Order Code RL31306
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated July 10, 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.sht
ml].


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 $18.94 billion compared to $19.17 billion enacted for
FY2002 (P.L.107-63). For agencies within DOI, the President requests a total of
$9.45 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. For the Conservation
Spending Category, the Administration requested $1.32 billion.


On June 25, 2002, the Subcommittee marked up and ordered reported to the full
Committee on Appropriations its FY2003 funding recommendations. On July 9,
2002, the Committee marked up and ordered reported to the House an amended
version of these recommendations. As of press time, the House bill and report have
not been filed. Thus, sections of this report do not detail House Committee action.
Bypassing subcommittee markup, on June 27, 2002, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations marked up and ordered reported its FY2003 funding
recommendations. On June 28, 2002, the bill was reported (S. 2708, S. Rept. 107-
201), and it is pending on the Senate calendar.
Both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees support more money for
DOI and Related Agencies than the Administration, with the Senate bill containing
$19.35 billion and the House recommendation believed to contain $20.41 billion.
Funding for conservation and firefighting were among the focuses. For the
Conservation Spending Category, the Senate and House Committees recommend
$1.44 billion, higher than the President’s request ($1.32 billion). The House
Committee recommends higher levels of funds for wildland fire fighting than both
the Senate Committee and the Administration. Both Committees propose increases
over FY2002 for the U.S. Geological Survey, while the Administration proposed a
sizeable decrease for that agency. The House Committee’s recommendation also is
believed to contain increases over the Administration’s and Senate Committee’s
levels for the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest
Service, Energy Department programs, and Indian Health Service.
Floor action may occur in either or both chambers the week of July 15.

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS
Telephone
Divisiona
Interior Budget Data/Coordinators
Carol Hardy-Vincent and
RSI
7-8651
Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
Art, Humanities, Cultural Affairs and
Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
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 Reserve
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
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
FY2002 and FY2001 Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Funding to Combat Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FY2001 and FY2002 Regular Appropriations to Combat Terrorism . . 5
FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Further FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The FY2003 Budget to Combat Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 24
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . 37
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Cross-Cutting Topics: The Land and Water Conservation Fund
and the Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . 12
Table 5. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Migratory Bird Fund, FY2001-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 6. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund
(FY2001-FY2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 7. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2002-FY2003 . . . 26
Table 8. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2001-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 9. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 10. LWCF Funding (Federal Land Acquisition Only):
FY2000 through FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 11. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations . . . 54
Table 12. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriationsa . . . . . . . . 56
Table 13. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1997 to FY2002 . . . . . . . . . 59

Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On July 9, 2002, the House Committee on Appropriations marked up and
ordered reported to the House its FY2003 funding recommendation for Interior and
Related Agencies. As of press time, the House bill and report had not been filed. In
earlier action, on June 25, 2002, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
ordered reported to the full Committee its funding recommendations. On June 27,
2002, the Senate Committee on Appropriations marked up and ordered reported its
FY2003 funding recommendations. On June 28, 2002, the bill was reported (S.
2708, S. Rept. 107-201), and it is pending on the Senate calendar.
Floor action may occur in either or both chambers the week of July 15.
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
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
6-28-02
S.Rept.
6-25-02
— — —
107-201 —




On February 4th, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget to
Congress. The FY2003 request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $18.94
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 $9.45 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, $99.5 million.
In this report, the FY2003 budget totals do not include amounts for President
Bush’s proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of federal employee pensions and
health benefits.1 The term “appropriations” generally represents total funds
available, including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as
rescissions, transfers, and deferrals. Increases and decreases generally are calculated
on comparisons between the funding levels appropriated for FY2002 and requested
by the President or recommended by Congress for FY2003. The FY2003 requests
contained some substantial changes in agencies’ budgets from the FY2002 levels.
Increases were proposed for some agencies, including the Indian Health Service
($+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 ($-46.7 million), Bureau of Land Management ($-47.2
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.
Hearings of the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee continued from
February through April, 2002.
The Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee held a hearing on June 13,
2002. Interior Secretary Norton testified, voicing similar concerns as in her House
testimony. The Secretary also emphasized that the Administration requested funds
for enhanced security measures, including $23.7 million for the National Park
Service to begin construction of enhanced security systems at the Washington
Monument and the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials.
On June 25, 2002, the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee marked up
and ordered reported to the full Committee on Appropriations its FY2003 funding
recommendations. On July 9, 2002, the Committee marked up and ordered reported
to the House an amended version of these recommendations. As of press time, the
House bill and report have not been filed. Thus, sections of this report do not have
details on House Committee action.
Bypassing subcommittee markup, on June 27, 2002, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations marked up and ordered reported its FY2003 funding
recommendations. On June 28, 2002, the bill was reported (S. 2708, S. Rept. 107-
201), and it is pending on the Senate calendar.
Both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees support more money for
DOI and Related Agencies than the Administration, with the Senate bill containing
$19.35 billion and the House recommendation believed to contain $20.41 billion.
Funding for conservation and firefighting were among the focuses. For the
Conservation Spending Category, the Senate and House Committees recommended
$1.44 billion, higher than the President’s request ($1.32 billion). The House
Committee recommended higher levels of funds for wildland fire fighting than both
the Senate Committee and the Administration. Both Committees propose increases
over FY2002 for the U.S. Geological Survey, while the Administration proposed a
sizeable decrease for that agency. The House Committee’s recommendation also is
believed to contain increases over the Administration’s requests and the Senate
Appropriations Committee’s recommendations for the Bureau of Land Management,

CRS-4
Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Energy Department programs, and Indian
Health Service.
Floor action may occur in either or both chambers the week of July 15.
FY2002 and FY2001 Action
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 12 shows a distribution of these conservation funds for FY2001-FY2003.
Major Funding Trends
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.

CRS-5
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 11 for a comparison of
FY2001-FY2003 Interior Appropriations, and Table 13 for a budgetary history of
each agency, bureau, and program from FY1997 to FY2002.
Funding to Combat Terrorism
FY2001 and FY2002 Regular Appropriations to Combat Terrorism.
It is not clear what level of funding for anti-terrorism came from the regular FY2001
and FY2002 Interior appropriations laws. 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 in FY2002 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.
FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations. 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
. 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
2 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States.

CRS-6
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.
Further FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Funding. On March 20,
2002, President Bush proposed an FY2002 supplemental appropriation of $27.1
billion for anti-terrorism, defense, homeland security and economic revitalization.
On May 24, 2002, the House passed H.R. 4775, the FY2002 Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on
the United States. With a $28.8 billion total, the bill includes funding for the
Department of Interior and related agencies that are for the most part termed
“emergency contingent appropriations” and are so designated in report language (H.
Rept. 107- 480) As delineated, appropriations include $19.3 million under National
Park Service construction for security screening facilities; $1.2 million for operation
of the Park System’s security; $25.7 million for USGS’s infrastructure mapping of
120 urban areas; $658,000 for Bureau of Land Management to pay unreimbursed law
enforcement costs for security details; $1.4 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for
security detail overtime costs; $134,000 for the BIA for security operations for Indian
programs, with a separate rescission of $5 million from the San Carlos electric power
operations for the irrigation project; $905,000 for DOI’s departmental management
salaries and expenses (for DOI’s office of homeland security and for law enforcement
costs for security details at DOI buildings); $11 million for the Smithsonian
Institution for salaries and expenses for security improvement and ongoing security;
and $2 million under Smithsonian Construction for security.
On June 7, 2002, the Senate amended and passed its version of H.R. 4775. The
Senate inserted the text of S. 2551 to be used as original text for purposes of floor
consideration. Most of the measure’s funding amounts are “emergency contingent
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-7
appropriations” and are so designated in report language (S. Rept. 107-156). With a
$31.5 billion total, the Senate version would provide $17.7 million for National Park
Service construction to enhance security at monuments; $412,000 to Fish and
Wildlife Service for reimbursement to FAA for sky marshal deployment for security;
$26.8 million for USGS, surveys, investigations and research for mapping of
strategic cities and for data disk storage and backup power for USGS’s resources data
center; a $10 million rescission from BIA from the San Carlos irrigation project for
funding no longer needed; $7 million for Departmental Offices for security
enhancement; $3.5 million for the Forest Service, capital improvement and
maintenance, to protect aircraft used for fire suppression; and $2 million for
Smithsonian construction to protect and secure collections in alcohol storage. On
June 12th, 2002 conferees were appointed.
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 did not
initially 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.
6 See The Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2003, table S-5, p. 399.

CRS-8
For FY2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reports $1.88 billion for
the BLM, a $54.6 million increase over the Administration request of $1.83 billion
and a $7.4 million increase over the FY2002 level ($1.87 billion). See Table 3.
Management of Lands and Resources. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations reports $816.1 million for Management of Land and Resources, a
slight increase over the Administration’s request of $813.0 million. Both levels
would provide an increase 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 Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $110.3 million
while the Administration seeks $107.1 million. Both amounts would provide an
increase over FY2002 ($99.6 million). The Administration seeks the additional
funds over FY2002 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.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations would provide funds over the President’s
request for permitting of geothermal energy applications, processing of wind-energy
rights of way, and the minerals at risk program (Alaska).
The Senate bill (§322) would bar funds in the bill from being used for energy
leasing activities within the boundaries of national monuments, as they were on
January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the presidential proclamations that
created the monuments. Supporters fear that the Administration could adjust the
boundaries of national monuments in order to allow energy leasing, while opponents
assert that the language would preclude development of needed energy resources. An
identical provision was enacted in FY2002.
Grazing. The Senate bill (§326) provides for the automatic renewal of grazing
permits and leases that expire, are transferred, or waived during FY2003 and that
were issued by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture. The
automatic renewal continues until the permit renewal process is completed under
applicable laws and regulations, including any necessary environmental analyses.
The terms and conditions in expiring permits or leases would continue under the new
permit or lease until the renewal process is completed (except for certain Agriculture
permits). A provision in previous appropriations laws contained similar language for
the Secretary of the Interior. In the past, this controversial provision was advocated
as necessary to address heavy agency workloads in processing the grazing permits
and leases that were up for renewal. Opponents feared that permits with possibly
detrimental terms or conditions could continue.
Land Use Planning. Both the Senate Committee on Appropriation and the
Administration seek increased funds over FY2002 for land use planning. The
Committee recommends $48.1 million, and the Administration seeks $47.3 million,
compared with $33.0 million for FY2002. The additional funds are to be used to
initiate new land use plans and to accelerate the development or amendment of land

CRS-9
use plans that are underway to reflect current conditions, requirements, and issues.
The Administration’s priority is to address issues including increased energy
development, enhanced protection from wildfire, and resolution of resource conflicts.
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.
Wildland Fire Management. For wildland fire management, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations reports $654.3 million and the Administration requests
$653.8 million, both reductions from the FY2002 level ($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). By contrast, the Senate Committee on Appropriations proposes
an increase to $220.0 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 divided among 22 projects in 11 states, while the Senate Committee
on Appropriations recommends $38.7 million for 16 projects in 9 states; both levels
are a reduction from FY2002 ($49.9 million). The money would be appropriated
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 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-10
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2001-FY2003

($ in millions)
FY2003
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Bureau of Land Management
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Management of Lands and
$753.3 $775.6
$813.0
$816.1
Resources
Wildland Fire Management
977.1
678.4
653.8
654.3
Central Hazardous Materials Fund
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Construction
16.8
13.1
11.0
13.0
Payments in Lieu of Taxes
199.6
210.0
165.0
220.0
Land Acquisition
56.5
49.9
44.7
38.7
Oregon and California Grant Lands
104.0
105.2
105.6
105.6
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.9
Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriations
2,145 a
1,873 a
$1,833
1,880
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 RL31392. 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service. For FY2003, the Administration requested $1.28
billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a slight increase (0.5%) over
FY2002 ($1.28 billion).7 With the addition of some large accounts that are
7 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,
(continued...)

CRS-11
permanently appropriated (and therefore do not require action in an annual
appropriation bill), the Administration’s proposed total FWS spending would remain
flat, at $1.94 billion. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.28
billion for FWS for FY2003.
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources
Management account. The Senate Committee recommended $924.6 million for
FY2003, up $21.0 million from Administration’s FY2003 budget request and $74.0
million from FY2002.8 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 proposed that the program remain at the FY2002 level
of $125.7 million, although its subprograms would show significant changes from
previous years. The Senate Committee rejected the proposed amount, and raised the
program by $6.6 million over FY2002. (See Table 4.)
A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are listed
or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and territories) would
decrease from $96.2 million to $91.0 million under the President’s request. The
Senate Committee recommended $99.4 million. The Landowner Incentive Program
would increase by $10 million to $50 million under the President’s proposal, but
would be cut by $39.4 million by the Senate Committee. The Senate Committee
report is critical of this program, and provides only sufficient funds for its evaluation
and the distribution of previously appropriated funds. Stewardship Grants would
remain at $10 million under the President’s proposal, but would be cut by $9.8
million by the Senate Committee. The Senate Committee report is critical of this
program as well, and likewise provides only sufficient funds for its evaluation and
the distribution of previously appropriated funds.9 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 under the President’s
request but would decrease by 15.5% in the Senate Committee bill.
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
7 (...continued)
up from $1.308 billion enacted for FY2002.
8 If the employee benefits proposal is included, these figures are, respectively, $934.7
million and $880.8 million.
9 The primary criticism of this and the Landowner Incentive Program was the amount of
time it took to issue regulations for these new programs. The extent to which this interval
is substantially longer than that for other new programs is unclear, however. There was also
a concern that the two programs may overlap existing programs.

CRS-12
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.
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2001-
FY2003
($ in thousands)
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Senate
Comm.
Endangered Species Program
Candidate Conservation
7,052
7,620
8,682
9,982
Listing
6,341
9,000
9,077
10,000
Consultation
42,750
45,501
47,770
47,970
Recovery
59,835
63,617
60,215
64,427
Subtotal
115,978
125,738
125,744
132,379
Related Programs
Cooperative Endangered
104,694
96,235
91,000
99,400
Species Conservation Fund
Landowner Incentive Program
4,969a
40,000
50,000
600
Stewardship Grants
0
10,000
10,000
200
Total
225,641
271,973
276,744
232,579
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 operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS) from $294.0 million to $316.5 million (+7.6%). The FWS Budget
Justification notes a number of activities or projects which are planned partly in light
of celebrating this event. The Senate Committee approved a decrease to $267.1
million (-16.8%). For NWRS infrastructure improvements, the Administration
recommended $52.0 million, and increase of $29.0 million over FY2002. The Senate
Committee proposed a larger increase, to $106.7 million. The Senate Committee
also continued an existing prohibition on expenditures to establish a new unit of the
NWRS unless the purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees.

CRS-13
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. (As is
usually the case, no specific earmark is provided for ANWR management (nor for
any other specific refuge) in the Senate Committee report.)
The FY2003 Budget Justification also addresses the impact on FWS law
enforcement of recent terrorist attacks in the United States. It states:
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. The President proposed $49.9 million for Law
Enforcement (up $1.5 million over FY2002), which the Senate Committee approved.
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 for FY2003, identical to the FY2002 enacted
level; this amount was also approved by the Senate Committee. 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, while the Senate
Committee approved $89.0 million. For FY2003, the Senate Committee
recommends allocating 79.8% of the total to specified refuges. (The remainder is for
acquisition management, land exchanges, emergency acquisitions, etc.). For more
information, see the “Land Acquisition” section below.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has
generated 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 proposed to move the funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. 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 5. The Senate Committee rejected the proposed
transfer for FY2003, and recommended the FY2002 level for the Migratory Bird

CRS-14
program, while increasing the allocation to the conservation of tigers and
rhinoceroses.
Table 5. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2001-2003
($ in thousands)
Multinational Species
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
Conservation Fund
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Senate
Comm.
African elephant
999
1,000
1,000
1,000
Tiger and Rhinos
748
1,000
1,000
1,500
Asian elephant
748
1,000
1,000
1,000
Great Apes
748
1,000
1,000
1,000
Neotropical Migratory
NA
[3,000]
1,000
[3,000]
Birdsa
Total
3,243
4,000
5,000
4,500
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

CRS-15
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 Senate
Appropriations Committee recommends $2.37 billion, $17.9 million above the
Administration’s request. The President has 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 proposed
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. Additional monies are included for the proposed Cooperative
Conservation Initiative (CCI) which would provide matching funds for park projects
undertaken by nonprofit and private entities. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations rejected the idea of the proposed CCI asserting that the establishment
of another grant program could not be justified when many existing needs are not
being met. The Committee recommends $1.59 billion for park operations, $500,000
more than the budget request and $98.0 million more than FY2002 appropriations.
The committee recommends a $20 million increase in basic park operations,
including; resource stewardship, visitor services, and maintenance.
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 Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommends $361.9 million for NPS construction,
$39.5 million above the budget request. 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. The Senate Committee
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].

CRS-16
recommends $533.8 million or $4.4 million more than the budget request.
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). Combined, the Senate Committee recommends $895.7 million, $28.9
million above FY2002 appropriations.
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
NPS is $4.1 billion to $6.8 billion according to the DOI Budget Office. In his
FY2002 budget, President Bush proposed to eliminate NPS 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 some law
enforcement activities of rangers with law enforcement training active throughout the
park system and the programs of the highly trained 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. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommends $78.4 million, the full
amount of the Administration’s request.
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. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $62.8 million, $3.3 million less
than FY2002, but an increase of $16.0 million above the budget request that would
mostly restore funding for the heritage partnership program and statutory and
contractual aid.
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 except for $300,000 for the administration of previously
awarded grants. This locally popular matching grant program was designed to help
low income inner city neighborhoods rehabilitate recreational facilities. Although
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 ($340.7 million). The Senate committee report did not breakout facility operation
and maintenance separately.

CRS-17
the President did not request funds for UPARR in FY2002, last year Congress
restored funding at $30.0 million, the same funding as provided in FY2001. The
Senate committee recommends $10.0 million for FY2003, $20.0 million less than
FY2002 Appropriations.
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, for inclusion within the
National Park System. The Administration’s request for Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) state assistance, a park land acquisition program for
States, is $200 million, including $50 million for grants under it’s proposed
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. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommends $238.2 million for NPS land acquisition and state
assistance, $47.8 million below the requested amount. This would include $94.2
million for NPS federal land acquisition, or $8.1 million above the budget request,
and $144.0 million for state land acquisition assistance, $56.0 million less than the
Administration’s request but the same as FY2002.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Under this
program, the four major federal land management agencies retain and spend receipts
from entrance and user fees. The receipts are available without further appropriation
for projects at the collecting sites, with a portion of the receipts distributed to other,
non-participating agency sites 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. 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’s FY2003
budget stated an intent to propose legislation to make the program permanent and
remove it from the appropriations process. An interagency task group has been
working to facilitate program coordination and develop the Administration’s
legislative initiative. Several pending bills currently propose differing forms of fee
program permanence. 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

CRS-18
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.
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 technically the authorization has been
expended.

CRS-19
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.
The recommendations of the Senate Committee on Appropriations for the
Historic Preservation Fund are identical to the FY2003 budget, providing $67.0
million in total appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund. See Table 6
below.
Table 6. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund
(FY2001-FY2003)
($ in thousands)
Historic
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
Preservation
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Senate
Comm.
Grants in aid to
State Historic
$46,495
$34,455a
$39,000
$34,000
$34,000
Preservation Offices
Tribal grants
5,560
2,600
3,000
3,000
3,000
Save America’s
34,923
30,000
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
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.

CRS-20
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 12 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
proposed a FY2003 budget of $867.3 million, a net decrease of $46.7 million below the
FY2002 enacted level of $914.0 million, with each of the Survey’s six activities showing
a net decrease in the request. In reporting its bill, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $926.7 million for Surveys, Investigations, and Research—an increase of
$59.4 million above the budget request and $12.7 million above the FY2002 enacted level
of $914.0 million.
National Mapping Program. For the National Mapping Program activity, the
Administration requested $129.3 million for FY2003—$4.0 million below the FY2002
enacted level of $133.3 million. Under this activity, decreases amounting to $4.8 million
were 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 included 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. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $131.1
million for this program, an amount $1.8 million above the budget request but $2.2 million
below the FY2002 enacted level. The Senate Committee also recommended restoring
funding for urban dynamics studies and concurred with the $1.0 million increase for digital
map products of Alaska.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For the Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activity, the Administration requested $224.6 million—a
reduction of $8.2 million below the FY2002 enacted level of $232.8 million. Proposed
decreases in this budget activity totaled $13.7 million and covered no fewer than twelve line
item programs across the three budget subactivities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and
Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments. The largest reductions were seen in the
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping program, the Alaska minerals information project,
three projects on aggregate minerals, and the Volcano Hazards program. The FY2003
budget proposed an increase of $4.0 million to the Earth Surface Dynamics program that
would have funded interdisciplinary science to meet the priority research needs of the
Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI) dealing with the Everglades National Park.
Those needs focused on three components: adaptive assessment, baseline ecosystem

CRS-21
research, and simulation models/decision support tools. Another proposed increase of $1.7
million to the Energy Resources program would have enabled the USGS to expand its
estimation of volumes of undiscovered oil and gas resources on federal lands and to produce
an updated national assessment of available geothermal resources in the United States. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $238.6 million for this program, an
amount $14.0 million above the budget request and $5.8 million over the FY2002 enacted
level of $232.8 million. The Committee did not agree with many of the program reductions
assumed in the budget request and restored a number of them (For details, see S. Rept. 107-
201, pp. 31-32). The Senate Committee also concurred with the increases for the CESI
dealing with Everglades National Park and for an updated geothermal energy resources
assessment, but did not concur with the requested increase for expanded activities in oil and
gas assessments.
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 level of $205.8 million. Decreases were 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 have
transferred $10.0 million to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and worked 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 have pursued cost-sharing from the
program’s stakeholders to maintain its current scope and schedule of data collection and
interpretation activities. The budget proposed 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 sought 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 Institutes: one in each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam.
The balance of the proposed decreases in the President’s FY2003 budget either
discontinued funding for congressional add-ons or eliminated funding for completed studies
and projects. A proposed ncrease of $1.0 million was sought 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 was to
have focused on understanding disease-causing agents in the environment and their specific
exposure pathways in water, air, and soil.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $209.6 million for water
resources investigations—$31.8 million over the budget request and $3.8 million above the
FY2002 enacted level of $205.8 million. The Committee did not concur with the proposed
reductions and restored funding for the National Water Quality Assessment Program, for
the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, for the National Streamflow Information
Program, and for the Water Resources Research Institutes. In agreement with the budget
request, the Senate Committee included $1.0 million to initiate a United States-Mexico
border health initiative.

CRS-22
Biological Research. For the Biological Research activity, the Administration
requested $160.5 million for FY2003—a decrease of $5.9 million below the FY2002
enacted level of $166.4 million. The FY2003 budget request funded 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 were
for unrequested FY2002 funding increases and congressional add-ons. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended $172.2 million for Biological Research, an
amount $11.7 million above the budget request and $5.8 million over the FY2002 enacted
level of $166.4 million. The Committee did not agree with many of the proposed
reductions, restoring, for example, the $2.8 million for fire science research along with
funding for several other activities. The Senate Committee also increased funding by some
$3.0 million above the budget request for the National Biological Information Infrastructure
Program.
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 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 was 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 was
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. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended $85.7 million for Science Support, an amount
that is $0.4 million below the budget request and $0.6 million less than the FY2002
enacted level of $86.3 million. The Senate Committee concurred with decrease of $1.6
million for accessible data transfer work but did not go along with the requested $1.0
million increase for the Enterprise GIS proposal.
Facilities Funding. The President’s FY2003 budget for Facilities funding ($88.97
million) also was below the FY2002 enacted level of $89.4 million. The proposal would
have eliminated 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. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $89.35 million for Facilities, an amount that was $0.5 million above the
budget request of $88.97 million, but slightly below the FY2002 enacted level of $89.4
million. The Committee increase provides the Leetown Science Center with funds to plan
and design needed additional space at that facility.
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

CRS-23
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 Senate Committee on Appropriations supports a total of $272.4 million for
MMS, including $139.6 for OMM and $83.3 for MRM programs (with $100.3 million from
offsetting collections).
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, 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 new 5-year leasing program (2002
-2007) went into effect July 1, 2002. MMS will conduct 20 oil and natural gas lease sales
during the five year period. Half of those sales will 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 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

CRS-24
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. The Court however upheld its decision
favoring California. The Administration has now appealed the decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals in San Francisco. 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.
In May 2002, the Administration announced its plans to buy back oil and gas leases
from Chevron, Conoco and Murphy oil companies off Pensacola, Florida for $115 million
in an area known as Destin Dome. Included in the announcement were oil and gas lease
buybacks in the Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve and the Ten
Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge that would require approval by Congress.
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 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

CRS-25
reduction of nearly $11 million described as a “one time reduction to Federal emergency
projects.”
The Senate Committee on Appropriations concurred with the Administration request
of $105.4 million for Regulation and Technology. However, the Committee recommended
$191.7 million for AML, more than restoring the $17 million cut by the Administration for
State and Tribal conventional AML grants. Specifically, the Committee included $17.5
million for these grants and $210,000 for federal high priority reclamation projects. The
Committee agreed to the request of $10 million for ACSI and $1.5 million for SOAP.
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. The Senate Committee on Appropriations concurred.
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
be roughly $1.65 billion by the end of 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 proposed $2.25 billion, an increase of 1%
over FY2002. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $2.27 billion, an
increase of 2% over FY2002 and 1% over the Administration’s proposal. Table 7 below
presents FY2002 and FY2003 figures for the BIA and its major budget components;
selected BIA programs are shown in italics. For trust management improvement, the
Administration requested a total BIA-wide increase of $34.8 million, spread across such
programs as tribal courts, probate, real estate services and appraisals, social services,
security, forestry, and executive oversight. The Senate committee recommends funding the
full requested amount. For the BIA office handling petitions for federal recognition of
tribes, an activity criticized for lack of resources, the Administration proposed the same
amount as FY2002.

CRS-26
Table 7. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2002-
FY2003

FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
Senate Comm.
Enacted
Admin.
Senate
compared with
Committee
FY2002
FY2003
Enacted
Admin.
Operation of Indian
$1,799,809
$1,837,110
$1,859,135
3%
1%
Programs
Tribal Priority
$752,156
$775,534
$775,534
3%

Allocations
Contract Support
$130,209
$133,209
$133,209
2%

Costs
Other Recurring
$586,968
$596,192
$595,642
1%

Programs
School Operations
$504,015
$522,816
$510,916
1%
(2%)
Tribally-controlled
$41,118
$39,118
$43,118
5%
10%
colleges
Non-Recurring
$72,798
$67,510
$72,360
(1%)
7%
Programs
Central and regional
$120,785
$136,713
$136,713
13%

office operations
Branch of
$1,050
$1,050
NA
NA
NA
Acknowledgment
and Research

Special Programs and
$267,102
$261,161
$278,886
4%
7%
Pooled Overhead
Public Safety and
$160,652
$161,368
$170,043
6%
5%
Justice
Construction
$357,132
$345,252
$348,252
2%
1%
Education construction
$292,503
$292,717
$295,717
1%
1%
Land and Water Claim
$60,949
$57,949
$57,949
(5%)

Settlements and Misc.
Payments

Guaranteed Loan
$4,986
$5,493
$5,493
10%

Program
Total BIA
$2,222,876
$2,245,804
$2,270,829
2%
1%
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.

CRS-27
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 Senate Appropriations Committee’s report forbids
the Secretary to implement the BITAM proposal or to use FY2003 funds for any action that
would alter the BIA’s tribal or individual trust authority.
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.
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.

CRS-28
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.
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. The Senate committee removed all funding for the
proposed privatization initiative.
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. Table 7 shows FY2002 education construction
appropriations, as well as the FY2003 proposed amount and the Senate committee
recommendation.
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

CRS-29
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 proposed appropriations of $2.0
million for the NIGC, in addition to the Commission’s fee receipts of $8 million. The
Senate Appropriations Committee does not recommend FY2003 appropriations for the
NIGC. 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 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 Administration
proposed a FY2003 budget of $159.0 million for the OST, an increase of 44% over FY2002.
Included in the FY2003 request were $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%). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends an increase in
funding for the OST to $162 million, an increase of 47% over FY2002. The committee’s
recommendation includes the same amount as the Administration for federal trust programs
and an additional $3 million for the Indian land consolidation project.
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.

CRS-30
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, and the FY2002 House and conference reports, 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 repeated the prohibition on allocating funds for an historical
accounting before submission of the plan and report. The requested report was transmitted
to the Committees in early July 2002 by the DOI’s Office of Historical Trust Accounting.
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/].
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial assistance to
the territories and three former insular areas, 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. The combined funding of
both parts for FY2002 is $353.0 million; proposed funding in the President’s FY2003
budget is $343.5 million, a reduction of $9.5 million, or 2.7%.
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; for FY2003 they are proposed to be $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, the Federated States of Micronesia, and
the Republic of Palau.12
! $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.
12 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-31
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 Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommends $96.1 million, a $6.1 million decrease from FY2002. The
FY2003 request for discretionary funding also is comprised of two parts. Funding for the
Assistance to Territories account has been requested to be funded at $70.2 million; the
Senate Committee recommends an increase of $5 million ($75.2 million) over the request
for impact aid to Hawaii. Funding for the Compact of Free Association assistance account
has been requested to be $20.8 million; the Senate Committee recommends $180,000 over
the request to repair the ship that provides food to the people of Enewetak. The request for
reductions in FY2003 funding reflect adjustments to funding for the U.S. Virgin Islands for
loan forgiveness and a utility study as well as compact impact funding for 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:
! 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.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html].
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
Department of Agriculture: 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. The Senate
Committee recommended $4.03 billion, $79.2 million (2%) above the Administration’s
request, but $102.5 million (2.5%) below FY2002 appropriations.

CRS-32
The Bush Administration proposed ending contingent emergency appropriations for
fire suppression operations ($266.0 million in FY2002) and other fire operations ($80.0
million in FY2002), while increasing regular appropriations by $165.4 million for fire
suppression operations and by $11.3 million for other fire operations. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations agreed to eliminate the contingent emergency funds for other
fire operations, but recommended shifting $290 million from fire suppression operations to
contingent emergency operations.
The Administration also proposed terminating the Economic Action Program (EAP)
and the Pacific Northwest economic assistance program. The Senate Committee
recommends $29.7 million for the EAP, to include an allocation for the Pacific Northwest;
this is $15.4 million (34%) below FY2002 appropriations.
The Administration proposed a $19.2 million (13%) cut in land acquisition, for a total
of $130.5 million, but the Senate Committee recommends increasing land acquisition by
$7.9 million (5%), for a total of $157.7 million. The budget request also proposed reducing
Infrastructure Improvement (which is used to address the nearly $7 billion deferred
maintenance backlog) by $10.1 million (17%), to $50.9 million, while the Senate
Committee recommends $84.9 million, an increase of $23.9 million (39%) from FY2002
levels. Some of this increase is offset by Senate recommended declines in Facilities, of $9.8
million (5%) from FY2002 and of $24.8 million (12%) from the Administration’s request.
The FY2003 budget request includes a new Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund, to
rapidly control invasive species problems since early aggressive efforts can reduce or
eliminate a problem while it is still small; the request is for $12.0 million, and the Senate
Committee recommends $15.0 million. The other new proposed program is $15.0 million
for Expedited Consultations, where the FS can pay another federal agency to consult on
projects that might jeopardize an endangered or threatened species; this would assure that
the other agencies’ budgets do not limit the FS’s ability to proceed on its projects. The
Senate Committee did not include funding for Expedited Consultations. The
Administration proposed $49.5 million, a $16.4 million (49%) increase in the Forest
Stewardship Program (to provide technical assistance for managing private forests); the
Senate Committee recommends $34.2 million, a $1.1 million (3%) increase. In contrast,
the Administration proposed $69.8 million, 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). The Senate Committee recommends increasing this to
$85.0 million, a $20.0 million (31%) increase above the FY2002 appropriations.
Forest Fires and Forest Health. Wildfires and efforts to halt the damage they cause
have garnered increased attention. The severe fire season in the summer of 2000 has led to
substantial debates over fire control and fire protection efforts. The discussions include
questions about funding levels and locations for various fire protection treatments, such as
thinning and prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and clearing around structures to
protect them during fires, and about whether logging and access roads help in fire control
or exacerbate conflagrations.
The severe 2000 fire season led the Clinton Administration to propose a new program,
called the National Fire Plan, which applied to BLM lands as well as to Forest Service
lands, with $1.8 billion to supplement the $1.1 billion requested before the fire season
began. Congress largely enacted the proposal for FY2001, adding money to the FY2001

CRS-33
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
(because of the less severe 2001 fire season) reduced the FY2002 National Fire Plan to
$2.27 billion.
For FY2003, the Bush Administration proposed 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 $188 million for FS and $33 million for
BLM), while the emergency contingency funds would be eliminated. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommends retaining emergency contingency funding at
$290 million for the FS and $110 million for the BLM.
The 2002 fire season has begun in earnest, with conflagrations threatening towns in
Colorado, Arizona, and elsewhere. As of July 10, wildfires had burned 3,162,249 acres,
42% more than by that date in 2000, which was the most severe fire season since 1960.13
The FS and BLM already have used their FY2002 suppression funding, and expect to
expend the remaining emergency contingency funds soon. The House Committee on
Appropriations added $700 million in FY2002 funds to its FY2003 recommendation for fire
suppression ($500 million for FS and $200 million for BLM). However, fire suppression
efforts will continue even if all appropriated funds are spent, because the agencies are
authorized, under provisions in the annual appropriations acts, to transfer any appropriations
or funds for emergency firefighting and emergency rehabilitation of burned sites.
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].
13 Data from [http://www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/nfn.html] on July 10, 2002. Note that acres
burned is widely used as an indicator of fire severity, and that more acres burned in 2000
than in any year since 1960, but that acres burned at best roughly approximates damages.
No measures exist to determine whether damages caused by the fires in 2000 were worse
than damages caused by fires in any other year since 1960 (or before).

CRS-34
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 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 $475.3 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 Senate Appropriations Committee recommends funding fossil
energy programs at $641.0 million, nearly 35% higher than the Administration. Much of
the difference is in the transportation fuels, natural gas and petroleum production
technologies.
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. The Senate Committee on Appropriations supports the President’s request
of $150 million for its CCPI but recommends a deferral of $60 million from previously
appropriated Clean Coal Technology Program funds.
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-35
Under the Administration’s request, 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. The Senate Committee on Appropriations, however, would support these
programs at about $48 million each. The Administration’s request would phase out funding
for the Fuels program, including R&D on ultra-clean fuels technology, reducing the request
to $5.0 million for FY2003 from $32.2 million in FY2002. The Senate Committee
recommends $27.3 million for the Fuels program. Another significant difference with the
Administration is the Committee’s support for the Energy Technology Center programs at
$74.7 million versus $54.9 million for the Administration. Funding levels for
Sequestration R&D, which would test new and advanced methods for greenhouse gas
capture, separation, and reuse, would increase under the Administration’s FY2003 request
by $21.8 million to $54.0 million. The Senate Committee recommends $44.0 million. The
Administration also 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.
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
was expected 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 $154.8 million for storage facilities development
and operations management, and $14 million for management of the SPR sites. Second,
$11.0 million in the SPR Petroleum Account to support the costs of transporting RIK 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.
In the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations recommended a total of $189.9
million, including $158.9 for facilities development and operations, $16 million for

CRS-36
management, $7.0 million for transporting RIK oil to the SPR, and $8 million for the
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Committee reduced the SPR Petroleum Account
by $4 million, transferring that money to development and operations for the express
purpose of helping to pay for injection of oil into the Reserve.
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 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). The Senate Committee on Appropriations supported the Administration request.
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. The Senate Committee
on Appropriations concurred.
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

CRS-37
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 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.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $921.7 million for DOE energy
conservation funding in FY2003. Compared to the FY2002 appropriation, this would be
an increase of $8.9 million, or 1%, not accounting for inflation. Compared to the
Administration’s request, the Senate Appropriations Committee seeks an increase of $20.1
million, or 2%. This is comprised of $50.2 million more for R&D and $30.1 million less
for grants. For grants, the Committee seeks a cut of $37.1 million for weatherization grants
and an increase of $7 million for state grants. Transportation R&D would increase by $26.7
million, with increases of $10 million for Combustion Engines, $9 million for Materials
Technologies, and $6.7 million for Fuels Utilization. Meanwhile, Fuel Cell funding would
drop by $3 million. Industry R&D would increase by $4.5 million, including $2 million
more for Inventions, $1.5 million more for Technical Assistance, and $1 million more for
Materials. Power Technologies would increase by $3 million. Buildings Research and
Standards would grow by $16 million, including $10 million more for Equipment and $6
million more for Technology Road Maps.
On February 28, 2002, the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee 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.
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/].

CRS-38
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 Indian health budget categories: Services and
Facilities. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended a total of $2.841 billion
in appropriations for FY2003, up $25 million or 1% from the President’s request of $2.816
billion and $82 million or 3% over the FY2002 appropriation of $2.759 billion. Of the
Senate Committee’s total appropriation recommendation, $2.466 billion or 87% would be
used for health services, and $375 million or 13% for the health facilities program. IHS
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 $450 million in reimbursements, the same amount as estimated for
FY2002.
The Senate Committee recommends that IHS use some of its increased FY 2003
funding for two items: 1) the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund is to receive $9.889
million; and 2) the Ketchikan Native Corporation is to receive $230,000 to correct a
reconciliation error that would have resulted in a decrease in the funds available to run its
health clinic.
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 outpatient services at IHS hospitals and clinics. The Senate Committee
recommends $1.960 billion for FY2003, up 1% from the Administration request of $1.945
billion, and $67.7 million or 3.6% over the FY2002 level of $1.892 billion. Within this
recommendation, funding would go to support programs for hospitals and clinics ($1.203
billion), dental health ($100.1 million), mental health ($50.6 million), and substance abuse
treatment ($137.7 million).
In addition, within the Services category, the Senate Committee recommends $468.1
million for contract health services, purchased services from local and community health
care providers when IHS cannot provide medical care and specific services within its
system. The requested amount for contract health services is 1.6% over the FY2002
appropriation of $460.8 million.
The Senate Committee recommends $103.3 million for preventive health services, the
same amount as the President’s request and 4% over the FY2002 appropriation of $99.7
million. Both the Senate Committee recommendation and the President’s request include
funding for public health nursing ($39.9 million), health education in schools and
communities ($11.1 million), and immunizations ($1.6 million). Both also include the

CRS-39
community health representatives program ($50.8 million), a tribally administered program
that supports community members who work to prevent illness and disease within their
communities.
For other services, the Senate Committee recommends $405.4 million in funding to
support health related activities. Of this amount, $4 million is to be continued for the
Telehealth Initiative in Alaska and $31.5 million is for off-reservation urban health projects.
Within this urban health budget category, the Committee wants $1 million to continue
funding for the dental program run by First Nations Community Health Sources in
cooperation with the Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute. The Committee also wants
funding for costs associated with providing tribal management grants to tribes ($2.4
million), and scholarships to health care professionals ($31.3 million).

In addition, the Senate Committee recommends funding for administration and
management costs ($57.3 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 reflected that most tribes and tribal organizations are participating in new
and expanded self-determination contracts and self-governing compacts.
The Senate Committee did not agree with the President’s proposed reductions or
transfers within the Indian Health Services account, particularly objecting to reductions in
staffing levels and travel, training, and copying costs. On another matter, the Committee
expressed concern about the Administration’s recent proposal to consolidate and transfer
IHS’s Office of Legislative Affairs to DHHS. This office handles a variety of Native
American and Alaskan Indian health service issues which are complex, require a lot of
expertise, and in the Committee’s opinion, need greater attention than would be gained by
a consolidation. The Senate Committee does not agree to the consolidation. Nor is the
Committee willing to absorb $11.9 million in retirement annuity payments for
Commissioned Corps Officers. This amount had been covered by the Department of
Defense (DOD) but last year’s defense reauthorization statute transferred the annuity
payment responsibility to the DHHS. However, no funds were transferred to IHS this year
to cover these costs. The Senate Committee, then, mandates that DOD cover these costs,
but wants funding allocated to pay for these costs in future proposals by DHHS,.
The Indian Health Facilities category includes funds for construction, maintenance, and
improvement of health and sanitation facilities. The Senate Committee recommends $374.8
million for FY 2003, a 1% increase over last year’s appropriation of $369.5 million, and a
3% increase over the President’s FY2003 request of $362.6 million for IHS health care
facilities. The Committee does not agree with several changes put forward in the President’s
budget. For example, the Senate Committee would prohibit IHS appropriated funds from
being used in construction of sanitation facilities in new homes funded under the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
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-40
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 proposed $14.5 million, a decrease of $657,000, or 4%. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommends the same amount.
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 agreements nor relocated, but has asserted that evictions should have already started.

CRS-41
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 Senate Committee on Appropriations reports
$538.0 million for the Smithsonian for FY2003, $10 million above the FY2003 Bush
Administration request of $528.0 million and $19.1 million above the FY2002 level of
$518.9 million (including a supplemental of $21.7 million for anti-terrorism.) For
Smithsonian’s Salaries and Expenses, the Senate Committee recommends $436.7 million,
$2.0 million above the budget request for FY2003, and $15.7 million above the FY2002
appropriation. For the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), the Senate
Committee would provide $20 million for construction (to help fulfill contractual
obligations), exceeding the FY2003 budget estimate by $10 million for completion of
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 Senate Committee on Appropriations concurred with the FY2003 budget request
for “repair, restoration, and alteration of facilities” ($81.3 million), which 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

CRS-42
American Art—with a projected 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.
Tracking of the Smithsonian’s Trust fund expenditures is of major concern to the
Congress. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends instituting a plan that the
Smithsonian has developed to track trust fund budget proposals and expenditures.
According to the Inspector General of the Smithsonian, there was a discrepancy between
what the Board of Regents approved for 1998 through 2000 ($699 million) compared to
actual expenditures of $1.07 billion.

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-43
Table 8. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2001-2003
($ in thousands)

FY2003
Smithsonian
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Senate
Institution (SI)
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Salaries and
$386,902
$396,200
$420,960a
$434,660b
$436,660
Expenses
Repair,
Restoration, and
57,473
67,900
67,900
81,300
81,300
Alteration of
Facilities
Construction
9,479
30,000
30,000
12,000
20,000
SI total
453,854
494,100
518,860a
527,960
537,960
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 Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $118.5 million for the NEA
for FY2003, which includes $19.0 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund that NEA
administers. The Senate Committee level is $2.0 million above the FY2003 Administration
request ($116.5 million), and $3.3 million above the FY2002 appropriation. All 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 undeserved areas. The NEA is required to
submit a detailed report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees describing the
use of funds for the Challenge America program.

CRS-44
The Senate Committee recommends $127.8 million for NEH, ($111.6 million for NEH
grants and administration + $16.1 million for matching grants) representing an increase of
$2.0 million over the FY2003 budget ($125.8 million) and $3.3 million above the 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 continues to consider 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 Fellowships, Jazz Masters and National
Heritage Fellowships in the Folk and Traditional Arts. On June 25, 1998, the Supreme

CRS-45
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. In the FY2003 Senate Committee bill,
the language is retained that has been in previous appropriations related to funding
priorities and restrictions on grants.
Table 9. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2001-FY2003
($ in thousands)
Arts/
FY2003
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Humanities
Senate
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Funding
Comm.
NEA
$97,785
$98,234
$98,234
$99,489
$118,489a
Challenge
6,985
6,985
17,000
17,000
19,000a
America Arts Fund
Subtotal NEA
104,770
105,219
115,234
116,489b
118,489
NEH grants and
104,373
104,882
108,382
109,632
111,632
administration
NEH matching
15,621
15,622
16,122
16,122
16,122
grants
Subtotal NEH
119,994
120,504
124,504
125,754c
127,754
OMS/IMLS
24,852
24,899
26,899
29,022d
d–
a The total for NEA grants and administration now includes the Challenge America program.
b The 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.
cThe 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.
dBeginning with FY2003, the 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-46
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 $453 million in FY2001. The table below shows LWCF appropriations for
federal land acquisitions for the past three years (FY2000-FY2002), the Bush
Administration requests for FY2002 and FY2003, and congressional action for FY2003.
Table 10. LWCF Funding (Federal Land Acquisition Only): FY2000
through FY2003
($ in millions)
FY2003
FY2002
FY2003
Agency
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
Senate
Request
Request
Comm.
BLM
$48
$56
$48
$50
$45
$39
FWS 62
121
104
99
70
89
NPS Federal
Acquisitions a
141
125
107
130
86
94
FS 160
151
131
150
131
158
Total 411
453
390
429
332
b
380
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.
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,

CRS-47
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; the Senate
bill provides $144 million, with no funding for the proposed 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.
Congress may lower LWCF appropriations, as it did in the early and mid 1990s, as
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. 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. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends
$380 million, which is more than the Administration requested, but less than was provided
in FY2002.
For FY2003, the Bush Administration requests funding for federal land acquisitions
at $332 million, a decrease of $97 million from FY2002. 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.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations did not support funding the proposed
initiative. The report accompanying the bill recommends greater coordination between the
FWS’s State Wildlife Grant Program and the LWCF Stateside Grant Program to improve
coordination and cooperation. Within the NPS’s federal land acquisitions, $19.5 million
is earmarked as a grant to the State of Florida for land acquisition.
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 (it also includes some coastal and marine programs funded
through Commerce appropriations). 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.

CRS-48
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 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 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. The Senate bill provides $1.44 billion
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and a
Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey Zinn.
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.
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-49
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 RL31392. 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 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-50
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.
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 Indian Affairs (BIA).
[http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html]
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-51
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/]
Insular Affairs.
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html]
Minerals Management Service (MMS).
[http://www.mms.gov/]
National Park Service (NPS).
[http://www.nps.gov/]
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.
[http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
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

CRS-52
[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/]

CRS-53
Agencies.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
[http://www.achp.gov]
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-54
Table 11. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations
($ in thousands)a
FY2003
FY2003
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Bureau or Agency
Senate
House
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Committee
Comm.c
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
2,147,182
1,872,597
1,825,422
1,880,042
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,227,010
1,276,424
1,283,364
1,282,531
National Park Service
2,135,219
2,380,074
2,355,561
2,373,444
U.S. Geological Survey
882,800
914,002
867,338
926,667
Minerals Management Service
139,221
156,772
170,327
172,427
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
302,846
306,530
279,402
297,112
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,187,613
2,222,876
2,245,804
2,270,829
Departmental Offices
352,519
367,144
423,535
423,814
General Provisions
12,572



Total, Title I
9,386,982
9,496,419
9,450,753
9,626,866
Title II: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,435,391
4,130,416
3,948,711
4,027,880
Department of Energy
1,453,644
1,766,470
1,717,241
1,830,991
Clean Coal Technology
-67,000
-40,000

-60,000
Fossil Energy R & D
432,464
582,790
489,305
640,965
Alternative Fuels

Production (rescission)
-1,000
-2,000


Naval Petroleum and Oil
Shale Reserves
1,596
17,371
20,831
20,831
Elk Hills School Lands
Fund
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
Energy Conservation
813,442
912,805
901,651
921,741
Economic Regulation
1,996
1,996
1,487
1,487
Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR)
160,637
179,009
168,856
174,856
SPR Petroleum Account


11,000
7,000
Northeast Home Heating
Oil Reserve


8,000
8,000
Energy Information
Administration
75,509
78,499
80,111
80,111
Indian Health Service
2,628,766
2,759,101
2,816,406
2,841,045
Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation
14,967
15,148
14,491
14,491

CRS-55
FY2003
FY2003
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Bureau or Agency
Senate
House
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Committee
Comm.c
Institute of American Indian
and Alaska Native Culture and
Arts Development
4,116
4,490
5,130
5,130
Smithsonian Institution
453,854
518,860
527,960
537,960
National Gallery of Art
75,485
85,335
94,449
94,449
John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts
33,925
38,310
33,910
33,910
Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars
12,283
7,796
8,488
8,488
National Endowment for the
Arts
97,785
98,234
99,489
118,489
National Endowment for the
Humanities
119,994
124,504
125,754
127,754
Institute of Museum and
Library Services
24,852
26,899


Challenge America Arts Fund
6,985
17,000
17,000

Commission of Fine Arts
1,076
1,224
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
3,400
3,667
4,000
National Capital Planning
Commission
6,486
8,011
7,253
7,253
Holocaust Memorial Museum
34,363
36,028
38,663
38,663
Presidio Trust
33,327
23,125
21,327
21,327
Total, Title II: Related
Agencies

9,447,466
9,671,351
9,488,163
9,720,054
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
19,167,770
18,938,916
19,346,920
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.
c House Committee reported figures not available at press time.

CRS-56
Table 12. 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 Conservation



22.0
Initiative
USGS State Planning Partnerships
24.9

25.0
13.6
Subtotal Conservation Programs c
24.9

25.0
63.6

CRS-57
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.
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.

CRS-58
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-59
Table 13. 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.