Order Code RL31306
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated December 24, 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). On June 28, 2002, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
reported its FY2003 funding recommendations (S. 2708, S.Rept. 107-201), and on
July 17, 2002, the House passed H.R. 5093, the FY2003 Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The Senate did not pass a funding bill,
notwithstanding 10 days of debate in September, largely due to controversies over
the level of funds for, and proper management of, wildland fire fighting (see Forest
Service section).
Both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House supported more
money for DOI and related agencies than the Administration. The Senate Committee
bill contained $19.35 billion. The House-passed bill totaled $19.71 billion for
FY2003, plus a $700 million fire supplemental for FY2002, for a bill total of $20.41
billion.
For the Conservation Spending Category, the Senate Committee and the House
recommended $1.44 billion for FY2003, higher than the President’s request ($1.32
billion). The House recommended higher levels of funds for wildland fire fighting
than both the Senate Committee and the Administration. Both the Senate Committee
and the House proposed increases over FY2002 for the U.S. Geological Survey,
while the Administration proposed a sizeable decrease for that agency. The House-
passed bill also contained 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.
In addition to fire management and funding, other contentious issues during
House and Senate consideration included: drought assistance; federal recognition of
Indian tribes; the Interior Department’s role in Everglades restoration and
implementation of a flood protection plan for the “8.5 Square Mile Area” as part of
the restoration (see NPS and cross-cutting issues sections); development of oil and
gas leases off the California coast (see MMS); the automatic renewal of expiring
grazing permits and leases related to BLM and the Forest Service (see BLM); funding
for land acquisition and conservation (see cross-cutting issues); and management of
the Indian tribes’ trust funds and trust assets (see BIA section and OST).
In light of incomplete consideration of the FY2003 Interior bill, Interior and
related agencies has been operating under a series of continuing resolutions, the last
of which (P.L.107-294) provides funds at FY2002 levels, until January 11, 2003.
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS
Telephone
E-mail
Divisiona
Interior Budget
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Data/Coordinators
and Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crsloc.gov
Art, Humanities,
Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crsloc.gov
Cultural Affairs and
Historic Preservation
Bureau of Land
Carol Hardy Vincent
RSI
7-8651
chvincent@crs.loc.gov
Management
Energy Conservation
Fred Sissine
RSI
7-7039
fsissine@crs.loc.gov
Everglades Restoration
Pervaze Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
Fish and Wildlife
M. Lynne Corn
RSI
7-7267
lcorn@crs.loc.gov
Service
Forest Service
Ross W. Gorte
RSI
7-7266
rgorte@crs.loc.gov
Fossil Energy
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
Indian Affairs
Roger Walke
DSP
7-8641
rwalke@crs.loc.gov
Indian Health Service
Donna Vogt
DSP
7-7285
dvogt@crs.loc.gov
Insular Affairs
Keith Bea
G&F
7-8672
kbea@crs.loc.gov
Land Acquisition
Jeffrey Zinn
RSI
7-7257
jzinn@crs.loc.gov
Minerals Management
Marc Humphries
RSI
7-7264
mhumphries@crs.loc.gov
Service
National Park Service
David Whiteman
RSI
7-7786
dwhiteman@crs.loc.gov
Naval/Strategic
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
rbamberger@crs.loc.gov
Petroleum Reserve
Surface Mining and
Robert Bamberger
RSI
7-7240
rbamberger@crs.loc.gov
Reclamation
U.S. Geological Survey
John Justus
RSI
7-7078
jjustus@crs.loc.gov
Report Preparation and
Sandra Burr
RSI
7-7005
sburr@crs.loc.gov
Support
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Funding to Combat Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FY2001 and FY2002 Regular Appropriations to Combat Terrorism . . 6
FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Further FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Funding (P.L.107-206) . . . 7
The FY2003 Budget to Combat Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 29
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . 50
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Smithsonian, National Endowment for the Arts, and National
Endowment for the Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . 13
Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Migratory Bird Fund, FY2001-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 7. Appropriations for NPS, FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 8. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund
(FY2001-FY2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2001-FY2003 . . . 27
Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2002-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 11. Federal Wildland Fire Management Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 12. Supplemental Funds for Federal Wildland Fire Management for
FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 13. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2001-FY2003 . . . 48
Table 14. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2001-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 15. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2001-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 16. LWCF Funding: FY2000 through FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 17. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget
(FY2002-FY2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 18. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations . . . 71
Table 19. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations . . . . . . . . 74
Table 20. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1997 to FY2002 . . . . . . . . . 77
Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
Interior and related agencies are operating under a law (P.L. 107-294) that
continues funding at FY2002 levels, until January 11, 2003. Continuing funding was
needed to fund on-going projects and activities because Congress did not enact the
regular funding bill for Interior and related agencies. The Senate did not reach a vote
on final passage of an Interior bill, despite 10 days of floor debate, largely due to
controversies over wildfire funding and management.
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 (funded by Energy and Water Development
Appropriations laws), 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
7-11-02
6-28-02
(H.Rept.
7-17-02
S.Rept.
6-25-02
—
107-564) (377-46) 107-201 —
—
—
—
—
On February 4th, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget to
Congress. The FY2003 request for Interior and related agencies totaled $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, the Administration requested 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 requested
$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 have received $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
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 have added $246 million to DOI’s budget request for
FY2003 (excluding the Bureau of Reclamation). For an explanation of this proposal, see
CRS Report RL30023, Federal Employee Retirement Programs: Budget and Trust Fund
Issues.
CRS-3
million), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ($-27.1 million),
and National Park Service ($-24.5 million).
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, 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 Refuge; the Klamath Basin; and the proposed
elimination of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program. Subcommittee
hearings continued from February through April, 2002.
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 these
recommendations, and on July 11, 2002, H.R. 5093 was reported (H.Rept. 107-564).
The measure was debated in the House on July 16 and 17, and passed, amended, on
July 17, 2002 (377-46). A number of the amendments considered by the House are
discussed in the pertinent sections of this report. The House bill was sent to the
Senate and placed on the Senate calendar on July 18, 2002.
The Senate development of its Interior appropriations bill began when 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. 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 placed on the Senate calendar.
On September 4, 2002, the Senate began consideration of H.R. 5093, the House
funding bill, with the Senate version as a substitute amendment. The Senate debated
the bill for 10 days, agreeing to a number of amendments, but discontinued debate
on September 25, 2002. Controversies involving funding for, and management of,
wildfires were largely responsible for the protracted debate and lack of a vote on final
passage. There were unsuccessful attempts to invoke cloture on a wildland fire
amendment offered by Sen. Byrd (No. 4480) to provide $825 million in FY2002
emergency funds for firefighting costs. An amendment by Sen. Craig (No. 4518) on
forest thinning was a major focus of the floor debate, with no resolution. Both fire
CRS-4
amendments remained pending when the Senate discontinued debate on the bill. (For
more information, see “U.S. Forest Service” below.)
The Senate debated other contentious issues. On September 10, 2002, the
Senate adopted a second degree amendment (No. 4481) to provide an estimated $6
billion in farm disaster/drought relief assistance. (For more information, see the CRS
Electronic Briefing Book section on Farm Disaster Assistance at:
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebagr48.html].) Another controversy involved
an amendment by Sen. Dodd (No. 4522) on federal recognition of Indian tribes,
which was tabled.
Other issues that generated significant discussion during House and/or Senate
consideration included: the Interior Department’s role in Everglades restoration, and
implementation of a flood protection plan for the “8.5 Square Mile Area” as part of
the restoration (see NPS and cross-cutting issues sections); development of oil and
gas leases off the California coast (see MMS); the automatic renewal of expiring
grazing permits and leases related to BLM and the Forest Service (see BLM); funding
for land acquisition and conservation (see cross-cutting issues); and management of
the Indian tribes’ trust funds and trust assets (see BIA section and OST). Several
issues that have been the focus of attention in previous years, including funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts and energy conservation and weatherization
programs, appear to have generated less controversy in this appropriation cycle.
Both the House funding bill and the Senate version (as reported) had supported
more money for DOI and related agencies than the Administration. The Senate
Committee bill contained $19.35 billion. The House-passed bill totaled $19.71
billion for FY2003, plus a $700 million fire supplemental for FY2002, for a bill total
of $20.41 billion. For the Conservation Spending Category, the Senate Committee
and the House recommended $1.44 billion, higher than the President’s request ($1.32
billion). The House recommended higher levels of funds for wildland fire fighting
than both the Senate Committee and the Administration. Both the Senate Committee
and the House proposed increases over FY2002 for the U.S. Geological Survey,
while the Administration proposed a sizeable decrease for that agency. The House-
passed bill also contained 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.
Currently, Interior and related agencies are receiving funds at FY2002 levels,
under a continuing funding resolution (P.L. 107-294). This is the fifth law providing
interim funding for agency operations, and it extends to January 11, 2003. If a
regular appropriations law is not enacted before that time, it is likely that Congress
will enact another continuing resolution, maintaining funds at FY2002 levels.
Continuing to fund agencies at FY2002 levels during FY2003 may require
agencies to cut programs in order to absorb “mandatory” increases, such as inflation
and pay raises for federal employees that take effect in January, 2003. Further,
agencies and programs that had anticipated substantial increases in FY2003 based on
the President’s request and congressional action may be particularly hard hit by the
flat funding. For instance, the National Park Service was slated for increases for a
range of park management programs, which include resource protection, visitor
CRS-5
services, and facility operation and maintenance. The Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians sought an increase to enhance numerous trust reform activities and
meet court requirements. DOE’s Energy Star Program, while small, had been
expected to expand as recommended by the President’s national energy plan,
including increased market share for appliances, windows, and water heaters. DOE’s
weatherization program was to receive additional funding to accelerate the rate of
installation for eligible low-income households.
Perhaps the most serious effect of continued funding at the FY2002 level is the
lack of additional funds for FY2002 for wildland firefighting. The 2002 fire season
has been particularly severe, requiring the BLM and Forest Service to borrow money
from other accounts once they exhausted their budgets for fire suppression. The
President and Congress had sought additional fire funds for FY2002, particularly for
suppression, as part of the legislation providing funds for FY2003 for wildland fire
management. The supplemental funds were to be used to replace the money agencies
have borrowed from other accounts, estimated at more than $1 billion.
FY2002 and FY2001 Action
Debate on the FY2002 Interior and related agencies appropriations (P.L. 107-63)
addressed a number of controversial issues. 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 19 shows a distribution of these conservation funds for FY2001-FY2003.
CRS-6
Major Funding Trends
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1998 to FY2002
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
$13.8
$14.3
$14.9
$18.9
$19.2
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. However, they reflect rescissions.
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 18 for a comparison of
FY2001-FY2003 Interior Appropriations, and Table 20 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 $3.0 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 asserted 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 for
FY2001, P.L.107-38,2 in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on
September 11th, 2001. The $40 billion package was distributed 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
2 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States.
CRS-7
notification to the Congress. Third, a final $20 billion could be obligated only after
money was allocated in another emergency appropriations act (P.L. 107-117). For
more information on the FY2001 supplemental, see CRS Report RL31173,
Terrorism Funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations-Distribution of Funds
to Departments and Agencies.
Of the $20 billion provided by P.L. 107-38 that did not need additional
legislation, programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior and Related
agencies appropriations received $3.1 million. Specifically, there was $1.7 million
for the National Park Service, Operations of the National Park System, and $1.4
million for the U.S. Park Police (National Park Service) for emergency response
costs in New York City and Washington, D.C.3
P.L. 107-38 also required OMB to submit to Congress a proposal for the
allocation of the $20 billion that needed to be specified in another appropriations act.
The OMB submitted its $20 billion proposal on October 17, 2001. On January 10,
2002, Congress enacted P.L. 107-117, providing emergency supplemental funds for
FY2002.4 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 (P.L.107-206).
On August 2, 2002, President Bush signed into law (P.L. 107-206) the FY2002
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States. The law contained $30 billion for anti-
terrorism, defense, homeland security, and economic revitalization, and $5.1 billion
for contingent emergency spending. Included in the “contingent” amount were funds
for several agencies funded through the DOI and related agencies bills, but those
funds were not obligated. Under §1404 of P.L. 107-206, the President had 30 days
within enactment to decide whether to designate all or none of the $5.1 billion as
emergency spending in accordance with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985. The money was not to be obligated unless the President
designated it as emergency funding. On August 13th, 2002, President Bush
announced his rejection of the $5.1 billion in contingent emergency spending,
remarking that some of the money has “nothing to do with a national emergency.”
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-8
The President indicated he would seek, in a separate supplemental request, $1 billion
of the $5.1 billion for selected programs.
On September 3, 2002, President Bush submitted a supplemental FY2003
request for $1.0 billion that would fund some of the activities left unfunded when he
rejected the $5.1 billion contingent emergency appropriations for FY2002. The
request did not include funds for DOI and related agencies. (For more information
on supplemental funding, see CRS Report RL31406, Supplemental Appropriations
for FY2002: Combating Terrorism and Other Issues. For general information on
terrorism issues, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Terrorism at
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebter1.shtml].)
The FY2003 Budget to Combat Terrorism. For FY2003, the
Administration sought $37.7 billion for homeland security of which $25.2 billion was
discretionary budget authority for non-Department of Defense operations.6 Among
the categories for homeland security funding were: 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 specify the homeland security responsibilities that would be carried
out by agencies funded in the Interior and related agencies bill.
According to DOI, “additional” funding in the FY2003 budget for combating
terrorism totaled $88.8 million. The additional funding was divided among the
National Park Service, Office of the Secretary of the Interior, and Bureau of
Reclamation. Specifically, of the $88.8 million, $56.5 million was for the National
Park Service 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.” Part of the NPS funding was to be used by the U.S. Park
Police for counter-terrorism activities and to augment security in urban areas.
Another $5.6 million of the $88.8 million was for law enforcement and physical
security for the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. The remaining $26.7 million
was for the Bureau of Reclamation, which is funded in Energy and Water
Appropriations laws.
Department of Homeland Security. On November 25, 2002, a measure
(H.R. 5005) to create the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) became law (P.L.
107-296). The Department was created to coordinate federal activities related to
combating terrorism, combining and supplying transfer authority for approximately30
activities currently conducted in various departments and agencies. There is no
specific mention in the law of the transfer to the new department of any programs
funded in the Interior and related agencies bill. There was only one reference in the
House report language (accompanying H.R. 5005) to the Secretary of the Interior’s
identification of Indian tribes that perform law enforcement functions. See CRS
Report RL31493, Homeland Security: Department Organization and Management.
The Secretary of Homeland Security received certain authority to transfer
appropriations to aid in the establishment of the department (P.L. 107-294). For
6 See The Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2003, table S-5, p. 399.
CRS-9
information on transfer authority as related to the Homeland Security Department,
see CRS Report RL31514, Department of Homeland Security: Appropriations
Transfer Authority.
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.
For FY2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported $1.88 billion for
the BLM, and the House passed $1.91 billion, both increases over the
Administration’s request of $1.83 billion and over the FY2002 level ($1.87 billion).
See Table 3.
Management of Lands and Resources. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations reported $816.1 million for Management of Land and Resources,
while the House passed $826.9 million. Both levels would provide a slight increase
over the Administration’s request of $813.0 million and a more sizeable increase
over FY2002 ($775.6 million). The House rejected two floor amendments to cut this
line item by $162.2 million and $51.3 million respectively. 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 recommended $110.3 million, the
House passed $109.1 million, and the Administration sought $107.1 million. These
amounts would provide an increase over FY2002 ($99.6 million). The
Administration sought the additional funds 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 requested
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 sought to
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 House Committee on Appropriations agreed to report
language stating that no funds are included in the bill “for activity related to potential
energy development within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
CRS-10
The Senate Committee bill (§322) and the House-passed bill (§320) 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 Committee bill (§326) and the House-passed bill (§324)
provided 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 under the Senate Committee bill).
A provision in previous appropriations laws contained similar language for the
Secretary of the Interior but not for the Secretary of Agriculture. 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. The House agreed to a floor amendment to add $5 million to the Forest
Service’s grazing management account to address the backlog in processing expiring
grazing permits, particularly conducting environmental analyses.
Land Use Planning. The Senate Committee on Appropriations, the House,
and the Administration sought increased funds over FY2002 for BLM land use
planning. All BLM lands (except some in Alaska) are covered by a land use plan,
and plans are to be amended or revised as new issues arise and conditions change.
The Senate Committee recommended $48.1 million, the House approved $47.6
million, and the Administration sought $47.3 million, compared with $33.0 million
enacted for FY2002. The additional funds are to be used to initiate new land use
plans and to accelerate the development or amendment of land use plans that are
underway to reflect current conditions, requirements, and issues. The
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 reported $654.3 million, the House passed $655.3
million, and the Administration requested $653.8 million, all reductions from the
FY2002 level ($678.4 million). The House rejected a floor amendment that sought
to increase funds for wildland fire management by $23.1 million while reducing
funds for land acquisition by $36.0 million. The House passed bill also included a
$200 million fire supplemental for FY2002. 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,
CRS-11
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 sought $165.0 million, a decline of $45.0 million (21%) from
FY2002 ($210.0 million). By contrast, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
proposed an increase to $220.0 million, and the House approved an increase to
$230.0 million for FY2003. 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 recommended
$44.7 million divided among 22 projects in 11 states. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $38.7 million for 16 projects in 9 states, and the House
approved $47.5 million for 27 projects in 11 states. These FY2003 levels are a
reduction from FY2002 ($49.9 million). The money would be appropriated from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The BLM seeks to emphasize alternatives to
fee title land purchases, such as land exchanges and purchase of conservation
easements and development rights, which it asserts are less expensive approaches.
(For more information, see the “Land Acquisition” section below.)
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2001-FY2003
($ in millions)
FY2003
FY2003
Bureau of Land
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Senate
House
Management
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Passed
Management of Lands and
$753.3 $775.6
$813.0
$816.1
$826.9
Resources
Wildland Fire Management
977.1
678.4
653.8
654.3
655.3 b
Central Hazardous
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Materials Fund
Construction
16.8
13.1
11.0
13.0
11.0
Payments in Lieu of Taxes
199.6
210.0
165.0
220.0
230.0
Land Acquisition
56.5
49.9
44.7
38.7
47.5
Oregon and California
104.0
105.2
105.6
105.6
105.6
Grant Lands
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits,
and Forfeitures c
7.5
8.0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriations
2,147 a
1,873 a
$1,825
1,880
1,909 b
a Includes contingent emergency appropriations.
b Does not include a $200 million FY2002 supplemental for wildland fire management.
c The FY2003 figures of “0" reflect a recommended appropriation of $7.9 million and $7.9 million
in offsetting fees.
CRS-12
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. With the addition of some large accounts that are 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 in annual appropriations. The House-passed version was $1.40 billion.
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 the Administration’s FY2003 budget request and
$74.0 million from FY2002. The House approved $918.4 million.
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 ($132.4 million). The House approved $130.2
million. (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 while the House increased the
program to $121.4 million. The Landowner Incentive Program would increase by
$10 million to $50 million under the President’s proposal; it would be cut by $39.4
million by the Senate Committee though the House approved flat funding. 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 House supported flat
funding. The Senate Committee report is critical of this program as well, and
likewise provides only sufficient funds for its evaluation and the distribution of
CRS-13
previously appropriated funds.7 Overall, funding for the Endangered Species
program and related programs within the FWS budget would increase by 1.7%, from
$272.0 million to $276.7 million under the President’s request but would decrease
by 14.5% in the Senate Committee bill, and increase by 10.9% in the House bill.
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2001-
FY2003
($ in thousands)
FY2003
FY2003
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Senate
House
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Passed
Endangered Species Program
Candidate Conservation
$7,052
$7,620
$8,682
$9,982
$8,682
Listing
6,341
9,000
9,077
10,000
9,077
Consultation
42,750
45,501
47,770
47,970
47,770
Recovery
59,835
63,617
60,215
64,427
64,715
Subtotal
115,978
125,738
125,744
132,379
130,244
Related Programs
Cooperative Endangered
104,694
96,235
91,000
99,400
121,400
Species Conservation Fund
Landowner Incentive
4,969a
40,000
50,000
600
40,000
Program
Stewardship Grants
0
10,000
10,000
200
10,000
Total
225,641
271,973
276,744
232,579
301,644
a In 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, improvements, and activities are planned to celebrate this event. For
FY2003, the Administration, House, and Senate Committee on Appropriations
proposed overall increases for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) at
17.7%, 17.7%, and 18.4% respectively. See Table 5.8 With respect to the operations
7 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.
8 Spending for the NWRS is under the “Refuges and Wildlife” budget activity, which
includes programs which are not directly tied to the NWRS: recovery of the Salton Sea (in
California), management of migratory birds throughout the country and in cooperation with
(continued...)
CRS-14
and maintenance component of the System, the President proposed an increase of
7.6%, which the House approved. The Senate Committee recommended a 16.8%
decrease for operations and maintenance. For NWRS infrastructure improvements,
the Administration recommended $52.0 million, more than double the previous year;
the proposal was supported by the House. The Senate Committee proposed a larger
increase, to $106.7 million. The House and the Senate Committee also continued an
existing prohibition on expenditures to establish a new unit of the NWRS unless the
purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. This prohibition would not apply to creation of new refuges approved
by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, since its acquisition funds are
permanently appropriated.
Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System
($ in millions)
Refuge Program
FY2002
FY 2003
FY2003
FY2003
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Comm.
Operations and
294.0
316.5
316.5
267.2
Maintenance
Cooperative
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
Conservation Initiative
Infrastructure
23.0
52.0
52.0
106.7
Improvement
Youth Conservation
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
Corps
Challenge Cost-sharing
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
and Invasive Species
Total
319.0
375.5
375.5
377.9
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. Further, the House Committee on
Appropriations sought to assure that no funds were spent on ANWR development,
by any agency funded by the bill, by including report language stating that the bill did
not contain funds for “activity related to potential energy development within
[ANWR].” However, it 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.)
8 (...continued)
other nations, and law enforcement operations around the country. These programs are not
included here, but are contained in tables in Appropriations committee reports.
CRS-15
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 several refuges along 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 and the
House 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 requested $14.4 million for FY2003, identical to the FY2002 level;
this amount also was approved by the Senate Committee. When combined with the
receipts, the appropriation would cover 55% of the authorized full payment. The
House approved $19.4 million for the fund (about 77.1% of full payment).
Land Acquisition. For FY2003, the Administration proposed $70.4 million,
a 29.0% decrease from the FY2002 level of $99.1 million, while the Senate
Committee approved $89.0 million, and the House passed $82.2 million. For
FY2003, the Senate Committee recommended allocating 79.8% of the total to
specified refuges, while the House allocated 78.7%. 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
$1.0 million in FY2003. See Table 6. The Senate Committee and the House
rejected the proposed transfer for FY2003. The Senate recommended the FY2002
level for the Migratory Bird program, while increasing the allocation to the
conservation of tigers and rhinoceroses. The House would have increased funding
for all four subprograms as well as for the Neotropical Migratory Bird program.
CRS-16
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2001-2003
($ in thousands)
FY2003
FY2003
Multinational Species
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Senate
House
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Passed
African elephant
$999
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,200
Tiger and Rhinos
748
1,000
1,000
1,500
1,200
Asian elephant
748
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,200
Great Apes
748
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,200
Neotropical Migratory
NA
[3,000]
1,000
[3,000]
[5,000]
Birdsa
Total
3,243
4,000
5,000
4,500
4,800
a This 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 23
national heritage areas outside of the park system. Park System recreation visitors
annually total more than 285 million.
The Administration requested a total of $2.36 billion for the NPS for FY2003,
a $24.5 million decrease from the FY2002 level ($2.38 billion). See Table 7. The
CRS-17
President 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, partnership groups involved in
park support. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.37 billion for
the National Park Service, while the House approved $2.40 billion, both above the
Administration’s request.
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). The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.59 billion for park operations,
while the House approved $1.61 billion.
An environmental coalition comprised of some 27 Members of Congress and
park support and environmental groups—Americans for National Parks— sought a
$280 million increase in the NPS operating budget to fund science, resource
protection, and education programs, in addition to repair and enhancement of park
infrastructure, an Administration priority.9 The President, House, and Senate
Committee on Appropriations instead supported an increase of roughly $100 million
in operations. In addition, on October 16, 2002, the Senate agreed to a Sense of the
Senate amendment to the Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 5093) that Congress
should continue efforts to increase funding for operations of the National Park
Service and seek to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog by FY2007.
The President included funds for a proposed Cooperative Conservation Initiative
(CCI) which would provide matching funds for park projects, and some other DOI
agency projects, undertaken by nonprofit and private entities. (For more information
on CCI, see the “LWCF” section below under Cross-Cutting Topics.) The Senate
Committee on Appropriations rejected the idea of the proposed CCI asserting that the
establishment of another grant program could not be justified when many existing
needs are not being met. The House did not specify funding for the CCI as proposed,
but supported the concept of conservation partnerships.
9 Ron Tipton, Interior’s Parks Budget Inches Forward, Falls Short of Need, National Parks
C o n s e r v a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , P r e s s R e l e a s e , F e b . 4 , 2 0 0 2 ,
[http://www.eparks.org/media_center/PressReleaseDetail.asp?id=83].
CRS-18
Table 7. Appropriations for NPS, FY2001-FY2003
($ in millions)
National Park Service
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2003
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Senate
House
Comm.
Passed
Operation of the National Park
$1,386.2
$1,487.1
$1,584.6
$1,585.1
$1,605.6
System
U.S. Park Police
79.6
90.6
78.4
78.4
78.4
National Recreation and
59.8
66.2
46.8
62.8
56.3
Preservation
Urban Park and Recreation Fund
29.9
30.0
0.3
10.0
30.0
Historic Preservation Fund
94.2
74.5
67.0
67.0
76.5
Construction
300.3
387.7
322.4
361.9
325.2
Land and Water Conservation
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Fund a
Land Acquisition and
State Assistance
Assistance to States
90.3
144.0
200.0
144.0
154.0
NPS Acquisition
124.8
130.1
86.1
94.2
99.1
Total
215.1
274.1
286.1
238.2
253.1
Total Appropriations
2,135
2,380
2,356
2,373
2,395
a Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds the
construction, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. For this line item, for
FY2003 the Administration requested $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 recommended $361.9 million for NPS construction,
while the House approved $325.2 million. The Administration requested 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
recommended $533.8 million, and the House approved $537.7 million. Combined,
the Administration requested $851.8 million for construction and facility operation
and maintenance, a decrease of $15.1 million from FY2002 ($866.9). Excluding the
request for facility operation, the Administration sought some $663 million for
FY2003 for construction and facility maintenance, including annual and deferred
CRS-19
maintenance.10 Combined, the Senate Committee recommended $895.7 million,
$28.9 million above FY2002 appropriations. The House total was $862.8 million.
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 the programs
of the U.S. Park Police who operate primarily in urban park areas. The USPP also
provides investigative, forensic, and other services to support law enforcement
trained rangers working in the park units. The FY2003 request was $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 ($90.6 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 and the House both
approved $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 was $19.3 million less than FY2002 funding ($66.2 million).
The primary decreases were 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 recommended $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. The House approved $56.3 million, with a significant increase over
the request for heritage partnership programs but a sizeable decrease from the
FY2002 enacted level for 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
the President did not request funds for UPARR in FY2002, last year Congress
restored funding at $30.0 million, the same as provided in FY2001. The Senate
10 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 reported, and House passed, bills did not
breakout facility operation and maintenance separately.
CRS-20
committee recommended $10.0 million for FY2003, $20.0 million less than FY2002
Appropriations. The House approved $30.0 million.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. The FY2003 budget proposed
funding NPS Land Acquisition and State Assistance at $286.1 million, an increase
of $11.9 million over the FY2002 appropriation ($274.1 million). This included
$86.1 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, was $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 recommended $238.2 million for NPS land acquisition and state
assistance, consisting of $94.2 million for NPS federal land acquisition and $144.0
million for state land acquisition assistance. The House approved $253.1 million for
NPS land acquisition and state assistance, including $99.1 million for federal land
acquisition and $154.0 million for the state-side program.
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 distributed to other agency sites.
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. 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. Several 107th Congress bills proposed 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.
Everglades Restoration. On the House floor, two provisions of the bill
(H.R. 5093) pertaining to restoration in the Everglades and the South Florida
ecosystem were stricken when points of order were raised against them. One
provision had sought to make the DOI an equal partner on the Restoration
Coordination and Verification Team (RECOVER). RECOVER is responsible for
evaluating and assessing the performance of restoration activities implemented by the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), and recommending
improvements to this plan. According to the House Appropriations Committee
(H.Rept.107-564), the language specified that DOI would be a full partner with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on RECOVER to ensure that the DOI’s
technical experience with restoration is incorporated into the functioning of
RECOVER, and that the government’s primary interest in restoration is achieved.
The second provision had sought to allow the Corps to implement a flood
protection plan (Alternative 6D) for the “8.5 Square Mile Area” as part of the
CRS-21
Modified Waters Deliveries Project (authorized in P.L. 101-229). The Modified
Water Deliveries Project seeks to improve water deliveries to Everglades National
Park (ENP) and, to the extent possible, restore the natural hydrological conditions
within ENP. To complete this project under the current plan, land within the “8.5
Square Mile Area” would have to be acquired to be used for flood protection for the
entire community. Some of the owners are unwilling to sell their land and have
pursued legal action to prevent the acquisition of their land. If this land is not
acquired by the Corps, the Modified Water Deliveries Project as well as portions of
CERP could not be implemented under the Corps’ current plan. Legislation
authorizing CERP provides that the Modified Water Deliveries Project must be
completed before several CERP projects involving water flows on the east side of
ENP can receive appropriations (§601(b)(2)(D)(iv) of Title IV, P.L. 106-541).
Lastly, a point of order was sustained against a House floor amendment that sought
to restore the language providing for the Corps flood protection plan in the “8.5
Square Mile Area”, which included the acquisition of lands or interests in lands. All
the points of order related to legislating on an appropriations bill.
By contrast, on September 5, 2002, the Senate agreed to a floor amendment (by
unanimous consent) authorizing the Corps to implement its flood protection plan,
under Alternative 6D, for the "8.5 Square Mile Area." The amendment also specifies
that the Corps is to pay 100% of the cost of land acquisitions associated with
Alternative 6D. However, the Senate did not pass its Interior appropriations bill. For
more information on the modified water deliveries project, see CRS Report
RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project.
For information on funding for Everglades restoration, see “Everglades
Restoration” under cross-cutting issues.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.nps.gov/].
CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation, by Carol
Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman, coordinators.
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid to states (primarily through State Historic
Preservation Offices (SHPOs), certified local governments, and territories and the
Federated States of Micronesia for activities specified in the National Historic
Preservation Act. These activities include protection of cultural resources and
restoration of historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant in American
history and culture. Preservation grants are normally funded on a 60% federal- 40%
state matching share basis. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
Amendments of 2000, P.L. 106-208, reauthorized the Historic Preservation Fund
through FY2005.
The FY2003 Bush Administration’s budget would have provided $67.0 million
in funding for the Historic Preservation Fund, the same as the Senate Committee’s
recommendation. First, it recommended funding the grants-in-aid to states and
territories at $34.0 million. Second, it would have funded cultural heritage projects
for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians ($3.0 million). Third, it
CRS-22
would have funded Save America’s Treasures at $30.0 million. The budget estimate
for FY2003 was a decrease of $27.2 million from the FY2001 level ($94.2 million).
It was a decrease of $7.5 million from the FY2002 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 8.
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.
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
CRS-23
“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 recommended eliminating that one-
time grant for the National Trust. The House-passed appropriation for FY2003
included $2.5 million for the Historic Sites Fund endowment.
The recommendations of the Senate Committee on Appropriations for the
Historic Preservation Fund were identical to the FY2003 budget, providing $67.0
million in total appropriations. The House-passed bill provided $76.5 million for the
Historic Preservation Fund, $9.5 million above the budget request and $2 million
above the FY2002 enacted level. See Table 8.
Table 8. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund
(FY2001-FY2003)
($ in thousands)
FY2003
FY2003
Historic
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Senate
House
Preservation
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Comm.
Passed
Grants in aid to State
Historic Preservation
$46,495
$39,000
$34,000
$34,000
$40,000
Officesa
Tribal grants
5,560
3,000
3,000
3,000
4,000
Save America’s
34,923
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
Treasures
HBCU’s
7,161
—
—
– –
National Historic
Trust Endowment
—
2,500
—
–
2,500
grant/Historic Sites
Fund
Massillon Heritage
100
—
–
–
—
Foundation
HPF (total)
94,239b
74,500
67,000
67,000
76,500
a The term “grants in aid to States and Territories” is used in conjunction with the budget and refers
to the same program as Grants in aid to State Historic Preservation Offices.
b The FY2001 Interior appropriations law provided $14.97 million from a new Title VIII in the law,
referred to as the “Conservation Spending Category.” Funding for all programs in this category are
shown in Table 19 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.
CRS-24
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, $46.7 million
below the FY2002 enacted level of $914.0 million, with each of the Survey’s six
activities showing a decrease. The House approved $928.4 million—an increase of
$61.1 million above the request and $14.4 million over FY2002. That House amount
included $25.0 million in the conservation spending category for the USGS for State
Planning Partnerships, an amount $11.4 million more that the budget request but
equal to FY2002. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $926.7
million—an increase of $59.4 million above the request and $12.7 million above
FY2002. The Committee included $35.0 million in the conservation spending
category for State Planning Partnerships, $21.4 million above the request and $10.0
million more that FY2002. See Table 9.
National Mapping Program. For the National Mapping Program activity,
the Administration requested $129.3 million for FY2003—$4.0 million below
FY2002 ($133.3 million). Decreases of $4.8 million were proposed to eliminate
funding for national mapping improved internet access, high performance computing
and high speed communication, and urban dynamics studies. The request included
an 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 House approved $135.1 million—$5.8
million above the request and $1.8 million above FY2002. In report language, the
House Appropriations Committee strongly encouraged the USGS to make a high
priority the completion and maintenance of the digital database known as The
National Map. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $131.1
million for this program, $1.8 million above the request but $2.2 million below
FY2002. 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 FY2002 ($232.8 million). Proposed
decreases 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
CRS-25
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 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 House approved $234.7 million—$10.1 million over the request and $1.9
million more than FY2002. Increases above FY2002 were included for the National
Coastal Program, a scientific study into the impact of global dust events impacting
the continental United States, oil and gas resource assessments, and geothermal
resource assessments. Decreases targeted the Lake Mojave Study, the North Carolina
Coastal Erosion Study, the Alaska Minerals Project, the Yukon Flats Study, and
monitoring equipment at Shemya, Alaska. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $238.6 million for this program, $14.0 million above the request and
$5.8 million over FY2002. 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 ($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
with the FY2002 budget request, the FY2003 request 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 54 Water Resources Research Institutes: one in each
state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
The balance of the decreases in the President’s FY2003 budget either
discontinued funding for congressional add-ons or eliminated funding for completed
studies and projects. An increase 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.
CRS-26
The House approved $209.7 million—an increase of $31.8 million over the
request and $3.8 million more than FY2002. Increases over FY2002 were realized
for the U.S./Mexican Border Initiative, the Lake Pontchartrain Study, a Potomac
River Basin Ground Water Study, and the Long-Term Estuary Assessment. Water
Resources Research Institutes spending was restored with a small increase of +$0.4
million to $6.4 million, and the National Streamflow Information Program funding
was brought back up +$2.1 million to match its FY2002 level of $14.3 million.
Decreases targeted the Berkeley Pit, the Lake Champlain Study, Hawaii Ground
Water and the Noyes Slough. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $209.6 million for water resources investigations—$31.8 million over
the request and $3.8 million above FY2002. 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.
Biological Research. For Biological Research, the Administration requested
$160.5 million for FY2003—$5.9 million below FY2002 ($166.4 million). The
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 House approved $170.4
million for Biological Research—$9.9 million more than the request and $4.0 million
over FY2002. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $172.2
million, $11.7 million above the request and $5.8 million over FY2002. 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 request for the National Biological Information Infrastructure Program.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for management and dissemination
of scientific information. The FY2003 request of $86.1 million is $0.2 million below
the FY2002 level ($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 House approved $87.4 million—$1.3 million above the request and $1.1
million more than FY2002. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended
$85.7 million, $0.4 million below the request and $0.5 million less than FY2002.
The Senate Committee concurred with a 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.
CRS-27
Facilities Funding. Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and
repair of facilities. The President’s FY2003 budget for Facilities—$89.0
million—was slightly below FY2002 ($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 House approved $91.2
million—some $2.2 million over the request and $1.7 million above FY2002.
Increases were logged for the Center for Coastal and Regional Studies in Florida and
for the Tunison Laboratory. Decreases targeted the Leetown expansion, the
Wellsboro Laboratory, and one-time construction funds for the Coastal Center in
Florida. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $89.4 million for
Facilities, $0.4 million above the request to provide the Leetown Science Center with
funds to plan and design needed additional space at that facility.
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2001-
FY2003
($ in millions)
FY2003
FY2003
U.S. Geological
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Senate
House
Survey
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Comm.
Passed
National Mapping
Program $130.4
$133.3
$129.3
$131.1
$135.1
Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and
Processes
225.3
232.8
224.7
238.6
234.7
Water Resources
Investigations
203.5
205.8
177.8
209.6
209.7
Biological Research
160.6
166.4
160.5
172.2
170.4
Science Support
73.7
86.3
86.1
85.7
87.4
Facilities
89.2
89.4
88.9
89.4
91.2
Total
Appropriations
882.8
914.0
867.3
926.7
928.4
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.usgs.gov/].
Minerals Management Service. The Minerals Management Service
(MMS) administers two programs: the Offshore Minerals Management (OMM)
Program and the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) Program, formerly known
as the Royalty Management Program. OMM administers competitive leasing on
outer continental shelf lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas and other
minerals. MRM collects and disburses bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal
onshore and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases and Indian mineral leases. MMS
anticipates collecting about $4.2 billion in revenues in FY2003 from offshore and
onshore federal leases. Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in
which they were collected, the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, and various
designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated among the
coastal states, Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund,
and the U.S. Treasury.
CRS-28
The Administration’s proposed budget for MMS for FY2003 was $270.3
million. This budget included $6.1 million for oil spill research, and $264.2 million
for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management (including $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 $100.2 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 Senate
Committee on Appropriations supported a total of $272.7 million for MMS,
including $139.6 million for OMM and $83.3 million for MRM programs (with
$100.2 million from offsetting collections). The House approved $271.1 million for
MMS, including $138 million for OMM and $83.3 million for MRM, and would
spend $100.2 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 have been considered 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 drew congressional interest. A breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed by nine
oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in compensation for their undeveloped leases.
The companies claim that MMS failed to conduct consistency determinations
required by the court. A federal statute, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1451) was amended in 1990 to allow for consistency determinations.
Using this Act, the state of California could determine whether development of oil
and gas leases are consistent with the state’s coastal zone management plan. In 1999,
the MMS extended 36 out of the 40 leases at issue by granting lease suspensions.
However, in June 2001 the Ninth Circuit Court struck down the MMS suspensions
arguing that MMS failed to show consistency with the state’s coastal zone
management plan. The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 11,
CRS-29
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.
On July 17, 2002, the House approved an amendment to the Interior
appropriations bill to prohibit funding in the bill from being used to develop the 36
leases that were extended by the MMS. The amendment seeks a permanent
prohibition on new drilling in the contested area. On September 10, 2002, the
Senate agreed to a Sense of the Senate amendment to bar Interior bill funding for any
exploration and development of the above mentioned 36 leases.
Also, 107th Congress legislation (S. 1952) by Senators Boxer (D-CA) and
Landrieu (D-LA) sought to 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, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and the full
House all recommended a decrease in funds for OSM from the FY2002 level. The
Administration’s request for the Office of Surface Mining for FY2003—at $279.4
million—reflected a drop of $27.1 million from the FY2002 level of $306.5 million.
The Senate Committee recommended $297.1 million, and the House approved
$290.1 million.
The OSM budget has two components: Regulation and Technology programs
and Abandoned Mine Lands (AML, or Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund). For
Regulation and Technology, the Administration sought $105.4 million, an increase
of roughly $2.3 million from the FY2002 level ($103.1 million). Included in the
CRS-30
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
sought $174.0 million for FY2003, a reduction of $29.4 million from the $203.4
enacted for FY2002. Major components of this reduction include a decrease of $17
million for State and Tribal conventional AML grants, and a reduction of nearly $11
million described as a “one time reduction to Federal emergency projects.”
Both the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the full House concurred
with the Administration request of $105.4 million for Regulation and Technology.
However, the Senate 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 Senate Committee included $17.5 million for these
grants and $210,000 for federal high priority reclamation projects. The Committee
also agreed to the request of $10 million for ACSI and $1.5 million for SOAP. The
House approved $184.7 million for AML, $10.7 million more than the
Administration request, but a reduction still of $18.7 million from the FY2002
enacted level for AML. The House Committee on Appropriations specifically
rejected the Administration’s proposal to make any cuts in spending for Federal high
priority projects.
Grants to the states from annual AML appropriations are based on states’
current and historic coal production. “Minimum program states” are states with
significant AML problems, but with insufficient levels of current coal production to
generate significant fees to the AML fund. The minimum funding level for each of
these states was increased to $2 million in 1992. However, over the objection of
these states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program states
since FY1996, and the FY2003 request proposed no change. The Senate Committee
on Appropriations and the House 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
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 $2.22 billion (including supplemental
appropriations). For FY2003, the Administration proposed $2.25 billion, an increase
of 1% over FY2002. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.27
billion, an increase of 2% over FY2002 and 1% over the Administration’s proposal.
CRS-31
The House approved almost the same amount. Table 10 below presents FY2002 and
FY2003 Administration, Senate Committee, and House 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 recommended funding the full requested amount. For the
BIA office handling petitions for federal recognition of tribes (the Branch of
Acknowledgment and Research, or BAR), an activity criticized for lack of resources,
the Administration proposed an additional $0.05 million (5%) over FY2002, with
which the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed, while the House approved an
additional $0.55 million over FY2002, a 52% increase. Related to tribal recognition
(and gaming) were a House Committee provision for a study commission on Native
American policy, which was dropped by the full House, and a Senate floor proposal
to place a moratorium on BAR tribal recognition approvals or denials pending certain
procedural changes, which was tabled.
CRS-32
Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2002-FY2003
($ in thousands)
FY2003
FY2003
FY2002
FY2003
Senate Committee
Senate
House
House compared with:
Approp.
Request
compared with:
Comm.
Passed
FY2002
FY2003
FY2002
FY2003
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Operation of Indian
$1,799,809
$1,837,110
$1,859,135
3%
1%
$1,859,064
3%
1%
Programs
Tribal Priority
752,156
775,534
775,534
3%
–
780,654
4%
1%
Allocations
Contract Support Costs
130,209
133,209
133,209
2%
–
133,209
2%
–
Other Recurring
586,968
596,192
595,642
1%
–
607,196
3%
2%
Programs
School Operations
504,015
522,816
510,916
1%
(2%)
524,817
4%
–
Tribally-controlled
41,118
39,118
43,118
5%
10%
41,118
–
5%
colleges
Non-Recurring
72,798
67,510
72,360
(1%)
7%
70,824
(3%)
5%
Programs
Central and Regional
120,785
136,713
136,713
13%
–
134,258
11%
(2%)
Office Operations
Branch of
1,050
1,100
1,100
5%
–
1,600
52%
45%
Acknowledgment and
Research
CRS-33
FY2003
FY2003
FY2002
FY2003
Senate Committee
Senate
House
House compared with:
Approp.
Request
compared with:
Comm.
Passed
FY2002
FY2003
FY2002
FY2003
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Special Programs and
267,102
261,161
278,886
4%
7%
266,132
–
2%
Pooled Overhead
Public Safety and Justice
160,652
161,368
170,043
6%
5%
161,368
–
–
Construction
357,132
345,252
348,252
2%
1%
345,252
(3%)
–
Education construction
292,503
292,717
295,717
1%
1%
292,717
–
–
Land and Water Claim
60,949
57,949
57,949
(5%)
–
60,949
–
5%
Settlements and Misc.
Payments
Guaranteed Loan Program
4,986
5,493
5,493
10%
–
5,493
10%
–
Total BIA
2,222,876
2,245,804
2,270,829
2%
1%
2,270,758
2%
1%
CRS-34
Key issues for the BIA include the proposed reorganization of the Bureau’s trust
asset management functions, the movement toward greater tribal influence on BIA
programs and expenditures (especially the role of contract support costs), and
problems in the BIA school system.
BIA Reorganization. Historically, the BIA has been responsible for
managing Indian tribes’ and individuals’ trust funds and trust assets. Trust assets
include trust lands and the lands’ surface and subsurface economic resources (e.g.,
timber, grazing lands, or minerals). Management of trust funds was transferred to the
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians in 1966 (see below). In late
November 2001, the Secretary of the Interior proposed to split off BIA’s trust asset
management responsibilities into a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management
(BITAM).
In early December 2001, the Secretary requested approval from both
Appropriations Committees for a reprogramming of funds to carry out this
reorganization. The Committees did not approve the reprogramming request, instead
directing the Secretary to consult with Indian tribes. The consultation process is
continuing. The great majority of commenting tribes have opposed the BITAM
proposal and many tribes or tribal organizations have offered alternative plans.
While the BIA’s proposed FY2003 budget does not include the BITAM
reorganization proposal (or a reprogramming request), many tribes are concerned that
the Secretary may again submit a reprogramming request to Congress. The 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
CRS-35
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. Table 10 shows the
Administration, Senate Committee, and House TPA figures for FY2003
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. Table 10 shows the FY2003
contract support costs.
BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools
and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating about 48,000
students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-determination
contracts and other grants, operate 121 of these institutions; the BIA operates the
remainder. BIA schools’ key problems are low student achievement and a high level
of inadequate school facilities.
BIA students’ academic achievement, as measured by standardized tests, is on
average far below that of public school students. To improve BIA schools’ academic
performance, the Administration proposes a “School Privatization Initiative” under
which BIA-operated schools will all either become tribally operated or be privatized
by the end of FY2007. Some Indian tribes and organizations have expressed doubt
over this proposal, arguing that funding for tribally-operated schools is presently
below need and that under the initiative tribes would be forced to choose between
operating schools with inadequate resources or allowing them to be privatized. The
Senate and House Committees both opposed the proposed privatization initiative and
removed its funding.
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 10 shows FY2002 education construction appropriations, as well as the
FY2003 proposed amount, the Senate Committee recommendation, and the House-
approved amount.
CRS-36
For further information on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html].
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
Report of the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Reorganization of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior and the Appropriations
Committees of the United States Congress. [Washington: The Task Force].
August 1994.
Departmental Offices.
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988
(P.L. 100-497) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of tribal bingo and other “Class II”
operations, as well as aspects of “Class III” gaming (casinos, racing, etc.). The NIGC
could receive federal appropriations but its budget authority consisted chiefly of
annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II operations. The FY1998 Interior
Appropriations Act amended the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to increase the
ceiling for total fees the NIGC may collect to $8 million, to make Class III as well
as Class II operations subject to fees, and to increase NIGC’s authorization from $1
million to $2 million.
During FY1999-FY2002, all NIGC activities were funded from fees, with no
direct appropriations. For FY2003, however, the Administration proposed
appropriations of $2.0 million for the NIGC, in addition to the Commission’s fee
receipts of $8 million. The House agreed to the proposed amount. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended no 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.
CRS-37
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 recommended an increase for the OST to $162.0 million,
47% over FY2002. It included the same amount as the Administration for federal
trust programs and an additional $3 million for the Indian land consolidation project.
The House approved $149.3 million, an increase of 35% over FY2002 and a decrease
of 6% from the Administration’s request. The House approved the requested amount
for land consolidation ($8.0 million) but cut the requested amount for trust programs
by $9.8 million, to $141.3 million.
Indian trust funds comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by about
290 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset value of about $3.1
billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM)
accounts, in over 252,000 accounts with a total asset value of about $400 million.
(Figures are from the OST FY2003 budget justifications.) The funds include monies
received both from claims awards, land or water rights settlements, and other one-
time payments, and from income from non-monetary trust assets (e.g., land, timber,
minerals), as well as investment income.
The trust funds controversy also involves a class action lawsuit filed in 1996,
in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the federal
government by IIM account holders. The latest stage of the IIM lawsuit relates to an
historical accounting for IIM funds, to determine the amount of money owed to the
plaintiffs. The FY2001 Interior appropriations conference report, 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. Recently the district court held the Secretary of the Interior
in contempt for continuing problems in trust management reform (following a trial
on the contempt issues), but did not grant the plaintiffs’ request that the court appoint
a receiver to take over reform of IIM accounts management.
The House Appropriations Committee expressed its concern that the IIM lawsuit
was jeopardizing DOI trust reform implementation, and added a number of
provisions to the FY2003 Interior appropriations act. The provisions would limit the
CRS-38
time period to be covered by the historical accounting, require a summary of a full
historical accounting of 5 of the plaintiffs, cap the compensation of two court-
appointed officials monitoring trust reform, direct that a new OST advisory board be
appointed in accordance with the 1994 act, and authorize the Interior Secretary to
help employees pay for legal costs related to the IIM suit. The House agreed to all
these provisions except the limit on the time period for historical accounting.
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 was $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 totaled $250.6 million; for FY2003 they were 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.11
! $106.0 million in fiscal assistance to the U.S. Virgin Islands for
estimated rum excise and income tax collections, and to Guam for
income tax collections.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the remaining balance (roughly 20% to 30%) of the OIA budget. The
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:
11 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-39
! 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.
The FY2003 request of the Bush Administration sought to 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 recommended $96.1
million, a $6.1 million decrease from FY2002; the full House, $94.3 million, a
decrease of 7.8% from FY2002. Discretionary funding 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 recommended an increase of $5 million ($75.2
million) over the request for impact aid to Hawaii; the House approved $3 million
more over the request for specified projects or needs. Funding for the Compact of
Free Association (CFA) assistance account was requested to be $20.8 million. The
Senate Committee recommendation for CFA funding is $180,000 over the request
in order to repair the ship that provides food to the people of Enewetak; the House
approved an amount $300,000 over the request for purposes not specified.
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
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www.usda.gov/].
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
proposed $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 House passed a budget of $4.15 billion, $14.8 million (0.4%) more than FY2002
and $196.5 million (5%) more than requested. The House bill also included a $500
million fire supplemental for FY2002, for a FS bill total of $4.65 billion. The Senate
Committee recommended $4.03 billion, $79.2 million (2%) above the
CRS-40
Administration’s request, but $102.5 million (2.5%) below FY2002 and $617.4
million (13%) below the House-passed level.
The Senate floor debate on the Interior Appropriations bill stalled largely over
disputes about fire funding and a new program for wildfire protection. The
issues—background, funding, and new program—are discussed below.
The Administration also proposed terminating the Economic Action Program
(EAP), which includes rural community assistance and wood recycling, and the
Pacific Northwest economic assistance program. The House passed $19.9 million for
the EAP, including an allocation for the Pacific Northwest, plus $12.5 million for
EAP in the Wildfire Management account — a total of $32.4 million. This is $25.2
million below the FY2002 appropriations of $57.6 million for these two accounts.
The Senate Committee recommended $29.7 million for the EAP (with funds for the
Pacific Northwest), plus $7.5 million for EAP in Wildfire Management — a total of
$37.2 million. This was $20.4 million below FY2002 appropriations, but $4.8
million more than the House enacted.
The Administration proposed a $19.2 million (13%) cut in land acquisition, for
a total of $130.5 million. The House cut land acquisition by $3.4 million (2%) from
the FY2002 level, for a total of $146.3 million, while the Senate Committee
recommended increasing the FY2002 land acquisition budget by $7.9 million (5%),
for a total of $157.7 million. The 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. The House increased this account
by $3.9 million (6%) from FY2002, to $64.9 million, while the Senate Committee
recommended $84.9 million, an increase of $23.9 million (39%) from FY2002 levels.
Some of the Senate’s increase was offset by recommended declines in Facilities, of
$9.8 million (5%) from FY2002 and of $24.8 million (12%) from the request.
The FY2003 budget request included 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 recommended $15.0 million, but the House included no funding
for this Fund. 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.
Neither the House nor the Senate Committee included funding for Expedited
Consultations.
The Administration proposed $49.5 million, a $16.4 million (49%) increase in
the Forest Stewardship Program over FY2002 (to provide technical assistance for
managing private forests); the House passed $36.9 million, a $3.7 million (11%)
increase, and the Senate Committee recommended $34.2 million, a $1.1 million (3%)
increase. 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 House reduced this to $60.0
million, $5.0 million (8%) less than FY2002, but the Senate Committee
CRS-41
recommended increasing it 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 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 $2.24 billion.
For FY2003, the Bush Administration proposed to fund the National Fire Plan
at $2.02 billion, $216 million (10%) less than the FY2002 level. The National Fire
Plan comprises the Forest Service wildland fire program and fire fighting on DOI
lands. The DOI wildland fire monies are appropriated to the BLM. For both the
Forest Service and the BLM, for FY2003 the President requested less fire money than
was appropriated for FY2002. The Senate Committee on Appropriations agreed with
the President to reduce fire funding for FY2003. The House likewise supported a
reduction in fire funds for the BLM, but agreed to a smaller reduction from FY2002
than the Senate and the President. (See Table 11.)
CRS-42
Table 11. Federal Wildland Fire Management Funding
($ in millions)
Forest Service
BLM
Total
FY2002 Appropriated
$1,560.3
$678.4
$2,238.8
Suppression
521.3
161.4
682.7
Preparedness
622.6
280.8
903.4
Other Operations
416.4
236.2
652.6
FY2003 Approps.
(Recommended)
Administration
1,369.1
653.8
2,022.9
Suppression
420.7
160.4
581.1
Preparedness
600.7
277.2
877.9
Other Operations
347.7
216.2
563.9
House Passed
1,513.4
655.3
2,168.8
Suppression
420.7
160.4
581.1
Preparedness
640.0
278.6
918.6
Other Operations
452.8
216.3
669.1
Senate Committee
1,369.3
654.3
2,023.5
Suppression
420.7
160.4
581.1
Preparedness
600.7
277.2
877.9
Other Operations
347.9
216.7
564.6
The FS and BLM wildland fire line items include funds for fire suppression
(fighting fires), preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention,
and detection), and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel treatment, research, and state
and private assistance). The President’s FY2003 budget, and the House sought an
overall decrease in suppression funds, because they eliminated emergency contingent
funds for FY2002. (See Table 11). Specifically, the President proposed $160.4
million for the BLM for fire suppression, while the FY2002 appropriation (regular
and emergency contingent) was slightly higher—$161.4 million. For the Forest
Service, the President proposed $420.7 million in fire suppression funds, a significant
decrease from the $521.3 million (regular and emergency contingent) appropriated
for FY2002. The Senate Committee on Appropriations agreed with the President’s
and House’s proposed funding for BLM and FS fire suppression, although the
Committee figure is comprised of regular and emergency contingent funds.
For BLM fire preparedness, the President, House, and Senate Committee
recommended slight reductions from the FY2002 level of $280.8 million. For FS fire
preparedness, the President and the Senate Committee proposed a reduction of $20
million from the FY2002 level (from $622.7 million to $600.7 million), while the
House proposed an increase of $17.4 million for a total of $640.0 million.
CRS-43
For other BLM fire operations, the President, House, and Senate Committee
supported about $216 million, a reduction of about $20 million over the FY2002
regular and emergency contingent appropriation. For other FS fire operations, the
President and the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended nearly $348
million, a decrease of about $69 million over the FY2002 level (including $80
million in contingent emergency funds). By contrast, the House supported an
increase to $452.8 million, up $36.3 million from FY2002 (including $80 million in
contingency emergency funds) and $105.0 million from the President’s request. This
increase includes funding for rehabilitation and restoration, fire facilities, state fire
assistance, forest health (federal and cooperative lands), and economic action
programs (discussed briefly above).
The 2002 fire season has been severe, with conflagrations threatening towns in
Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, and elsewhere. As of September 27, wildfires had
burned 6,568,983 acres, nearly as much as in 2000, the most severe fire season since
the 1950s.12 The FS and BLM have used their FY2002 suppression funding, and
expect to expend the remaining emergency contingency funds soon.13 As a result,
Congress and the Administration have been debating an appropriation of
supplemental for FY2002 funds for wildland fires.
Specifically, the House added $700 million in FY2002 funds to the FY2003
Interior Appropriations bill for fire suppression ($500 million for FS and $200
million for BLM). In late August, the Administration requested $825 million ($636
million for FS and $189 million for BLM) to supplement the FY2002 firefighting
efforts. During Senate floor consideration of H.R. 5093, Sen. Byrd offered an
amendment (No. 4480) to add the Administration’s request to the Interior bill. (See
Table 12.) A draft substitute, widely attributed to Sen. Domenici, sought $1.25
billion ($1.0 billion for FS and $250 million for BLM), but this amendment was not
offered in the Senate. Instead, Sen. Craig offered an amendment (on behalf of
himself and Sen. Domenici) to the Byrd amendment to allow hazardous wildfire fuel
reduction projects with less environmental and public review. The introduced
amendment and various substitutes were debated sporadically from September 5
through September 25, with no resolution. The Senate twice tried to end debate on
the fire issue by invoking cloture on the Byrd amendment, but neither attempt was
successful.
Largely due to the lack of agreement on wildland fire funding and issues, the
Senate discontinued debate on the Interior appropriations bill. The Byrd and
Craig/Domenici amendments remained pending when the Senate halted debate. The
12 Data from [http://www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/nfn.html] on October 8, 2002. Note that acres
burned is widely used as an indicator of fire severity, and that more acres burned in 2000
than in any year since 1960, but that acres burned at best roughly approximates damages.
No measures exist to determine whether damages caused by the fires in 2000 were worse
than damages caused by fires in any other year since 1960 (or before).
13 Note, however, that fire suppression efforts continue even if all appropriated funds are
spent, because the agencies are authorized, under provisions in the annual appropriations
acts, to transfer any appropriations or funds for emergency firefighting and emergency
rehabilitation of burned sites.
CRS-44
House Resources Committee persisted in considering related authorizing legislation,
but none was enacted in the 107th Congress.
Table 12. Supplemental Funds for Federal Wildland Fire
Management for FY2002
($ in millions)
FY2002 Supplemental
Forest Service
BLM
Total
(Recommended)
Administration
$636.0
$189.0
$825.0
House Passed
500.0
200.0
700.0
Senate Committee
0.0
0.0
0.0
Senator Byrd Floor
636.0 189.0
825.0
Amendment
The Bush Administration also announced that it would 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 included nearly $20 million in the FS FY2003 budget request for
fireplain easements. The House Committee on Appropriations explicitly rejected this
proposal in its report on the bill; the Senate Committee report was silent on the issue,
but the Senate Committee recommendation did not include funding for the program.
For further information on the U.S. Forest Service, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www.fs.fed.us/].
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the U.S.
Forest Service, see the USDA Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at
[http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm].
CRS Report RS20822. Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS 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-45
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Department of Energy. For further information on the Department of
Energy (DOE), see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.energy.gov/].
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the DOE
or any of its bureaus, see DOE’s Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm].
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget request of $489.3 million for FY2003 for
fossil fuel research and development (R&D) is 16% less than the amount
appropriated for FY2002 ($582.8 million).14 The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended funding fossil energy programs at $641.0 million, nearly 35% higher
than the Administration. The FY2003 House approved funding level for fossil energy
R&D was even higher—$664 million. Much of the difference in funding between
Congress and the Administration is in 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, funded separately from the
other fossil R&D programs, would receive no additional appropriations, but 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 supported the President’s request of
$150 million for its CCPI but recommended a deferral of $60 million from
previously appropriated Clean Coal Technology Program funds. The House also
agreed to $150.0 million for CCPI, while deferring $50 million in CCTP funding
until FY2004 and using $14 million in unobligated funding for FY2002.
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,
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-46
supported these programs at about $48 million each. The House approved $48.2
million for natural gas and $54.9 million for petroleum technology programs. 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 recommended $27.3
million for the Fuels program, while the House supported spending $31.6 million.
Another significant difference with the Administration is the Committee’s support
for the Energy Technology Center (ETC) programs at $74.7 million versus $54.9
million for the Administration. The House approved $67.9 million for ETC
programs. 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 recommended $44.0 million. The House approved $42.0 million.
The Administration also proposed 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. Deliveries of RIK oil began in the
spring of 2002. The fill rate has varied and should average about 55,000 barrels a
day (b/d) between December 2002 and the end of FY2003.
The FY2003 budget request for the SPR was $187.7 million. This represents
an increase of $8.7 million from the appropriation for FY2002 ($179.0 million). The
request has three components. First, it included $154.9 million for storage facilities
development and operations management, and $14.0 million for management of the
SPR sites. Second, $11.0 million was included in the SPR Petroleum Account to
support the costs of transporting RIK oil to SPR sites. Third, the request included
CRS-47
$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, $16.0 million for
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 $4.0 million, transferring that money to development and operations for
the express purpose of helping to pay for injection of oil into the Reserve. The House
approved $190.9 million, essentially following the Senate model with an additional
$1 million for management.
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 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 was $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). Both the full House and 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
included another $36.0 million for the Elk Hills School Lands Fund. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations and the full House concurred. However, in the Senate
Committee and House-passed bills, the payment would be postponed until the first
day of FY2004.
For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, see its
World Wide Web site at [http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml].
CRS-48
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 proposed to decrease
conservation funding under DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) from $912.8 million in FY2002 to $901.6 million in FY2003. See
Table 13.
Table 13. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation,
FY2001-FY2003
($ in millions)
DOE Energy
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2003
Conservation
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Senate
House
Comm.
Passed
Buildings $293.3
$380.3
$408.8
$394.7
$405.3
Federal Energy Mgmt.
25.7
23.3
27.9
27.9
24.9
Industry
146.0
148.9
138.3
142.8
159.8
Power Technologies
47.3
63.8
63.9
66.9
79.7
Transportation
251.5
252.7
222.7
249.4
273.9
Policy and
43.3
43.8
40.1
40.1
44.1a
Management
R&D Subtotal
619.3
637.8
585.7
635.9
687.6
Grants Subtotal
190.6
275.0
315.9
285.8
300.0
Gross Total
809.8
912.8
901.6
921.7
987.7
Adjustments
-2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.0
Total
807.8
912.8
901.6
921.7
984.7
Appropriations
a Includes $1.0 million for a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
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/].
Senate floor action did not address the DOE Energy Conservation Program. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation of $921.7 million was $63.0
million below the $984.7 million approved by the House. Compared to FY2002, the
CRS-49
Senate Committee level would have increased the total by $8.9 million, or 1%, not
accounting for inflation. Compared to the Administration’s request, the Senate
Committee sought 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.
Compared to FY2002, the FY2003 House level of $984.7 million for DOE
energy conservation would have increased the total by $71.9 million, or 8%, not
accounting for inflation. Compared to the Administration’s request, the House
recommended an increase of $83.0 million, or 9%.
Compared to the Administration’s request, the Senate Committee sought a cut
of $37.1 million for weatherization grants and an increase of $7 million for state
grants. Transportation R&D would have increased 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 have
dropped by $3 million. Industry R&D would have increased 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 have
increased by $3 million. Buildings Research and Standards would have grown by
$16 million, including $10 million more for Equipment and $6 million more for
Technology Road Maps.
For weatherization grants, the House sought $250.0 million, a cut of $27.1
million from the FY2003 request but an increase of $20.0 million over FY2002. The
House approved $50.0 million for state energy grants, an increase of $11.2 million
over the request and $5.0 million over FY2002. Transportation R&D would have
increased by $51.2 million over the request and $21.1 million over FY2002, for a
total of $273.9 million in the House passed bill. The biggest increase in this category
is for Vehicle Technology R&D, which would have increased by $30.5 million over
the request and $24.7 million over FY2002. The House-passed bill also included
$159.9 million for the Industry Sector, an increase of $21.5 million over the request
and $10.9 million over FY2002. Power Technologies would have increased $15.9
million over the President’s request and the FY2002 level, for a House total of $79.7
million. Building Technology Assistance, approved by the House at $325.2 million,
would have decreased $16.9 million from the request but increased $28.4 million
over FY2002.
The report of the House Committee on Appropriations proposed funding for
DOE to “do a better job of measuring potential program success” through program
reviews by the National Academy of Sciences to help decide whether to expand or
scale-back programs. Also, the report directs that EERE adopt a procurement
practice to “allow full and open competition to occur, when appropriate.” Also, the
report of the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed EERE to “revise and
restructure” the budget request documents for FY2004, noting that they often lack a
complete explanation of recommended funding changes.
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS-50
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 Indian Health Service see the agency’s Internet site
at [http://www.dhhs.gov/].
Indian Health Service. The Indian Health Service (IHS) carries out the
federal responsibility of assuring comprehensive medical and environmental health
services for approximately 1.5 million to 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska
Natives (AI/AN) who belong to over 560 federally recognized tribes in 34 states.
Care is provided through a system of federal, tribal, and urban Indian operated
programs and facilities that serves as the major source of health care for AI/AN. IHS
provides direct health care services in 36 hospitals, 58 health centers, 4 school health
centers, and 44 health stations. Tribes and tribal groups, through contracts with IHS,
operate another 13 hospitals, 161 health centers, 3 school health centers, and 249
health stations, including 170 Alaska village clinics. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups
also operate 7 regional youth substance abuse treatment centers and more than 2,200
units of staff quarters.
IHS funding is separated into two Indian health budget categories: Services and
Facilities. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended a total of $2.84
billion in appropriations for FY2003, up $25 million or 1% from the President’s
request of $2.82 billion and $82 million or 3% over the FY2002 appropriation of
$2.76 billion. The House passed bill contained a total of $2.90 billion for FY2003, up
$84 million or 3% from the President’s request and $141 million or 5% over the
FY2002 appropriation. Of the Senate Committee’s total recommendation, 87% would
have provided for health services, and 13% for the health facilities program. The
House’s percentage split was 86% for health services and 14% 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 estimated that it would collect $450 million in
reimbursements, about $50 million less than was estimated for FY2002.
The Indian Health Services budget category has several subsections: clinical
services, preventive health services, and other services. Clinical services include basic
primary care inpatient and outpatient services at IHS hospitals and clinics. The
House passed a total of $2.0 billion for FY2003, up 3% or $51.2 million from the
Administration request of $1.95 billion, and $104.4 million or 6% over the FY2002
level of $1.89 billion. The Senate Committee recommended $1.96 billion for
FY2003, $36.6 million less than the House, up 1% from the request, and 4% over the
FY2002 appropriations level. Within this clinical services category, funding would
have supported programs for hospitals and clinics (Senate Committee, $1.20 billion;
House, $1.22 billion), dental health (Senate Committee, $100.1 million; House $100.3
million), mental health (both Senate Committee and House, $50.6 million), and
substance abuse treatment (both Senate Committee and House, $137.7 million).
Within the Services budget category, the House approved $483 million for contract
care, 5% over FY2002 and $15 million more than the Senate Committee
recommendation of $468 million. Contract health services are purchased services
CRS-51
from local and community health care providers when IHS cannot provide medical
care and specific services within its system.
Both the Senate Committee and the House recommended $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 and the
House accepted the President’s requested amount to include funding for public health
nursing ($39.9 million), health education in schools and communities ($11.1 million),
and immunizations ($1.6 million). The total also included the 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.
The Senate Committee recommended $403.3 million and the House, $409.2
million in funding other health related activities. Both the Committee and the House
passed bill allocated $31.5 million for off-reservation urban health projects, and $2.4
million for costs associated with providing tribal management grants to tribes. They
differed in amounts for scholarships to health care professionals; the Senate
Committee recommended $31.3 million while the House appropriated a total of $35.4
million and asked that IHS pursue a wide range of recruitment for health professionals
among the general population, not just veterans. The House also expected IHS to
implement a program to offer bonus payments to health professionals. This approach
was successful in a demonstration program in South Dakota when a tribe was able to
hire full time personnel at less cost than the cost of paying part time contract health
services.
For IHS direct operations, the technical management and tribal consultation
support, the Senate Committee recommended $57.3 million, and the House slightly
less, $56.1 million. There is a large difference in funding self-governance, however,
with the Senate Committee recommending $10.1 million, and the House approving
only $1.1 million. The House report indicated that this amount would cover the 8
positions in the self governance office because there have been no new recent self-
governance compacts and believed that funds should be transferred to other
underfunded programs.
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. Both the Senate
Committee and the House proposed that $270.7 million be used for contract support
costs.
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
transfer and consolidate 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 need greater attention than would be
CRS-52
gained by a consolidation. The Senate Committee did not agree to the consolidation,
while the House was silent on this issue.
The House concurred with the President’s request and approved $11.9 million
in retirement annuity payments for Commissioned Corps Officers while the Senate
Committee was unwilling to have the IHS budget absorb this amount. The Committee
claimed that 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 Committee, then, mandated DOD to cover these costs, but the
Committee 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 recommended $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 House approved a total
of $391.9 million for FY2003, a 6% increase over last year’s appropriation and an 8%
increase over the President’s FY2003 request.
Neither the House passed bill nor the Senate Committee agreed with several
changes put forward in the President’s budget. For example, both prohibit IHS
appropriated funds from being used in construction of sanitation facilities in new
homes funded under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The House
suggested that IHS use up to $5 million in sanitation funding to clean up dumps on
Indian lands.
For further information on the Indian Health Service, see the agency’s Internet site
at [http://www.ihs.gov/].
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation. The Office of Navajo and
Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) was reauthorized for FY1995-2000 by P.L. 104-301.
The 1974 relocation legislation (P.L. 93-531, as amended) was the end result of a
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving land originally set aside by the
federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, lands were
partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe who ended up on the other
tribe’s land were to be relocated. ONHIR classifies families as relocated when they
occupy their replacement home. Most relocatees are Navajo. A large majority of the
estimated 3,477 Navajo families formerly on the land partitioned to the Hopi have
already relocated under the Act, but the House Appropriations Committee estimates
that about 233 families (almost all Navajo) have yet to complete relocation, including
about 24 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.
CRS-53
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 recommended, and the House approved, 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.
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
CRS-54
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
reported $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.) The House-passed bill included $528.0 million for the Smithsonian, the
same as the FY2003 request and $9.1 million above the FY2002 level. For
Smithsonian’s Salaries and Expenses, the Senate Committee and the House
recommended $436.7 million, $2.0 million above the budget request for FY2003 and
$15.7 million above FY2002. See Table 14.
For the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), the Senate
Committee sought $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. The House-passed bill included $10 million for the NMAI.
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 and the House 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 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).
CRS-55
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. One large 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 recommended 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 $1.07 billion.
The House Committee on Appropriations (in report language) expressed concern
about the controversies between the Smithsonian and benefactors’ control over SI
properties and exhibits. One particular issue is the renaming of the Air and Space
Theater, replacing the name of Langley with a corporate sponsor name. The
Committee recommended reopening negotiations, and requests a review of all
benefactor agreements within the last two years. In addition, the Committee would
like further review of the practices for compensation of Smithsonian leadership.
Two of the controversies concerning the Smithsonian last year were resolved.
They involved the proposed closing of the Smithsonian Center for Materials Research
and Education (SCMRE) and the Conservation and Research Center (CRC) in Front
Royal, Virginia. On May 6, 2001, in response to objections by scientists and others,
CRS-56
the Smithsonian reversed its policy with regard to the CRC and SCMRE and
continued to maintain both centers. The FY2002 Interior Appropriations law provided
that an independent “blue ribbon” Science Commission would be established and
meet before any final decision about closing either the CRC or the SCMRE. The
direction of SI’s research priorities is still of concern to Congress.
Table 14. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2001-2003
($ in thousands)
FY2003
FY2003
Smithsonian
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
House
Senate
Institution (SI)
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Salaries and Expenses
$386,902
$420,960a
$434,660b
$436,660
$436,660
Repair, Restoration,
and Alteration of
57,473
67,900
81,300
81,300
81,300
Facilities
Construction
9,479
30,000
12,000
10,000
20,000
SI total
453,854
518,860a
527,960
527,960
537,960
a This total includes $21,707,000 contained in the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation,
P.L. 107-117, for SI’s Anti-Terrorism funding.
b This 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 recommended $118.5 million for the
NEA for FY2003, which included $19.0 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund
that NEA administers. The Senate Committee level was $2.0 million above the
FY2003 Administration request ($116.5 million), and $3.3 million above the FY2002
appropriation. The House-passed bill approved $126.5 million for NEA ($99.5
million plus $27.0 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund). The House agreed
to a floor amendment (234-192) to increase NEA by $10 million and NEH by $5
million by reducing Interior departmental management salaries and expenses. See
Table 15. 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
CRS-57
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.
The Senate Committee recommended $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). The House-passed bill approved
$131.1 million for NEH, $6.6 million above FY2002 and $5.3 million above the
FY2003 request. 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 was
to 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 would make bookkeeping simpler and reduce time-consuming and
duplicative review for the Interior Subcommittees. The FY2003 budget estimate for
OMS was $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 continually considers 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, total funding for
NEA and NEH now represents approximately 84 cents per person.
CRS-58
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 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
both the House-passed bill and the Senate Committee report for FY2003, the
language is retained that has been in previous appropriations related to funding
priorities and restrictions on grants.
Table 15. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2001-FY2003
($ in thousands)
Arts/
FY2003
FY2003
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Humanities
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Funding
Passed
Comm.
NEA
$97,785
$98,234
$99,489
$99,489
$118,489a
Challenge America
6,985
17,000
17,000
27,000
{19,000}a
Arts Fund
Subtotal NEA
104,770
115,234
116,489b
126,489
118,489
NEH grants and
104,373
108,382
109,632
114,932
111,632
administration
NEH matching
15,621
16,122
16,122
16,122
16,122
grants
Subtotal NEH
119,994
124,504
125,754c
131,054
127,754
OMS/IMLS
24,852
26,899
29,022d
d
d–
a The total for NEA grants and administration 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.
CRS-59
c The 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.
d Beginning with FY2003, the Office of Museum Services as part of IMLS is 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/].
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 (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 land acquisition. The total has more than quadrupled, rising from
a low of $138 million in FY1996 to $573 million in FY2002. Table 16 shows LWCF
appropriations for the past three years (FY2000-FY2002), the Bush Administration
requests for FY2002 and FY2003, and congressional action for FY2003.
CRS-60
Table 16. LWCF Funding: FY2000 through FY2003
($ in millions)
FY2003 FY2003
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Agency
Senate
House
Approp.
Approp. Request Approp.
Request
Comm.
Passed
BLM
$48
$56
$48
$50
$45
$39
$47
FWS 62
121
104
99
70
89
82
NPS Federal
Acquisitions a
139
125
107
130
86
94
99
NPS
Administered
41
90
450
144
200a
144
154
State Grants
FS 160
156
131
150
131
158
146
Total 450
548
840
573
532
b
524
528
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 and appropriations committees documents.
Note: In some recent years, Congress has appropriated LWCF Funds to federal agencies for purposes
other than land acquisition and stateside grants. This started when Congress provided $72 million for
other purposes in the FY1998 Interior appropriations law. Funding in FY1999 was entirely for land
acquisition. Since then, funding for other purposes has included $15 million in FY2000, $456 million
in FY2001, and $135 million in FY2002.
a This figure includes $50 million for a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative. Neither the FY2003
House nor Senate Committee bill would fund the proposed initiative.
b This total does not include $3.0 million sought by DOI for the Shivaist 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 a part of efforts to address the federal budget deficit. As this constraint
disappeared, Congress responded positively to numerous interests seeking more funds
from the LWCF. Now this constraint is forecast to return. After several years of
higher funding and the Bush Administration’s request for full funding for FY2002, the
Administration called for lower land acquisition funding levels for each of the four
agencies in FY2003. In total, the Administration sought $532 million for federal land
acquisition and state assistance grants, significantly less than appropriated for
FY2002. The Senate Committee and House passed bills provided slightly less
funding than the Administration requested—$524 million and $528 million
respectively. Like the President’s request, they also provided significantly less than
was appropriated in FY2002.
For the federal land acquisition portion of LWCF, which excludes state grants,
the Bush Administration requested $332 million for FY2003—a decrease of $97
million from FY2002. In addition, the Administration requested $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 requested $200 million for the state grant program, of which $50 million would
CRS-61
have funded 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 provided from LWCF, the
Administration sought 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 bill provided $380 million for federal land acquisition,
but does not fund the Cooperative Conservation initiative proposal. Within the NPS’s
federal land acquisitions, $19.5 million was earmarked as a grant to the State of
Florida for land acquisition. For the state conservation grant program, the Senate
Committee bill recommended $144 million, the same as the FY2002 enacted level.
The report accompanying the bill recommended greater coordination between the
FWS’s State Wildlife Grant Program and the LWCF Stateside Grant Program to
improve coordination and cooperation.
The House bill provided $374 million for federal land acquisition, but did not
fund the Cooperative Conservation initiative proposal. For the state conservation
grant program, the House bill sought $154 million. The report of the House
Appropriations Committee expressed strong support for the concept behind the
initiative, of using programs that can leverage federal funds, and identifies numerous
opportunities. It requested that the Administration’s FY2004 budget submission
include a crosscut table of partnership programs for each land management agency.
Within the NPS’s federal land acquisition, it specified using matching grants for the
Santa Monica Mountains, and expediting acquisition in the Everglades. The House-
passed bill dedicated $20.0 million of the funds provided to the NPS for land
acquisition and state assistance to the State of Florida for Everglades 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.
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
estimated that the FY2003 request totaled $1.32 billion for programs in this category,
a slight increase from FY2002 funding. The Senate Committee and House-passed
bills provided $1.44 billion.
CRS-62
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.
Everglades Restoration. The alterations of the natural flow of water by a
series of canals, levees, and pumping stations, combined with agricultural and urban
development, are thought to be the leading causes of environmental deterioration in
the South Florida ecosystem. In 1996, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to create a comprehensive plan to restore, protect, and preserve the
entire South Florida ecosystem, which includes the Everglades (P.L 104-303). A
portion of this plan—The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP),
completed in 1999—provides for federal involvement in the restoration of the
ecosystem. Congress authorized the Corps to implement CERP in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000; Title VI of P.L. 106-541). Based
on CERP and other previously authorized restoration projects, the federal government,
along with state, local, and tribal entities, is currently engaged in a collaborative effort
to restore the South Florida ecosystem.
The principal objective of CERP is to redirect and store “excess” freshwater
currently being discharged to the ocean via canals, and use it to restore the natural
hydrological functions of the South Florida ecosystem. CERP seeks to deliver
sufficient water to the natural system without impinging on the water needs of
agricultural and urban areas. The federal government is responsible for half the cost
of implementing CERP, and the other half is borne by the State of Florida, and to a
lesser extent, local tribes and other stakeholders. CERP consists of 68 projects that
are expected to be implemented over approximately 36 years, with an estimated total
cost of $7.8 billion; the total federal share is estimated at $3.9 billion.15
Restoration activities are conducted by federal agencies in the South Florida
ecosystem under CERP and other laws. For example, for FY2002, Congress
appropriated $92.8 million to the Corps for restoration work in Central and Southern
Florida, yet only $30.3 million of this total was appropriated for projects authorized
by CERP. The remaining $62.5 million was for projects authorized by other laws,
namely the Everglades National Park and Protection Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-229) and
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). From FY1993 to
FY2002, federal appropriations for projects and services related to the restoration of
the South Florida ecosystem have exceeded $1.7 billion dollars, and state funding has
15 CERP is the first stage in a three stage process to restore the Everglades. The estimated
total cost of the entire restoration effort in the Everglades (i.e., all three stages) is estimated
at $14.8 billion.
CRS-63
topped $3.6 billion.16 The average annual federal cost for restoration activities in
Southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to be approximately $286
million/year.17 For FY2003, the administration requested approximately $260 million
for restoration activities in the South Florida ecosystem, of which approximately $46
million was for the implementation of CERP.
Appropriations for restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem have been
included in several annual appropriations laws. The Department of the Interior (DOI)
and Related Agencies Appropriations laws have provided funds to several DOI
agencies for restoration projects. Specifically, DOI conducts CERP and non-CERP
activities in Southern Florida through the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). For FY2003, the DOI requested approximately $96 million for CERP
and non-CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida ecosystem. Of this
total, the NPS requested $71.6 million for land acquisition, construction, and research
activities; the FWS requested $3.4 million for activities authorized under CERP and
$8.8 million for land acquisition and ecological services; the USGS requested $12.2
million for research, planning, and the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative; and the
BIA requested $0.4 million for water projects on Seminole and Miccosukee Tribal
lands. See Table 17.
Appropriations for other restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem have
been provided to the Corps (Energy and Water Development Appropriations),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and other Related Agencies
Appropriations), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (VA, HUD, and
Related Agencies Appropriations), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations).
16 These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem. They were taken from a Cross-Cut Budget
published by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program in 1999, 2000, 2001 and
2002. Before 1993, appropriations for restoration projects in South Florida were not
organized in one source. Rather, appropriations were authorized for specific projects
throughout South Florida.
17 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.
CRS-64
Table 17. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget (FY2002-FY2003)
($ in thousands)
Agency with
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2003
Everglades Restoration
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Funds
Passed
Comm.
National Park Service
Park Operationsa $24,000
$24,001
$24,001
$24,001
Land Acquisition
15,000
20,000
20,000
19,500
Land Acquisition
N/A
2,800
2,800
2,800
Management
Modified Water Deliveries
35,199
13,295
13,295
13,295
Critical Ecosystem Studies
4,000
0
4,000
0
Initiative b
CERP
5,544
5,549
5,549
5,549
South Florida Ecosystem
1,325
1,329
1,329
1,329
Restoration Task Force
Wastewater treatment for
4,192
4,594
4,594
4,594
Everglades National Park
NPS Total
89,260
71,567
75,567
71,067
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Acquisition
8,500
6,250
5,750
2,500
CERP
3,351
3,351
3,351
3,351
Ecological Services
2,554
2,554
2,554
2,554
FWS Total
14,405
12,155
11,655
8,405
U.S. Geological Survey
Research, Planning and
8,690
8,129
8,129
8,129
Coordination
Critical Ecosystem Studies
0
4,000
0
4,000
Initiativeb
USGS Total
8,690
12,129
8,129
12,129
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Stormwater treatment on
396
396
696
396
Seminole and Miccosukee
Tribal lands
DOI TOTALS
112,751
96,247
96,047
91,997
a This includes funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park,
Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve.
b For FY2003, the Administration requested $4 million for ecosystem studies for the USGS; $4 million
was recommended by the House for the NPS and by the Senate Committee for the USGS.
CRS-65
The FY2003 request for DOI to conduct restoration activities in the South Florida
ecosystem ($96.2 million) reflected a decrease of $16.5 million from the FY2002 level
($112.8 million). The primary reduction in funding was for the Modified Water
Deliveries Project operated by the NPS, because appropriations for this project were
largely provided in prior fiscal years. The total in the House passed bill was similar
to the President’s request. The total recommended by the Senate Appropriations
Committee ($92.0 million) was somewhat lower than the President’s request primarily
because the Committee proposed less funding for FWS land acquisitions.
The Interior appropriations bills passed by the House and reported by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations provided similar levels of funding for the NPS to
conduct restoration activities in Southern Florida, with few exceptions. The $4.0
million for the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative recommended for the NPS in the
House bill was recommended for the USGS in the Senate Committee bill, and the
Senate Committee bill provided $0.5 million less for NPS land acquisitions than the
House bill. For the FWS, the Senate Committee sought $3.3 million less for FWS
land acquisition than the House. Specifically, the Committee recommended $1
million for the acquisition of lands at the J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Reserve
and $1.5 million for the National Key Deer Refuge; the House recommended $3
million and $1.5 million respectively for the same lands, as well as $1.3 million for
lands near the Pelican Bay National Wildlife Reserve. The FWS seeks to acquire
these lands on the grounds that doing so would benefit restoration activities in CERP.
For BIA, the House provided $0.3 million for water quality studies on the Seminole
Indian Reservation; these funds were not included by the Senate Committee.
There is little detailed information in either bill or report language about
appropriations recommended for the FWS, USGS, and BIA for restoration activities
in the South Florida ecosystem. Some of these restoration activities are part of larger
programs that are funded in appropriations bills. For example, the USGS proposes to
collect data, construct models, and conduct studies in South Florida that are expected
to benefit restoration activities. Some of these restoration activities fall under the
categories of water resources investigations and biological research, which are broad
activities funded by the USGS. Detailed information about these activities can be
found in agency budget justifications and in a cross-cut budget prepared by the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program [http://www.sfrestore.org].
For further information on Everglades Restoration, see the web site of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program at [http://www.sfrestore.org] and the web site
of the Corps of Engineers at [http://www.evergladesplan.org/].
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter.
CRS Report RL31621. Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze Sheikh.
CRS-66
For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL31278. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues. M.
Lynne Corn, coordinator.
CRS Issue Brief IB10094. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Legislative Issues, by M.
Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by Eugene H.
Buck and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
CRS Report 90-192. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report 97-792. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues,
by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RL31115. Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, by Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation, by Carol
Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman, coordinators.
CRS Report 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
CRS-67
Committees of the United States Congress. [Washington: The Task Force].
August 1994.
Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Report RS20002. Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30867. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resource Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Betsy A. Cody, M. Lynne
Corn, Ross W. Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, David Whiteman, and Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30335. Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Title II: Related Agencies
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RS20877. The Clean Coal Technology Program: Current Prospects, by
Carl E. Behrens.
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RS20822. Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Performance
Measures, by Ross W. Gorte (available from author).
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RS20852. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status and
Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
CRS-68
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 Interior
Department of the Interior (DOI).
[http://www.doi.gov/]
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
[http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html]
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/]
CRS-69
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
[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).
CRS-70
[http://www.ihs.gov/]
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-71
Table 18. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
(in thousands)
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003 Senate
FY2003 House
Bureau or Agency
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Committee
Passed
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
2,147,182
1,872,597
1,825,422
1,880,042
2,108,742d
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,227,010
1,276,424
1,283,364
1,282,531
1,397,891
National Park Service
2,135,219
2,380,074
2,355,561
2,373,444
2,395,139
U.S. Geological Survey
882,800
914,002
867,338
926,667
928,405
Minerals Management Service
139,221
156,772
170,327
172,427
170,826
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement
302,846
306,530
279,402
297,112
290,112
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,187,613
2,222,876
2,245,804
2,270,829
2,270,758
Departmental Offices
352,519
367,144
423,535
423,814
392,302
General Provisions
12,572
—
—
—
—
Total, Title I
9,386,982
9,496,419
9,450,753
9,626,866
9,954,175
Title II: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,435,391
4,130,416
3,948,711
4,027,880
4,645,250d
Department of Energy
1,453,644
1,766,470
1,717,241
1,830,991
1,892,643
Clean Coal Technology
-67,000
-40,000
—
-60,000
-50,000
Fossil Energy R & D
432,464
582,790
489,305
640,965
664,205
Alternative Fuels Production (rescission)
-1,000
-2,000
—
—
—
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
1,596
17,371
20,831
20,831
20,831
CRS-72
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003 Senate
FY2003 House
Bureau or Agency
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Committee
Passed
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
Energy Conservation
813,442
912,805
901,651
921,741
984,653
Economic Regulation
1,996
1,996
1,487
1,487
1,487
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)
160,637
179,009
168,856
174,856
175,856
SPR Petroleum Account
—
—
11,000
7,000
7,000
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
—
—
8,000
8,000
8,000
Energy Information Administration
75,509
78,499
80,111
80,111
80,611
Indian Health Service
2,628,766
2,759,101
2,816,406
2,841,045
2,900,621
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
14,967
15,148
14,491
14,491
14,491
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development
4,116
4,490
5,130
5,130
5,130
Smithsonian Institution
453,854
518,860
527,960
537,960
527,960
National Gallery of Art
75,485
85,335
94,449
94,449
94,449
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
33,925
38,310
33,910
33,910
33,910
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
12,283
7,796
8,488
8,488
8,488
National Endowment for the Arts
97,785
98,234
99,489
118,489
99,489
National Endowment for the Humanities
119,994
124,504
125,754
127,754
131,054
Institute of Museum and Library Services
24,852
26,899
c
c
c
Challenge America Arts Fund
6,985
17,000
17,000
—
27,000
Commission of Fine Arts
1,076
1,224
1,224
1,224
1,255
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
6,985
7,000
7,000
7,000
7,000
CRS-73
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003 Senate
FY2003 House
Bureau or Agency
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Committee
Passed
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
3,182
3,400
3,667
4,000
3,667
Natl Capital Planning Comm.
6,486
8,011
7,253
7,253
7,553
Holocaust Memorial Museum
34,363
36,028
38,663
38,663
38,663
Presidio Trust
33,327
23,125
21,327
21,327
21,327
Total, Title II: Related Agencies
9,447,466
9,671,351
9,488,163
9,720,054
10,459,950
Title VII: United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund
United Mine Workers of America Combined
Benefits Fund
57,872
—
—
—
—
Grand Total (in Bill) b
18,892,320
19,167,770
18,938,916
19,346,920
20,414,125 d
Source: House Appropriations Committee.
Notes: Figures in data column one reflect FY2001 appropriations. They include appropriations in various titles of P.L. 106-291. 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.
a 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 for FY2003, $19,522,916 for requested and $19,792,125 for House passed. The figure for Senate Committee reported is not readily available. The FY2003
request includes an adjustment of $506.0 million for retirement accruals.
b Beginning with FY2003, the Office of Museum Services as part of the IMLS is included in the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor-HHS-Education and Related Agencies.
c Figures reflect FY2002 supplemental funding of $200 million for the BLM, $500 million for the FS, and $700 million in the grand total.
d Under the Senate Committee and House passed bills, the payment will be postponed until the first day of FY2004.
CRS-74
Table 19. Conservation Spending Category: Interior
Appropriations
($ in millions)a
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
20.0
–
–
–
Monitoring
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
–
–
–
10.0
Conservation Initiative
FWS RM Cooperative
–
–
–
18.0
Conservation Initiative
CRS-75
Subcategory/Appropriations
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
Account
Enacted
Request
Enacted
Request f
NPS ONPS Cooperative
–
–
–
22.0
Conservation Initiative
USGS State Planning Partnerships
24.9
–
25.0
13.6
Subtotal Conservation Programs c
24.9
–
25.0
63.6
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
35.6
31.8
36.0
36.2
Forestry
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
CRS-76
(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 Shivaist Indian water settlement Act of 1999, which authorizes LWCF funds for the Paiute
Tribe in Utah.
c Subtotals and totals may not add due to rounding.
d $50 million of this total is part of a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative, and the remaining $150
million would be distributed to states using an allocation formula developed by the administration for
the traditional land acquisition and site development activities of states.
e For FY2001, an additional $50 million was appropriated for formula grants which were authorized
in Title IX of the FY2001 Commerce appropriations law. Further, the FY2002 enacted amount
reflects a rescission of $25.0 million.
f In FY2003, four additional programs are proposed to be funded from LWCF: FWS Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund; FWS North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; FS
Forest Legacy; and FS Forest Stewardship.
g Funds for FS, Forest Stewardship were not considered part of the CSC in FY2001 and FY2002 so
funds in those years are not counted in the column totals. Because the program is proposed to be
included in the CSC in FY2003, the requested level is included in the column total. This could tend
to exaggerate the difference between levels of CSC funding in FY2003 and earlier years.
CRS-77
Table 20. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1997 to FY2002
($ 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
CRS-78
Agency or Bureau
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
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.