded within the Operation of the National Park System Line Item. This is
an increase of $50.2 million from FY2002. Combined, the Administration is
requesting $851.8 million for construction and facility operation and maintenance, a
decrease of $15.1 million from FY2002 ($866.9).
Excluding the request for facility operation, the Administration is seeking some
$663 million for FY2003 for construction and facility maintenance, including annual
and deferred maintenance.11 The estimated range of deferred maintenance for the
10 Ron Tipton, Interior’s Parks Budget Inches Forward, Falls Short of Need, National Parks
C o n s e r v a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , P r e s s R e l e a s e , F e b . 4 , 2 0 0 2 ,
[http://www.eparks.org/media_center/PressReleaseDetail.asp?id=83].
11 This figure is derived by summing the entire FY2003 construction request ($322.4 million),
and the facility maintenance portion only of the facility operation and maintenance activity
(continued...)
CRS-14
NPS is $4.1 billion to $6.8 billion according to the DOI Budget Office. In his
FY2002 budget, President Bush first proposed to eliminate this deferred maintenance
within five years through a combination of new appropriations, transportation fund
money, and revenues from recreation fees. The FY2003 budget renewed this
commitment. Park and environmental groups have criticized as low the amount of
new money committed to eliminating the backlog.
United States Park Police (USPP). This line item supports the law
enforcement activities of rangers with law enforcement training active throughout the
park system and the programs of the U.S. Park Police who operate in urban park
areas. The FY2003 request is $78.4 million, an increase of $13.1 million over the
initial FY2002 appropriation ($65.3 million) but a decrease of $12.1 million from the
total FY2002 appropriation ($90.5 million). After the regular FY2002 appropriation,
the NPS received $25.3 million in emergency appropriations for increased security
following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Administration’s FY2003
budget emphasizes anti-terrorism protection at national icon sites in Washington,
D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and other locations.
National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds park
recreation and resource protection programs, as well as programs connected with
local community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources. The FY2003
request of $46.8 million is $19.3 million less than FY2002 funding ($66.2 million).
The primary decreases are a $5.5 million reduction for the heritage partnerships
program and a $12.9 reduction to the statutory and contractual aid program.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). Citing the need to
support “higher priorities,” in FY2003 the Administration did not request funds for
the UPARR program. This locally popular matching grant program was designed to
help low income inner city neighborhoods rehabilitate recreational facilities. The
FY2003 budget does include $300,000 for the administration of previously awarded
grants and requests $150 million for the closely related state side portion of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. Although the President did not request funds for
UPARR in FY2002, last year Congress restored funding at $30 million, the same
funding as provided in FY2001. There appears to be some support in Congress for
restoring funds for FY2003 as well.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. The FY2003 budget proposes
funding NPS Land Acquisition and State Assistance at $286.0 million, an increase of
$11.9 million over the FY2002 appropriation ($274.1 million). This amount includes
$86.0 million for the NPS federal land acquisition program, a decrease of $44.1
million from the FY2002 appropriation ($130.1 million). This program provides
funds to acquire lands, or interests in lands, to preserve nationally significant natural
and historic resources for inclusion within the National Park System. The request
includes $20 million for Florida for land acquisition for the on-going Everglades
restoration effort. The Administration’s request for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) state assistance program is $200 million, including $50 million for
11 (...continued)
($340.7 million).
CRS-15
grants under the new Cooperative Conservation Initiative and $150 million for the
traditional LWCF state grants program (compared with $144 million for FY2002).
State-side funds would continue to be awarded through a formula allocation.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Under this
program, federal land management agencies retain receipts from entrance and user
fees. The receipts are available without further appropriation for projects at the
collecting parks, with a portion of the receipts distributed to other parks based on
need. The NPS estimates Fee Demo receipts of $149.0 million for FY2003, and the
FY2003 budget states that at least half of the receipts will be used for deferred
maintenance. In FY2002, the Administration stated that at least 60% of the receipts
would be used for this purpose; Congress opposed making this a requirement for all
park units. There is no specification in law as to how Fee Demo receipts are to be
divided among agency priorities such as deferred maintenance or operations. Fee
Demo was begun in FY1996 and extended in appropriations laws, most recently
through FY2004. The Administration stated an intent to propose legislation to make
the program permanent and remove it from the appropriations process. While there
have been few objections to new and higher fees for the National Park System, many
citizens have objected to paying fees for previously free or low cost recreation in
national forests.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.nps.gov/].
CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation, by Carol
Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman, coordinators.
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid to states (primarily through State Historic
Preservation Offices (SHPOs), certified local governments, and territories and the
Federated States of Micronesia for activities specified in the National Historic
Preservation Act. These activities include protection of cultural resources and
restoration of historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant in American
history and culture. Preservation grants are normally funded on a 60% federal- 40%
state matching share basis. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
Amendments of 2000, P.L. 106-208, reauthorized the Historic Preservation Fund
through FY2005.
The FY2003 Bush Administration’s budget would provide $67.0 million in
funding for the Historic Preservation Fund. First, it would fund the grants-in-aid to
states and territories ($34.0 million). Second, it would fund cultural heritage projects
for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians ($3.0 million). Third, it would
fund Save America’s Treasures at $30.0 million. The budget estimate for FY2003
is a decrease of $27.2 million from the FY2001 level ($94.2 million). It reflects a
decrease of $7.5 million from the FY2002 final appropriation ($74.5 million),
including a decrease of nearly $5 million in the grants-in-aid program to states and
territories, and a decrease of $2.5 million to eliminate the one-time funding for the
National Trust for Historic Preservation’s aid to its endowment for endangered
historic properties. See Table 6.
CRS-16
Now funded in tandem with the Historic Preservation Fund is former President
Clinton’s Millennium initiative, Save America’s Treasures. 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, film and sound
recordings. The appropriation for Save America’s Treasures has been used, for
example, for restoration of the Star Spangled Banner; properties throughout the U.S.,
including the Rosa Parks Museum in Alabama and the Mark Twain House in
Connecticut; repair and restoration of the Sewall-Belmont House; the National
Women’s Party headquarters; and the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.
Constitution located in the National Archives. Although the program was funded in
FY2001 ($34.9 million) and FY2002 ($30.0 million), it was criticized for not
reflecting geographic diversity. As a result, the FY2001 Interior appropriations law
(P.L. 106-291) required that any project recommendations would be subject to formal
approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to distribution
of funds. Projects require a 50% cost share, and no single project can receive more
than one grant from this program.
In the past, the HPF account has included the preservation and restoration of
historic buildings and structures on Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCU) 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
specific colleges and universities. Grants were awarded to complete repairs on
HBCU buildings, particularly those listed in the National Register of Historic Places
that required immediate repairs. An appropriation in FY2001 of $7.2 million
represented the unused authorization remaining from P.L. 104-333. There was no
funding for HBCU’s under HPF for FY2002, and it was eliminated from the FY2003
Bush Administration budget because the authorization has been expended.
There is no longer direct federal funding for the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, previously funded 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 our cultural heritage. It is a private non-profit
corporation. With the exception of a one-time appropriation in FY2002, the National
Trust has generally 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 preserve
properties listed in the National Register of Historic places, particularly those on the
“Most Endangered Historic Places” list. In FY2002, $2.5 million was appropriated
to the endowment for the National Trust Historic Sites Fund, to be matched dollar
for dollar with non-federal funds, for the care and maintenance of the most
endangered historic places. The FY2003 budget would eliminate that one-time grant
for the National Trust.
CRS-17
Table 6. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund
(FY2001-FY2003)
($ in thousands)
Historic
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Preservation
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Grants in aid to
State Historic
$46,495
$34,455a
$39,000
$34,000
Preservation Offices
Tribal grants
5,560
2,600
3,000
3,000
Save America’s
34,923
30,000
30,000
30,000
Treasures
HBCU’s
7,161
—
—
—
National Historic
Trust Endowment
—
—
2,500
—
grant
Massillon Heritage
100
__
—
–
Foundation
HPF (total)
94,239b
67,055
74,500
67,000
a The term “grants in aid to States and Territories” is used in conjunction with the budget and refers
to the same program as Grants in aid to State Historic Preservation Offices.
b The FY2001 Interior appropriations law provided $14.97 million from a new Title VIII in the law,
referred to as the “Conservation Spending Category.” Funding for all programs in this
category are shown in Table 11 in this report.
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www2.cr.nps.gov/].
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
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.
The traditional presentation of the budget for the USGS is in the line item
Surveys, Investigations, and Research, with six activities falling under that heading:
National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water
Resources and Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities.
The Administration has proposed a budget of $867.3 million, a net decrease of $46.7
million below the FY2002 enacted level of $914.0 million. This excludes $36.7
million for a government-wide proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of the Civil
CRS-18
Service Retirement System and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program for
current employees. With that proposal, the budget request is $904.0 million.
Each of the Survey’s six activities shows a net decrease in the FY2003 budget
request. Nevertheless, the Administration asserts that the budget seeks to ensure
continued emphasis on USGS science programs that support the roles of the
Department’s other bureaus in the national energy strategy, species management, and
the management of national parks, refuges, and public lands. At the same time, the
budget proposes to continue funding for core science functions that are inherent to
the historical responsibilities of the USGS. The Administration further asserts that the
FY2003 budget would achieve those goals: (1) by reducing funding for certain lower
priority programs, congressional add-ons and select programs that the Administration
identified as being more appropriately funded or cost-shared by USGS partners and
beneficiaries of USGS programs, (2) by scaling back funding for extraordinary base
program increases received in FY2001 and FY2002, (3) by transferring funding to
reflect an Administration goal of realigning the federal government’s investment in
research and development to give greater support and emphasis to competitive,
merit-based research, and (4) by organizational restructuring and workforce
balancing. Some of those funding reductions are certain to be controversial,
especially those involving the Survey’s Water Resources and Investigations budget
activity. The details of funding transfers and reductions in this area are likely to be
subjects for congressional scrutiny as water quality problems continue to manifest
themselves on the national scene and as water shortages associated with regional
droughts become problematic and more widespread.
National Mapping Program. For the National Mapping Program activity,
the Administration requested $129.3 million – $4.0 million below the FY2002 enacted
level of $133.3 million. Under this activity, decreases amounting to $4.8 million are
proposed to eliminate funding for national mapping improved internet access, to
discontinue funding for high performance computing and high speed communication,
and to eliminate funding for urban dynamics studies. The request includes a proposed
increase of $1.0 million to produce digital map data, map products, and base maps of
Alaska, focusing first on areas of potential energy development within the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For the Geologic
Hazards, Resources, and Processes activity, the Administration requests $224.6
million – a reduction of $8.2 million below the FY2002 enacted level of $232.8
million. Proposed decreases in this budget activity total $13.7 million and cover no
fewer than twelve line item programs across the three budget subactivities: Hazard
Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments. The
largest reductions are seen in the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping program,
the Alaska minerals information project, three projects on aggregate minerals, and the
Volcano Hazards program. A proposed increase of $4.0 million to the Earth Surface
Dynamics program would fund interdisciplinary science to meet the priority research
needs of the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI) dealing with the Everglades
National Park. Those needs focus on three components: adaptive assessment,
baseline ecosystem research, and simulation models/decision support tools. Another
proposed increase of $1.7 million to the Energy Resources program would enable the
USGS to expand its estimation of volumes of undiscovered oil and gas resources on
CRS-19
federal lands and to produce an updated national assessment of available geothermal
resources in the United States.
Water Resources and Investigations. For the Water Resources and
Investigations activity, the Administration requested $177.8 million—a decrease of
$28.0 million from FY2002 ($205.8 million). Decreases are sought to discontinue
USGS financial support for the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and to reduce
funding for the National Water Quality Assessment Program. For the former, the
USGS would transfer $10.0 million to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and
work with the NSF and with stakeholders to plan a three-year transition period for the
phase-out of USGS long-term research, focused field investigations and field
laboratories, and watershed-scale investigations. For the latter, the USGS would
pursue cost-sharing from the program’s stakeholders to maintain its current scope and
schedule of data collection and interpretation activities. The budget proposes a
decrease of $2.1 million to the National Streamflow Information program from the
funds provided under the Conservation Spending Category.
As was the case with the Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget request, the
FY2003 request again seeks to discontinue USGS support for Water Resources
Research Institutes based on the finding that most institutes have been very successful
in leveraging funding for program activities from non-USGS sources. There are at
present 54 Water Resources Research Institute: one in each state, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. It is a popular program with
a broad constituency. Congress did restore funding for the Institutes in FY2002.
Whether funding is appropriated for FY2003 will be determined by appropriators as
they weigh the success most of the Institutes have had in generating funds from non-
federal sources against the need for USGS seed money to continue operating.
The balance of the proposed decreases either discontinues funding for
congressional add-ons or eliminates funding for completed studies and projects. A
proposed increase of $1.0 million is for interdisciplinary core science related to a
study of environmental health issues in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Conducted
with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, this study would focus
on understanding disease-causing agents in the environment and their specific
exposure pathways in water, air, and soil.
Biological Research. For the Biological Research activity, the
Administration requested $160.5 million – a decrease of $5.9 million below the
FY2002 enacted level of $166.4 million. The FY2003 budget request funds USGS
fire ecology research through the Interior Department’s Wildland Fire Management
Account; therefore, that funding realignment shows up as a $2.8 million reduction in
funding for the Biological Research and Monitoring subaccount. The balance of the
funding decreases sought are for unrequested FY2002 funding increases and
congressional add-ons.
Science Support and Facilities. The USGS budget presentation retains
two additional activity categories in the FY2003 request: Science Support, at $86.1
million, and Facilities, at $88.9 million. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for management and dissemination of
scientific information, and Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair
CRS-20
of facilities. Science Support showed a decrease in the FY2003 request amounting
to $0.2 million below the FY2002 enacted level of $86.3 million. There is a proposed
increase of $1.0 million to develop enterprise GIS tools, bringing together
geospatially referenced hydrologic, biologic, geologic, and topographic data into a
common decision support system. That increase is tempered, however, with a
reduction of $1.6 million from the funds provided under the Conservation Spending
Category for accessible data transfer to expand the capacity of USGS network efforts
to deliver scientific information over the internet. Facilities funding also was down
$0.5 million below the FY2002 enacted level of $89.4 million. The proposal
eliminates phase one funding for the Leetown research center expansion and funding
for the Center for Coastal Geology in St. Petersburg, Florida and deferred
maintenance at the Wellsboro biological field station.
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: the Offshore Minerals Management (OMM) Program and
the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) Program, formerly known as the Royalty
Management Program. OMM administers competitive leasing on outer continental
shelf lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas and other minerals. MRM
collects and disburses bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal onshore and Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) leases and Indian mineral leases. MMS anticipates collecting
about $4.2 billion in revenues in FY2003 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 proposed budget for MMS for FY2003 is $270.6 million.
This budget includes $6.1 million for oil spill research, and $264.5 million for Royalty
and Offshore Minerals Management (comprised of $137.5 million for OMM activities
and $83.3 million for MRM programs). Of the total budget, $170.3 million would
derive from appropriations, and $100.3 million from offsetting collections which
MMS has been retaining from OCS receipts since 1994. The FY2003 total is about
4% higher than the $259.5 million total budget for FY2002. Offsetting collections
would decline by $2.5 million from FY2002 to FY2003. The figures in the FY2003
request do not include the $10.4 million costs of the President’s proposal to shift the
full cost of the Civil Service Retirement System and Federal Employee Health
Benefits program to the MMS and other agencies.
The MMS revised its mineral leasing revenue estimates downward by 40% in
FY2003 from the FY2002 estimates. For instance, in the FY2002 budget request,
mineral leasing revenues were estimated to be $7.9 billion in FY2002 and $7.3 billion
in FY2003. Current revenue estimates for these years are $5.1 billion and $4.2 billion
respectively. Price fluctuation is the most significant factor in the revenue swings.
Oil prices that were in the $26-$30 per barrel range came down dramatically to the
$20-$22 per barrel range in 2001. Also, natural gas prices fell significantly during the
past year in part because of the relatively mild winter. Over the past decade, royalties
from natural gas production have accounted for between 40%-45% of MMS receipts,
CRS-21
while oil accounts for not more than 25%. Below is a discussion of related issues of
interest to Congress that may arise within the context of the appropriations process.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1331)
requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a 5-year leasing program that specifies
the time, location and size of lease sales to be held during that period. The current 5-
year plan expires in June 2002. The MMS proposal for 2002-2007 now in the public
comment phase is expected to be finalized in June. MMS proposes to conduct 20 oil
and natural gas lease sales during the five year period. Half of those sales would be
in the Western or Central Gulf of Mexico (GOM) two in the Eastern GOM and the
remainder around Alaska. Sales in the Eastern GOM are especially controversial.
Industry groups contend that the proposed sales are too limited given what they say
is an enormous resource potential while environmental groups and some state officials
argue that the risks to the ecology and the economy are too great.
A controversial oil and gas development issue in offshore California involving
MMS has drawn congressional interest. A breach-of-contract lawsuit has been filed
by nine oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in compensation for their undeveloped
leases. The companies claim that MMS failed to conduct consistency determinations
required by the court. A federal statute, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1451) was amended in 1990 to allow for consistency determinations.
Using this Act, the state of California could determine whether development of oil and
gas leases are consistent with the state’s coastal zone management plan. In 1999, the
MMS extended 36 out of the 40 leases at issue by granting lease suspensions.
However, in June 2001 the Ninth Circuit Court struck down the MMS suspensions
arguing that MMS failed to show consistency with the state’s coastal zone
management plan. The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 11, 2002,
in the Ninth Circuit and proposed a more limited lease development plan that involves
20 leases using existing platforms. California rejected the Administration’s proposal
to pursue a limited drilling plan off the coast. No decision has been made on the
appeal. The leases are in effect, pending the appeal.
Also, legislation (S. 1952) by Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Landrieu (D-LA)
would compensate the companies for surrendering all undeveloped leases off
California’s coast with financial credits to acquire oil and gas leases in the Gulf of
Mexico. The credits could be as much as $3 billion.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its World
Wide Web site at [http://www.mms.gov/].
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’s intention was that individual states and Indian tribes
would develop their own regulatory programs incorporating minimum standards
established by law and regulations. OSM is required to maintain oversight of state
CRS-22
regulatory programs. In some instances states have no approved program, and in
these instances OSM directs reclamation in the state.
The Administration’s request for the Office of Surface Mining for FY2003 —
at $279.4 million – reflects a drop of $27.1 million from the level of $306.5 million
enacted for FY2002. The request has two components: funds for the AML, and funds
for Regulation and Technology programs. For Regulation and Technology, the
Administration seeks $105.4 million, an increase of roughly $2.3 million from the
FY2002 level ($103.1 million). Included in the FY2003 request is $10 million in
funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in
FY2002, and $1.5 million for the Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP).
For the AML Fund, the Administration seeks $174.0 million for FY2003, a
reduction of $29.4 million from the $203.4 enacted for FY2002. Major components
of this reduction include a decrease of $17 million for State and Tribal conventional
AML grants, and a reduction of nearly $11 million described as a “one time reduction
to Federal emergency projects.”
Grants to the states from annual AML appropriations are based on states’
current and historic coal production. “Minimum program states” are states with
significant AML problems, but with insufficient levels of current coal production to
generate significant fees to the AML fund. 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, and the FY2003 request proposes no change.
In general, several states have been pressing in recent years for increases in the
AML appropriations. The unappropriated balance of AML collections in the fund is
expected to exceed $1.65 billion if Congress appropriates the Administration’s
requested level for FY2003.
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 historically has been the lead agency in federal dealings
with tribes. Programs provided or funded through the BIA include government
operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education,
roads, economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian
rights protection, implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust
assets (real estate and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.
BIA’s FY2002 direct appropriations are $2.2 billion (including supplemental
appropriations). For FY2003, the Administration proposes $2.25 billion, an increase
of 1% over FY2002. Included in the proposal are increases of 3% in Tribal Priority
Allocations (TPA) to $775.5 million (including $133.2 million for self-determination
contract support costs, a 2% increase); 4% in BIA school operations (to $522.8
million); and 0.1% in education construction, to $292.7 million. For trust
management improvement, a total BIA-wide increase of $34.8 million is requested,
CRS-23
spread across such programs as tribal courts, probate, real estate services and
appraisals, social services, security, forestry, and executive oversight. The BIA
proposal also includes decreases of 5% in aid under the Tribally Controlled College
or University Assistance Act (to $39.1 million); 100% in aid to two tribally-controlled
vocational colleges (from $4.2 million to zero); and 3% in total BIA construction, to
$345.3 million (mostly from a reduction in new construction funds for the Navajo
Indian Irrigation Project, pending management changes at the related Navajo
agricultural enterprise).
Key issues for the BIA include the proposed reorganization of the Bureau’s trust
asset management functions, the movement toward greater tribal influence on BIA
programs and expenditures (especially the role of contract support costs), and
problems in the BIA school system.
BIA Reorganization. Historically, the BIA has been responsible for managing
Indian tribes’ and individuals’ trust funds and trust assets. Trust assets include trust
lands and the lands’ surface and subsurface economic resources (e.g., timber, grazing
lands, or minerals). Management of trust funds was transferred to the Office of
Special Trustee for American Indians in 1966 (see below). In late November 2001,
the Secretary of the Interior proposed to split off BIA’s trust asset management
responsibilities into a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management (BITAM). In
early December 2001, the Secretary requested approval from both Appropriations
Committees for a reprogramming of funds to carry out this reorganization. The
Committees did not approve the reprogramming request, instead directing the
Secretary to consult with Indian tribes. The consultation process is continuing. The
great majority of commenting tribes have opposed the BITAM proposal and many
tribes or tribal organizations have offered alternative plans. While the BIA’s proposed
FY2003 budget does not include the BITAM reorganization proposal (or a
reprogramming request), many tribes are concerned that the Secretary may again
submit a reprogramming request to Congress.
The current BIA reorganization proposal arose from issues and events related
to trust funds and assets management. The BIA had, historically, mismanaged Indian
trust funds and non-monetary trust assets (land, minerals, etc.), leading to a legislative
reform act in 1994 and an extensive court case in 1996. (See below under “Office
of Special Trustee for American Indians” for more discussion.) Oversight of trust
management reform is the responsibility of the Office of the Special Trustee for
American Indians (OST), as is day-to-day management of trust funds, but the BIA
still manages trust assets. Trust asset management includes real estate services,
processing of transactions (sales, leases, etc.), surveys, appraisals, probate functions,
land title records activities, and other functions. BIA and OST together are
implementing the Secretary of the Interior’s current Trust Management Improvement
Project. The project includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, and
procedures, reduction of backlogs, and maintenance of the improved system. In
1998, the BIA contracted with a private developer for a new computerized trust asset
and accounting management system (TAAMS). Much of TAAMS has not worked
correctly, leading to further controversy and a review of the trust reform effort by a
consultant, Electronic Data Systems, Inc. (EDS). EDS’s 2001 reports included a
recommendation for a single executive controlling trust reform. The Secretary cited
this recommendation as a justification for the BITAM proposal.
CRS-24
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 Title I of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance 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 (Title IV of P.L. 93-638, as added by P.L. 103-413); and
shifting programs into a portion of the BIA budget called 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 FY2002, TPA accounts for 42% 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 34% 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. The BIA estimates that appropriations for contract support
costs met 88% of reported tribal need in FY2001 and 91% in FY2002 and will meet
92% of the need in FY2003.
A 1999 GAO 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 has not directed the BIA to put any of these GAO
recommendations into effect, nor have the BIA and IHS developed a standard policy
on contract support costs. For FY2002, both the House and the conference
committee urged the OMB to coordinate BIA-Indian Health Service solutions to their
disparate handling of contract support costs.
BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools
and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating about 48,000
students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-determination
contracts and other grants, operate 121 of these institutions; the BIA operates the
remainder. BIA schools’ key problems are low student achievement and a high level
of inadequate school facilities.
BIA students’ academic achievement, as measured by standardized tests, is on
average far below that of public school students. To improve BIA schools’ academic
performance, the Administration proposes a “School Privatization Initiative” under
which BIA-operated schools will all either become tribally operated or be privatized
by the end of FY2007. Some Indian tribes and organizations have expressed doubt
over this proposal, arguing that funding for tribally-operated schools is presently
below need and that under the initiative tribes would be forced to choose between
operating schools with inadequate resources or allowing them to be privatized.
CRS-25
Many BIA school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety
deficiencies. BIA education construction covers both construction of new school
facilities to replace facilities that cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair of
existing facilities. Schools are replaced or repaired according to priority lists. The
BIA in 2001 estimated the backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million.
Historically, education construction funding was low and Congress had not accepted
various proposals for alternate funding mechanisms. In FY2000-FY2002, however,
Congress provided large increases in education facility construction over historical
levels. Appropriations for FY2002 education construction are $292.5 million. For
FY2003, the Administration proposes $292.7 million, an increase of $214,000.
For further information on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html].
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
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.
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
could receive federal appropriations but its budget authority consisted chiefly of
annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II operations. The FY1998 Interior
Appropriations Act amended the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to increase the
ceiling for total fees the NIGC may collect to $8 million, to make Class III as well as
Class II operations subject to fees, and to increase NIGC’s authorization from $1
million to $2 million.
During FY1999-FY2002, all NIGC activities were funded from fees, with no
direct appropriations. For FY2003, however, the Administration has proposed
appropriations of $2.0 million for the NIGC, in addition to the Commission’s fee
receipts of $8 million. The NIGC says it is experiencing a spike in demand for its
oversight resources, especially audits and field investigations, primarily because of the
rapid expansion of California Indian gaming (following passage in March 2000 of a
state referendum authorizing California to negotiate more liberal Class III gaming
compacts with tribes). The NIGC will also seek legislation to increase the current
ceiling on total fee assessments.
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) generally oversees the reform
of Interior Department management of Indian trust assets, the direct management of
CRS-26
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.
FY2002 funding for the Office of Special Trustee was $110.2 million, which
included $99.2 million for federal trust programs—trust systems improvements,
settlement and litigation support, and trust funds management—and $11.0 million for
the Indian land consolidation pilot project. The purpose of the land consolidation
project 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 President proposes a FY2003 budget of $159.0 million for
the OST, an increase of 44%. Included in the FY2003 request are $151.0 million for
federal trust programs (up $51.8 million, or 52%) and $8.0 million for the Indian land
consolidation pilot project (down $3 million, or 27%).
Indian trust funds comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by about
290 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset value of about $3.1
billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM)
accounts, in over 252,000 accounts with a total asset value of about $400 million.
(Figures are from the OST FY2003 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 non-monetary trust assets (e.g., land, timber,
minerals), as well as investment income.
The trust funds controversy also involves a class action lawsuit filed in 1996, in
the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the federal government
by IIM account holders. The latest stage of the IIM lawsuit relates to an historical
accounting for IIM funds, to determine the amount of money owed to the plaintiffs.
The FY2001 Interior appropriations conference report had directed DOI to develop
a sampling methodology for IIM accounting, as DOI had intended to do, but required
submission of the plan, with a cost-benefit analysis, to Congress prior to
implementation. Both the FY2002 House and conference reports repeated the
prohibition on allocating funds for an historical accounting before submission of the
plan and report. Both reports also stated that a legislative remedy might be needed
if a cost-effective accounting methodology could not be agreed upon. The plaintiffs
in the lawsuit object to an historical accounting methodology and, using a different
methodology based on federal and state leasing returns, have estimated that they are
owed at least $10 billion. Currently the district court considering holding the
Secretary of the Interior in contempt for continuing problems in trust management
reform (following a trial on these issues) and is also considering the plaintiffs’ request
that the court appoint a receiver to take over reform of IIM accounts management.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
CRS-27
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to the territories, manages relations between these jurisdictions and the
federal government, and attempts to build the capacity of units of local government.
Funding for the OIA consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite
appropriations that do not require action by the 107th Congress or the Administration,
and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the appropriations
process. Total funding for FY2002 is $353.0 million, and proposed for FY2003 is
$343.5 million, a reduction of $9.5 million, or 2.7%.12
Permanent and indefinite appropriations historically constitute roughly 70% to
80% of the OIA budget and comprise two elements. For FY2002 these
appropriations total $250.6 million, and for FY2003 they are proposed at $252.4
million, as follows:
! $146.4 million total to three freely associated states formerly
included in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. This payment
is set forth in the Compacts of Free Association negotiated with
representatives of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), the
Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), and the Republic of Palau.13
! $106.0 million in fiscal assistance to the U.S. Virgin Islands for
estimated rum excise and income tax collections, and to Guam for
income tax collections.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the remaining balance (roughly 20% to 30%) of the OIA budget. The
FY2003 request of the Bush Administration would reduce the discretionary portion
of the OIA budget to $91.0 million, a reduction of $11.2 million (11%) from FY2002.
The FY2003 request for discretionary funding is comprised of Assistance to
Territories ($70.2 million) and Compact of Free Association assistance ($20.8
million). The reductions reflect adjustments to funding for the U.S. Virgin Islands for
loan forgiveness and a utility study as well as for compact impact funding for Hawaii,
Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The FY2002 appropriation of $102.2 million, which exceeded not only the
amount requested but also the levels recommended by both the House and the Senate
for a range of purposes, included the following:
12 In addition to annual appropriations, these figures include permanent and indefinite
appropriations because a relatively large portion of insular affairs funding is derived from
permanent and indefinite appropriations.
13 Portions of the Compact of Free Association with the FSM and the RMI expired in the fall
of 2001 and are being renegotiated. For background, see CRS Report RL30749, The
Marshall Islands and Micronesia: Negotiations with the United States for Renewing
Provisions of the Compact of Free Association. The Compact with the Republic of Palau
began in FY1994 and will terminate in FY2009.
CRS-28
! An increase in compact impact funding of $4,000,000 for Hawaii and
$1,000,000 each for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
! $200,000 for a utility privatization study in the U.S. Virgin Islands
and full funding for payment of the amount owed by the Islands to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
! Slight increases that total approximately $2 million to restore funding
to pre-rescission levels for the OIA, operation costs for the High
Court of American Samoa, the eradication of the brown tree snake,
a coral reef protection initiative, and insular management controls.
Little debate has occurred in recent years on funding for the territories and the
OIA. In general, Congress continues to monitor economic development and fiscal
management by government officials in the insular areas.
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service. For information on the
Department of Agriculture, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.usda.gov/].
U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service (FS) budget request for FY2003
proposes $3.95 billion of discretionary appropriations, $181.7 million (4%) less than
appropriated for FY2002 and $486.7 million (11%) below the FY2001 appropriation.
However, the FY2003 amount excludes $153 million to pay the full government share
of federal employee pension and annuitant health benefits, a government-wide
Administration proposal for which legislation would be required. Including the $153
million for the pension and health proposal, the FY2003 request is $4.10 billion.
The Bush Administration proposes to terminate five programs in FY2003, which
accounts for most of the decrease from FY2002. The President proposes terminating
the contingent emergency appropriations for fire suppression operations ($266.0
million in FY2002) and for other fire operations ($80.0 million in FY2002). These
reductions are partially offset by proposed increases in regular appropriations of about
$165 million for fire suppression operations and $11 million for other fire operations.
The budget request also proposes terminating the Economic Action Program (more
than $48 million in FY2002 appropriations, in two separate line items) and the Pacific
Northwest economic assistance program (more than $9 million in FY2002). Lastly,
the request proposes no funding for the Stewardship Incentives Program ($3.0 million
in FY2002, the first funds appropriated since FY1998). In addition to these program
terminations, the Administration is proposing a $19.2 million (13%) decline in land
acquisition, from $149.7 million in FY2002 to $130.5 million in FY2003, and a $10.1
million (17%) drop in Infrastructure Improvement (to address the nearly $7 billion
deferred maintenance backlog), from $61.0 million to $50.9 million.
The FY2003 budget request also includes two new programs and significant
increases in several programs. One new program, proposed at $12.0 million, is an
Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund, to rapidly address invasive species problems
CRS-29
when they are first identified since early aggressive control efforts can reduce or
eliminate a problem while it is still small. The other new program, proposed at $15.0
million, is for Expedited Consultations, where the FS can pay the Fish and Wildlife
Service or National Marine Fisheries Service to consult on FS projects that might
jeopardize an endangered or threatened species. This proposal is to assure that the
other agencies’ budgets do not limit the FS’s ability to proceed on its projects. The
Administration also is proposing a $16.4 million (49%) increase in the Forest
Stewardship Program (to provide technical assistance for managing private forests),
a $4.7 million (10%) increase in minerals and geology work in the national forests,
and a $4.8 million (7%) increase in the Forest Legacy Program, to purchase title or
easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses (e.g., residences).
Forest Fires and Forest Health. Wildfires and efforts to halt the damage they
cause have garnered increased attention, with severe fire seasons in the summers of
2000 and 2001. On September 8, 2000, the Clinton Administration proposed a new
program in Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment:
A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires, commonly called the National
Fire Plan. The proposal, which applied to BLM lands as well as to Forest Service
lands, was to add money to the FY2001 request for wildfire operations, fuels
treatment and burned area restoration, fire preparedness, and programs to assist local
communities. Total appropriations for the FY2001 National Fire Plan, covering BLM
and FS fire funds, were $2.89 billion. Some of the increases were continued in
FY2002, although decreases in fire suppression operations, restoration and
rehabilitation, emergency contingency funds, and private land fire assistance reduced
the FY2002 National Fire Plan to $2.27 billion. For FY2003, the Bush
Administration proposes to fund the National Fire Plan at $2.11 billion, $159 million
(7%) less than the FY2002 level. For both agencies, fire suppression operations
would be significantly increased (about $165 million for FS and $33 million for BLM),
while the emergency contingency funds would be eliminated.
The Bush Administration also has announced that it will propose legislation to
pilot test “fireplain easements.” The concept is to acquire, from willing sellers,
“permanent easements to permit the implementation of fire suppression strategies,
including the option of allowing fires to burn without suppression activities.” The
Administration asserts that this would allow the federal government to pursue fire
control to save lives and protect resources while “avoiding extraordinary protection
of outlying structures.” This is to avoid situations where firefighting resources are
diverted from the general goal of fire control to protect private structures, especially
where the cost of protection is greater than the cost of replacing the structure. The
Administration has included nearly $20 million in the FS FY2003 budget request for
fireplain easements.
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].
CRS Report RS20822. Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS-30
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Performance
Measures, by Ross W. Gorte (available from author).
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Department of Energy. For further information on the Department of
Energy (DOE), see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.energy.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
Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget request of $489.3 million for FY2003 for fossil
fuel research and development (R&D) is 16% less than the amount appropriated for
FY2002 ($582.8 million).14 The Administration’s request for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) of $150.0 million for FY2003 is part of a $2 billion ten-year
commitment. The program is a cooperative cost-shared industry/government
program for “funding advanced research and development and a limited number of
joint government-industry-funded demonstrations of new technologies that can
enhance the reliability and environmental performance of coal-fired power
generators.” The CCPI is along the lines of the Clean Coal Technology Program
(CCTP), which has completed most of its projects and has been subject to rescissions
and deferrals since the mid-1990s. In FY2003, the Administration seeks to consolidate
all of its coal R&D programs under Fossil Energy Research and Development. The
CCTP, which is funded separately from the other fossil R&D programs, would receive
no additional appropriations, and would receive $40.0 million in FY2003 from
previously deferred budget authority to continue with several projects that are still
active. The CCTP eventually will be phased out.
Research and development (R&D) on natural gas would be cut by nearly half,
to $22.6 million, and R&D on petroleum by about a third, to $35.4 million. Funding
for the Fuels program, including R&D on ultra-clean fuels technology, will be phased
out, reducing the request to $5.0 million for FY2003 from $32.2 million in FY2002.
The Administration proposes to transfer the Fossil Energy (FE) Infrastructure
program that funds natural gas research activities ($10.0 million in FY2002) to the
Department of Transportation’s Office of Pipeline Safety, in order to reduce any
duplication of effort. Smaller cuts are proposed for gas hydrates and Cooperative
R&D, among other subprograms. Funding levels for Sequestration R&D, which
14 The FY2003 request and appropriated amount for FY2002 do not include previously
appropriated amounts for the Clean Coal Technology program ($40 million for FY2003 and
$33.7 million for FY2002) and prior year balances ($14.0 million for FY2003 and $6.0
million for FY2002).
CRS-31
would test new and advanced methods for greenhouse gas capture, separation, and
reuse, would increase in FY2003 by $21.8 million to $54.0 million.
For further information on Fossil Energy, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/].
CRS Report RS20877. The Clean Coal Technology Program: Current Prospects,
by Carl E. Behrens.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 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 are 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. Sharp increases in the price of oil beginning
in the spring of 1999 spurred calls for drawdowns from the Reserve. The Clinton
Administration authorized some exchanges and swaps of oil from the SPR, and also
instituted a program to accept roughly 28 million barrels as royalty-in-kind (RIK)
payments for production from federal leases. Acquiring oil for the SPR by RIK
avoids the necessity for Congress to make outlays to finance direct purchase of oil;
however, it also means a loss of revenues to the Treasury in so far as the royalties are
paid in wet barrels rather than in cash. In mid-November 2001, President Bush
ordered that the SPR be filled to capacity (700 million barrels) using RIK oil. The fill
rate is anticipated to begin in April 2002 at the rate of 60,000 barrels a day (b/d),
increasing to 130,000 b/d by October of that year.
The FY2003 budget request for the SPR is for $187.8 million. This represents
an increase of $8.8 million from the appropriation for FY2002 ($179.0 million). The
request has three components. First, it includes $168.8 million for operation and
management of the SPR sites. Second, $11.0 million is sought to support the costs
of transporting royalty-in-kind oil to SPR sites. Third, the request includes $8.0
million for the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR), established by the Clinton
Administration, which houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground
facilities in Connecticut and New Jersey. The SPR request is unlikely to be
controversial.
For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml].
CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
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 February 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 (NOSR) to the Department of the
Interior (DOI); the balance of the second was transferred to DOI in the spring of
1999. On January 14, 2000, DOE returned the undeveloped NOSR-2 to the Ute
Indian Tribe; the FY2001 National Defense Authorization (P.L. 106-398) provided
CRS-32
for the transfer. The U.S. retains a 9% royalty interest in NOSR-2, those proceeds
to be applied to the costs of remediation for a uranium mill tailings site near Moab,
Utah. This leaves in the Naval Petroleum Reserves program two small oil fields in
California and Wyoming, which will generate estimated revenue to the government
of roughly $7.2 million during FY2003. The request to maintain the Naval Petroleum
Reserves (NPR) for FY2003 is $20.8 million, a decrease of $1.5 million from FY2002
($22.4 million, including $17.4 million in new appropriations and $5.0 million in prior
year funds).
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 $36.0 million beginning in FY1999, with the balance due to be
paid in equal installments in FY2004 and FY2005. The FY2003 budget request
includes another $36.0 million for the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, and is not likely
to provoke any controversy.
For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, see its
World Wide Web site at [http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml].
Energy Conservation. The FY2003 request for DOE’s Energy Efficiency
Program notes that “energy efficiency programs produce substantial benefits for the
Nation,” according to the Budget Appendix to the U.S. Government’s FY2003
Budget (Budget Appendix, p. 403). However, the Administration also stresses that
the FY2003 budget proposes changes that reflect findings of the National Energy
Policy Report and the President’s Management Agenda. Specifically, the request
states that the “Energy Efficiency [Office] will terminate projects that provide
insufficient public benefit, redirect activities to better provide public benefits, place
certain activities on a watch list to ensure they advance effectively, and expand several
programs that could achieve significantly increased benefits with additional funding.”
(DOE Budget Highlights, p. 103).
Thus, DOE proposes to decrease conservation funding under DOE’s Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) from $912.8 million in FY2002 to
$901.6 million in FY2003, a reduction of $11.2 million, or 1%, below the FY2002
level, in current dollar terms. This nearly flat total budget request includes some
significant program funding changes. While grants would increase by $40.9 million,
R&D would fall by $52.1 million.
The largest proposed increases include $47.1 million for Weatherization grants,
$8.1 million for Fuel Cell vehicles, $4.6 million for the Federal Energy Management
Program (FEMP), and $3.2 million for Energy Star.
However, Transportation R&D would be cut by $30.1 million, including
decreases of $10.5 million for Materials, $8.4 million for Combustion Engines, $7.4
million for Fuels Utilization, $4.0 million for Hybrid Vehicles, and $3.5 million for
Electric Vehicles. Industry R&D funding would fall $10.6 million, including cuts of
$2.8 million for Petroleum Industry Vision Program, $2.8 million for Combustion
CRS-33
Technology, and $2.0 million for Inventions. Under Buildings, cuts include $9.8
million for Research and Standards and $6.2 million for State Energy Grants.
On February 28, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee
on Interior and Related Agencies held a hearing on the FY2003 request for the DOE
Energy Efficiency Program. In response to testimony by Assistant Secretary David
Garman, most questions focused on funding for transportation programs and the need
to reduce national oil dependence. DOE explained that the new Freedom Car
Program builds on results from the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
(PNGV) and has a goal to accelerate the development of fuel cell technology,
expecting that it would lead to commercial vehicles during the period from 2010 to
2020. A concern was raised that this time frame would not help reduce oil use in the
shorter term. Also, a concern was expressed about the Administration’s proposed
spending cuts for the Hybrid Vehicle and Electric Vehicle programs. DOE said it
expects that hybrid cars will enter the commercial market in 2003 and, thus, that the
need for support is shifting away from research and development and toward tax
credits and market incentives.
For further information on the Energy Conservation Budget, see the Web site
at [http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/]. For further information on Energy
Conservation Programs, see the Web site at [http://www.eren.doe.gov/].
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RS20852. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status
and Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service.
For Further information on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) see
its World Wild Web site at [http://www.dhhs.gov/].
Indian Health Service. The Indian Health Service (IHS) carries out the
federal responsibility of assuring comprehensive medical and environmental health
services for approximately 1.5 million to 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska
Natives (AI/AN) who belong to over 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 AI/AN. IHS
provides direct health care services in 36 hospitals, 58 health centers, 4 school health
centers, and 44 health stations. Tribes and tribal groups, through contracts with IHS,
operate another 13 hospitals, 161 health centers, 3 school health centers, and 249
health stations, including 170 Alaska village clinics. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also
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. The President requests a total of $2.82 billion in
appropriations for FY2003, $57.3 million or 2% over the FY2002 appropriation of
$2.76 billion. Of the total appropriation request, $2.45 billion or 87% would be used
for health services, and $362.6 million or 13% for the health facilities program. IHS
CRS-34
services are funded not only through congressional appropriations but also from
collections of reimbursements from private insurance and from federal programs such
as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. For
FY2003, IHS estimates that it will collect $614.8 million in reimbursements, a slight
increase (0.01%) over the estimated amount for FY2002.
The Indian Health Services budget category has several subsections: clinical
services, preventive health services, and other services. Clinical services include basic
primary care inpatient and out patient services at IHS hospitals and clinics. For
FY2003, the Administration requests $1.95 billion, $53.2 million or 3% over the
FY2002 level of $1.89 billion. Within this request, funding would go to support
programs for hospitals and clinics ($1.19 billion), dental health ($100.1 million),
mental health ($50.6 million), substance abuse treatment ($137.7 million), and
contract health services ($468.1 million). When IHS cannot provide medical care and
specific services within its system, it contracts to purchase these services from local
and community health care providers. The requested amount for contract health
services is 2% over the FY2002 appropriation of $460.8 million.
The preventive health services request for $103.3 million is 4% over the FY2002
appropriation of $99.7 million. The request includes funding for public health nursing
($39.9 million), health education in schools and communities ($11.1 million), and
immunizations ($1.6 million). It also includes the community health representatives
program ($50.8 million), which is a tribally administered program that, through
various community initiatives, supports community members who work to prevent
illness and disease within their communities.
For other services, the President has asked for $405.4 million in funding to
support health related activities in off-reservation urban health projects ($31.5
million), scholarships to health care professionals ($35.4 million), funding for costs
associated with providing tribal management grants to tribes ($2.4 million),
administration and management costs ($55.3 million - direct operations), self-
governance ($10.1 million), and contract support costs ($270.7 million). 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). These costs are the expenses tribes incur for financial
management, accounting, training, and program start-up costs. The budget request
reflects that most tribes and tribal organizations are participating in new and expanded
self-determination contracts and self-governing compacts.
The Indian Health Facilities category includes funds for construction,
maintenance, and improvement of health and sanitation facilities. The President’s
FY2003 request of $362.6 million for IHS health care facilities is a $6.9 million
decrease or 2% below last year’s appropriation of $369.5 million. The decrease is
attributed to the completion of several major construction projects in the last few
years.
For further information on Department of Health and Human Services: Indian
Health Service, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.ihs.gov/].
CRS-35
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
estimated in mid-2001 that about 300 families (almost all Navajo) have yet to
complete relocation, including about 33 Navajo families still on Hopi partitioned land
(some of whom refuse to relocate). The remaining families are not on Hopi
partitioned land but are in various stages of acquiring replacement housing. ONHIR’s
chief activities consist of housing acquisition and construction, land acquisition, and
certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.
For FY2002, ONHIR received appropriations of $15.1 million. For FY2003, the
Administration proposes $14.5 million, a decrease of $657,000, or 4%.
For much of the relocation period, negotiations and litigation have proceeded
among the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo families on Hopi partitioned
land, and the federal government on a number of issues, especially regarding Hopi
Tribe claims against the United States. In 1995, the United States and the Hopi Tribe
reached a proposed settlement agreement on Hopi claims. 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 Navajo families then 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-FY2002 Interior appropriations acts, the FY2003
proposal would forbid ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi partitioned
lands unless a replacement home were provided. This language appears to prevent
ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families during FY2003 since the ONHIR has
a large backlog of relocatees who are approved for replacement homes but have not
yet received them. These relocatees would have priority in receiving replacement
homes. The settlement agreement approved by P.L. 104-301, however, allows the
Hopi Tribe under certain circumstances to begin actions against the United States
after February 1, 2000, for failure to give the Hopi “quiet possession” of all Hopi-
partitioned lands if Navajo families on these lands have not either relocated or entered
into accommodation agreements with the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi Tribe has not yet
filed such a quiet possession claim against the United States. The Tribe has agreed to
wait while the U.S. pursues legal actions against Navajo who have neither signed
CRS-36
agreements nor relocated, but has asserted that evictions should have already started.
Smithsonian, National Endowment for the Arts, and National
Endowment for the Humanities. One of the perennial issues addressed by
Congress concerning 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, the National Zoo, and research
facilities throughout the United States and around the world. Nine of its museums
and galleries are located on the Mall between the U.S. Capitol and the Washington
Monument, and SI counted 42 million visits in 2001. The National Zoo had 2.8
million visits, the Museum of Natural History had 9.1 million visits, and the National
Air and Space Museum (NASM) had 9.8 million visits.
The Smithsonian is estimated to be 70% federally funded. A federal commitment
to fund the Institution was established by legislation in 1846. Today, the Smithsonian
receives both federal appropriations and various types of trust funds.
SI Budget and Appropriations. The FY2003 Bush Administration budget
estimate of $528.0 million for the Smithsonian represents an increase of $9.1 million
above the FY2002 level of $518.9 million (including a supplemental of $21.7 million
for anti-terrorism.) For the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), $10
million is requested for FY2003 to complete construction of the Mall museum.
Initially, the NMAI was controversial. Opponents of constructing a new museum
argued that the current Smithsonian museums needed renovation, repair, and
maintenance of the collection with an estimated 142 million items, more than the
public needed another museum on the Mall. Proponents argued that there had been
too long a delay in providing a museum in Washington to house the Indian collection.
Private donations to the Smithsonian for the NMAI and a fund-raising campaign
focusing on individuals, foundations, and corporations totaled $36.7 million,
representing one-third of the original estimated cost ($110 million) 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. Based on a new
estimate of $219.3 million for the Indian museum, the Smithsonian indicated that $20
million in trust funds would cover opening costs and that additional fund raising
would be required. The groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI took place
September 28, 1999. The projected opening of the Museum is the summer of 2004.
The FY2003 budget request for “repair, restoration, and alteration of facilities”
($81.3 million) includes renovation for the Patent Office Building, the National Zoo,
the National Museum of Natural History, and routine repair in all Smithsonian
facilities. Work was begun last year on the National Museum of Natural History and
the Patent Office Building (the home of two Smithsonian Museums—the National
Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian Museum of American Art—with a projected
CRS-37
total cost estimate of $151 million.) The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with
approximately 8 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 (1910), the American Art and Portrait Gallery
(1836-1860), the Castle building (1846), and the Arts and Industries building (1849).
A study by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), A Study of the
Smithsonian Institution’s Repair, Restoration and Alteration of Facilities Program
confirms what the Institution had already concluded: that funding for repair and
renewal of SI’s facilities has not kept pace with need, resulting in increased
deterioration of the physical plant. The NAPA report contends that the Smithsonian
needs to spend more than $1.5 billion over the next decade to fully repair, renovate,
and improve its facilities.
SI Trust funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian receives
trust funds to expand its programs. The SI trust fund includes contributions from
private sources, and government grants and contracts from other agencies. General
trust funds include investment income and business revenues from what the
Smithsonian identifies as “business ventures” (including the Smithsonian magazine,
retail shops, restaurants, concessions, catalogs, and entertainment initiatives, i.e.
Resident Associates and other entertainment programs.) There are also trust funds
that are private donor designated funds. Designated trust funds are those that include
gifts, grants, and contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations that
specify and direct the purpose of funds. In FY2001, contributions from private
individuals, foundations, and corporate sources for designated projects totaled $178.8
million, and for FY2002, they were projected to total $80 million. The largest single
contribution to the Smithsonian from a private donor (Steven F. Udvar-Hazy)—$60
million—was pledged for the National Air and Space Museum’s Dulles Center
(FY1999). The Dulles extension is scheduled to open in 2003. Finally, government
grants and contracts (separate from the regular appropriation) are provided by various
government agencies and departments for projects specific to the Smithsonian because
of their expertise in certain fields including science, history, art, and education. For
FY2002, in addition to the regular appropriation, government grants and contracts
were projected to be $70 million. Part of this funding is available to the Smithsonian’s
Astrophysical Observatory.
Two of the controversies concerning the Smithsonian last year were resolved.
They involved the proposed closing of the Smithsonian Center for Materials Research
and Education (SCMRE) and the Conservation and Research Center (CRC) in Front
Royal, Virginia. On May 6, 2001, in response to objections by scientists and others,
the Smithsonian reversed its policy with regard to the CRC and SCMRE and
continued to maintain both centers. The FY2002 Interior Appropriations law provided
that an independent “blue ribbon” Science Commission would be established and meet
before any final decision about closing either the CRC or the SCMRE. The direction
of SI’s research priorities is still of concern to Congress.
CRS-38
Table 7. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2001-2003
($ in thousands)
Smithsonian
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Institution (SI)
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Salaries and
$386,902
$396,200
$420,960a
$434,660b
Expenses
Repair,
Restoration, and
57,473
67,900
67,900
81,300
Alteration of
Facilities
Construction
9,479
30,000
30,000
12,000
SI total
453,854
494,100
518,860a
527,960
aThis total includes $21,707,000 contained in the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation,
P.L. 107-117, for SI’s Anti-Terrorism funding.
bThis total excludes $19.7 million for the Bush Administration’s FY2003 proposal regarding
employee pensions and health benefits.
For further information on the Smithsonian, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.si.edu/].
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities. One of the primary vehicles for federal support for the arts and the
humanities is the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, composed of
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the
Humanities (NEH), and the Institute of Museum Services (IMS), now constituted as
the 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 FY1993, but
NEA and NEH have since been operating on temporary authority through
appropriations law. The 104th Congress established the Institute of Museum and
Library Services and created the Office of Museum Services (P.L. 104-208).
The FY2003 budget for the NEA is $99.5 million plus $17.0 million for the
Challenge America Arts Fund that NEA administers, for a total of $116.5 million,
representing a slight increase ($1.3 million) above the FY2002 appropriation ($115.2
million). Figures exclude the FY2003 Bush Administration’s proposal regarding
employee pension and retirement health benefits. NEA’s direct grant program
currently supports approximately 1,600 grants. State arts agencies are now receiving
over 40% of grant funds, with 1,000 communities participating nationwide,
particularly from under-represented areas. The Challenge America Arts Fund is a
program of matching grants for arts education, outreach and community arts activities
for rural and underserved areas. The NEA is required to submit a detailed report to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees describing the use of funds.
CRS-39
The FY2003 budget for NEH is $125.8 million, representing a slight increase
($1.3 million) over the final FY2002 appropriation($124.5 million). Figures exclude
the Bush Administration’s FY2003 proposal concerning employee pension and
retirement health benefits. The NEH supports extensive grants for humanities
education, research, preservation and public humanities programs; grants for the
creation of regional humanities centers; and grants to help develop humanities
programs under the jurisdiction of the 56 state humanities councils. NEH also
supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match private donations in
support of humanities institutions.
Effective with FY2003, the appropriation for the Office of Museum Services will
be moved from the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill to the
appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services(HHS),
and Education (ED) and related agencies. The rationale for this transfer is that the
Office of Library Services, the larger of the two components of IMLS, is already
under Labor-HHS-Ed appropriations, and having one single funding stream under one
appropriation will make bookkeeping simpler and reduce time-consuming and
duplicative review for the Interior Subcommittees. The FY2003 budget estimate for
OMS is $29.0 million, compared to 26.9 million for FY2002. The Office of Museum
services provides grants in aid to museums in the form of leadership grants, museum
conservation, museum assessment, and General Operating Support (GOS) to help
over 400 museums annually to improve the quality of their services to the public.
Among the questions Congress is considering is whether funding for the arts and
humanities is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Some opponents of 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 contend that the
federal government has a long tradition of support for culture, beginning as early as
1817 with congressional appropriations for works of art to adorn the U.S. Capitol.
Some representatives of 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. Others 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.) Former President Clinton’s Committee
on the Arts, in Creative America (1997), recommended federal funding for NEA and
NEH at $2.00 per person by the year 2000. In contrast, funding for NEA and NEH
now represents approximately 84 cents per person.
Previous NEA Controversies. Although there appears to be an increase in
congressional support for the NEA, the debate often recurs on previous questionable
NEA grants when appropriations are considered, in spite of attempts to resolve these
problems through previous statutory provisions. The debate involved whether or not
some of the grants given were for artwork that might be deemed obscene. 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
CRS-40
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 past appropriations laws. 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. A 15% cap was placed on NEA funds
allocated to each state, exempting only those grants with a national impact. Members
of the House and Senate were added to the National Council on the Arts. Both NEA
and NEH were given specific authority to solicit funding and to invest those funds.
Table 8. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2001-FY2003
($ in thousands)
Arts/
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Humanities
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Funding
NEA
$97,785
$98,234
$98,234
$99,489
Challenge
6,985
6,985
17,000
17,000
America Arts Fund
Subtotal NEA
104,770
105,219
115,234
116,489a
NEH grants and
104,373
104,882
108,382
109,632
administration
NEH matching
15,621
15,622
16,122
16,122
grants
Subtotal NEH
119,994
120,504
124,504
125,754b
OMS/IMLS
24,852
24,899
26,899
29,022c
aThe NEA total does not include $893,000 for employee pension and health benefits under the Bush
Administration’s proposal. If included, the NEA total would be $117.382 million.
bThe NEH total does not include $1.139 million for accrual of employee pension and health
benefits. If included, the NEH total would be $126.893 million.
cThe Office of Museum Services as part of IMLS is now included in the appropriations bill for the
Departments of Labor-HHS-Ed and Related Agencies.
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its web site
at [http://arts.endow.gov/].
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
web site at [http://www.neh.gov/].
CRS-41
For further information on the Institute of Museum Services, see its web site at
[http://www.imls.gov/].
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
Cross-Cutting Topics: The Land and Water Conservation
Fund and the Conservation Spending Category
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The four principle
land management agencies—Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service, and Forest Service—draw primarily on the LWCF to acquire
lands. The presentations about each of those agencies earlier in this report identifies
funding levels for their land acquisition activities. The LWCF also funds acquisition
and recreational development by state and local governments through a state grant
program administered by the National Park Service. The LWCF is authorized at $900
million annually through FY2015. However, each agency’s acquisitions, as well as
the state grant program, are funded through annual appropriations. Appropriations
for federal acquisitions are largely earmarked to specific management units, while the
state grant program rarely is earmarked.
Through FY2002, the total amount that could have been appropriated from the
LWCF since its inception was $25.4 billion. Actual appropriations have been $12.5
billion. In recent years, appropriators have provided generally increasing amounts
from the Fund for federal land acquisition. The total has more than tripled, rising from
a low of $138 million in FY1996 to $453 million in FY2001. The table below shows
LWCF appropriations for federal land acquisitions for the past three years (FY2000-
FY2002) and the Bush Administration requests for FY2002 and FY2003.
Table 9. LWCF Funding (Federal Land Acquisition Only):
FY2000 through FY2003
($ in millions)
FY2002
FY2003
Agency
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
Request
Request
BLM
$48
$56
$48
$50
$45
FWS
62
121
104
99
70
NPS Federal
141
125
107
130
86
Acquisitions a
FS
160
151
131
150
131
Total
411
453
390
429
332 b
Source: Data for FY2000 and FY2001compiled by the Department of the Interior Budget Office;
data for FY2002 from Interior Appropriations Conference Report (H.Rept. 107-234); and data
for FY2003 from budget proposals.
CRS-42
Note: In some recent years, Congress has appropriated LWCF Funds to federal agencies for purposes
other than land acquisition. This started when Congress provided $72 million for other
purposes in the FY1998 Interior appropriations law. Funding in FY1999 was entirely for land
acquisition. Since then, funding for other purposes has included $15 million in FY2000, $456
million in FY2001, and $135 million in FY2002.
a The NPS amounts do not include the state grant program, which was funded at $41 million in
FY2000, $90 million in FY2001, and $144 million in FY2002. For FY2003, the
Administration is requesting $200 million, of which $50 million would be used for a new
Cooperative Conservation Initiative.
b This total does not include $3.0 million sought by DOI for the Shivwits Indian Water Settlement
Act of 1999, which authorizes LWCF funds for the Paiute Tribe in Utah.
LWCF appropriations may start to decline in anticipation of a budget deficit.
This occurred in the early and mid 1990s, when Congress provided smaller
appropriations as a part of efforts to address the federal budget deficit. As this
constraint disappeared, Congress responded positively to numerous interests seeking
more land acquisition funds. Now this constraint is forecast to return, and it may
affect appropriations levels for FY2003. After several years of higher funding and the
Bush Administration’s request for full funding for the first time for FY2002, the
Administration is calling for lower land acquisition funding levels for each of the four
agencies (and the state grant program) in FY2003.
For FY2003, the Bush Administration requests funding for federal acquisitions
at $332 million (excluding $3.0 million for the Paiute Tribe in Utah), a decrease of
$97 million from FY2002. These funds would all be used for land acquisition. In
addition, the Administration is requesting $20 million for the National Park Service
that can be provided as grants to Florida for land acquisition critical to the South
Florida (Everglades) Restoration Program. The Administration also is requesting a
total of $200 million for the state grant program, of which $50 million would fund a
proposed Cooperative Conservation Initiative. This Initiative seeks to promote
conservation through partnerships that match BLM, NPS, and FWS funds with local
contributions. In addition to the $50 million that would be provided from LWCF, the
Administration is seeking another $50 million for the Initiative from the operating
accounts of the three DOI land management agencies, for a total of $100 million.
Conservation Spending Category. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees created the Conservation Spending Category (CSC) in the FY2001
Interior appropriations law. The CSC combines funding for about 2 dozen resource
protection programs including the LWCF. This action was in response to the Clinton
Administration request for substantial funding increases in these programs under his
Lands Legacy Initiative and widespread congressional interest in increasing
conservation funding. The FY2001 law appropriated $1.21 billion for FY2001 (and
$470 million through the Commerce appropriations law). The amount appropriated
in FY2001 through Interior appropriations was a substantial increase from a total of
$557 million for these programs the preceding year. The FY2001 law also authorized
that total spending under the category would grow each year, from $1.6 billion in
FY2001 (of which $1.2 billion would be in Interior Appropriations programs) to $2.4
billion in FY2006. All funding each year is subject to the appropriations process.
For FY2002, the Bush Administration did not organize his conservation program
using the framework of the CSC, but requested a total of $1.26 billion for this group
CRS-43
of programs. Congress used the category and appropriated $1.30 billion. In its
FY2003 budget request, again the Administration did not use the CSC category.
However, the Interior and Appropriations Subcommittees may choose to use it again
this year. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
estimates that the FY2003 request totals $1.32 billion for programs in this category,
a slight decrease from FY2002 funding.
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 97-792. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10015. Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth:
Issues in the 107th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS-44
For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL31278. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues.
M. Lynne Corn, coordinator.
CRS Issue Brief IB10094. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Legislative Issues, by
M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by Eugene H.
Buck and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
CRS Report 90-192. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report 97-792. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RL31115. Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, by Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne
Corn.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation, by Carol
Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman, coordinators.
CRS Report 98-574. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10015. Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth:
Issues in the 107th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn.
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
CRS-45
Committees of the United States Congress. [Washington: The Task Force].
August 1994.
Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Report RS20002. Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer, by
Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30867. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resource Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Betsy A. Cody, M. Lynne
Corn, Ross W. Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, David Whiteman, and Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30335. Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Title II: Related Agencies
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RS20877. The Clean Coal Technology Program: Current Prospects,
by Carl E. Behrens.
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RS20822. Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Performance
Measures, by Ross W. Gorte (available from author).
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RS20852. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status
and Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
CRS-46
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.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]
Congressional Budget Office.
[http://www.cbo.gov/]
General Accounting Office.
[http://www.gao.gov]
House Republican Conference.
[http://www.gop.gov/committeecentral/docs/pubs/appropriationsroundup/]
Office of Management and Budget.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/]
Title I: Department of the Interior15
Department of the Interior (DOI).
[http://www.doi.gov/]
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm]
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
[http://www.fws.gov/]
Historic Preservation.
[http://www2.cr.nps.gov/]
Minerals Management Service (MMS).
[http://www.mms.gov/]
National Park Service (NPS).
[http://www.nps.gov/]
15 Access to certain DOI websites has been restricted in compliance with a court order. DOI
websites which currently are not accessible are not listed here.
CRS-47
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
[http://www.usgs.gov/]
Title II: Related Agencies
Departments.
Agriculture, Department of (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]
Energy, Department of (DOE).
[http://www.energy.gov/]
DOE Strategic Plan.
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm]
Energy Conservation Budget
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/
Energy Conservation Programs
[http://www.eren.doe.gov/]
Fossil Energy.
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/]
Naval Petroleum Reserves.
[http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml]
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
[http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml]
Health and Human Services, Department of (HHS).
[http://www.dhhs.gov/]
Indian Health Service (IHS).
[http://www.ihs.gov/]
Agencies.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
[http://www.achp.gov]
CRS-48
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.
[http://www.iaiancad.org/]
Institute of Museum Services.
[http://www.imls.gov/]
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
[http://Kennedy-Center.org/]
National Capital Planning Commission.
[http://www.ncpc.gov]
National Endowment for the Arts.
[http://arts.endow.gov/]
National Endowment for the Humanities.
[http://www.neh.gov/]
National Gallery of Art.
[http://www.nga.gov/]
Smithsonian.
[http://www.si.edu/]
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
[http://www.ushmm.org/]
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
[http://wwics.si.edu/]
CRS-49
Table 10. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations
($ in thousands)a
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Bureau or Agency
FY2002 Request
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
2,147,182
1,771,538
1,872,597
1,833,322
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,227,010
1,091,265
1,276,424
1,283,364
National Park Service
2,135,219
2,517,691
2,380,074
2,355,561
U.S. Geological Survey
882,800
813,376
914,002
867,338
Minerals Management Service
139,221
155,473
156,772
170,327
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
302,846
268,958
306,530
279,402
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,187,613
2,203,553
2,222,876
2,245,804
Departmental Offices
352,519
345,270
367,144
423,535
General Provisions
12,572
—
—
—
Total, Title I
9,386,982
9,167,124
9,496,419
9,458,653
Title II: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,435,391
3,732,125
4,130,416
3,948,711
Department of Energy
1,453,644
1,502,680
1,766,470
1,717,241
Clean Coal Technology
-67,000
—
-40,000
—
Fossil Energy R & D
432,464
449,000
582,790
489,305
Alternative Fuels Production
(rescission)
-1,000
-2,000
-2,000
—
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves
1,596
17,371
17,371
20,831
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
36,000
36,000
36,000
Energy Conservation
813,442
755,805
912,805
901,651
Economic Regulation
1,996
1,996
1,996
1,487
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
(SPR)
160,637
169,009
179,009
168,856
SPR Petroleum Account
—
—
—
11,000
Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve
—
—
—
8,000
Energy Information
Administration
75,509
75,499
78,499
80,111
Indian Health Service
2,628,766
2,706,809
2,759,101
2,816,406
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation
14,967
15,148
15,148
14,491
Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development
4,116
4,490
4,490
5,130
CRS-50
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Bureau or Agency
FY2002 Request
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Smithsonian Institution
453,854
494,100
518,860
527,960
National Gallery of Art
75,485
80,449
85,335
94,449
John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts
33,925
34,000
38,310
33,910
Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars
12,283
7,796
7,796
8,488
National Endowment for the Arts
97,785
98,234
98,234
99,489
National Endowment for the Humanities
119,994
120,504
124,504
125,754
Institute of Museum and Library
Services
24,852
24,899
26,899
—
Challenge America Arts Fund
6,985
6,985
17,000
17,000
Commission of Fine Arts
1,076
1,274
1,224
1,224
National Capital Arts and Cultural
Affairs
6,985
7,000
7,000
7,000
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
3,182
3,310
3,400
3,667
National Capital Planning Commission
6,486
7,253
8,011
7,253
Holocaust Memorial Museum
34,363
36,028
36,028
38,663
Presidio Trust
33,327
22,427
23,125
21,327
Total, Title II: Related Agencies
9,447,466
8,905,511
9,671,351
9,488,163
Title VII: United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund
United Mine Workers of America
Combined Benefits Fund
57,872
—
—
—
Grand Total (Amounts in Bill)b
18,892,320
18,072,635
19,167,770
18,946,816
Source: House Appropriations Committee.
a Figures in data column one reflect FY2001 appropriations. They include appropriations in various titles of P.L. 106-
291, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2001. Figures in data
column two reflect the budget requests by the Bush Administration for FY2002. Figures in data column three
reflect FY2002 appropriations to date. Figures in data column four reflect the budget requests by the
Administration for FY2003.
b Figures do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments. With scorekeeping adjustments, the figures are: $19,067,972 for
FY2001 enacted; $18,190,635 for FY2002 requested; $19,272,770 for FY2002 enacted; and $19,530,816 for
FY2003 requested. The FY2003 request includes an adjustment of $506.0 million for retirement accruals.
CRS-51
Table 11. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriationsa
($ in millions)
Subcategory/Appropriations
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Account
Enacted
Request
Enacted
Request f
LWCF, Federal and State
BLM Federal Land Acquisition
56.5
47.7
49.9
44.7
FWS Federal Land Acquisition
121.2
104.4
99.1
70.4
NPS Federal Land Acquisition
124.8
107.0
130.1
86.1
Departmental Management, BIA
--
--
--
3.0b
Water Settlement
FS Federal Land Acquisition
150.9
130.9
149.7
130.5
NPS Stateside Grants and
90.3
450.0
144.0
200.0d
Administration
Subtotal, Federal and Statec
543.7
840.0
572.9
534.6
LWCF, Other
FWS State Wildlife Grantse
49.9
--
60.0
60.0
FWS Incentive Grant Programs
--
60.0
40.0
50.0
FWS Stewardship Grants Program
--
--
10.0
10.0
FWS Cooperative Endangered
104.7
54.7
96.2
91.0
Species Conservation Fund
FWS North American Wetlands
39.9
14.9
43.5
43.6
Conservation Fund
FS, Forest Legacy
59.9
30.1
65.0
69.8
FS, Forest Stewardshipg
(32.8)
(32.9)
(33.2)
49.5
FS, NFS Inventory and Monitoring
20.0
--
--
--
Subtotal, State and Other
274.4
159.7
314.7
373.9
Conservation Programsc
Total LWCFc
818.1
999.7
887.6
908.5
Conservation Programs
BLM MLR Cooperative Conservation
--
--
--
10.0
Initiative
FWS RM Cooperative Conservation
--
--
--
18.0
Initiative
NPS ONPS Cooperative
--
--
--
22.0
Conservation Initiative
USGS State Planning Partnerships
24.9
--
25.0
13.6
Subtotal Conservation Programs c
24.9
--
25.0
63.6
CRS-52
Subcategory/Appropriations
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Account
Enacted
Request
Enacted
Request f
Urban and Historic Preservation Programs
NPS Historic Preservation Fund
94.1
67.1
74.5
67.0
NPS Urban Parks and Recreation
29.9
--
30.0
0.3
Recovery Grants
FS Urban and Community Forestry
35.6
31.8
36.0
36.2
BLM Youth Conservation Corps
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
FWS Youth Conservation Corps
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
NPS Youth Conservation Corps
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
FS Youth Conservation Corps
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Subtotal Urban and Historic
165.7
105.9
147.5
110.5
Preservation Programsc
Payments in Lieu of Taxes, BLM
49.9
--
50.0
15.0
Subtotal PILT
49.9
--
50.0
15.0
Federal Infrastructure Improvement Programs
BLM - Management of Lands &
24.9
25.0
28.0
29.0
Resources
FWS - Resource Management
24.9
25.0
29.0
58.0
NPS - Construction
49.9
50.0
66.9
82.2
FS - Capital Improvement and
49.9
50.5
61.0
50.9
Maintenance
Subtotal Federal Infrastructure
149.7
150.5
184.9
220.1
Improvement Programsc
Totalc
1,208.3
1,255.7
1,295.0
1,317.7
Source: House Appropriations Committee.
a The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(c)) as amended
established 3 discretionary spending categories: General Purpose, Highway, and Mass
Transit. Title VIII of P.L. 106-291, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for FY2001, established a fourth category of discretionary spending – for
“conservation.” That law also identified the specific activities that would be included within
the “conservation spending category.” The category essentially includes those activities,
identified by Congress, in particular budget accounts (or portions thereof) providing
appropriations to preserve and protect lands, habitat, wildlife, and other natural resources; to
provide recreational opportunities; and for other purposes. This table presents the current and
proposed distribution of these conservation funds. Dashes indicate that the funding is
understood to be zero. Further, several programs in this category have not received separate
funding under conservation spending for FY2001-FY2003. They include Competitive Grants
for Indian Tribes, FWS Neotropical Migratory Birds, FS Stewardship Incentives Program,
and National Wildlife Refuge fund, FWS.
CRS-53
b The Administration is seeking $3.0 million under the DOI Departmental Management (DM) line
item for the Shivwits Indian water settlement Act of 1999, which authorizes LWCF funds for
the Paiute Tribe in Utah.
c Subtotals and totals may not add due to rounding.
d $50 million of this total is part of a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative, and the remaining
$150 million would be distributed to states using an allocation formula developed by the
administration for the traditional land acquisition and site development activities of states.
e For FY2001, an additional $50 million was appropriated for formula grants which were authorized
in Title IX of the FY2001 Commerce appropriations law. Further, the FY2002 enacted
amount reflects a rescission of $25.0 million.
f In FY2003, four additional programs are proposed to be funded from LWCF: FWS Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund; FWS North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
FS Forest Legacy; and FS Forest Stewardship.
g Funds for FS, Forest Stewardship were not considered part of the CSC in FY2001 and FY2002 so
funds in those years are not counted in the column totals. Because the program is proposed
to be included in the CSC in FY2003, the requested level is included in the column total. This
could tend to exaggerate the difference between levels of CSC funding in FY2003 and earlier
years.
CRS-54
Table 12. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1997 to FY2002
($ in thousands)
Agency or Bureau
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1,195,648
1,137,852
1,183,895
1,231,402
2,147,182
1,872,597
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
670,596
745,387
839,804
875,093
1,227,010
1,276,424
National Park Service
1,435,858
1,646,926
1,764,224
1,803,847
2,135,219
2,380,074
U.S. Geological Survey
740,051
759,160
798,896
813,376
882,800
914,002
Minerals Management Service
163,395
143,639
124,020
116,318
139,221
156,772
Office of Surface Mining Recl. and Enforce.
271,757
273,061
278,769
291,733
302,846
306,530
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1,618,274
1,701,991
1,746,428
1,869,052
2,187,613
2,222,876
Departmental Officesa
240,020
241,195
394,199
319,869
352,519
367,144
General Provisions
—
—
—
—
12,572
—
Total for Department
6,335,599
6,649,211
7,130,235
7,320,690
9,386,982
9,496,419
Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
2,919,564
2,506,568
2,757,464
2,819,933
4,435,391
4,130,416
Department of Energy
992,097
1,048,151
1,316,878
1,226,393
1,453,644
1,766,470
Indian Health Service
2,054,000
2,098,612
2,242,287
2,390,728
2,628,766
2,759,101
Indian Educationb
61,000
—
—
—
—
—
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
19,345
15,000
13,000
8,000
14,967
15,148
Inst. of Amer. Indian and Alaska Culture & Arts Dev.
5,500
4,250
4,250
2,125
4,116
4,490
Smithsonian Institution
371,342
402,258
412,254
438,130
453,854
518,860
National Gallery of Art
60,223
62,029
64,350
67,590
75,485
85,335
JFK Center for the Performing Arts
24,875
20,375
32,187
33,871
33,925
38,310
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
5,840
5,840
5,840
6,763
12,283
7,796
National Endowment for the Arts
99,494
98,000
98,000
97,628
97,785
98,234
National Endowment for the Humanities
110,000
110,700
110,700
115,260
119,994
124,504
Institute of Museum and Library Services
22,000
23,280
23,405
24,307
24,852
26,899
Challenge America Arts Fund
—
—
—
—
6,985
17,000
Commission of Fine Arts
867
907
898
1,021
1,076
1,224
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
6,000
7,000
7,000
6,973
6,985
7,000
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
2,500
2,745
2,800
2,989
3,182
3,400
National Capitol Planning Commission
5,390
5,740
6,335
6,288
6,486
8,011
FDR Memorial Commission
500
—
—
—
—
—
Holocaust Memorial Museum
31,707
31,707
35,007
33,161
34,363
36,028
Presidio Trust
—
—
34,913
44,300
33,327
23,125
Total for Related Agencies
6,792,244
6,443,162
7,167,568
7,325,460
9,447,466
9,671,351
Grand Total for All Agenciesc
13,127,843
13,791,373
14,297,803
14,911,650
18,892,320 19,167,770
a Beginning in FY1996, appropriations for the territories and other insular areas were consolidated within the Departmental Offices account.
Departmental Offices also includes Insular Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians.
b Beginning in FY1998, Indian Education is funded in Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies appropriations laws.
c FY1997 totals $13.51 billion with funding of $386.6 million included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill (P.L. 105-18). FY2000
includes $68.0 million for the United Mine Workers and $197.5 million for priority land acquisitions and exchanges. FY2001 includes $57.9
million for the United Mine Workers.