Order Code RL31806
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2004:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated June 2, 2003
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 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Interior Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current legislative status of the
bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists
the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
a v a i l a b l e t o c o n g r e s s i o n a l s t a f f a t :
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].

---

Appropriations for FY2004:
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 related
agencies. President Bush’s FY2004 budget for Interior and related agencies totals
$19.49 billion. In FY2003, Congress enacted (P.L.108-7) $18.96 billion, plus $825
million for wildland fire fighting efforts in FY2002, for a bill total of $19.79 billion.

For DOI agencies, the President seeks $9.76 billion, as compared with $9.40
billion for FY2003 or $9.59 billion including a portion of the supplemental fire
funds. The request provides increases over FY2003 for some DOI agencies,
including the National Park Service ($122.4 million), Fish and Wildlife Service
($41.7 million), and Bureau of Indian Affairs ($35.5 million). Other DOI agencies
would see decreases, such as the U.S. Geological Survey (-$23.8 million) and the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (-$14.0 million). For non-
DOI agencies, the President recommends $9.73 billion, whereas for FY2003
Congress enacted $9.56 billion or $10.20 billion including the rest of the
supplemental fire monies. Agencies that would receive an increase include the
Smithsonian Institution ($21.6 million), National Endowment for the Humanities
($27.1 million), and Indian Health Service ($40.0 million). By contrast, funding for
DOE programs are among those proposed for a decrease (-$36.7 million).
Controversial issues addressed during last year’s Interior bill consideration
included: fire management, stewardship contracting, wilderness in the Tongas
National Forest, development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, renewal of
grazing permits and leases, Missouri River flows, Everglades restoration, funding for
land acquisition and conservation, development of oil and gas leases off the
California coast, management of the Indian tribes’ trust funds and assets, and drought
assistance. This report will be updated following major congressional action on
Interior appropriations legislation.

---

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@crs.loc.gov
Art, Humanities,
Susan Boren
DSP
7-6899
sboren@crs.loc.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
Pervaze Sheikh
RSI
7-6070
psheikh@crs.loc.gov
a Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance; RSI =
Resources, Science, and Industry.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2004 Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 19
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . 35
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Smithsonian Institution, National Endowment for the Arts, and
National Endowment for the Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

---

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1999 to FY2003 . . . 2
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2002-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2002-FY2004 . . . . . . . . 7
Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System, FY2002-2004 . . . . . . . . 8
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Migratory Bird Fund, FY2002-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 7. Appropriations for NPS, FY2002-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 8. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2002-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2002-FY2004 . . . 17
Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 11. Federal Wildland Fire Management Appropriations,
FY2000-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 12. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2002-FY2004 . . . 34
Table 13. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2002-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 14. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2002-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 15. LWCF Funding for Federal Land Acquisition and State Grants,
FY2000-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 16. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2002-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 17. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2002-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 18. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations . . . . . . . . 57
Table 19. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2000 to FY2003 . . . . . . . . . 60

---

Appropriations for FY2004:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
The Interior Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees have held hearings throughout the Spring of 2003 on the President’s
FY2004 request. No future hearings or markups have been scheduled.
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.
In this report, 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 FY2003 and requested
by the President or recommended by Congress for FY2004.
FY2004 Budget and Appropriations
President Bush’s FY2004 budget for Interior and related agencies totals $19.49
billion. In FY2003, Congress enacted (P.L.108-7) $18.96 billion, plus $825 million
for wildland fire fighting efforts in FY2002, for a bill total of $19.79 billion.
For DOI agencies, the President seeks $9.76 billion, as compared with $9.40
billion for FY2003, or $9.59 billion including a portion of the supplemental fire

---

CRS-2
funds. The request provides increases over FY2003 for some DOI agencies,
including the National Park Service ($122.4 million), Fish and Wildlife Service
($41.7 million), and Bureau of Indian Affairs ($35.5 million). Other DOI agencies
would see decreases, such as the U.S. Geological Survey (-$23.8 million) and the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (-$14.0 million). For non-
DOI agencies, the President recommends $9.73 billion, whereas for FY2003
Congress enacted $9.56 billion, or $10.20 billion including supplemental fire monies.
Agencies that would receive an increase include the Smithsonian Institution ($21.6
million), National Endowment for the Humanities ($27.1 million), and Indian Health
Service ($40.0 million). By contrast, funding for DOE programs are among those
proposed for a decrease (-$36.7 million)
Controversial issues addressed during last year’s Interior bill consideration
included: fire management, stewardship contracting, wilderness in the Tongas
National Forest, development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, renewal of
grazing permits and leases, Missouri River flows, Everglades restoration, funding for
land acquisition and conservation, development of oil and gas leases off the
California coast, management of the Indian tribes’ trust funds and assets, and drought
assistance.
Status
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
Major Funding Trends
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1999 to
FY2003
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
$14.3
$14.9
$18.9
$19.2
$19.0
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. However, they reflect rescissions.
During the ten-year period from FY1994 to FY2003, Interior and related
agencies appropriations increased by 42% in current dollars, from $13.4 billion to
$19.0 billion (excluding $825 million for wildland fire emergencies to repay amounts
transferred from other accounts for fire fighting for FY2002). Most of the growth
occurred during the latter years. For instance, during the five-year period from
FY1994 to FY1998, appropriations increased by 3% in current dollars, from $13.4

---

CRS-3
billion to $13.8 billion. By contrast, during the most recent five years, from FY1999
to FY2003, funding increased by 33% in current dollars, from $14.3 billion to $19.0
billion. 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. Much of the increase was provided to land management agencies
for land conservation and wildland fire management. See Table 17 for a comparison
of FY2002-FY2004 Interior Appropriations, and Table 19 for a budgetary history of
each agency, bureau, and program from FY2000 to FY2003.
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 FY2004, the Administration requested $1.70 billion for the BLM, while for
FY2003 Congress enacted $2.06 billion. This apparent significant decrease in
agency funds is attributable to the inclusion in the FY2003 appropriations law of two
large sums for activities not retained in the FY2004 BLM budget: $189.0 million to
repay transfers from other appropriations for fire fighting in FY2002, and $218.6
million appropriated for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program, which the
Administration proposes to transfer from the BLM to Departmental Management in
DOI. (See below.) Excluding these extra fire funds would reduce the FY2003
appropriation to $1.87 billion; excluding the PILT monies would further reduce the
FY2003 amount to $1.65 billion. See Table 3.
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the Administration requests $828.1 million, an increase of $7.7 million
(1%) over the FY2003 enacted level ($820.3 million). This line item funds an array
of BLM land programs, including protection, recreational use, improvement,
development, disposal, and general BLM administration. While the Administration
proposes to fund most land and resource activities at levels similar to those enacted
for FY2003, it recommends a boost for some programs and a decrease for others. For
instance, BLM seeks a sizeable increase — $6.9 million (11.5%) — to manage
recreation on its lands. Additional funds are targeted for travel and transportation
management and improving visitor services. The agency also seeks to expand the
Challenge Cost Share Program by $7.1 million (51.1%). This program uses federal

---

CRS-4
money to leverage state and private funding for conservation efforts that benefit BLM
lands.
By contrast, the agency would reduce funds for realty and ownership
management by $7.7 million (8.7%), including decreases for land conveyances in
Alaska; cadastral surveys, which identify the boundaries of federal lands; and
management programs, through which BLM authorizes uses of public lands. BLM
also seeks a decrease for transportation and facilities maintenance, which funds
annual and deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvement.
A number of controversial issues affecting BLM management of its lands and
resources have been debated in recent years during consideration of agency
appropriations. Among them are funding for the energy and minerals program,
including potential energy development within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) and within presidentially-proclaimed national monuments; rights of way
across federal land; development of new land use plans and amendment of existing
ones; and renewal of expiring grazing permits and leases.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2004,
the Administration requests $698.7 million. For FY2003, Congress enacted $650.2
million, plus an additional $189.0 million (for a total of $839.2 million) to repay
amounts transferred from other accounts for fire fighting during 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, which emphasizes reducing hazardous fuels,
among other provisions. (For more information, see “U.S. Forest Service” below.)
The FY2004 request seeks an increase over the FY2003 enacted levels for all
three components of wildland fire management: suppression, preparedness, and
other operations. The largest increase is sought for suppression funds, which are
used to fight fires — $195.3 million for FY2004 as compared with $159.3 million
enacted for FY2003. The request would fund the full cost of the 10-year average cost
of fire suppression, according to the BLM Budget Justification for FY2004. In
seeking increased suppression funds, the Administration hopes to minimize the
necessity of transferring funds from other accounts to fight fires, which has been the
typical practice in the past. Beginning in FY2004, BLM seeks to pay for emergency
stabilization of severely burned areas, or those damaged by suppression, out of
suppression funding. While seeking higher suppression funds for FY2004, the
Administration is not seeking separate contingent or emergency funds which have
been appropriated in the past for fire suppression. The FY2004 request also seeks
an increase for preparedness, which covers equipment, training, personnel,
prevention, and detection. Additional monies are targeted for rising contract costs
of aircraft used in the fire program. Finally, a more modest increase is proposed for
other operations, which covers rehabilitation of burned lands, hazardous fuel
reduction, and rural fire assistance.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). The PILT program
compensates local governments for federal land within their jurisdictions because

---

CRS-5
federally-owned land is not taxed. In FY2004, the Administration proposes to shift
the program from the BLM budget to Departmental Management in DOI because
PILT payments are made for lands of the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, and Forest Service, in addition to the BLM. Under Departmental
Management, the Administration seeks $200.0 million for PILT, a reduction of $18.6
million (8.5%) from the FY2003 enacted level ($218.6 million). The Administration
asserts that these lands vary in the extent to which they “burden” local governments,
and plans this year to examine the PILT distribution formula to determine if changes
are needed to achieve a more equitable distribution of payments to local
governments. The PILT program has been controversial because in recent years
appropriations have been substantially less than authorized amounts.
Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition, the Administration seeks $23.7
million for FY2004, a large reduction ($9.5 million, 28.7 %) from the FY2003
enacted level ($33.2 million). The request would fund 18 projects in 10 states. The
BLM seeks to emphasize alternatives to fee title land purchases, such as land
exchanges and purchase of conservation easements and development rights, which
it asserts are less expensive approaches. The money would be appropriated from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “Land
Acquisition” section below.)
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2002-FY2004

($ in millions)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Bureau of Land Management
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Management of Lands and
$775.6
$820.3
$828.1
Resources
Wildland Fire Management
678.4
650.2 d
698.7
Central Hazardous Materials Fund
10.0
9.9
10.0
Construction
13.1
11.9
11.0
Payments in Lieu of Taxes a
[210.0]
[218.6]
[200.0]
Land Acquisition
49.9
33.2
23.7
Oregon and California Grant Lands
105.2
104.9
106.7
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeitures b
8.0
0
0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriations a
1,663 c
1,653
1,701
a Funds for the PILT program are not reflected in column totals because of the Administration’s
FY2004 request to transfer the program out of BLM to DOI Departmental Management.
b The FY2003 and FY2004 figures of “0" are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
c Includes contingent emergency appropriations.
d Does not include $189.0 million enacted in the FY2003 appropriations law to replace monies
borrowed from other accounts in FY2002 for fire fighting.

---

CRS-6
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 FY2004, the Administration requested $1.29
billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a 3.4% increase over FY2003. With
the addition of some large FWS accounts that are permanently appropriated, and
therefore do not require action in an annual appropriation bill, the Administration’s
proposed total FWS budget would increase by 2.7% to $1.96 billion.
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources
Management account. The President’s FY2004 request is for $941.5 million. The
FY2003 appropriation was $911.5 million. Included in Resources Management are
the Endangered Species Program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement, among
other programs.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. For
FY2004, the Administration proposes that the program decrease from the FY2003
level of $131.8 million to $128.7 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
increase from $80.5 million to $86.6 million under the President’s request. The
Landowner Incentive Program would increase from a minus $260,000 (due to a net
decrease resulting from a $40 million rescission of FY2002 funds in the FY2003 law)
to $40 million under the President’s proposal. Stewardship Grants would increase
from a minus $65,000 (due to another rescission of $10 million FY2002 funds in the
FY2003 law) to $10 million under the President’s proposal.1
Overall, FY2004 funding for the Endangered Species program and related
programs would increase from FY2003 by $53.4 million (25.2%), largely due to
increases in related programs rather than in the endangered species program itself.
However, this increase primarily reflects the FY2003 rescission of prior year funding.
1 The rescissions resulted from criticism of the amount of time it took to issue regulations
for these two new programs. The extent to which this interval was substantially longer than
that for other new programs is unclear, however. There was also a concern that the two
programs may overlap existing programs.

---

CRS-7
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs,
FY2002-FY2004
($ in thousands)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Endangered Species Program
Candidate Conservation
$7,620
$9,867
$8,670
Listing
9,000
9,018
12,286
Consultation
45,501
47,459
45,734
Recovery
63,617
65,412
62,029
Subtotal
125,738
131,756
128,719
Related Programs
Cooperative Endangered Species
96,235
80,473
86,614
Conservation Fund
Landowner Incentive Program
40,000
-260
40,000
Stewardship Grants
10,000
-65
10,000
Total
271,973
211,904
265,333
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement. On March
14, 2003, the nation observed the centennial of the creation by President Theodore
Roosevelt of the first National Wildlife Refuge on Pelican Island in Florida.
Accordingly, Congress appropriated funding in FY2003 for various renovations,
improvements, and activities to celebrate the event; it included all of this funding
under operations and maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).
It rejected an Administration proposal for FY2003 for a special earmark for
infrastructure improvement. For operations and maintenance, the President proposed
a decrease of 8.9% for FY2004. For infrastructure improvements in the System, the
Administration requests $53.4 million. The FY2003 appropriations law contained
no specific funding for this program. (See Table 5.2)
2 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
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-8
Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System,
FY2002-2004
($ in millions)
Refuge Program
FY2002 Approp.
FY2003 Approp.
FY2004 Request
Operations and
$294.0
$367.4
$334.7
Maintenance
Cooperative
0.0
0.0
11.9
Conservation
Initiative
Infrastructure
23.0
0.0
53.4
Improvement
Youth
2.0
0.0
2.0
Conservation
Corps
Total
319.0
367.4
402.0
The President proposed $50.7 million for Law Enforcement — down $898,000
from FY2003 ($51.6 million).
Wildlife Refuge Fund. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates counties for the presence of the non-
taxable federal lands of the NWRS. A portion of the Fund is supported by the
permanent appropriation of receipts from various activities carried out on the NWRS.
However, these receipts are not sufficient for full funding of authorized amounts.
Congress generally makes up some of the difference in annual appropriations. The
Administration requested $14.4 million for FY2004, up 0.7% from FY2003. When
combined with the estimated receipts, this appropriation level would cover 49% of
the authorized full payment.
Land Acquisition. For FY2004, the Administration proposed $40.7 million,
a 44.1% decrease from the FY2003 level of $72.9 million. The bulk of this program
is for actual acquisition of land, but a portion is used for closely related functions
such as for acquisition management, land exchanges, and emergency acquisitions.
In FY2003, 23.8% of Land Acquisition funding was allocated to these functions; the
FY2004 request would allocate 39.4% to these functions. (For more information, see
LWCF funding under Cross Cutting Issues.)
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has
generated considerable constituent interest despite the small size of the program. It
benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, the six species of rhinoceroses, and great
apes. The President’s budget again proposes to move funding for the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. For FY2004, the
President proposes $7.0 million for the MSCF (including the proposed addition of
the NMBCF within this program). Congress rejected the proposed transfer in
FY2002 and FY2003. (See Table 6.)

---

CRS-9
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2002-2004
($ in thousands)
Multinational Species Conservation
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Fund
Approp.
Approp.
Request
African elephant
$1,000
$1,192
$1,000
Tiger and Rhinos
1,000
1,192
1,000
Asian elephant
1,000
1,192
1,000
Great Apes
1,000
1,192
1,000
Neotropical Migratory Birdsa
[3,000]
[2,981]
[3,000]
Total
4,000
4,768
4,000
a This program was first authorized in FY2002, and is not part of the MSCF although the transfer was
proposed in the President’s budgets for FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004. Because Congress has
rejected the transfer twice, the program is not included in the column totals.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.fws.gov/].
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by Eugene H.
Buck and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
National Park Service. The National Park Service (NPS) has stewardship
responsibilities for a park system currently comprising 388 separate and diverse units
covering more than 84 million acres. In addition to the national park designation, the
park system has 20 other types of designations used to classify park sites. Park visits
total close to 280 million annually. 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.
Pending legislation would nearly double the number of heritage areas.
For FY2004, the Administration requests $2.36 billion for the NPS, an increase
of $122.4 million from the FY2003 level ($2.24 billion) and a decrease of $18.2
million from FY2002 ($2.38 billion). See Table 7. The President’s current goals
include protecting park resources and managing the multi-billion dollar backlog of
deferred maintenance.
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. For FY2004, the Administration requests $1.63 billion, $67.6
million more than the FY2003 level ($1.56 billion) and $144.8 million above the
FY2002 level ($1.49 billion).

---

CRS-10
Park advocacy groups contend that, while Congress has regularly increased
funding, the budget of the NPS has failed to keep pace with needs, compromising the
ability of park staff to protect resources and serve visitors. These groups estimate
that the national parks operate, on average, with two-thirds of needed funding. An
environmental coalition of park support and advocacy groups — Americans for
National Parks — is seeking a $178 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.
As in FY2003, the President’s FY2004 request includes funding ($22.0 million)
for a proposed Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) which would provide
matching funds for park projects, and some other DOI agency projects, undertaken
by nonprofit and private entities. Congress rejected the FY2003 proposed CCI.
Table 7. Appropriations for NPS, FY2002-FY2004
($ in millions)
National Park Service
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Operation of the National Park System
$1,487.1
$1,564.3
$1,631.9
U.S. Park Police
90.6
77.9
78.9
National Recreation and Preservation
66.2
61.3
47.9
Urban Park and Recreation Fund
30.0
0.3
0.3
Historic Preservation Fund
74.5
68.6
67.0
Construction
387.7
325.7
327.3
Land and Water Conservation Fund a
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
Assistance to States
144.0
97.4
160.0
NPS Acquisition
130.1
74.0
78.6
Total
274.1
171.3
238.6
Total Appropriations
$2,380.1
$2,239.4
$2,361.9
a Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.

Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds the
construction, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. These funds have
historically tended to be substantially increased during the appropriations process.
The FY2004 request asks for $327.3 million for NPS construction, $1.5 million more
than the FY2003 appropriations of $325.7 million and $60.4 million below the
FY2002 appropriation ($387.7 million). For FY2004, the Administration is
requesting $567.7 million for facility operation and maintenance (an activity funded
within the Operation of the National Park System Line Item), $47.7 million more the
FY2003 law provided ($520.0 million).

---

CRS-11
Combined, the Administration requests $895.0 million for construction and
facility operation and maintenance, an increase of $49.3 million from FY2003
($845.7 million) and of $28.1 million from FY2002 ($866.9 million).3 Of this total,
the Administration states that $705.8 million is applicable to construction and annual
and deferred maintenance projects in FY2004, implying that $189.2 million is for
facility operations.
The estimate of deferred maintenance for the NPS is $5.4 billion, according to
DOI. In his FY2002 budget, President Bush proposed to fulfill his campaign promise
to eliminate NPS deferred maintenance within five years through a combination of
new appropriations, transportation fund money, and revenues from recreation fees.
Park support groups have been critical of the relative lack of new money committed
to eliminating the backlog. Current Administration budget documents refer to
“managing” rather than eliminating the maintenance 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 park units system-wide. The FY2003 appropriations law
provided $77.9 million. The Administration’s FY2003 budget had emphasized anti-
terrorism protection at national icon sites in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, New
York, and other locations. The FY2004 request of $78.9 million is an increase of
nearly $1 million over the FY2003 enacted level. Priorities for this year focus on
border park security problems.
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 FY2004
request of $47.9 million is $13.3 million less than FY2003 funding ($61.3 million).
The primary decreases are a $6.5 million reduction for the heritage partnerships
program and a $7.8 million reduction to the statutory and contractual aid program.
Similar cuts were requested in FY2003, but Congress restored most of the funding
for these two programs.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This matching grant
program, long popular with Congress, was designed to help low-income inner city
neighborhoods rehabilitate recreational facilities. Funding for new program grants
was problematic until the Conservation Spending Category (CSC) was created in the
FY2001 Interior appropriations act, with $30.0 million provided for UPARR that
year. The President did not request funds for UPARR in FY2002, but Congress
restored funding at $30.0 million. No funding was again requested for FY2003.
Although the House approved $30.0 million and the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $10.0 million, the conferees ultimately provided only
3 This figure is derived by summing the entire FY2004 construction request ($327.3 million)
and the entire facility operation and maintenance activity ($567.7 million). Neither the
FY2003 appropriations law nor the FY2004 budget request separates facility operation from
facility maintenance.

---

CRS-12
$298,000 for program administrative costs. For FY2004, the Administration requests
$305,000 to administer previously awarded grants, but no money for new grants.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. The FY2003 appropriations law
provided $171.3 million for NPS Land Acquisition and State Assistance, consisting
of $74.0 million for NPS federal land acquisition and $97.4 million for state
assistance. The FY2004 request total is $238.6 million, with $78.6 million for
federal land acquisition and $160.0 million for state assistance. The federal program
provides funds to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for inclusion within the
National Park System, while the state assistance program is for park land acquisition
and recreation planning and development by the states. State-side appropriated funds
are allocated to states through a formula.
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 $141.9 million for FY2004. Fee Demo was
begun in FY1996 and extended in appropriations laws, most recently through
FY2004. The Administration’s FY2004 request states an intent to work with
Congress to make the program permanent and remove it from the appropriations
process. The participating agencies have collaborated on developing a permanent
program. Several 107th Congress bills proposed differing forms of fee program
permanence but none were enacted. While there have been few objections to new
and higher fees for the National Park System, many citizens have objected to paying
fees for previously free or low-cost recreation in national forests.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.nps.gov/].
CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation, by Carol
Hardy Vincent, coordinator.
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. In addition, the Historic Preservation Fund provides
funding for cultural heritage projects for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians. Programs of the Historic Preservation Fund are authorized through
FY2005 through P.L. 106-208.

---

CRS-13
The FY2004 Bush Administration’s budget would provide $67.0 million for the
Historic Preservation Fund4, comprised of $34 million for grants-in-aid to states and
territories, $3 million for Indian tribes, and $30 million for “Save America’s
Treasures”, former President Clinton’s Millennium initiative. The FY2004 requested
level for HPF is the same as the FY2003 requested level, but reflects a decrease of
$1.5 million below the FY2003 appropriation ($68.5 million). See Table 8.
A major issue is whether historic preservation programs should be funded by
private money rather than the federal government. Congress eliminated permanent
and annual federal funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, but has
added a number of specific appropriations for Millennium projects under 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. Grants have
been used, for example, for restoration of the Star Spangled Banner, the Declaration
of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and for restoration of properties
throughout the U.S., including the Rosa Parks Museum in Alabama. Although the
Millennium program was funded in FY2001 ($34.9 million) and FY2002 ($30.0
million), it was criticized for not reflecting geographic diversity. As a result,
appropriations law now requires 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. The FY2004 Bush Administration
request of $30.0 million provides level funding.
There is no longer permanent 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 technically is a private
non-profit corporation, but it received federal funding on a regular basis until
FY1998. Since that time, the National Trust generally has not received any direct
federal funding, in keeping with Congress’ plan to replace federal funds with private
funding and to make the Trust self-supporting. However, appropriations in FY2002
and in FY2003 were provided to the National Trust’s Fund, to be matched with non-
federal funds, for the care and maintenance of the most endangered historic places.
In FY2003, $1.99 million was provided. The FY2004 budget recommends
eliminating federal funding for the National Trust Fund/Endowment.
4 All funding for HPF for FY2004 is listed for accounting purposes in the conservation
spending category. For more information, see the “Conservation Spending Category”
section below.

---

CRS-14
Table 8. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2002-FY2004
($ in thousands)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Historic Preservation
Approp.
Approp.
Requestb
Grants in aid to State Historic
Preservation Officesa
$39,000
$33,779
$34,000
Tribal grants
3,000
2,981
3,000
Save America’s Treasures
30,000
29,805
30,000
HBCU’s
—
—
-
National Historic Trust Endowment
2,500
1,987
-
grant/Historic Sites Fund
Massillon Heritage Foundation
—
—
-
HPF (total)
74,500
68,552
67,000b
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 Funding for the Historic Preservation Fund in the 2004 budget has its major
components listed under the “conservation spending category.”
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www2.cr.nps.gov/].
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
U.S. Geological Survey. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the
nation’s primary science agency in providing earth and biological science
information related to natural hazards; certain aspects of the environment; and
energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In addition, it is the federal
government’s principal civilian mapping agency and a primary source of data on the
quality of the nation’s water resources. In the DOI, the USGS focuses its efforts in
three areas where science is considered an important cornerstone: resource
protection, resource use, and serving communities.
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:
The National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water
Resources Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities. The
Administration has proposed a budget of $895.5 million for the USGS, a decrease of
$23.8 million below the FY2003 level of $919.3 million. See Table 9. Twenty
million dollars of USGS proposed funding is being attributed to the Conservation
Spending Category. In FY2003, no USGS appropriations were allocated to this
category, whereas in FY2002, $25 million was allocated.

---

CRS-15
Four of the six activities conducted by the Survey show a decrease in funding
in the Administration’s FY2004 request. They are: the National Mapping Program;
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water Resources Investigations; and
Biological Research. However, Science Support and Facilities show increases for
FY2004. The Administration emphasizes that the FY2004 USGS budget will “focus
on core USGS programs such as water resources, hazards, biology and those
programs that directly support science-based land and natural resource management
by the Department.”5 Further, the USGS is expected to concentrate efforts on
programs that address invasive species, energy resource assessments, water
availability, and coastal landscape change and monitoring.6
National Mapping Program. The Administration has requested $120.5
million for the National Mapping Program for FY2004, a decrease of $12.7 million
below the FY2003 enacted level of $133.2 million. The National Mapping Program
aims to provide access to high quality geospatial data and information to the public.
Under this program, decreases amounting to $7.0 million are proposed for the
Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program (CTMP). Within the CTMP, funding
for data collection activities are proposed to be $4.4 million less than the FY2003
enacted level due to a planned transition from data collection to data “organizing” in
the National Mapping Program. Land remote sensing, as well as geographic analysis
and monitoring activities, have net proposed decreases of $1.7 million and $4.0
million, respectively, from FY2003 enacted levels. Within these sub-programs, a
decrease of $1.4 million is proposed as an expected result of the savings from the
closure of the Center for Integration of Natural Disaster Information, and a decrease
of $2.7 million is proposed for a reduction in research funds for the Geographic
Analysis and Monitoring Program. An increase in $0.8 million is proposed for
mapping and analysis activities of urban dynamics.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, the Administration requests $221.6 million —
a decrease of $11.6 million below the FY2003 enacted level of $233.2 million. This
heading covers programs in three budget sub-activities: Hazard Assessments,
Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments. The largest
reduction is seen in mineral resource assessments. A decrease of $13.4 million is
proposed for aggregate and industrial mineral studies, minerals research and
assessment activities, and the Alaska Minerals-At-Risk program. Other reductions
under this heading are proposed for the Advanced National Seismic System Initiative,
The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping program, and monitoring activities of
global dust and the Shemya Volcano. An increase of $4.3 million is proposed for the
Earth Surface Dynamics program that would fund interdisciplinary science to meet
the needs of the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI) and science activities
on DOI lands. The CESI is intended to meet the most important scientific
information needs of the Everglades restoration initiative in South Florida. Those
needs focus on three components: adaptive management, baseline ecosystem
5 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. President’s FY2004 Budget for
the USGS Focuses on Invasive Species, Wildlife Health and Enhanced Access to Science
Data, News Release (February 3, 2003).
6 Ibid.

---

CRS-16
research, and simulation and decision support modeling. Other proposed increases
are for national energy policies and geothermal energy research activities.
Water Resources Investigations. For the Water Resources and
Investigations heading, the Administration requested $200.1 million, which is a
decrease of $7.1 million from the FY2003 enacted level of $207.2 million.
Decreases are being sought for the Toxic Substances Hydrology program,
hydrological research and development activities. Specific program decreases below
FY2003 include $2.4 million for the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, and $1.7
million for three studies on the Berkeley Pit, Lake Pontchartrain, and the Potomac
River Basin. Other proposed decreases include $0.8 million for monitoring water
resources in Hawaii and Lake Champlain.
As was the case with the Bush Administration’s FY2002 and FY2003 budget
requests, the FY2004 request seeks to discontinue USGS support for Water
Resources Research Institutes based on the finding that most institutes have been
successful in leveraging sufficient funding for program activities from non-USGS
sources. Congress restored funding for the Institutes in FY2003.
The Ground Water Resources program would be increased, and modest
increases are sought for National Water Quality Assessment activities, the National
Streamflow Information Program, and hydrological network analyses. Increases for
specific programs totaling $4.1 million are proposed for environmental health issues
on the U.S – Mexico border, National Water Information Systems, and science on
DOI lands.
Biological Research. For FY2004, the Administration requests $168.9
million for Biological Research activities in the USGS — a decrease of $0.9 million
from the FY2003 enacted level of $169.8 million. A $4.1 million funding increase
is sought for expanding invasive species research, developing a national management
plan for reporting invasive species, and creating a model for a national early warning
detection network for invasive plants and animals. Other increases are proposed for
science on DOI lands and expanded research on chronic wasting disease, a
progressively degenerative and ultimately fatal disease in deer and elk. Proposed
funding will be used to conduct studies to determine the transmission of the disease
among deer and elk populations. Decreases are proposed for several studies and
research related to animals such as the pallid sturgeon, diamondback terrapin, and
bear, as well as research on wildfires, Lake Tahoe, and ballast water.
Science Support and Facilities. The USGS retains two additional funding
categories in the FY2004 budget request: Science Support and Facilities. Science
Support focuses on those costs associated with modernizing the infrastructure for
management and dissemination of scientific information. For FY2004, the
Administration requests $91.5 million — an increase of $6.4 million over the
FY2003 enacted level of $85.2 million. Facilities focuses on the costs for
maintenance and repair of facilities. For FY2004, the Administration requests $92.9
million — an increase of $2.1 million over the FY2003 enacted level of $90.8
million.

---

CRS-17
Within the Science Support heading, there is a proposed increase for
narrowband radio conversion. This is expected to allow the USGS to replace
existing wideband radios with digital narrowband land mobile radios. An increase
is also proposed for the Enterprise Geographical Information System (GIS), which
aims to consolidate bureau-wide information, technology, and services into a single
organization.
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2002-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
U.S. Geological Survey
Appropriations
Appropriations
Request
National Mapping Program
$133.3
$133.2
$120.5
Geologic Hazards, Resources,
and Processes
232.8
233.2
221.6
Water Resources
Investigations
205.8
207.2
200.1
Biological Research
166.4
169.8
168.9
Science Support
86.3
85.2
91.5
Facilities
89.4
90.8
92.9
Total Appropriations
914.0
919.3
895.5
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 $5.8 billion in revenues in FY2004 from offshore and
onshore federal leases. Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in
which they were collected, the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, and various
designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated among the
coastal states, Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund,
and the U.S. Treasury.
The Administration’s proposed budget for MMS for FY2004 is $271.5 million.
This proposal includes $7.1 million for oil spill research, and $264.5 million for
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management (including $139.2 million for OMM
activities, $80.4 million for MRM programs, and $44.8 million for administrative
activities). Of the total budget, $171.3 million would derive from appropriations, and
$100.2 million from offsetting collections that MMS has been retaining from OCS
receipts since 1994. The FY2004 request is about even with the total FY2003

---

CRS-18
appropriation of $270.5. Offsetting collections are even at $100.2 million in FY2003
and FY2004.
The MMS mineral leasing revenue estimates are higher for FY2004 than in
FY2003. Current revenue estimates for these years are $5.8 billion and $5.1 billion
respectively. Price fluctuation is the most significant factor in the revenue swings.
Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40%-
45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties accounted 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 current
5-year leasing program (2002-2007) went into effect July 1, 2002. MMS will
conduct 20 oil and natural gas lease sales during the 5-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 environment and local economies are too great.
The FY2003 appropriations law continued the moratorium in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico except for Lease Sale 181 off the Florida coast.
Controversy over MMS oil and gas leases in offshore California has drawn
congressional interest. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1451), as amended in 1990, development of federal offshore leases must be
consistent with state coastal zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended 36 out
of the 40 leases at issue in offshore California by granting lease suspensions, but the
State of California contended that it should have first reviewed the suspensions for
consistency with the state’s coastal zone management plan. In June 2001 the U.S.
Court for the Northern District of California agreed with the State of California and
struck down the MMS suspensions.
The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 9, 2002, to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after the state rejected a more limited lease
development plan that involved 20 leases using existing drilling platforms. However,
on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the District
Court decision. The Department of the Interior did not appeal this decision and is
currently working with lessees to resolve the issue. A breach-of-contract lawsuit has
been filed against MMS by nine oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in compensation
for their undeveloped leases. The FY2003 appropriations law included a non-binding
Sense of the Congress provision barring Interior bill funding for any exploration and
development of the 36 leases that had been extended by the MMS.
In May 2002, the Administration announced 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

---

CRS-19
Preserve, and the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge that would require
approval by Congress.
In a related effort, several Senators are attempting to remove language in the
energy bill pending on the Senate floor (S. 14) that calls for a “comprehensive
inventory of OCS oil and natural gas resources.” They argue that this provision could
lead to the removal of the leasing moratoria currently in place for much of the U.S.
coastline. Supporters contend that this provision is important for enhancing domestic
oil and gas supply and reducing foreign imports.
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.
Congress provided OSM $295.2 million in the FY2003 appropriations law. The
Administration’s request for FY2004 is $281.2 million. The OSM budget has two
components: Regulation and Technology programs and appropriations from the AML
fund. For Regulation and Technology, the Administration is seeking $106.7 million.
Included in the FY2004 request is $10 million in funding for the Appalachian Clean
Streams Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002-2003, and $10 million for the
Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). For the AML Fund, the
Administration has requested $174.5 million for FY2004, marginally higher than the
Administration requested for FY2003, but a reduction of roughly $16 million from
the $190.5 million approved for FY2003 by Congress.
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. The FY2003 appropriations provided $1.5 million to minimum
program states and the Administration proposes no change for FY2004.
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 approach $1.75 billion by the end of FY2004.

---

CRS-20
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 FY2003 direct appropriations were $2.26 billion. For FY2004, the
Administration proposes $2.29 billion, an increase of 1.6% over FY2003. Table 10
below presents figures for FY2003 enacted and FY2004 proposed appropriations for
the BIA and its major budget components; selected BIA programs are shown in
italics. Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of the
Bureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in the BIA
school system.
BIA Reorganization. The current BIA reorganization arises from issues and
events related to trust funds and assets management. Historically, the BIA has been
responsible for managing Indian tribes’ and individuals’ trust funds and trust assets.
Trust assets include trust lands and the lands’ surface and subsurface economic
resources (e.g., timber, grazing lands, or minerals); trust asset management includes
real estate services, processing of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), surveys,
appraisals, probate functions, land title records activities, and other functions. The
BIA had, however, historically mismanaged Indian trust funds and trust assets,
especially in the areas of record-keeping and accounting. This led to a legislative
reform act in 1994 and an extensive court case in 1996. The 1994 act created the
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) (see below), assigning it
responsibility for oversight of trust management reform. Trust fund management was
transferred to the OST in 1996, but the BIA still manages trust assets.

---

CRS-21
Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2004 Request Compared
Approp.
Request
with FY2003 Appropriations
Dollars
Percent
Operation of Indian Programs
$1,845,246
$1,889,735
$44,489
2%
Tribal Priority Allocations
772,481
777,689
5,208
1%
Contract Support Costs
132,343
135,315
2,972
2%
Other Recurring Programs
597,724
602,063
4,339
1%
School Operations
512,562
528,515
15,953
3%
Tribally-controlled colleges
42,838
39,206
(3,632)
(8%)
Non-Recurring Programs
72,485
73,543
1,058
1%
Central Office Operations
69,579
99,361
29,782
43%
Branch of Acknowledgment and
1,600
1,100
(500)
(31%)
Research
Information Resources
16,436
48,710
32,274
196%
Technology
Regional Office Operations
63,805
64,481
676
1%
Special Programs and Pooled
269,172
272,598
3,426
1%
Overhead
Public Safety and Justice
162,306
171,147
8,841
5%
Construction
345,988
345,154
(834)
<(1%)
Education construction
293,795
292,634
(1,161)
<(1%)
Land and Water Claim
60,552
51,375
(9,177)
(15%)
Settlements and Misc. Payments
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
5,457
6,497
1,040
19%
Total BIA
2,257,243
2,292,761
35,518
2%
BIA and OST, together with several offices created by the Secretary of the
Interior Norton (Office of Historical Trust Accounting and Office of Indian Trust
Transition), are implementing the Secretary’s current trust management improvement
project. The project includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, and
procedures, historical accounting for trust accounts, reduction of backlogs, and
maintenance of the improved system. The current project replaces an earlier High
Level Implementation Plan (HLIP) created under the Clinton Administration. While
a computerized trust fund accounting system, operated by OST, had been installed
successfully under the HLIP in 2000, a new computerized trust asset management
system drew much tribal, congressional, and court criticism. That criticism led the
current Secretary to have a consultant, Electronic Data Systems, Inc. (EDS), review
the trust asset system and the entire trust reform effort.
EDS’s 2001 reports included a recommendation for a single executive
controlling trust reform. In late 2001, citing this recommendation, the Secretary
proposed to split off BIA’s trust asset management responsibilities into a new Bureau

---

CRS-22
of Indian Trust Asset Management (BITAM), and requested approval from both
Appropriations Committees for a reprogramming of FY2002 funds to carry out the
BITAM reorganization. The Committees did not approve the reprogramming
request, instead directing the Secretary to consult with Indian tribes. The
consultation process took place during much of 2002 through a joint tribal-DOI Trust
Reform Task Force. The great majority of commenting tribes opposed the BITAM
proposal and many tribes and tribal organizations offered alternative plans. The
BIA’s proposed FY2003 budget did not include the BITAM reorganization proposal
(or a reprogramming request). The Senate Appropriations Committee’s June 2002
report (S.Rept. 107-201) forbade 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. In the fall of 2002, the tribal members of the Trust Reform Task
Force decided that they could not agree with the Department on trust standards and
oversight. In December 2002 the head of the BIA announced a new proposed
reorganization of BIA and OST trust management structures. Under the plan, the
BIA’s trust operations at regional and agency levels are being split off from other
BIA services, and the OST will have trust officers at BIA regional and agency offices
overseeing trust management and providing information to the Indian trust
beneficiaries. The BIA and OST began implementing the plan in April 2003. Tribes
and tribal organizations have been critical of the new reorganization.
BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools
and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating about 48,000
students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-determination
contracts and other grants, operate 120 of these institutions; the BIA operates the
remainder. BIA schools’ key problems are low student achievement and, especially,
a high level of inadequate school facilities.
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 estimates the backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million. Table 10
shows FY2003 education construction appropriations and FY2004 proposed amount.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
see its World Wide Web sites at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu]. The main BIA World
Wide Web site at [http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html] is offline because
of a court order in the Cobell litigation (see below under OST).
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
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 (e.g., casinos and racing). The
NIGC may receive federal appropriations but its budget authority consisted chiefly

---

CRS-23
of annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II operations. As Indian gaming expanded
rapidly in the 1990s, Congress decided the NIGC needed a larger budget. The
FY1998 Interior Appropriations Act, amending the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(IGRA), increased the ceiling for total NIGC fees to $8 million, made Class III as
well as Class II operations subject to fees, and increased NIGC’s appropriations
authorization from $1 million to $2 million. However, the NIGC states that in recent
years it has experienced a new increase in demand for its oversight resources,
especially audits and field investigations. Congress, in the FY2003 appropriations
act, increased the NIGC’s fee ceiling to $12 million, but just for FY2004. In the
FY2004 budget, the Administration proposes language amending IGRA to create an
adjustable, formula-based ceiling on fees instead of the current fixed ceiling. The
National Indian Gaming Association, the major national Indian gaming group, does
not support an amendment of IGRA’s fee ceiling and instead requests consultation
on the issue and a more detailed NIGC budget.
During FY1999-FY2003, all NIGC activities were funded from fees, with no
direct appropriations. For FY2004, the Administration proposes no direct
appropriations for the NIGC.
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians, in the Secretary of the Interior’s office, was authorized
by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
(P.L. 103-412). The Office of Special Trustee (OST) 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. (See “Bureau of Indian Affairs,” above.)
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 $2.8
billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM)
accounts, in about 230,000 accounts with a total asset value of about $400 million.
(Figures are from the OST FY2004 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.
FY2003 funding for the Office of Special Trustee was $148.3 million, which
included $140.4 million for federal trust programs — trust systems improvements,
settlement and litigation support, historical trust accounting, and trust funds
management — and $7.9 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.

---

CRS-24
The Administration proposes a FY2004 budget of $295.6 million for the OST,
an increase of 99% over FY2003. Included in the FY2004 request are $274.6 million
for federal trust programs (up $134.3 million, or 96%) and $21 million for the Indian
land consolidation pilot project (up $13 million, or 163%). The Administration also
proposes transferring the land consolidation project from OST to BIA in FY2004.
Key issues for OST are its current reorganization, an historical accounting for tribal
and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal and IIM accounts.
Reorganization. Both OST and BIA have recently begun a reorganization (see
above under BIA), one aspect of which is the creation of OST field operations. OST
will have fiduciary trust officers and administrators at the level of BIA agency and
regional offices. Many Indian tribes disagree with parts of the reorganization and
have asked Congress to put it on hold so that OST and BIA can conduct further
consultation with the tribes. About $15.1 million of the proposed FY2004 increase
is to fund the new field operations.
Historical Accounting. The historical accounting seeks to assign correct
balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especially because of litigation. Because of
the long historical period to be covered (some accounts may date from the 19th
century), the large number of IIM accounts, and the very large number of missing
account documents, an historical accounting based on actual account transactions is
expected to require large and time-consuming projects. Of the large increase
proposed for the OST for FY2004, $112.5 million is for historical accounting.
The Interior Department has proposed an extensive, five-year, $335-million
project to reconcile IIM accounts. Of the FY2004 increase for historical accounting,
$82.5 million is for the IIM historical accounting project. The additional $30 million
for FY2004 is related to the historical accounting of tribal accounts.
Litigation. Following the lead of the IIM account holders, 21 tribes in the last
few years have filed claims in federal court related to their trust accounts. OST
proposes conducting tribe-specific historical accountings, and also other litigation-
support activities, including settlement negotiations.
The IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Norton) was filed in 1996,
in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the federal
government by IIM account holders. In 1999, in the first stage of the case, the court
found that the Interior and Treasury Departments had breached trust duties regarding
the document retention and data gathering necessary for an accounting, and regarding
the business systems and staffing to fix trust management. The final stage of the IIM
lawsuit will determine the amount of money owed to the plaintiffs. The current stage
relates to the historical accounting method that should be used to determine the
amount owed the plaintiffs.
In FY2001 and FY2002, Appropriations committee and conference reports
directed DOI to develop a sampling methodology for IIM accounting, but required
submission of the plan, with a cost-benefit analysis, to Congress prior to
implementation and prohibited allocation of funds for an historical accounting before
submission of the plan and report. The requested report was transmitted to the
Appropriations Committees in July 2002 by the DOI’s Office of Historical Trust

---

CRS-25
Accounting. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit object to an historical accounting
methodology and, using a different methodology based on comparisons with federal
and state leasing returns, have estimated that they are owed about $137 billion.
Recently, the district court held the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant
Secretary — Indian Affairs in contempt for continuing problems in trust management
reform (following a trial on the contempt issues). While the court did not grant the
plaintiffs’ request that it appoint a receiver to take over reform of IIM accounts
management, it did direct both defendants and plaintiffs to submit plans for future
trust management and historical accounting, which both parties did on January 6,
2003. Currently the judge is conducting a trial to decide what historical accounting
plan to use in estimating the IIM accounts’ proper balances.7
The House Appropriations Committee has expressed its concern that the IIM
lawsuit was jeopardizing DOI trust reform implementation. Congress, in the FY2003
appropriations act, required a summary for Congress of a full historical accounting
performed for 5 of the plaintiffs, capped the compensation of two court-appointed
officials monitoring trust reform, directed that a new OST advisory board be
appointed in accordance with the 1994 act, and authorized the Interior Secretary to
help employees pay for legal costs related to the IIM suit.

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 U.S. territories (Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) as well as three former
insular areas (Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Federated States of Micronesia
(FSM), and Palau), manages relations between these jurisdictions and the federal
government, and attempts to build the fiscal and government 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 108th Congress or the
Administration, and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the
appropriations process.
Congress and President Bush approved almost $350 million in both permanent
and discretionary funding for FY2003. The President requested $387 million for
FY2004, an increase of almost 11% due to anticipated increases in permanent
appropriations for the coming fiscal year. However, discretionary funding in FY2004
would decrease under the request by almost 10%, from $96.8 million in FY2003 to
$87.5 million requested.
Permanent and indefinite appropriations historically constitute roughly 70% to
80% of the OIA budget and consist of two parts. For FY2003 they total $252.4
million, as follows:
7 Cobell v. Norton (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). Updated information is available on the
plaintiffs’ website: [http://www.indiantrust.com].

---

CRS-26
! $146.4 million total to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and
Palau) formerly included in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free
Association; and,
! $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.
The budget justification that accompanied the President’s FY2004 request projects
an increase in the financial assistance to be provided under proposed legislation that
would amend the Compacts of Free Association for the next twenty years.8 Under
these legislative provisions, funding for FY2004 would increase to approximately
$300 million as follows: $165.4 million to RMI and FSM, $12.1 million to Palau,
and $122 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the remaining balance (roughly 20% to 30%) of the OIA budget. FY2003
discretionary appropriations of $96.8 million were approved by the 107th Congress.
Discretionary funding comprises two accounts. Funding for the Assistance to
Territories account has been set at $75.9 million; for the Compact of Free
Association (CFA) assistance account, $20.9 million has been appropriated. The
FY2004 request would reduce funding for Assistance to Territories to $71.3 million
and for CFA assistance to $16.1 million, for an FY2004 request of about $87.5
million.
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. Debate may occur on
issues that have received some congressional action in the past, notably compact aid
to Guam and Hawaii as well as infrastructure improvements in the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html].
CRS Report RS21399. Trust Responsibility of Federal Government for Indian
Tribes: Recent Cases, by M. Maureen Murphy.

Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www.usda.gov/].
8 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 RL31737, The
Marshall Islands and Micronesia: Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the
United States, by Thomas Lum. The Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994
and will terminate in FY2009.

---

CRS-27
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service. For information on the U.S.
Forest Service, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.fs.fed.us/].
U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service (FS) budget request for FY2004 is
$4.06 billion in discretionary appropriations, $107.1 million (3%) more than was
appropriated for FY2003 ($3.95 billion) — excluding the $636 million supplemental
funds for FY2002 firefighting enacted in the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations
Act — but $72.4 million (2%) less than was appropriated for FY2002 ($4.13 billion).
Forest Fires and Forest Health. Fire funding and fire protection programs
were among the most controversial issues confronted during consideration of the
FY2003 Interior appropriations bill. In fact, during the 107th Congress, the Senate
did not pass an Interior appropriations bill largely due to disputes about fire funding
and a new program for wildfire protection. The ongoing discussion includes
questions about funding levels and locations for various fire protection treatments,
such as thinning and prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and clearing around
structures to protect them during fires. Another focus is whether, and to what extent,
environmental analysis, public involvement, and challenges to decisions hinder fuel
reduction activities.
National Fire Plan. The FY2004 funding debate is likely to continue the increased
attention in recent years to wildfires and the damage they cause. The severe fire
seasons in the summers of 2000 and 2002 prompted substantial debates and
proposals related to fire control and fire protection. The 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. 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. Congress largely
enacted the proposal for FY2001, adding money to the FY2001 request for wildfire
operations, fuel reduction, 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. The higher wildfire funding has
generally been continued.
FY2004 Appropriations. For FY2004, the Bush Administration proposes to fund
the National Fire Plan at $2.24 billion, $219.4 million (11%) more than the FY2003
level, excluding $825 million of FY2002 firefighting funding enacted in Division N
of the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and excluding $30.4 million in fire
assistance included under Forest Service State and Private Forestry. (See Table 11.)

---

CRS-28
Table 11. Federal Wildland Fire Management Appropriations,
FY2000-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2004
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Request
Forest Service
$618.0
$1,457.7
$1,294.3
$1,371.0
$1,541.8
Operations
139.2
319.3
255.3
418.0
604.6
Emergency Funding a/
[390.0]
[425.1]
[266.0]
[636.0]
[0.0]
Preparedness
408.8
611.1
622.6
612.0
609.7
Other Operations
70.0
527.2
416.4
341.0
327.4
BLM
391.0
777.5
624.4
650.2
698.7
Operations
158.1
153.1
127.4
159.3
195.3
Emergency Funding a/
[200.0]
[199.6]
[54.0]
[189.0]
[0.0]
Preparedness
165.8
314.7
280.8
275.4
282.7
Other Operations
67.0
309.7
216.2
215.4
220.7
Total 1,008.9
2,235.2
1,918.8
2,021.1
2,240.5
Operations
297.3
472.4
382.7
577.3
799.9
Emergency Funding a/
[590.0]
[624.6]
[320.0]
[825.0]
[0.0]
Preparedness
574.6
925.9
903.4
887.4
892.5
Other Operations
137.0
836.9
632.6
556.4
548.1
a/ Emergency supplemental and contingent appropriations not included in agency totals.
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 FY2004 budget request for suppression is significantly
higher than the enacted FY2003 appropriations, but includes no separate contingent
or emergency firefighting funds. (See Table 11.) Specifically, the appropriation
includes $195.3 million for the BLM for fire suppression, 23% above FY2003, and
$604.6 million for FS fire suppression, 45% above FY2003.
For BLM fire preparedness, the FY2004 budget request is $282.7 million, $7.3
million (3%) more than the FY2003 level. For FS fire preparedness, the request is
$609.7 million, down $2.3 million (less than 1%) from the FY2003 level. For other
BLM fire operations, the FY2004 budget request is $220.7 million, an increase of
$5.3 million (2%) from the FY2003 appropriation. For other FS fire operations, the
request is $327.4 million, down $15.2 million (4%) from the FY2003 appropriation.
This decline would come by eliminating funding in this account for fire facilities,
rehabilitation and restoration, and economic assistance, and cutting in half the
funding for forest health management (insect and disease control) on nonfederal
lands. (These programs are funded in other Forest Service accounts.)

---

CRS-29
State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center
of debate, the President has proposed numerous significant changes in FY2004
funding of FS programs. Many of the changes are in State and Private Forestry
(S&PF) — the programs that provide financial and technical assistance to states and
to private forest owners. One significant change, enacted in the 2002 Farm Bill (P.L.
107-171), is the creation of a new Forest Land Enhancement Program to supplant the
Stewardship Incentives and Forestry Incentives Programs. The new program has
mandatory spending, replacing the annual appropriations required for the previous
two programs. (The Forestry Incentives Program was funded through the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, in the Agriculture appropriations acts.) In addition,
the Administration is proposing to fund most of the cooperative forestry programs
(forest stewardship, forest legacy, and urban and community forestry) from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the Land and Water
Conservation Fund section below.)
The FY2004 budget request again includes an 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 again for $12.0
million, but in FY2003, Congress chose to allocate the additional funds to forest
health management (insect and disease control) on federal and cooperative
(nonfederal) lands instead of funding this new account.
For FY2004, the Administration has proposed $65.6 million for the S&PF
Forest Stewardship Program, which provides technical assistance for managing
private forests; this is more than double the FY2003 appropriation of $32.0 million.
The Administration has also proposed $90.8 million in FY2004 for the Forest Legacy
Program, under which the Forest Service purchases title or easements for lands
threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, e.g., residences; this is $22.4 million
(33%) above the FY2003 appropriation of $68.4 million.
The Administration has again proposed terminating the S&PF Economic Action
Program (EAP), which includes rural community assistance and wood recycling, and
the Pacific Northwest economic assistance program. The FY2003 appropriations law
contained $26.3 million for EAP, with about $5 million more for EAP in the Wildfire
Management account — a total of $31.3 million.
Infrastructure. The Administration also has proposed terminating separate
funding for Infrastructure Improvement. These funds, totaling $45.6 million in
FY2003, have been used to reduce the agency’s backlog of deferred maintenance,
estimated at $6.5 billion as of October 2002. Instead, the Administration proposes
to increase capital improvement and maintenance funds for roads and trails by $23.1
million. Nonetheless, with the small decrease proposed for facilities, the total
funding for FS Capital Improvement and Maintenance is $524.6 million, $23.9
million (4%) below the FY2003 appropriations of $548.5 million.
Land Acquisition. The Administration has proposed $44.1 million for Land
Acquisition — $27.7 million for land purchases and $16.4 million for acquisition
management. The total is $88.8 million (67%) less than the FY2003 appropriation,
which includes a $1.5 million (10%) increase for acquisition management and a
$90.3 million (76%) decrease for land purchases. The Bush Administration is

---

CRS-30
proposing to use the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is the principal
source of funding for Forest Service land acquisition, for various State and Private
Forestry programs instead of for land acquisition.
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 RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RS20985. Stewardship Contracting for the National Forests, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL31679. Wildfire Protection: Legislation in the 107th Congress and
Issues in the 108th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.
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 FY2004 budget request of $514.3 million for fossil energy
research and development is 17% less than the appropriated amount for FY2003
($620.8 million) and 5% higher than the FY2003 request ($489.3 million). Much of
the difference in funding between the enacted level and the Administration’s request
continues to be in fuel cells, transportation fuels, and natural gas and petroleum
production technologies.
The Administration requested $130.0 million for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) for FY2004 as part of a $2 billion, 10-year commitment. The
program is designed 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,” according to DOE. 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. The CCTP eventually will
be phased out. The Administration once again seeks to consolidate the CCPI with

---

CRS-31
coal R&D programs under Fossil Energy Research and Development. It was
unsuccessful in its efforts in the previous budget cycle.
Under the Administration’s request, research and development (R&D) on
natural gas would be cut by 44% to $26.5 million, and R&D on petroleum would be
cut by two-thirds to $15.0 million. The bulk of the proposed cuts in petroleum R&D
would be in the exploration and production category (from $23.2 million in FY2003
to $2.0 million in FY2004). The Administration wants to refocus the program’s
research on enhanced oil recovery and carbon dioxide injection. 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
FY2004 from a funding level of $31.2 million in FY2003. Existing activities would
be transferred to the natural gas program.
For further information on Fossil Energy, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/].
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (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 nearly 600 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.
Volatility in oil prices since the spring of 1999 prompted calls from time-to-time for
drawdown of the Reserve, but the Clinton and Bush Administrations did not think
circumstances warranted it.
In mid-November 2001, President Bush ordered that the SPR be filled to
capacity (700 million barrels) using royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil. This is oil turned over
to the federal government as payment 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. Deliveries of RIK
oil began in the spring of 2002. The fill rate has varied depending upon geopolitical
and market conditions. Deliveries scheduled for late 2002 and the first months of
2003 were delayed due to tightness in world oil markets. With the end of the military
phase of the war with Iraq, deliveries of RIK oil to the SPR are ramping up again
during the spring and will likely approach 190,000 barrels per day in June 2003.

The FY2003 appropriation provided a total of $179.6 million for the SPR. This
consisted of $171.7 million for facilities, operation, and management; $1.9 million
in new money for the SPR Petroleum Account, reflecting a level of $7.0 million for
transportation of RIK oil, less a $5.0 million rescission of unobligated prior-year
funds; and $6.0 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, reflecting lower
costs for leasing of the storage facilities. The FY2003 law reauthorized the SPR
through FY2008. On April 11, 2003, the House passed comprehensive energy
legislation (H.R. 6) which would require that the SPR be filled to its current capacity
of roughly 700 million barrels as soon as practicable, and would also authorize $1.5
billion for expansion of the SPR to 1 billion barrels. The bill would also permanently

---

CRS-32
authorize the Reserve. S. 14, currently being debated in the Senate, would also
permanently authorize the SPR, but does not seek to expand it.
The FY2004 budget request for the SPR is $175.1 million. The request has two
components. It includes $159.0 million for storage facilities development and
operations management, and $16.1 million for management of the SPR sites. For
FY2003, Congress appropriated $2.0 million to the SPR Petroleum Account, after
a rescission of $5.0 million in previously appropriated funds. The costs of
transporting RIK oil to SPR sites are now borne by the contractors, so no new money
is being requested for this account for FY2004.
The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR), established by the Clinton
Administration, houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground
facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Savings in the cost of
leasing these facilities has reduced the cost of maintaining the NHOR; the
Administration has requested $5.0 million for FY2004, whereas $6.0 million was
appropriated for FY2003.
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, the
Department of Energy (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, with any proceeds to be
applied to the costs of remediating 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 $6.9 million during FY2003. The request to maintain the Naval
Petroleum Reserves (NPR) for FY2004 is $16.5 million, of which $5.6 million is for
environmental remediation at NOSR-3, transferred to the Department of the Interior
in 1999. Under terms of the transfer, DOE remained responsible for remediation.
The FY2004 request is a decrease of $1.2 million from the FY2003 appropriation
($17.7 million).
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 Elk Hills 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 an advance appropriation of $36.0 million for the Elk Hills

---

CRS-33
School Lands Fund, to be paid at the start of FY2004. This was enacted in the
FY2003 appropriations law. The FY2004 budget request currently seeks an
appropriation of $36 million, pending the completion of divestment activities and
calculation of the remaining balance owed to the California Teachers’ Retirement
Fund.
For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, see its
World Wide Web site at [http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml].
Energy Conservation. The FY2004 budget request stresses that the
Administration’s energy efficiency programs can improve economic growth, energy
security, and the environment. Specifically, the Administration states that the
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative would accelerate the use of hydrogen-powered fuel cell
vehicles that would reduce oil use, and the National Climate Change Technology
Initiative would cut greenhouse gas emissions (Budget Appendix, p. 378). Also, the
Administration states that the budget was fashioned with R&D Investment Criteria
and the Program Assessment Rating Tool that guide agencies in the selection of
projects for federal research dollars. The criteria call on R&D managers to show that
their programs conduct research that is relevant, of high quality, and yields results
(Budget, p. 107). Further, the request presents a new budget structure that reflects
the recent reorganization of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) (DOE Budget Highlights, p. 100). The new structure is presented in Table
12.
DOE proposes to decrease conservation funding under DOE’s EERE from
$891.8 million in FY2003 to $875.8 million in FY2004. The FY2004 request would
increase the Fuel Cell Technologies program from $55.1 million to $77.5 million, a
$22.4 million, or 41%, increase. DOE asserts that this program would support the
President’s proposed FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuels Initiative by demonstrating
fuel cell technologies for transportation and stationary applications by 2015. The
Department anticipates that fuel cells’ use of hydrogen-based fuels would displace
motor gasoline and thereby help reduce foreign oil dependence. Also, DOE states
that fuel cells’ small size and low pollutant levels would enable them to improve
electric power infrastructure security and reliability, while slowing the growth of
greenhouse gas emissions.
Funding for the Weatherization grant program (included in the
Intergovernmental line above) would grow from $223.5 million to $288.2 million,
an increase of $64.7 million, or 29%. DOE’s request states that Weatherization
makes homes more energy efficient, which reduces energy bills and improves energy
affordability for low-income families who could not otherwise afford these
improvements. The Administration also asserts that this program helps stabilize
housing stock in low-income neighborhoods and supports technical jobs in local
home energy businesses. Also, DOE proposes $9.5 million for the President’s
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). The program would
promote innovative applied research through open competitive solicitations that
could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to DOE.

---

CRS-34
Table 12. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation,
FY2002-FY2004
($ in millions)
DOE Energy
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Change
Percent
Conservation
Approp.
Approp.
Request
from
Diff.
FY2003
to
FY2004
Vehicle Technologies
$181.4
$177.3
$157.6
-$19.7
-11%
Fuel Cell
46.7
55.1
77.5
22.4
41%
Technologies
Intergovernmental
324.2
314.4
357.0
42.5
14%
Weatherization
230.0
223.5
288.2
64.7
29%
Grants
Distrib. Energy
55.1
61.1
51.8
-9.4
-15%
Resources
Building Technologies
63.1
59.4
52.6
-6.8
-11%
Industrial
100.9
98.6
64.4
-34.1
-35%
Technologies
Biomass / Biorefinery
24.8
24.6
8.8
-15.8
-64%
Federal Energy Mgmt.
18.9
19.3
20.0
0.7
3%
Program Management
81.4
77.0
76.7
-0.3
0%
Energy Eff. Sci.
0.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
—
Initiative
Climate Tech.
—
0.0
9.5
9.5
—
Initiative
Rescissions &
16.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0%
Transfers
R&D Subtotal
621.5
623.5
548.8
-74.7
-12%
Grants Subtotal
275.0
268.2
327.0
58.8
22%
Total Appropriations
$912.8
$891.8
$875.8
-$16.0
-2%
To offset these increases, the FY2004 request also proposes several decreases.
Compared to the FY2003 appropriation, the FY2004 request would cut overall
funding by $16.0 million, or 2%, not accounting for inflation. R&D funding would
decline from $623.5 million to $548.8 million, a drop of $74.7 million, or 12%. This
includes cuts of $36.4 million for Industries of the Future - Specific (including
elimination of the Petroleum Vision program), $19.2 million for Advanced
Combustion Technology (in the Vehicles Program), $15.8 million for Biomass /
Biorefinery R&D, $12.8 million for Fuels Technology (Vehicles), $9.5 million for
Emerging Technologies (Buildings), $9.4 million for Distributed Energy Resources,
$4.4 million for Clean Cities (Intergovernmental), and $2.7 million to terminate the
National Industrial Competitiveness through Energy, Environment, and Economics
(NICE³) program (Industrial Technologies).

---

CRS-35
For FY2003, the reports of the Appropriations Committees recommended
actions to improve measurement of EERE program performance, increase
competition in procurement, and elaborate on requested budget changes.
Specifically, the FY2003 report of the House Committee on Appropriations proposed
$1.0 million in new 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. The FY2003 law allocated
$500,000 for this purpose. Also, the House report directed that EERE adopt a
procurement practice to “allow full and open competition to occur, when
appropriate.” Additionally, the FY2003 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. The conference report did not add any further
provisions.
For further information on the Energy Conservation Budget, see the Web site
at [http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/04budget/]. For further information on Energy
Conservation Programs, see the Web site at [http://www.eren.doe.gov/].
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RS21442. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, 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.ihs.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 located in 35
states. Health care is provided through a system of federal, tribal, and urban Indian
operated programs and facilities that serve as the major source of health care for
AI/AN. IHS provides direct health care services through 36 hospitals, 63 health
centers, 4 school health centers, 44 health stations, and 5 residential treatment
centers. Tribes and tribal groups, under IHS contracts, operate another 13 hospitals,
158 health centers, 3 school health centers, 249 health stations, including 170 Alaska
Native village clinics and 28 residential treatment centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal
groups also operate 11 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 President requests a total of $2.89 billion in appropriations for
FY2004, $40.0 million or 1.4% over the FY2003 appropriation of $2.85 billion. Of
the total IHS appropriations request, $2.50 billion or 87% would be used for health
services, and $387.3 million or 13% for the health facilities program. IHS services
are funded not only through congressional appropriations, but also from money
reimbursed from private health insurance and federal programs such as Medicare,

---

CRS-36
Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. IHS estimates that it
will collect $567.6 million in reimbursements in FY2004, a 26% increase over the
estimated amount of $450.0 million for FY2003.
The IHS health services budget has several subcategories: clinical services,
preventive health services, and other services. Clinical services include basic
primary care for inpatient and outpatient services at IHS hospitals and clinics. For
FY2004, the Administration requests $1.99 billion, $13.4 million or 0.7% over the
FY2003 level of $1.97 billion. Within this request, $1.19 billion or 60% of the
funding would go to support programs for hospitals and clinics. Also within this
request, dental health would receive $105.6 million; mental health, $54.0 million;
substance abuse treatment, $140.0 million; and contract health services, $493.0
million. The requested amount for contract health services is 3.8% over the FY2003
appropriation of $475.0 million. Contract health services are services purchased from
local and community health care providers when IHS cannot provide medical care
and specific services through its own system.
The preventive health services request for $108.3 million is 5.5% over the
FY2003 appropriation of $102.6 million. The request includes funding for public
health nursing ($43.1 million), health education in schools and communities ($11.9
million) and immunizations ($1.6 million). It also includes the community health
representatives program ($51.6 million) which is a tribally administered program that
supports community members who work to prevent illness and disease in their
communities.
For other health related activities, the President has asked for a total of $407.0
million in funding to support health related activities in off-reservation urban health
projects ($31.6 million), scholarships to health care professionals ($35.4 million),
funding for costs associated with providing tribal management grants to tribes ($2.4
million), administration and management costs ($56.6 million - direct operations),
self-governance ($10.3 million), and contract support costs ($270.7 million).
Contract support costs are awarded to tribes for administering programs under
contracts or compacts authorized under the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-
638, as amended). They include costs for expenses tribes incur for financial
management, accounting, training, and program start-up. The budget request reflects
that most tribes and tribal organizations are participating in new and expanded self-
determination contracts and self-governing compacts. For FY2003, Congress
enacted $401.5 million for other health related activities.
The IHS’s facilities category includes money for the construction, maintenance,
and improvement of health and sanitation facilities. The President’s FY2004 request
of $387.3 million is $13.5 million or 3.6% increase over the FY2003 appropriation
of $373.7 million.
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

---

CRS-37
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
already have relocated under the Act, but the ONHIR estimates that 215 Navajo
families have yet to complete relocation, including about 19 families still on Hopi
partitioned land (some of whom refuse to relocate). The remaining Navajo families
are not on Hopi partitioned land but are in various stages of acquiring replacement
housing. ONHIR’s chief activities consist of housing acquisition and construction,
land acquisition, and certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.
For FY2003, ONHIR received appropriations of $14.4 million. For FY2004,
the Administration proposes $13.5 million, a decrease of $865,000, or 6%.
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
appropriations law 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 Institution, National Endowment for the Arts, and
National Endowment for the Humanities. One of the perennial issues
addressed by Congress concerning the cultural programs and agencies delineated
below is whether federal government support for the arts, humanities, and culture

---

CRS-38
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 Institution. 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. The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with
approximately 8 million square feet of space.
The Smithsonian Institution is estimated to be 70% federally funded. A federal
commitment to fund the Institution was established by legislation in 1846. Today,
the Smithsonian Institution receives both federal appropriations and various types of
trust funds.
Appropriations. The FY2004 Bush Administration budget for the
Smithsonian Institution is $566.5 million, a 4.0% increase over the FY2003
appropriation of $544.9 million. For Smithsonian Institution’s Salaries and
Expenses, the FY2004 budget would provide $476.6 million, an increase of $30.4
million above the FY2003 final appropriation of $446.1 million and a $38.5 million
increase above the FY2003 request. See Table 13.
Facilities Capital. The FY2003 appropriation provided $82.9 million for
“repair, restoration, and alteration of facilities.” The FY2004 Administration budget
has shifted this function to a new category entitled”Facilities Capital,” with a total
request of $90.0 million, comprised of revitalization, construction, and facilities
planning and design. The FY2004 budget estimate for the line item of
“revitalization” is $71.7 million. This line item would address the cases of
“advanced deterioration”in SI buildings, help meet the needs of routine maintenance
and repair in all Smithsonian Institution facilities, and make critical repairs.
A study by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), A Study
of the Smithsonian Institution’s Repair, Restoration and Alteration of Facilities
Program (2001), 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 recommends that the
Smithsonian Institution spend $1.5 billion over the next decade to fully repair,
renovate, and modernize its facilities.
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The FY2004
Administration budget requests no new federal funds for completion of the Mall
museum’s construction, as compared to an FY2003 appropriation of $15.9 million.
However, the FY2004 budget would provide $38.6 million for operations of the
NMAI to help support the Museum’s opening. The NMAI was at first controversial.
Opponents of constructing a new museum argued that the current Smithsonian
Institution museums needed renovation, repair, and maintenance 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. Based

---

CRS-39
on a new estimate of $219.3 million for construction of the Indian museum, the
Smithsonian Institution indicated that trust funds would be used to cover opening
costs. The groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI took place September 28, 1999
and the projected opening is September of 2004.
Smithsonian Institution Center for Materials Research and Education
(SCMRE). The direction of SI’s research priorities is of concern to Congress. A
recent controversy involved the proposed closing of the Smithsonian Institution
Center for Materials Research and Education (SCMRE), which the Smithsonian
Institution decided to retain. The FY2002 Interior Appropriations law had provided
that an independent “blue ribbon” Science Commission would be established and
meet before any final decision about closing the SCMRE. The Commission’s report
of January, 2003 noted that science programs of the Smithsonian Institution have
eroded over time due to a “long-term trend in declining support for mandatory annual
salary increases.” The FY2004 Administration budget proposes level funding for the
SCMRE ($3.54 million).
Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian
Institution 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
“business ventures” including the Smithsonian magazine, retail shops, restaurants,
concessions, catalogs, and entertainment initiatives. There are also trust funds that
are private donor designated funds, which include gifts, grants, and contributions
from individuals, foundations, and corporations that specify and direct the purpose
of funds. In FY2003, such contributions for designated projects were estimated at
$63.0 million. Finally, government grants and contracts (separate from the regular
appropriation) are provided by various government agencies and departments for
projects specific to the Smithsonian Institution because of its expertise in certain
fields including science, history, art, and education. For FY2003, government grants
and contracts were projected to be $87.0 million. Most of this funding ($72.0
million) is available to the Smithsonian Institution’s Astrophysical Observatory for
research and development.
Tracking of the Smithsonian Institution’s Trust fund expenditures has been of
concern to the Congress. In FY2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended instituting a plan that the Smithsonian Institution has now developed
to track trust fund budget proposals and expenditures. According to the Inspector
General of the Smithsonian Institution, there was a discrepancy between what the
Board of Regents approved compared to actual expenditures. This matter has been
resolved.

---

CRS-40
Table 13. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2002-2004
($ in thousands)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Smithsonian Institution (SI)
Approp.
Approp.
Request

Salaries and Expenses
$420,960a
$446,096
$476,553
Repair, Restoration, and Alteration of
67,900
82,883
— -
Facilities
Facilities Capital
—
—
89,970
Construction
30,000
15,896
——
SI total
518,860a
544,875
566,523
a Includes $21,707,000 contained in the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, P.L. 107-
117, for SI’s Anti-Terrorism funding.
For further information on the Smithsonian Institution, 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 FY2004 Bush Administration budget for NEA is $100.5 million plus $17.0
million for the Challenge America Arts fund, a separate account, for a total of $117.5
million. This is an increase of $1.8 million over the FY2003 appropriation for NEA
($115.7 million, which included $16.9 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund).
See Table 14. NEA’s direct grant program currently supports approximately 1,600
grants. State arts agencies are now receiving over 40% of grant funds, with 1,000
communities participating nationwide, particularly from under-represented areas.
The NEA now administers the Challenge America Arts Fund, 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 FY2004 Administration Budget for NEH is $152.0 million, an increase of
$27.1 million over the FY2003 appropriation ($124.9 million). The FY2004 budget

---

CRS-41
adds $25.0 million for a new program entitled “We the People Initiative grants.”
These grants will include model curriculum projects for schools to improve course
offerings in the humanities — American history, culture, and civics. The NEH
generally supports grants for humanities education, research, preservation and public
humanities programs; the creation of regional humanities centers; and development
of humanities programs under the jurisdiction of the 56 state humanities councils.
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
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 was 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 would be simpler.
The FY2004 request for IMLS is $242.0 million, including $30.3 million for OMS.
The FY2003 appropriation was $243.9 million for both libraries and museums. The
Office of Museum Services provides grants in aid to museums in the form of
leadership grants, museum conservation, conservation project support, 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 federal arts funding 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 national touring theater and
dance companies, radio and television shows, and traveling museum exhibitions.)
Previous NEA Controversies. Although there appears to be an increase in
congressional support for the NEA, debate often recurs on previous questionable
NEA grants when appropriations are considered, despite 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 with some exceptions. 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

---

CRS-42
decency provision does not “inherently interfere with First Amendment rights nor
violate constitutional vagueness principles.”
Congress enacted NEA reforms in past appropriations laws. The FY2003 law
retained language in previous laws related to funding priorities and restrictions on
grants, including that no grant may be used generally for seasonal support to a group;
and no grants may be for individuals except for literature fellowships, National
Heritage fellowships, or American Jazz Master fellowships.
Table 14. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2002-FY2004
($ in thousands)
Arts/
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Humanities Funding
Approp.
Approp.
Request
NEA
$98,234
$115,732a
$100,480
Challenge America Arts Fund
17,000
{16,889}a
17,000
Subtotal NEA
115,234
115,732
117,480
NEH grants and administration
108,382
108,919
135,878
NEH matching grants
16,122
16,017
16,122
Subtotal NEH
124,504
124,936
152,000
OMS/IMLS
26,899
b
b
a The total for NEA grants and administration includes the Challenge America program.
b 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 principal
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
identify funding levels for their land acquisition activities. The LWCF also funds

---

CRS-43
acquisition and recreational development by state and local governments through a
state grant program administered by the National Park Service. In recent years,
Congress also has appropriated money from the LWCF to fund some related
activities that do not involve land acquisition. Appropriations for federal acquisitions
generally are earmarked to specific management units, such as a National Wildlife
Refuge, while the state grant program rarely is earmarked. Funds may not be spent
without an appropriation. The LWCF is authorized at $900 million annually through
FY2015.

Through FY2003, the total amount that could have been appropriated from the
LWCF since its inception was $26.3 billion. Actual appropriations have been $13.1
billion. In recent years, until FY2003, appropriators had provided generally
increasing amounts from the Fund for federal land acquisition and the state grant
program. The total had more than quadrupled, rising from a low of $138 million in
FY1996 to $573 million in FY2002. The FY2003 appropriation was $410 million,
a decrease of $163 million, and the FY2004 request totaling $348 million would
reduce funding by an additional $62 million. Table 15 shows LWCF appropriations
for FY2000 through FY2003, and the Bush Administration requests for FY2002
through FY2004.
Table 15. LWCF Funding for Federal Land Acquisition and State Grants,
FY2000-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2004
Agency
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
BLM
$48
$56
$48
$50
$45
$33
$24
FWS 62
121
104
99
70
73
41
NPS Federal
139
125
107
130
86
74
79
Acquisitions
NPS Administered
41
90
450
144
200a
97
160
State Grants
FS 160
156
131
150
131
133
44
Total 450
548
840
573
532
b
410
348
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); data for FY2003 and FY2004 from 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. These funds for other purposes are not included in the table. This started when
Congress provided $72 million for other purposes in the FY1998 Interior appropriations law. In FY1999, no funding
was appropriated for other purposes. Since then, funding for other purposes has included $15 million in FY2000, $456
million in FY2001, $135 million in FY2002, and $197 million in FY2003. The FY2004 budget request includes $554
million for other conservation programs.
a This figure includes $50 million for a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative, which was not funded by either the
House or the Senate, but was appropriated at $14.9 million in the FY2003 appropriations law.
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.

---

CRS-44
It is unclear whether Congress will choose to follow the Administration’s
FY2004 request and continue to lower LWCF appropriations, as it last did in the
early and mid 1990s as part of efforts to address the federal budget deficit. In
addition, other priorities have become more pressing in the wake of 9/11. The lower
FY2003 appropriation request of $532 million for land acquisition from the Bush
Administration contrasted with its request for full funding for FY2002, and was less
than the $573 million that Congress provided in FY2002. The decline continued
chronologically with each step in the FY2003 legislative process; the House passed
less funding ($528 million) than the Administration requested, then the Senate
approved less funding ($464 million) than the House. The amount enacted into law
— $410 million — is $118 million less than the House-passed total and $54 million
less than the Senate-passed total. With the total lower than in FY2002, the amounts
for each of the five component accounts also were reduced.
In FY2004, the Administration is requesting the largest amount yet for other
purposes, $554 million. In recent years, some of the Fund has been appropriated for
other programs, as identified in the note following table 15, but this would be the
largest amount. This amount is divided between the Forest Service’s State and
Private Forestry programs ($194 million) and Department of the Interior programs
($360 million). Specific programs that would be funded using the LWCF include:
Forest Service’s Forest Stewardship Program ($65.6 million), Forest Legacy Program
($90.8 million), and Urban and Community Forestry Program ($37.9 million); the
Department of the Interior’s interagency Cooperative Conservation Initiative ($113.2
million); and Fish and Wildlife Service’s State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ($60.0
million), Landowner Incentive Grants ($40.0 million), Stewardship Grants ($10.0
million), Cooperative Endangered Species Grants ($86.6 million), and North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund Grants ($49.6 million).
The Administration continues to seek funding for the Cooperative Conservation
Initiative, one of the programs listed above. This Initiative promotes conservation
through partnerships that match BLM, NPS, and FWS funds with local contributions.
In FY2003, The Bush Administration had first proposed this Initiative, and sought
$100 million. Half this total was to come from the state grant program portion of the
LWCF, and the remainder would have come from the operating accounts of the three
DOI land management agencies. Congress appropriated $14.9 million to this
Initiative. In contrast to the FY2003 request, the entire FY2004 request of $113.2
million is to come from the LWCF.
Conservation Spending Category. Congress created the Conservation
Spending Category (CSC), as an amendment to the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, in the FY2001 Interior appropriations law. The CSC
combines funding for more than 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 both the Clinton
Administration request for substantial funding increases in these programs under its
Lands Legacy Initiative, and congressional interest in increasing conservation
funding through legislation known as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
(CARA), which passed the House in the 106th Congress. The CSC law authorized

---

CRS-45
that total spending under the category would grow each year by $160 million, from
$1.6 billion in FY2001 (of which $1.2 billion would be through Interior
Appropriations laws) to $2.4 billion in FY2006. All funding each year is subject to
the appropriations process. (Also, scoring matters — the Administration and the
Appropriations Committee staffs disagree on whether all or portions of funding for
some programs, such as the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, should be credited
to the CSC.) The appropriations history is as follows.
! The FY2001 laws exceeded the target of $1.6 billion by
appropriating a total of $1.68 billion; $1.20 billion for Interior
appropriations programs and $0.48 billion for Commerce
appropriations programs. (Totals for Interior and Commerce
funding were both increases from the preceding year of $566 and
$160 million, respectively.)
! The FY2002 request totaled $1.54 billion for this group of programs,
and Congress appropriated $1.75 billion, thus almost reaching the
target of $1.76 billion. The appropriation for the Interior portion
was $1.32 billion, reaching the authorized target amount.
! The FY2003 request totaled $1.67 billion for this group of programs,
a decrease from FY2002 funding, and below the target of $1.92
billion. Congress appropriated a total of $1.51 billion. For the
Interior portion, Congress provided $1.03 billion, less than the
authorized target of $1.44 billion.
! The FY2004 request totals $1.33 billion, according to estimates
compiled by Appropriations subcommittee staff. This amount is
below the target of $2.08 billion. For the Interior portion, the
request is $1.00 billion, and the target is $1.56 billion. (The
Administration has an alternative estimate that increases the total
FY2004 request to $1.22 billion for Interior programs, but it is based
on some different assumptions about which programs to include.)
For further information on CSC, see Table 18 at the end of this report.
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 RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
Everglades Restoration. Restoration activities in the South Florida
ecosystem, which includes the Everglades, are conducted under several laws.
However, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000; P.L. 106-
541), which authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP, in
Title VI) is considered the seminal law for 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

---

CRS-46
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 — CERP, completed in 1999 — provides for federal involvement in the
restoration of the ecosystem. Congress authorized the Corps to implement CERP in
WRDA 2000. 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.9
From FY1993 to FY2003, federal appropriations for projects and services
related to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem have exceeded $1.9 billion
dollars, and state funding has topped $3.6 billion.10 The average annual federal cost
for restoration activities in Southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to be
approximately $286 million/year.11 For FY2004, the Administration is requesting
$311.0 million for restoration efforts in the Everglades, $46.9 million above the
FY2003 enacted level of $264.1 million.12 Of this total, $48.0 million is requested 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 and
Related Agencies Appropriations laws have provided funds to several DOI agencies
for restoration projects. Specifically, DOI conducts CERP and non-CERP activities
in Southern Florida through the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. For FY2004, the
Administration requests a total of $112.3 million for the DOI for CERP and non-
CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida ecosystem. Of this total,
the NPS requests $86.4 million for land acquisition, construction, and research
activities; the FWS requests $12.9 million for land acquisition, refuges, ecological
9 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.
10 These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
11 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.
12 This figure is based on the contributions of all federal agencies.

---

CRS-47
services, and other activities; the USGS requests $12.6 million for research, planning,
and the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative; and the BIA requests $0.4 million for
water projects on Seminole and Miccosukee Tribal lands. For conducting activities
authorized by CERP, the DOI has requested $8.9 million. See Table 16.
Table 16. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget, FY2002-FY2004
($ in thousands)
Agencies requesting funding for
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Everglades Restoration
Approp.
Approp.
Request
National Park Service
CERP
$5,544
$5,513
$5,555
Park Operationsa 23,635
23,874
24,194
Land Acquisition
15,000
14,924
40,000
Modified Water Delivery
35,199
9,935
12,990
Critical Ecosystem Studies
4,000
3,974
0
Initiative
South Florida Ecosystem Task
1,325
1,320
1,332
Force
Everglades Acquisitions
2,800
2,782
2,300
Management
NPS Total
87,503
62,322
86,371
Fish and Wildlife Service
CERP
3,351
3,329
3,351
Land Acquisition
8,500
2,484
1,964
Ecological Services
2,554
2,537
2,554
Refuges and Wildlife
3,706
3,682
4,306
Law Enforcement
636
632
636
Fisheries
100
99
100
FWS Total
18,847
12,763
12,911
U.S. Geological Survey
Research, Planning and
8,636
8,580
8,636
Coordination
Critical Ecosystem Studies
0
0
4,000
Initiative a
USGS Total
8,636
8,580
12,636
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Stormwater treatment on Seminole
396
393
396
Tribal lands
DOI TOTALS
115,382
84,058
112,314
a This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National
Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve.
Source: South Florida Ecosystem Task Force, FY2004 Cross-Cut Budget at:
[http://www.sfrestore.org/documents/cc2004/index%2004.htm], accessed May 21, 2003.
Appropriations for other restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem
have been provided to the Corps (Energy and Water Development Appropriations),

---

CRS-48
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (VA, HUD, and Related Agencies
Appropriations), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Department of
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations).13
The Administration’s request for funding DOI restoration activities in the
Everglades in FY2004 is $28.2 million more than the FY2003 enacted level of $84.1
million. The primary increase in funding is for the acquisition of mineral rights
underlying Big Cypress National Preserve (e.g., from $14.9 million to $40.0 million
under the land acquisition heading of the NPS). The Collier Resources Company has
mineral rights and has reached an agreement in principle to sell them to the DOI.14
Forty million dollars would cover a portion of the cost of the mineral rights,
estimated at $120 million.
The Modified Water Delivery Project is proposed to have an increase of $3.1
million above its FY2003 enacted level. The Administration again proposes to fund
the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative in the USGS at $4.0 million. The CESI is
intended to meet the scientific information needs of restoration in the Everglades,
including adaptive management, baseline ecosystem research, and simulation and
decision support modeling. For other restoration activities, the Administration has
requested funding for FY2004 at levels similar to those enacted for FY2003.
One potential area of controversy that may affect decisions related to FY2004
appropriations for Everglades restoration could originate from a Florida State Law
(Chapter 2003-12) that was enacted on May 20, 2003. This law amends the
Everglades Forever Act of 1994 (Florida Statutes §373.4592) by authorizing a new
plan to mitigate phosphorus pollution in the Everglades. Phosphorus is one of the
primary water pollutants in the Everglades and is generally thought to be caused by
agricultural runoff. Excessive levels of phosphorus and other nutrients stimulate the
conversion of native sawgrass marshes and sloughs to vegetation stands dominated
by cattails. This has resulted in less habitat for wading birds and other wildlife as
well as fewer stands of native plant species. Some critics argue that this new law
extends previously established phosphorus mitigation deadlines for the Everglades,
and may compromise efforts to restore the Everglades, as well as jeopardize federal
appropriations for CERP. Proponents of the law argue that the new plan represents
a realistic strategy for curbing phosphorus. On April 29, 2003, six Members of the
U.S. House, including Chairman of the Appropriations Committee C.W. Bill Young,
13 Funding requested for other agencies conducting restoration activities in the South Florida
ecosystem include $145 million for the Corps’ construction projects in the region, $4.1
million for the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration), $4.7 million for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and $45.5
million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
14 The Collier family is the primary holder of mineral rights under the Big Cypress Preserve,
and their mineral rights were established before the creation of the preserve. It is estimated
that there are 40 million barrels of recoverable oil under the Big Cypress Preserve.

---

CRS-49
had issued a joint statement that encouraged the Governor to veto the bill.15 The
letter expressed concerns that the bill could lead to lower appropriations for
restoration activities in the Everglades because Florida could be perceived by
Congress as lowering its commitment for restoring the Everglades. A bill that passed
the Florida State Legislature on May 27, 2003 (S 00054-A) and awaits the signature
of the Governor may address some of these concerns.
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 RL31621. Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter.
15 The letter is available at:
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/108_1/04everglades.htm], accessed May 21,
2003.

---

CRS-50
For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
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 RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
CRS Report RL31621. Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation, by Carol
Hardy Vincent, coordinator.

CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter.

---

CRS-51
Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey Zinn.
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 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 RS21442. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
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 Report RS20985. Stewardship Contracting for the National Forests, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.

---

CRS-52
CRS Report RL31679. Wildfire Protection: Legislation in the 107th Congress and
Issues in the 108th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.
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]

---

CRS-53
Minerals Management Service (MMS).
[http://www.mms.gov/]
National Park Service (NPS).
[http://www.nps.gov/]
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.
[http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
[http://www.usgs.gov/]
Title II: Related Agencies
Departments.
Agriculture, Department of (USDA).
[http://www.usda.gov/]
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service.
[http://www.fs.fed.us/]
USDA Strategic Plan.
[http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm]
Energy, Department of (DOE).
[http://www.energy.gov/]
DOE Strategic Plan.
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm]
Energy Conservation Budget
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/
Energy Conservation Programs
[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]

---

CRS-54
Health and Human Services, Department of (HHS).
[http://www.dhhs.gov/]
Indian Health Service (IHS).
[http://www.ihs.gov/]
Agencies.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
[http://www.achp.gov]
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 Institution.
[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-55
Table 17. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2002-FY2004
(in thousands)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Bureau or Agency
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
$1,872,597
$2,060,463
$1,700,521
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,276,424
1,243,533
1,285,227
National Park Service
2,380,074
2,239,430
2,361,873
U.S. Geological Survey
914,002
919,272
895,505
Minerals Management Service
156,772
170,312
171,321
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement
306,530
295,179
281,168
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,212,876
2,257,243
2,292,761
Departmental Offices
367,144
406,039
775,285
General Provisions
—
—
—
Total, Title I
9,486,419
9,591,471
9,763,661
Title II: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,130,416
4,586,839
4,057,972
Department of Energy
1,766,470
1,740,532
1,703,837
Clean Coal Technology
-40,000
-87,000
—
Fossil Energy R & D
582,790
620,837
514,305
Alternative Fuels Production (rescission)
-2,000
—
—
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
17,371
17,715
16,500
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
36,000
36,000
36,000
Energy Conservation
912,805
891,769
875,793
Economic Regulation
1,996
1,477
1,047
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)
179,009
171,732
175,081
SPR Petroleum Account
—
1,954
—
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
—
5,961
5,000
Energy Information Administration
78,499
80,087
80,111
Indian Health Service
2,759,101
2,849,661
2,889,662
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
15,148
14,397
13,532
Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development
4,490
5,454
5,250
Smithsonian Institution
518,860
544,875
566,523
National Gallery of Art
85,335
92,842
100,449
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts
38,310
33,690
32,560
Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars
7,796
8,433
8,604
National Endowment for the Arts
98,234
115,732
100,480
National Endowment for the Humanities
124,504
124,936
152,000

---

CRS-56
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Bureau or Agency
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Institute of Museum and Library Services
26,899
a
a
Challenge America Arts Fund
17,000
b
17,000
Commission of Fine Arts
1,224
1,216
1,422
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
7,000
6,954
5,000
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
3,400
3,643
4,100
Natl Capital Planning Comm.
8,011
7,206
8,230
Holocaust Memorial Museum
36,028
38,412
39,997
Presidio Trust
23,125
21,188
20,700
Total, Title II: Related Agencies
9,671,351
10,196,010
9,727,318
Title VII: United Mine Workers of America Combined
Benefit Fund
United Mine Workers of America Combined
Benefits Fund
—
—
Grand Total (in Bill) c
19,157,770
19,787,481 d
19,490,979
Source: House Appropriations Committee and Congressional Record.
a 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.
b Funding ($16.9 million) for Challenge America Arts Fund is included in the total for the National Endowment for the
Arts for FY2003.
c Figures do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments.
d FY2003 enacted figures include an across-the-board cut of 0.65% in the FY2003 consolidated appropriations law (P.L.
108-7). The total includes $825.0 million for wildland fire emergencies, consisting of $189.0 million for BLM and
$636.0 million for the Forest Service. These funds are to repay amounts transferred from other accounts for fire fighting
in FY2002.

---

CRS-57
Table 18. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations
($ in millions)a b
Subcategory/Appropria
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2004
tions Account
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
LWCF, Federal and State
BLM Federal Land
$47.3
$49.9
$44.7
$33.2
$23.7
Acquisition
FWS Federal Land
121.2
99.1
70.4
72.9
40.7
Acquisition
NPS Federal Land
124.8
130.1
86.1
74.0
78.6
Acquisition
FS Federal Land
150.9
149.7
130.5
132.9
44.1
Acquisition
NPS Stateside Grants and
90.3
144.0
200.0c
97.4
160.0
Administration
Subtotal, Federal and
534.5
572.9
531.7d
410.4
347.2
State
LWCF, Other
FWS State Wildlife
49.9
85.0 e
60.0
64.6
60.0
Grantse
FWS Incentive Grant
–
40.0f
50.0
(0.3)
40.0
Programs
FWS Stewardship Grants
–
10.0f
10.0
9.9
10.0
Program
FWS Cooperative
104.7
96.2
91.0
80.5
86.6
Endangered Species
Conservation Fund
FWS North American
39.9
43.5
43.6
30.3
49.6
Wetlands Conservation
Fund
FS, Forest Legacy
59.9
65.0
69.8
68.4
90.8
FS, NFS Inventory and
20.0
–
-
– –
Monitoring
Subtotal,Other LWCF
274.4
339.7
324.4
253.4
337.0
funded Conservation
Programs g h
Total LWCF
808.9
912.6
856.1
663.8
684.2
Conservation Programs

---

CRS-58
Subcategory/Appropria
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2004
tions Account
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
BLM MLR Cooperative
–
–
10.0
14.9 i
36.1i
Conservation Initiative
FWS RM Cooperative
–
–
18.0
– –
Conservation Initiative
NPS ONPS Cooperative
–
–
22.0
— —
Conservation Initiative
USGS State Planning
24.9
25.0
13.6
20.0
20.0
Partnerships
Subtotal Conservation
24.9
25.0
63.6
34.9
56.1
Programs
Urban and Historic Preservation Programs
NPS Historic
94.1
74.5
67.0
68.6
67.0
Preservation Fund
NPS Urban Parks and
29.9
30.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
Recreation Recovery
Grants
FS Urban and
35.6
36.0
36.2
36.0
37.9
Community Forestry
BLM Youth
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Conservation Corps
FWS Youth
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Conservation Corps
NPS Youth Conservation
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Corps
FS Youth Conservation
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Corps
Subtotal Urban and
165.7
147.5
110.5
111.8
112.2
Historic Preservation
Programs
Payments in Lieu of
49.9
50.0
15.0
59.6
50.0
Taxes, BLM
Subtotal PILT
49.9
50.0
15.0
59.6
50.0
Federal Infrastructure Improvement Programs
BLM - Management of
24.9
28.0
29.0
30.8
29.4
Lands & Resources
FWS - Resource
24.9
29.0
58.0
49.4
62.4
Management

---

CRS-59
Subcategory/Appropria
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2004
tions Account
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
NPS - Construction
49.9
66.9
82.2
28.5
0.0
FS - Capital
49.9
61.0
50.9
45.6
0.0
Improvement and
Maintenance
Subtotal Federal
149.6
184.9
220.1
153.7
91.8
Infrastructure
Improvement Programs
Total
1,199.0
1,320.0
1,265.3
1,032.2j
1,001.3k
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. Title VIII of P.L. 106-291 established a fourth category of discretionary spending
– for “conservation.” That law also identified the specific activities that would be included within the “conservation
spending category.” The category essentially includes those activities, identified by Congress, in particular budget
accounts (or portions thereof) providing appropriations to preserve and protect lands, habitat, wildlife, and other natural
resources; to provide recreational opportunities; and for other purposes. This table presents the current and proposed
distribution of these conservation funds. Dashes indicate that the funding is understood to be zero, either because nothing
was provided or sought, or because the account did not exist. Further, several programs in this category have not
received separate funding under conservation spending for FY2001-FY2003 or as proposed in the FY2004 budget will
not receive separate funding. They include Competitive Grants for Indian Tribes, FWS Neotropical Migratory Birds,
FS Stewardship Incentive and FS Stewardship, Departmental Management (BIA Water Settlement), and National
Wildlife Refuge fund, FWS.
In FY2003, the House, Senate, and appropriations law (P.L. 108-7) did not contain calculations of funding for the CSC.
The joint explanatory statement of the conference report on the enacted measure stated that no funds in the law are
derived from the CSC, but that most of the programs previously funded under that category are continued in FY2003.
b Subtotals and totals may not add due to rounding.
c $50.0 million of this total is part of a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative, and the remaining $150.0 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.
d Departmental Management /BIA Water Settlement is not listed because it was a one-time request in FY2003 for $3.0
million. The FY2003 request for $3.0 million is not included in the total.
e For FY2001, an additional $50.0 million was appropriated for formula grants which were authorized in Title IX of the
FY2001 Commerce appropriations law. Further, the FY2002 enacted amount does not reflect a proposed rescission of
$25.0 million.
f The FY04 appropriations history indicates that the rescission in FY2002 was not adopted, i.e. that the Incentive Grant
programs and Stewardship grants programs were sustained in FY2002.
g The State and other conservation programs subgroup also includes the FWS Migratory Bird Fund and the FWS
Multinational Species fund. The FY2003 funding for these was $3.0 million for migratory birds and $4.8 million for
multinational species, and the FY04 request was $0 and $7.0 million respectively.
h Funds for FS, Forest Stewardship were not considered part of the CSC in FY2001 and FY2002 so the table does not
reflect funds for this program. It was proposed to be funded in the FY2003 request at $49.5 million, but did not receive
funding.
i The FY03 appropriations and FY04 request is a total for BLM, FWS, and NPS.
j The final total includes $7.8 million derived from the FWS Migratory Bird Fund ($3.0 million ) and FWS Multinational
species fund($4.8 million)
k The FY04 request of $7 million for the FWS Multinational Species Fund is reflected in the FY04 request final total
for the CSC.

---

CRS-60
Table 19. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2000 to FY2003
($ in thousands)
Agency or Bureau
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
$1,231,402
$2,147,182
$1,872,597
$2,060,463
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
875,093
1,227,010
1,276,424
1,243,533
National Park Service
1,803,847
2,135,219
2,380,074
2,239,430
U.S. Geological Survey
813,376
882,800
914,002
919,272
Minerals Management Service
116,318
139,221
156,772
170,312
Office of Surface Mining Recl. and Enforce.
291,733
302,846
306,530
295,179
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1,869,052
2,187,613
2,212,876
2,257,243
Departmental Offices a
319,869
352,519
367,144
406,039
General Provisions
—
12,572
—
—
Total for Department
7,320,690
9,386,982
9,486,419
9,591,471
Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
2,819,933
4,435,391
4,130,416
4,586,839
Department of Energy
1,226,393
1,453,644
1,766,470
1,740,532
Indian Health Service
2,390,728
2,628,766
2,759,101
2,849,661
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
8,000
14,967
15,148
14,397
Inst. of Amer. Indian and Alaska Culture & Arts
Dev.
2,125
4,116
4,490
5,454
Smithsonian Institution
438,130
453,854
518,860
544,875
National Gallery of Art
67,590
75,485
85,335
92,842
JFK Center for the Performing Arts
33,871
33,925
38,310
33,690
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
6,763
12,283
7,796
8,433
National Endowment for the Arts
97,628
97,785
98,234
115,732
National Endowment for the Humanities
115,260
119,994
124,504
124,936
Institute of Museum and Library Services
24,307
24,852
26,899
b
Challenge America Arts Fund
—
6,985
17,000
c
Commission of Fine Arts
1,021
1,076
1,224
1,216
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
6,973
6,985
7,000
6,954
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
2,989
3,182
3,400
3,643
National Capitol Planning Commission
6,288
6,486
8,011
7,206
Holocaust Memorial Museum
33,161
34,363
36,028
38,412
Presidio Trust
44,300
33,327
23,125
21,188
Total for Related Agencies
7,325,460
9,447,466
9,671,351
10,196,010
Grand Total for All Agencies
14,911,650
18,892,320
19,157,770
19,787,481d
a Departmental Offices includes Insular Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians.

---

CRS-61
b Beginning in 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 Funding ($17.0 million) for Challenge America Arts Fund is included in the total figure for the National Endowment for the Arts.
d Figures in this column reflect an across-the-board cut of 0.65% in the FY2003 consolidated appropriations law (P.L. 108-7). The total
also includes $825.0 million for wildland fire emergencies, consisting of $189.0 million for BLM and $636.0 million for the Forest Service.
These funds are to repay amounts transferred from other accounts for fire fighting in FY2002.

---