Order Code RL31806
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2004:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated August 1, 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 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. 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.
On July 17, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2691 (268-152) containing a total of
$19.60 billion for Interior and related agencies for FY2004. This total is $110.1
million more than the President’s request, but $12.6 million less than the
recommendation of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and $186.4 million less
than the FY2003 enacted amount (including the supplemental fire funds). For DOI
agencies, the House approved $9.66 billion, and for non-DOI agencies the supported
$9.94 billion.
On July 10, 2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported a
companion bill (S. 1391, S. Rept. 108-89) containing $19.61 billion for FY2004.
The total is $122.7 million more than requested by the President and $12.6 million
more than recommended by the House Committee on Appropriations, but $173.8
million less than enacted in FY2003. The Committee bill contained $9.83 billion in
total for DOI agencies, more than was enacted in FY2003, requested for FY2004, and
recommended by the House Committee for FY2004. For non-DOI agencies, the
Senate Committee approved $9.78 billion, less than enacted in FY2003 and approved
by the House Committee for FY2004, but more than requested by the President for
FY2004.
Controversial issues that have arisen in the context of consideration of the
Interior bill have included: funding for land acquisition and conservation, fire
management and funding for wildfires, outsourcing of government jobs, development
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, renewal of grazing permits and leases,
Everglades restoration, conflict over water use in the Klamath River Basin,
development of oil and gas leases off the California coast, and management of the
Indian tribes’ trust funds and assets. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2003 Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 24
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . 46
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Smithsonian Institution, National Endowment for the Arts, and
National Endowment for the Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1999 to FY2003 . . . 3
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System, FY2003-2004 . . . . . . . 10
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Migratory Bird Fund, FY2003-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 8. Appropriations for NPS, FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2003-FY2004 . . 22
Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 12. Federal Wildland Fire Management Appropriations,
FY2000-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 13. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2003-FY2004 . . . 44
Table 14. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2003-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 15. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 16. LWCF Funding for Federal Land Acquisition and State Grants,
FY2001-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 17. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 18. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2003-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 19. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations . . . . . . . . 72
Table 20. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2000 to FY2003 . . . . . . . . . 75

Appropriations for FY2004:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On July 17, 2003, the House approved H.R. 2691 (268-152) containing $19.60
billion for Interior and related agencies for FY2004. On July 10, 2003, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations reported a bill (S. 1391, S.Rept. 108-89) providing
$19.61 billion for Interior and related agencies.
On July 31, 2003, Congress sent to the White House a bill (H.R. 2859)
providing supplemental appropriations for FY2003 that did not include funds for
wildland fire fighting.
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.

CRS-2
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
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).
On July 17, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2691 (268-152) containing a total of
$19.60 billion for Interior and related agencies for FY2004. This total is $110.1
million more than the President’s request, but $12.6 million less than the
recommendation of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and $186.4 million less
than the FY2003 enacted amount (including the supplemental fire funds). For DOI
agencies, the House approved $9.66 billion, and for non-DOI agencies the House
supported $9.94 billion.
On July 10, 2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported a
companion bill (S. 1391, S. Rept. 108-89) containing $19.61 billion for FY2004.
The total is $122.7 million more than requested by the President and $12.6 million
more than recommended by the House Committee on Appropriations, but $173.8
million less than enacted in FY2003. The Committee bill contained $9.83 billion in
total for DOI agencies, more than was enacted in FY2003, requested for FY2004, and
recommended by the House Committee for FY2004. For non-DOI agencies, the
Committee approved $9.78 billion, less than enacted in FY2003 and approved by the
House Committee for FY2004, but more than requested by the President for FY2004.
Controversial issues that have arisen during Interior bill consideration have
included: funding for land acquisition and conservation, fire management and
funding for wildfires, outsourcing of government jobs, development in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, renewal of grazing permits and leases, Everglades
restoration, development of oil and gas leases off the California coast, management
of the Indian tribes’ trust funds and assets, and conflict over water use in the Klamath
River Basin. This report will be updated following major congressional action on
Interior appropriations legislation.

CRS-3
FY2003 Supplemental Appropriations
On July 7, 2003, the Administration requested emergency supplemental funding
that included $289 million for FY2003 firefighting efforts. The request consisted of
$253 million for the Forest Service, and $36 million for the BLM for fighting fires
on DOI lands. The President stated that the monies are needed to ensure sufficient
funding for the 2003 fire season, as large portions of the West are at risk of
catastrophic fire this summer. The money is intended for fire suppression and
emergency rehabilitation activities. The President stated that with the supplemental
money, funding for wildland fire suppression would be at the 10-year average.
On July 11, 2003, the Senate passed a bill (H.R. 2657) containing the requested
level ($289 million) of supplemental funding for wildfires. The Senate also adopted
an amendment adding another $25 million to remove dead trees in forests devastated
by insects, which could exacerbate fire threats. On July 21, 2003, the House
Committee on Appropriations ordered reported a draft measure containing $319
million in FY2003 supplemental funds for fire fighting, reflecting a $30 million
increase over the President’s request. However, the House passed a bill (H.R. 2859)
on July 25, 2003, that did not contain supplemental funds for wildland fire fighting.
On July 31 the Senate passed the bill without amendment, clearing it for action by
the President. Congress is expected to consider supplemental funds for wildland fire
fighting later in the session.
Status
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
Report Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
7/10/03
7/10/03
(H.Rept.
7/17/03
(S.Rept.
6/18/03
7/9/03
108-195) (268-152)
108-89)
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.

CRS-4
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
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 18 for a comparison
of FY2002-FY2004 Interior Appropriations, and Table 20 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 energy and minerals 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 House approved $1.70 billion for the BLM, essentially the
same as the Administration’s request. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
reported a higher funding level—$1.72 billion. For FY2003, Congress enacted $2.06
billion. This apparent significant decrease in funds for FY2004 is attributable to the
inclusion in FY2003 of two large sums for activities not retained thus far 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. Excluding the PILT monies would
reduce the FY2003 amount to $1.84 billion; further excluding the extra fire funds
would reduce the FY2003 appropriation to $1.65 billion. See Table 3.
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the House approved $834.1 million, and the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported $847.1 million, both increases over the President’s request
($828.1 million) and over FY2003 ($820.3 million). This line item funds an array

CRS-5
of BLM land programs, including protection, recreational use, improvement,
development, disposal, and general BLM administration.
The House-passed and Senate Committee-reported bills propose different
funding levels for some land and resource activities. For instance, the House would
provide $80.9 million for realty and ownership management, a reduction of $7.7
million from FY2003 ($88.6 million), including decreases for land conveyances in
Alaska; cadastral surveys; and management programs, through which BLM
authorizes uses of public lands. By contrast, the Senate Committee would increase
funds for realty and ownership management by $13.3 million, with a significant
increase for expediting the processing of native allotment applications and land
selections under the Alaska Statehood Act.
Both the full House and Senate Committee seek increases over FY2003 to
manage recreation on BLM lands, for a total of $67.7 million for the House and
$63.7 million for the Senate Committee. The House targets increases for travel and
transportation management and improving visitor services. In its report, the House
Appropriations Committee charges the BLM to report back on efforts to develop a
unified strategy for recreation management. The Committee also asserts that BLM
and the Forest Service should take measures to provide adequate public access for
recreation, and directs the agencies to submit a strategy for developing recreational
access plans for individual forests and public land units. Further, both the full House
and Senate Committee seek a decrease from FY2003 for transportation and facilities
maintenance, which funds annual and deferred maintenance and infrastructure
improvement.
Energy and Minerals. The full House and Senate Appropriations Committees
recommend increases over FY2003 for the energy and minerals program, including
Alaska minerals. The House increase is to address the backlog in processing permits
for development of coalbed methane. In report language, the Senate Committee
expresses concern with the backlog in processing oil and gas permits, and suggests
that the BLM Director establish a pilot program in 5 states to eliminate the backlog
and create a best practices program for permitting on federal lands.
The House-passed and Senate Committee-reported bills continue to bar funds
in the bill from being used for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of
national monuments, as they were on January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the
presidential proclamations that created the monuments. The bills also continue the
moratorium on accepting and processing applications for patents for mining and mill
site claims on federal lands. However, applications meeting certain requirements that
were filed on or before September 30, 1994, would be allowed to proceed, and third
party contractors would be authorized to process the mineral examinations on those
applications.
Disclaimers of Interest. The House adopted floor language with regard to
disclaimers of interest, whereby the United States declares that it has no property
interest in a parcel of land. A floor amendment originally sought to prohibit funds
in the bill from being used to implement revised DOI regulations on disclaimers,
which allow states, state political subdivisions, and others to apply for disclaimers
regardless of whether they are the property owners of record. The House adopted a

CRS-6
revision limiting the application of the amendment to certain lands—national
monuments, wilderness and wilderness study areas, park units, and national wildlife
refuges. Opponents of the new regulation feared that it will be used to confirm
“RS2477" highway rights of way, despite provisions of law barring new rules
pertaining to recognition or validity of such rights of way unless authorized by
Congress. Supporters welcomed the new regulations as a way to resolve ownership
of property, including private property interests, thus allowing the potential for
development.
Wild Horses and Burros and Grazing Issues. In its report, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations expressed “frustration” with the “escalating problems”
in the Wild Horse and Burro Program. The Committee asked BLM to provide the
results of a program audit and to prepare a cost analysis of alternatives to the adopt-a-
horse program for reducing animals on the range. Also, both bills continue the
automatic renewal of grazing permits and leases that expire, are transferred, or
waived during FY2004 and that were issued by the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture. The automatic renewal continues until the permit renewal
process is completed under applicable laws and regulations, including any necessary
environmental analyses. The terms and conditions in expiring permits or leases
would continue under the new permit or lease until the renewal process is completed.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2004,
the House, Senate Appropriations Committee, and Administration all support $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 recommendation of the Senate Appropriations Committee is identical to the
President’s for all three components of wildland fire management: suppression,
preparedness, and other operations. The House seeks more than the Administration
for preparedness—which covers equipment, training, personnel, prevention, and
detection—and for other operations—which covers rehabilitation of burned lands,
hazardous fuel reduction, and rural fire assistance—but less than the Administration
requested for fire suppression. The Administration had sought to fund the full cost
of the 10-year average cost of fire suppression, thereby minimizing the necessity of
transferring funds from other accounts to fight fires, which has been the practice in
the past. In its report, the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern that
funding may not achieve the level of readiness needed for public safety, and directed
DOI to analyze readiness levels. Both the full House and the Senate Committee
support the President’s request of $186.2 million for hazardous fuels reduction,
including the wildland-urban interface.
Further, the Senate Committee cites
deteriorating forest health as an underlying cause of wildland fire and encourages the
BLM to implement Stewardship Contracting as quickly as possible and to report on
its progress.

CRS-7
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT).
The PILT program
compensates local governments for federal land within their jurisdictions because
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, for FY2004 the House supports $225.0 million for PILT, and the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $230.0 million, both increases over
the President’s request ($200.0 million) and FY2003 ($218.6 million). In proposing
a reduction, the Administration asserted that PILT lands “burden” local governments
and expressed an intent to examine the PILT distribution formula to determine if
changes would 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 House approved $14.0 million
for FY2004, substantially less than the Senate Committee ($25.6 million), the
President’s request (23.7 million), and FY2003 ($33.2 million). In its report, the
House Appropriations Committee expressed concern about “the unfocused direction”
in the land acquisition program of the agencies, and directed the Secretaries of DOI
and Agriculture to develop a plan outlining the acreage goals and conservation
objectives of federal land acquisition.
It sought alternatives to fee title land
purchases, such as land exchanges and purchase of conservation easements, which
often are less expensive approaches. The money would be appropriated from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
(For more information, see the “Land
Acquisition” section below.)
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2004
FY2004
FY2003
FY2004
Bureau of Land Management
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Management of Lands and Resources
$820.3
$828.1
$834.1
$847.1
Wildland Fire Management
650.2 c
698.7
698.7
698.7
Central Hazardous Materials Fund
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
Construction
11.9
11.0
11.0
12.5
Payments in Lieu of Taxes a
[218.6]
[200.0]
[225.0]
[230.0]
Land Acquisition
33.2
23.7
14.0
25.6
Oregon and California Grant Lands
104.9
106.7
106.7
106.7
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeitures b
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriations a
1,653 c
1,701
1,697
1,723

CRS-8
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 figures of “0" are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
c
Does not include $189.0 million enacted in the FY2003 appropriations law to replace monies
borrowed from other accounts in FY2002 for fire fighting.
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm].
CRS Report RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,” and RS2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
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
$1.285 billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a 3.4% increase over
FY2003. The House approved $1.296 billion, a 4.2% increase over FY2003. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations reported $1.338 billion, a 7.6 % increase.
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources
Management account. The President’s FY2004 request was for $941.5 million. The
FY2003 appropriation was $911.5 million. The House approved $959.9 million, a
5.3% increase, while the Senate Committee reported $942.2 million (+3.4%).
Included in Resources Management are the Endangered Species Program, the Refuge
System, and Law Enforcement, among other things.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. For
FY2004, the Administration proposed to reduce the program from $131.8 million to
$128.7 million. (See Table 4.) The House approved $134.5 million, and the Senate
Committee reported $135.2 million.
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, which the
House approved, as did the Senate Committee. 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; the full House and the Senate Committee approved the increase.
Stewardship Grants would increase from a minus $65,000 (due to a rescission of $10

CRS-9
million in FY2002 funds in the FY2003 law) to $10 million under the President’s
proposal, which was likewise approved by the House and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations.1
Under the President’s request, overall FY2004 funding for the Endangered
Species program and related programs would increase from FY2003 by $53.4 million
(25.2%), largely due to increases in related programs rather than in the endangered
species program itself.
However, this increase primarily reflects the FY2003
rescission of prior year funding. Overall, the House approved a 27.9% increase over
FY2003. The strong increase reflects in part the rescissions of the previous year.
The Senate Committee increased the level by 28.3%.
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2003-
FY2004
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2004
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Endangered Species Program
Candidate Conservation
$9,867
$8,670
$9,920
$10,130
Listing
9,018
12,286
12,286
12,286
Consultation
47,459
45,734
47,734
46,034
Recovery
65,412
62,029
64,529
66,739
Subtotal
131,756
128,719
134,469
135,189
Related Programs
Cooperative Endangered
80,473
86,614
86,614
86,614
Species Conservation Fund
Landowner Incentive Program
-260
40,000
40,000
40,000
Stewardship Grants
-65
10,000
10,000
10,000
Total
211,904
265,333
271,083
271,803
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).
For operations and maintenance, the President proposed a decrease of 8.9% for
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-10
FY2004 while the House approved an increase of 8.1%, and the Senate Committee
reported a 5.3% increase. For infrastructure improvements in the System, the
Administration requested $53.4 million but neither the full House nor the Senate
Committee supported funding for this program.
Spending for the NWRS is under the “Refuges and Wildlife” budget activity,
which includes programs which are not directly tied to the NWRS: recovery of the
Salton Sea (in California), management of migratory birds throughout the country
and in cooperation with other nations, and law enforcement operations around the
country. These programs are not included here, but are contained in tables in
Appropriations Committee reports. (See Table 5.)
Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System, FY2003-
2004
($ in millions)
Refuge Program
FY2003
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Comm.
Operations and
$367.4
$334.7
$397.3
$387.0
Maintenance
Cooperative Conservation
0.0
11.9
0.0
0.0
Initiative
Infrastructure Improvement
0.0
53.4
0.0
0.0
Youth Conservation Corps
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
(YCC)
Total
367.4
402.0
397.3
389.0
Note: Although the House did not earmark funds for the Cooperative Conservation Initiative,
Infrastructure Improvement, and YCC, the agency could possibly spend in these areas from within the
funds provided under the overall Operations and Maintenance appropriation. Similarly, the Senate
Committee bill could permit funding of Infrastructure Improvement and the Cooperative Conservation
Initiative.
The President proposed $52.7 million for Law Enforcement — up $1.1 million
from FY2003 ($51.6 million). The House approved a larger increase, to $54.4
million. The Senate Committee reported $53.4 million.
Land Acquisition. For FY2004, the Administration proposed $40.7 million,
a 44.1% decrease from the FY2003 level of $72.9 million. The House cut the
appropriation still further, to $23.0 million. The Senate Committee approved $64.7
million. The bulk of this program has been for acquisition of federal refuge land, but
a portion is used for closely related functions such as 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. These functions would constitute 67.5% of the appropriation if
the House level is enacted, and 26.8% if the Senate level is enacted. (For more
information, see LWCF funding under Cross Cutting Issues.)

CRS-11
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, and the
full House and the Senate Committee both approved this level. When combined with
the estimated receipts, this appropriation level would cover 49% of the authorized
full payment.
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 $7.0 million for the MSCF (including the proposed addition of
the NMBCF within this program). Congress rejected the proposed transfer in
FY2002 and FY2003. The House again rejected it, and proposed increases over
FY2003 both in MSCF and NMBCF. The Senate Committee approved flat funding
for NMBCF and increases for MSCF. (See Table 6.)
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2003-2004
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2004
Multinational Species
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
African elephant
$1,192
$1,000
$1,200
$1,500
Tiger and Rhinos
1,192
1,000
1,400
1,500
Asian elephant
1,192
1,000
1,200
1,500
Great Apes
1,192
1,000
1,200
1,500
Neotropical Migratory Birdsa
[2,981]
[3,000]
[5000]
[3000]
Total
4,768
4,000
5,000
6,000
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.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
program helps fund efforts to conserve species (including non-game species) of
concern to states and tribes. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior
appropriations law (P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior
appropriations bills. It lacks any other authorizing statute. Funds may be used to
develop conservation plans as well as support specific practical conservation
projects. As of FY2002, a portion of the funding is set aside for competitive grants
to tribal governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining state portion is for

CRS-12
matching grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined on a formula basis. The
President proposed a 7.1% decrease, while the House approved a 16.1% increase.
The Senate Committee reported the same total, but unlike the house, it set aside no
specific amount for administration. (See Table 7.)
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
State and Tribal
FY2003
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004
Wildlife Grants
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Comm.
Tribal Grants
$5.0
$5.0
$6.0
$5.0
State Grants
57.8
53.2
66.7
70.0
Administration
1.8
1.8
2.3
NA
Rescission
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
64.6
60.0
75.0
75.0
Note: The House proposed that FWS be limited to 3% of the total appropriation for use in
administrative expenses. That figure is indicated here.
NA: There was no specific amount allocated to Administration of this program in the Senate bill. It
is unclear whether some portion of the administrative costs is to be deducted from one or both of the
state or tribal allocations.
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 House-passed appropriations bill provides $2.24 billion in total
for the NPS. This is $0.9 million above the FY2003 enacted level ($2.24 billion), but
$121.5 million below the President’s request ($2.36 billion). The Senate Committee
on Appropriations recommended $2.32 billion, $41.0 million less than the request,

CRS-13
but $81.4 million more than the FY2003 enacted level and $80.5 million above the
House-passed bill. See Table 8.
Several House floor amendments affecting the NPS, not directly tied to specific
funding accounts, were considered. The House narrowly defeated (on a tie vote) an
amendment that sought generally to prohibit use of funding to manage recreational
snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and the John D.
Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway which links them. The amendment would have
resulted in the phase-out of snowmobile use in these park units, as provided in a
controversial Clinton Administration rule that the Bush Administration is seeking to
overturn.
(See CRS Issue Brief IB10093, National Park Management and
Recreation.)
An amendment to ban the use of funds to kill bison straying from Yellowstone
National Park was also defeated. Similarly, an amendment seeking to limit an
extension of the recreational fee demonstration program to national park units was
rejected. Lastly, the House approved an amendment that limits the Administration’s
competitive sourcing initiative by preventing NPS archaeological jobs at both the
Midwest and Southeast Archaeological Centers from being contracted out. The
reports of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are critical of NPS
handling of the competitive sourcing initiative.
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 House-passed bill provides $1.63 billion for
NPS operations. This is $1.0 million below the Administration’s request, and $66.6
million more than the FY2003 level ($1.56 billion). The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommends $1.64 billion for park operations. The report of the House
Committee on Appropriations contained strong language regarding the “erosion” of
NPS operating funds by the absorption of unbudgeted costs associated with
management initiatives, including competitive sourcing, financial management
reform, and other activities. The Committee urged the Administration to submit
more realistic FY2005 budget justifications that factor in the true costs of fixed cost
increases and management initiatives.
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. The House-passed bill provides $3.0 million for the
CCI. The Senate Committee recommends $2.0 million.

CRS-14
Table 8. Appropriations for NPS, FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2004
FY2004
FY2003
FY2004
National Park Service
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Operation of the National Park System
$1,564.3
$1,631.9
$1,630.9
$1,636.3
U.S. Park Police
77.9
78.9
78.9
78.3
National Recreation and Preservation
61.3
47.9
54.9
60.2
Urban Park and Recreation Fund
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Historic Preservation Fund
68.6
67.0
71.0
75.8
Construction
325.7
327.3
303.2
341.5
Land and Water Conservation Fund a
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
Assistance to States
97.4
160.0
97.5
104.0
NPS Acquisition
74.0
78.6
33.7
54.5
Total
171.3
238.6
131.2
158.5
Total Appropriations
2,239.4
2,361.9
2,240.3
2,320.9
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 House-passed bill provides $303.2 million for FY2004 NPS construction, $24.1
million less than the Administration’s request ($327.3 million), and $22.5 million
less than the FY2003 appropriations ($325.7 million). The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommends $341.5 million for NPS construction, $38.3 more than the
House-approved amount. For FY2004, the House approved $569.2 million for
facility operation and maintenance (an activity funded within the Operation of the
National Park System line item), $0.5 million less than the Administration requested
($567.7 million), and $49.2 million more the FY2003 appropriation ($520.0 million).
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $567.3 million, $1.9 million less
than the House-approved amount.
Combined, the Administration requested $897.0 million for construction and
facility operation and maintenance, an increase of $51.3 million from FY2003
($845.7 million). Of this total, the Administration states that $705.8 million is
applicable to construction and annual and deferred maintenance projects in FY2004,
implying that $191.2 million is for facility operations. The House approved a
similarly combined total of $872.4 million, $22.6 million below the requested total.
The Senate Committee’s combined recommendation is $908.8 million, or $36.4
million above the House-approved total and $11.8 million above the request.2
2 None of the sources separate facility operation from facility maintenance.

CRS-15
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 House-passed bill matches the Administration’s
FY2004 request of $78.9 million, nearly $1 million more than the FY2003 enacted
level. The Senate Committee recommends $78.3 million, $0.5 million less than the
House-passed bill. Administration 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. The House-passed bill provides $54.9 million, $6.4 million
less than the FY2003 enacted level, but $7.0 million above the Administration’s
request. The bill includes $13.9 million for heritage partnerships, $6.2 million more
than requested, and $6.5 million for statutory and contractual aid, $2.4 million more
than requested. The Senate Committee recommends $60.2 million, with $13.6
million for heritage partnerships and $9.9 million for statutory and contractual aid.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This matching grant
program, long popular with Congress, was designed to help low-income inner city
neighborhoods rehabilitate existing 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 for UPARR. The
President did not request funds for UPARR in FY2002, but Congress funded the
program at $30.0 million. No funding was again requested for FY2003. Although
the House approved $30.0 million and the Senate supported $10.0 million, the
conferees ultimately provided only $298,000 for program administrative costs. For
FY2004, the Administration’s request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate
Committee bill all agree on $305,000 to administer previously awarded grants, but
do not provide money for new grants. During the floor debate, the House refused,
on procedural grounds, to consider an amendment that would have significantly
increased CSC-type funding, including $30.0 million for UPARR.

CRS-16
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. The House-passed bill provides
a total of $131.2 million, with $33.7 million for federal land acquisition and $97.5
million for state assistance. The total is $107.5 million less than the Administration
requested ($238.6 million) and $40.2 million less than the FY2003 enacted level
($171.3 million). 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, with
the states determining their internal spending priorities. The House bill includes
significant reductions in land acquisition for all four major federal land management
agencies. House-passed NPS land acquisition is $40.3 million (55%) below FY2003
funding and $45.0 million (57%) below the Administration’s request. The House-
passed provision for state assistance is essentially level with the FY2003 enacted
level, but is $62.5 million (39%) below the Administration’s request. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommends a land acquisition total of $158.5 million,
with $54.5 million for NPS land acquisition ($20.8 million above the House) and
$104.0 million for state assistance ($6.5 million above the House).
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Under this
program, the four major federal land management agencies are authorized to retain
and spend receipts from entrance and user fees. The receipts are available without
further appropriation for projects at the collecting sites that reduce the backlog of
deferred maintenance and enhance visitor experience. A portion of fee receipts is
distributed to other non-fee-collecting 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 House-passed
bill would extend Fee Demo for two more years, through September 2006 for fee
collection and September 2009 for fee expenditures, but would not otherwise alter
the program. An extension would give the authorizing committees more time to
consider the controversial issue of a permanent program. An amendment on the
House floor to limit the extension of the fee demo program to national park units was
defeated. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not include a fee demo program
extension provision in its version of the FY2004 Interior funding bill.
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. Pending legislation would make Fee Demo permanent only for
the NPS. (See CRS Issue Brief IB10093.) 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.

CRS-17
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 by P.L. 106-208.
The FY2004 Bush Administration’s budget recommended $67.0 million for the
Historic Preservation Fund3. The House-passed bill provides $71.0 million for the
HPF for FY2004, comprised of $34.0 million for grants-in-aid to states and
territories, $3.0 million for Indian tribes, $30.0 million for “Save America’s
Treasures,” former President Clinton’s Millennium initiative, and $4.0 million for
the restoration of buildings on campuses of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs). The House-passed bill provides $2.4 million above the
FY2003 appropriation ($68.5 million) and $4.0 million above the FY2004 requested
level. The recommendation of the Senate Committee on Appropriations is $75.7
million, an increase of $8.7 million above the budget request, and $7.2 million above
the FY2003 appropriation. See Table 9.
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 House-passed bill concurs with
the FY2004 Bush Administration request of $30.0 million for Save America’s
Treasures. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $32.0 million for
Save America’s Treasures.
3 All funding for HPF for FY2004 is listed for accounting purposes in the conservation
spending category. For more information, see the “Conservation Spending Category”
discussion.

CRS-18
In the past, the HPF account has included the preservation and restoration of
historic buildings and structures on Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCU) campuses. Funds in Section 507 of P.L. 104-333 ( the Omnibus Parks and
Public Lands Management Act of 1996) were earmarked for preservation projects for
HBCU buildings, particularly those listed in the National Register of Historic Places
that required immediate repairs. An appropriation in FY2001 of $7.2 million
represented the unused authorization remaining from P.L. 104-333. There was no
funding for HBCU’s under HPF for FY2002 or FY2003. Both the House-passed bill
and the Senate Appropriations Committee would restore funding ($4.0 million in the
House, $3.0 million in the Senate Committee) for the HBCU program in FY2004,
with competitive grants administered by the National Park Service.
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, $2.0 million was provided. The FY2004 budget recommends, and the
House-passed bill concurs in, eliminating federal funding for the National Trust
Fund/Endowment. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee restores
$500,000 for the Trust, stating that the amount provided would conclude the federal
commitment to the Trust’s endowment program.
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2004
FY2003
FY2004
Historic Preservation
House
Senate
Approp.
Requestb
passed
Comm.
Grants in aid to State
Historic Preservation
$33,779
$34,000
$34,000
$37,000
Officesa
Tribal grants
2,981
3,000
3,000
3,250
Save America’s Treasures
29,805
30,000
30,000
32,000
HBCU’s

-
4,000
3,000
National Historic Trust
Endowment grant/Historic
1,987
-

500
Sites Fund
Massillon Heritage

-
-

Foundation
HPF (total)
68,552
67,000b
71,000
75,750

CRS-19
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
House-passed Interior Appropriations bill provides $935.7 million for the USGS,
which is $40.2 million above the Administration’s request of $895.5 million and
$16.4 million above the FY2003 appropriation of $919.3 million. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations has recommended $928.9 million for the USGS, which
is $33.4 million above the Administration’s request and $9.6 million above the
FY2003 enacted level. See Table 10.
The House-passed bill has increases in funding over the Administration’s
request for five of the six activities conducted by the Survey. They are: the National
Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water Resources
Investigations; Biological Research; and Facilities. The House-passed funding for
Science Support is equal to the Administration’s request ($91.5 million). Compared
to the Administration’s request, the Senate Committee recommends funding
increases for the National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes; Water Resources Investigations; and Biological Research; and decreases
for Science Support and Facilities.
The House Committee report recommended restoring several cooperative
programs that are expected to be outsourced to the private sector. The House
Committee indicates that these programs should be rewarded and not penalized. The
Senate Committee states that evaluations of outsourcing experiences within mapping
activities of the USGS should be undertaken before new initiatives are launched.
National Mapping Program. The National Mapping Program aims to
provide access to high quality geospatial data and information to the public. The

CRS-20
House-passed bill would provide $130.2 million for this program in FY2004, an
increase of $9.7 million over the Administration’s request of $120.5 million and a
decrease of $3.0 million from the FY2003 enacted level of $133.2 million. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations has recommended $128.9 million for the
National Mapping Program, a decrease of $4.3 million from the FY2003 enacted
level and an increase of $8.4 million over the Administration’s request.
The House report has stated increases over the budget request for restoring data
collection activities through collaboration with the private sector, cooperative
topographic mapping, and research activities under geographic analysis and
monitoring. In addition, the House-passed bill and the House Committee report
support the USGS for implementing the National Map and improving digital
infrastructure as well as for utilizing cooperative partnerships with state and local
governments, and academic entities. The House Committee further states its support
for converting archived remote sensing data from outdated storage media to disk-
based storage, and for utilizing remote mirroring technology to backup data storage.4
The Senate Committee restored decreases of $4.4 million for data collection and $2.8
million for geographic analysis that were included in the Administration’s request.
The Senate Committee has restored all but $1.5 million for technology reductions for
the mapping program proposed by the Administration.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. This heading covers
programs in three budget sub-activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and Coastal
Assessments, and Resource Assessments. For Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes activities, the House-passed bill would provide $231.4 million for FY2004
— an increase of $9.9 million above the Administration’s request of $221.6 million
and $1.7 million below the FY2003 enacted level of $233.2 million. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended $236.9 million, which is an increase of
$3.7 million over the FY2003 enacted level and $15.3 million over the
Administration’s request.
Both the House-passed bill and the Senate Committee on Appropriations would
provide increases above the Administration’s budget for $1.9 million for the
advanced national seismic system, and $2.0 million for coastal studies in Louisiana
and Georgia coastal studies. The Senate Committee further recommends increases
over FY2003 for several projects and studies related to earthquakes and volcanos.
Recommended decreases from the FY2003 enacted level were for the Tampa Bay
pilot project and a global dust program. The House report states decreases from the
Administration’s request for $4.0 million for Everglades research and $2.7 million
as a science support adjustment.
The Administration requested a decrease of $13.4 million for aggregate and
industrial mineral studies, minerals research and assessment activities, and the Alaska
Minerals-At-Risk program. Both the House-passed bill and the Senate Committee
would provide support for the USGS mineral resources program and have noted the
4 Remote mirroring technology utilizes mirror sites, which are exact copies of an existing
site that are made to reduce the load on the source site, and speed up access for users in
locations geographically far away from the server.

CRS-21
relevance of mineral resource and assessment research for national security and
infrastructure development as well as for assisting the U.S. mineral industry. The
Senate Committee restored $11.2 million to mineral programs and the House bill
restored $9.1 million.
Water Resources Investigations. For the Water Resources Investigations
heading, the House-passed bill would provide $215.2 million for FY2004, which is
a $15.1 million above the budget request of $200.1 million and $8.0 million above
the FY2003 enacted level of $207.2 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommends $209.5 million, which is $2.4 million above the FY2003 enacted level
and $9.4 million above the Administration’s request.
The House-passed bill would provide $6.5 million for the Water Resources
Research Institutes for FY2004; the Senate Committee recommends $6.0 million for
these institutes. As was the case with the Bush Administration’s FY2002 and
FY2003 budget requests, the FY2004 request sought 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 Senate Committee recommends increases above FY2003, including $2.2
million for mandatory pay and benefits and $2.0 million for collaborative studies
with the University of Oklahoma. The House report has increases above the
Administration’s request, including $2.4 million for the Toxic Substance Hydrology
Program, $600,000 for Lake Ponchartrain, $900,000 for the Long Term Estuary
Group (LEAG) in Louisiana, and $3.7 million for science support adjustment.
The LEAG is a collaborative effort that aims to understand a variety of scientific
issues within the Mississippi River, Louisiana coastal estuary, and Gulf of Mexico.
The House report requests that a portion of the funding for LEAG go to collaborating
partners ($600,000) and the rest to the USGS ($300,000). Further, the report requests
that the USGS provide a report by January 31, 2004, detailing a 5-year plan for
USGS involvement (e.g., proposed work and resources required for implementation)
in the LEAG.
Biological Research. For FY2004, the House-passed bill would provide
$173.3 million for FY2004, $4.5 million above the Administration’s request of
$168.9 million and $3.5 million above the FY2003 enacted level of $169.8 million.
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $169.6 million for Biological
Research activities in the USGS. This figure is $236,000 below the FY2003 enacted
level and $705,000 above the Administration’s request.
The House Committee report states an increase of $2.8 million above the
Administration’s request for the interagency cooperative fire science program and
$1.0 million for chronic wasting disease. Chronic wasting disease is 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. The Senate Committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million
above FY2003 enacted levels for invasive species work.
Of the amount
recommended, $1.0 million is for the GeoResources Institute at Mississippi State

CRS-22
University for collaborative work with the USGS. The Senate Committee also
recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for fire science research.
While the
Committee is supportive of USGS efforts in fire science, it believes that funds should
come from the larger program within the DOI. The Senate Committee is also
reviewing proposals calling for the establishment of additional nodes (certain centers)
and expansion of existing ones under the National Biological Information
Infrastructure (NBII). The Senate Committee urges the USGS to submit a report
regarding the current and future goals of the NBII.
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 House-
passed bill would provide $91.5 million, equivalent to the Administration’s request
for $91.5 million, and $6.4 million over the FY2003 enacted level of $85.2 million.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $91.4 million, which is $6.2
million above the FY2003 enacted level and $107,000 less than the Administration’s
request. Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. For
FY2004, the House-passed bill would provide $93.9 million, $1.0 million above the
Administration’s request of $92.9 million and $3.2 million over the FY2003 enacted
level of $90.8 million. The Senate Committee recommends $92.6 million, which is
$1.8 million above the FY2003 enacted level and $394,000 below the
Administration’s request.
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2004
FY2004
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
U.S. Geological Survey
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
National Mapping
Program
$133.2
$120.5
$130.2
$128.9
Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and
Processes
233.2
221.6
231.4
236.9
Water Resources
Investigations
207.2
200.1
215.2
209.5
Biological Research
169.8
168.9
173.3
169.6
Science Support
85.2
91.5
91.5
91.4
Facilities
90.8
92.9
93.9
92.6
Total Appropriations
919.3
895.5
935.7 a
928.9
a This column does not add due to rounding.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.usgs.gov/].

CRS-23
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 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 House supports MMS programs at amounts identical to the
Administration’s request. Total MMS funding would be at $271.5 million — $171.3
million in appropriations and $100.2 million in offsetting collections.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations, however, recommended $273.3
million for MMS, comprised of $7.1 million in oil spill research and $266.2 million
for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. Of the total budget, $173.1 million
would derive from appropriations and $100.2 million would come from offsetting
collections. The increase in funding over the House-passed bill is targeted for the
Center for Marine Resources and Environmental Technology and the Marine Mineral
Technology Center in Alaska.
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.

CRS-24
The FY2003 appropriations law continued the moratorium in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico except for Lease Sale 181 off the Florida coast. For FY2004, the House-
passed and Senate Committee-reported bills continue this provision.
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
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 in the Senate (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. Meanwhile, a House GOP Natural Gas
Task Force is reviewing options that would increase domestic natural gas supplies,
one of which would be to lift the existing OCS leasing moratorium.
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

CRS-25
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 was $281.2 million. The House Appropriations
Committee added $20.0 million during markup, all of it for the AML fund, which is
one of the two primary components of OSM. For the AML Fund, the Administration
requested $174.5 million for FY2004, marginally higher than the Administration
requested for FY2003, but a reduction of $16.0 million from the $190.5 million
approved for FY2003 by Congress. The full House accepted the Appropriations
Committee’s recommendation of $194.5 million for the AML Fund, $20.0 million
above the Administration request, and $4.0 million more than the level enacted by
Congress for FY2003. In approving this level, the Appropriations Committee noted
“the great amount of reclamation work that remains to be done....”
The Senate Committee on Appropriations also has recommended a boost from
the Administration request for the AML fund, increasing it by more than $16.4
million to $190.9 million.
The other component of the OSM budget is for Regulation and Technology
programs. For Regulation and Technology, the Administration requested $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). The full House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee have agreed to the spending levels
requested by the Administration.
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 proposed no change for FY2004. The House
agreed, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations also agreed to leave the
appropriation to minimum program states at $1.5 million.
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.
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

CRS-26
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 House
approved $2.3 billion, an increase of $52.1 million over FY2003 and $16.6 million
over the Administration’s request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommends $2.32 billion, which is $63.2 million over FY2003 and $27.7 million
more than the request. Table 11 below presents figures, for FY2003 (enacted) and
for FY2004 to date, 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 accounting and retention of records. 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, which include
about 45 million acres of tribal trust land and 10 million acres of individual Indian
trust land.

CRS-27
Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004 House Passed:
FY2004 Senate Comm.:
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Percent Change
Percent Change
Approp.
Request
Passed
Committee
Compared With:
Compared With:
FY2003
FY2004
FY2003
FY2004
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Operation of Indian Programs
$1,845,246
$1,889,735
$1,902,106
$1,912,178
3%
1%
4%
1%
Tribal Priority Allocations
772,481
777,689
778,809
780,689
1%
<1%
1%
<1%
Contract Support Costs
132,343
135,315
135,315
135,315
2%
0%
2%
0%
Other Recurring Programs
597,724
602,063
609,293
616,789
2%
1%
3%
2%
School Operations
512,562
528,515
528,515
528,515
3%
0%
3%
0%
Tribally-controlled colleges
42,838
39,206
39,206
45,206
(8%)
0%
6%
15%
Non-Recurring Programs
72,485
73,543
73,843
76,685
2%
<1%
6%
4%
Central Office Operations
69,579
99,361
94,861
89,361
36%
(5%)
28%
(10%)
Branch of Acknowledgment and
1,600
1,100
1,600
1,100
0%
45%
(31%)
0%
Research
Information Resources Technology
16,436
48,710
43,710
38,710
166%
(10%)
136%
(21%)
Regional Office Operations
63,805
64,481
64,481
64,481
1%
0%
1%
0%
Special Programs and Pooled
269,172
272,598
280,819
284,173
4%
3%
6%
4%
Overhead
Public Safety and Justice
162,306
171,147
174,647
174,647
8%
2%
8%
2%
Construction
345,988
345,154
345,154
351,154
<(1%)
0%
1%
2%
Education construction
293,795
292,634
292,634
298,634
<(1%)
0%
2%
2%
Land and Water Claim
60,552
51,375
55,583
50,583
(8%)
8%
(16%)
(2%)
Settlements and Misc. Payments

CRS-28
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004 House Passed:
FY2004 Senate Comm.:
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Percent Change
Percent Change
Approp.
Request
Passed
Committee
Compared With:
Compared With:
FY2003
FY2004
FY2003
FY2004
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
5,457
6,497
6,497
6,497
19%
0%
19%
0%
Total BIA
2,257,243
2,292,761
2,309,340
2,320,412
2%
1%
3%
1%

CRS-29
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
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. Both
Appropriations Committees approved the plan and the BIA and OST began
implementing the plan in April 2003. Tribes and tribal organizations have been
critical of the new reorganization. The House Appropriations Committee’s report for
FY2004 urged the Interior Department to implement the BIA and OST reorganization
as quickly as possible. The Senate Appropriations Committee has added a provision
to the FY2004 Interior appropriations bill that excludes from the effects of
reorganization certain tribes that have been operating trust management reform pilot
projects with their regional BIA offices.
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

CRS-30
remainder. BIA-funded schools’ key problems are low student achievement and,
especially, a high level of inadequate school facilities.
Some observers feel tribal operation of schools will improve student
achievement. The Bush Administration suggested language in the FY2003 Interior
appropriations bill encouraging privatization, but the Appropriations Committees
disagreed and urged additional funding and consultation with tribes. For the FY2004
bill, the House approved a provision creating a $3-million fund to pay tribal school
boards’ start-up administrative costs to encourage the boards to take over operation
of current BIA-operated schools.
The Senate Appropriations Committee also
recommends this provision.
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 11
shows FY2003 education construction appropriations and FY2004 amounts proposed
by the Administration, approved by the House, and recommended by the Senate
Appropriations Committee. Congress in the FY2001-2003 Interior appropriations
acts authorized a demonstration program that allows tribes to help fund construction
of tribally-controlled schools. For FY2004, the House approved provisions changing
school eligibility criteria, assigning first priority to replacement schools for BIA-
funded schools, and limiting grantees’ subsequent eligibility for BIA funding for
school operations to those schools already BIA-funded. The Senate Committee-
reported bill does not contain a similar provision.
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
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

CRS-31
act, increased the NIGC’s fee ceiling to $12 million, but only for FY2004. In the
FY2004 budget, the Administration proposed language amending IGRA to create an
adjustable, formula-based ceiling on fees instead of the current fixed ceiling. The
House-approved bill does not include this language, nor did the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommend it.
The Senate Committee, however,
recommends a provision that extends the temporary $12-million fee ceiling through
FY2005. 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, the House, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee propose 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.
(For FY2004, the
Administration proposed transferring the land consolidation project from OST to
BIA, but neither the House bill nor the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommendation include this transfer.)
The House approved a FY2004 funding level of $240.6 million for the OST, an
increase of $92.3 million (62%) over FY2003 but $55 million (-19%) less than the
Administration proposal. Included in the House FY2004 bill are $219.6 million for

CRS-32
federal trust programs (up $79.3 million, or 56%, over FY2003 but $55 million
[20%] less than the Administration proposal) and $21 million for the Indian land
consolidation pilot project (up $13 million, or 163%, over FY2003 and the same as
the Administration’s proposal). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends
$242.6 million for OST. Its recommended amount for federal trust programs is
identical to that approved by the House, but it recommends $2 million more for the
land consolidation project than the House amount, and urges the DOI to direct the
funds to reservations that already try to reduce land fractionation.
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. The House approved the proposed amounts, and
the House Committee encouraged the Interior Department to implement the
reorganization. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not explicitly endorse or
oppose the OST/BIA reorganization.
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 large number of missing account
documents, an historical accounting based on actual account transactions is expected
to require large and time-consuming projects. The Interior Department has proposed
an extensive, five-year, $335-million project to reconcile IIM accounts. Most of the
appropriations increase proposed for the OST for FY2004 is for historical
accounting, which would go from $17.5 million in FY2003 to $130 million in
FY2004. Of this $112.5-million increase for historical accounting, $82.5 million
would be for IIM accounts and $30 million for tribal accounts. The House reduced
total historical accounting funds to $75 million, or $55 million less than the
Administration proposal. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation
agrees with the House amount.
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 stage of the

CRS-33
case currently being tried relates to the historical accounting method that should be
used to determine the amount owed the plaintiffs.
In FY2001 and FY2002, Appropriations and conference committee 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
Accounting.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit object to an historical accounting
methodology based on statistical sampling and, using a different methodology based
on comparisons with federal and state leasing returns, have estimated that they are
owed about $137 billion. The Senate Committee, in reducing the amount proposed
for OST historical accounting, noted that the funding should be adequate for a
statistical sampling model and that the reduction was not an endorsement of the
plaintiffs’ accounting model.
In September 2002, 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). On July 18, 2003, the
appeals court reversed the contempt holdings. While the district court had not
granted the plaintiffs’ request that it appoint a receiver to take over reform of IIM
accounts management, it had directed both defendants and plaintiffs to submit plans
for future trust management and historical accounting, which both parties submitted
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.5
The House Appropriations Committee has expressed 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. The summary of the
historical accounting for the 5 named plaintiffs was transmitted to Congress earlier
this year and, according to the House Committee, indicated a very low error rate in
the accounts’ transactions. The OST initiated selection of a new advisory board in
April 2003.
For FY2004, the House retained provisions capping the court officials’
compensation and assisting federal employees in paying legal bills related to the IIM
litigation. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends only the second of
these provisions.
The House, under a point of order, dropped a provision
recommended by the House Appropriations Committee that aimed at a conclusive
resolution of IIM historical-accounting claims. The provision would have directed
the Interior Secretary to resolve all IIM accounting claims through statistical
5 Cobell v. Norton (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). Updated information is available on the
plaintiffs’ website: [http://www.indiantrust.com].

CRS-34
sampling that would result in accurate estimates of error rates for various categories
of IIM accounts; these error rates would then have been applied to all the IIM
accounts in each category to arrive at a final adjusted figure, or historical accounting,
for each account. The Committee’s provision would also have authorized the
Secretary to resolve individual accountholder’s IIM claims separately through
voluntary settlements. As noted above, the judge in the IIM case is currently trying
the question of the methodology to apply for an historical accounting. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommends no similar provision.
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.
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:
! $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 prospective amendments
to the Compacts of Free Association for the next twenty years.6 Under these
6 Portions of the Compact of Free Association with the FSM and the RMI expired in the fall
of 2001 and are being renegotiated. Legislation amending the Compact has yet to be
submitted by the Administration to Congress. 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. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported
(continued...)

CRS-35
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 enacted. 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 in FY2003.
The FY2004 request would reduce Assistance to Territories funding to $71.3
million and CFA assistance to $16.1 million, for an FY2004 request of approximately
$87.5 million. Total discretionary funding in FY2004 would decrease, according to
the request, by an estimated 10%, from $96.8 million in FY2003 to $87.5 million.
As approved by the House, discretionary funding would be reduced to $90.7 million,
a 6.3% decrease from the amount appropriated for FY2003.
The Senate
Appropriations Committee would appropriate $87.7 million, including the same
amount as requested for Assistance to Territories and $16.4 million for CFA
assistance.
Little debate has occurred in recent years on funding for the territories and the
OIA. In general, Congress continues to monitor economic development and fiscal
management by government officials in the insular areas. For example, the House
included $1 million for technical assistance on development and fiscal management
issues in the four territories. Debate might occur on the aid provided to jurisdictions
coping with population shifts associated with the CFA. The House Appropriations
Committee’s report for FY2004 indicates that the compact negotiations include
payments of $15 million to be divided among Guam, Hawaii, and CNMI for compact
impact costs.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html].
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www.usda.gov/].
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service. For information on the U.S.
Forest Service, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.fs.fed.us/].
U.S. Forest Service. The House passed a Forest Service (FS) budget for
FY2004 of $4.18 billion in discretionary funds, $119.1 million (3%) more than the
Administration requested for FY2004 ($4.06 billion) and $226.3 million more than
6 (...continued)
language that assumes acceptance of the Compact amendments.

CRS-36
was appropriated for FY2003 ($3.95 billion) — excluding the $636 million of
supplemental funds for FY2002 firefighting enacted in the FY2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an
FY2004 FS budget of $4.09 billion, $82.4 million (2%) less than the House passed
and $36.7 million (1%) more than the Administration requested.
Two significant amendments to FS management were debated on the House
floor. The Udall (of New Mexico) amendment would have prohibited funding to
finalize or implement the National Forest System planning regulations proposed on
December 6, 2002, by the Bush Administration; the amendment was defeated, 198-
222. An Inslee amendment would have prohibited funding to propose, finalize, or
implement changes to the Protection of Roadless Areas rule finalized on January 12,
2001, by the Clinton Administration; the amendment was defeated, 185-234.
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 continues 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 $2.86 billion. The higher wildfire funding has generally been continued.
(See CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, for historical background
and descriptions of funded activities.)
FY2004 Appropriations. For FY2004, the House passed National Fire Plan funding
(for the FS and BLM) of $2.32 billion, $82.9 million (4%) more than the Bush
Administration requested ($2.24 billion), and $302.2 million (15%) more than the
FY2003 level ($2.02 billion), excluding $825 million of FY2002 firefighting funding
enacted in Division N of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003,
and excluding appropriations for fire assistance included under FS State and Private
Forestry. (See Table 12.) The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
National Fire Plan funding of $2.24 billion, $1.3 million more than the
Administration requested, and $81.6 million less than the House-passed bill.

CRS-37
Table 12. Federal Wildland Fire Management Appropriations,
FY2000-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Senate
Request
House
Comm.
Forest Service
$618.0
$1,457.7
$1,294.3
$1,371.0
$1,541.8
$1,624.6
$1,543.1
Wildfire Suppression
139.2
319.3
255.3
352.0
604.6
520.0
514.3
Emergency Funding a/
[390.0]
[425.1]
[266.0]
[636.0]
[0.0]
[0.0]
[0.0]
Preparedness
408.8
611.1
622.6
678.0
609.7
698.0
700.0
Other Operations
70.0
527.2
416.4
341.0
327.4
406.6
328.7
BLM
391.0
777.5
624.4
650.2
698.7
698.7
698.7
Wildfire Suppression
158.1
153.1
127.4
159.3
195.3
170.3
195.3
Emergency Funding a/
[200.0]
[199.6]
[54.0]
[189.0]
[0.0]
[0.0]
[0.0]
Preparedness
165.8
314.7
280.8
275.4
282.7
302.7
282.7
Other Operations
67.0
309.7
216.2
215.4
220.7
225.7
220.7
Total
1,008.9
2,235.2
1,918.8
2,021.1
2,240.5
2,323.4
2,241.8
Wildfire Suppression
297.3
472.4
382.7
511.3
799.9
690.3
709.6
Emergency Funding a/
[590.0]
[624.6]
[320.0]
[825.0]
[0.0]
[0.0]
[0.0]
Preparedness
574.6
925.9
903.4
953.4
892.5
1,000.7
982.7
Other Operations
137.0
836.9
632.6
556.4
548.1
632.3
549.4
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 House level, Senate Committee
recommendation, and budget request for suppression are significantly higher than the
enacted FY2003 appropriations, but include no separate contingent or emergency
firefighting funds. (See Table 12.) Specifically, the House enacted $170.3 million
for the BLM for fire suppression, 7% above FY2003, and $520.0 million for FS fire
suppression, 48% above FY2003 (after reprogramming $66 million from suppression
operations to preparedness).
These House-passed levels are lower than the
Administration’s request of $195.3 million for BLM fire suppression (-13%) and
$604.6 million for FS fire suppression (-14%). The Senate Committee matched the
Administration’s request for BLM fire suppression, but reduced FS fire suppression
to $514.3 million, $90.3 million (15%) less than the request and $5.7 million (1%)
less than the House passed.
For BLM fire preparedness in FY2004, the House passed $302.7 million, $20.0
million (7%) more than was requested and $27.3 million (10%) more than the
FY2003 level. For FS fire preparedness, the House passed $698.0 million, $88.3
million (14%) more than was requested $609.7 million, and $20.0 million (3%) more
than the FY2003 level (after reprogramming). The Senate Committee matched the

CRS-38
request for BLM fire preparedness, and recommended FS fire preparedness at $700.0
million, $90.3 million (15%) more than was requested and $2.0 million more than
the House enacted.
For other BLM fire operations, the House passed $225.7 million, $5.0 million
(2%) more than the request, and $10.3 million (5%) more than FY2003. For other
FS fire operations, the House passed $406.6 million, $79.2 million (24%) more than
was requested, and $65.6 million (19%) more than the FY2003 appropriation. House
floor amendments to increase FS hazardous fuel reduction funding, at the expense
of the National Endowment for the Arts and FS land acquisition, were defeated. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation matched the Administration’s
request for other BLM fire operations and increased the request by $1.3 million for
other FS fire operations.
In the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Dicks offered an
amendment to add $550 million for FY2003 fire suppression, as the fire season is
again expected to be severe, and not all FY2002 borrowed funds have been repaid;
he withdrew the amendment on promises that the funding shortfall would be made
up later. On July 7, 2003, the Administration requested emergency supplemental
funding of $289 million for FY2003 firefighting efforts. On July 11, the Senate
passed a bill (H.R. 2657) containing the supplemental funding, with an amendment
adding another $25 million to remove dead trees in forests devastated by insects that
could exacerbate wildfire threats.
On July 21, the House Committee on
Appropriations ordered reported a draft measure containing $319 million for fire
fighting, reflecting a $30 million increase over the President’s request.
State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center
of debate, many changes have been proposed in State and Private Forestry (S&PF)
— programs that provide financial and technical assistance to states and to private
forest owners. The House passed total S&PF funding of $290.8 million, $25.1
million (8%) less than the Administration asked, and $6.0 million (2%) more than
enacted for FY2003. The Senate Committee recommended total S&PF funding of
$295.3 million, $20.5 million (6%) less than requested and $4.6 million (2%) more
than the House passed. Of the total, the Senate recommended that $84.7 million
come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Levels differ significantly within S&PF funding. The House passed $103.0
million for forest health management (insect and disease control on federal and
cooperative (nonfederal) lands), $21.0 million (26%) more than requested and $22.1
million (27%) more than enacted for FY2003; the House again rejected the
Administration’s request for an Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund to rapidly address
invasive species problems, but allowed $2 million to be used for emerging problems.
The Senate Committee recommended $82.1 million, slightly more than requested,
including $2.0 million for the requested Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund.
The House also passed $41.1 million for S&PF cooperative fire assistance to
states and volunteer fire departments. This is $10.7 million (35%) more than the
Administration requested and $10.6 million (35%) more than enacted for FY2003.
This is in addition to the $4.5 million increase (to $59.2 million) in cooperative fire
assistance in other wildfire operations appropriations (see above). In the Senate, the

CRS-39
Appropriations Committee recommended $30.5 million for S&PF cooperative fire
assistance, $0.1 million above the request; this is in addition to the $1.3 million
increase in cooperative fire assistance in other wildfire operations appropriations (see
above).
The House passed $140.7 million for cooperative forestry programs for FY2004,
$57.7 million (29%) less than requested, and $27.0 million (16%) less than enacted
for FY2003. Major differences are proposed for the forest stewardship, forest legacy,
and economic action programs.
Forest stewardship (technical assistance for
managing private forests) is at $32.7 million, slightly higher than the FY2003
appropriation, but half the requested level of $65.6 million. The forest legacy
program (for purchasing title or easements for lands threatened with conversion to
nonforest uses, such as for residences) is recommended at $45.6 million, down a third
from FY2003 ($68.4 million) and a half from the request ($90.8 million). The House
also retained the S&PF Economic Action Program (EAP, including rural community
assistance and wood recycling, and the Pacific Northwest economic assistance) at
$17.4 million, down a third from FY2003 ($26.3 million); the Administration had
proposed terminating the EAP. The House also passed $6.0 million for EAP in other
wildfire operations appropriations (see above). The House also included $9.0 million
for forest resource information and analysis (an FS Research program) in the S&PF
account, $5.0 million (125%) above the Administration’s request.
The Senate Committee recommended $176.7 million for cooperative forestry
programs, $21.6 million (11%) less than the request and $36.1 million (26%) more
than the House. The recommendation for forest stewardship, $32.0 million, matches
the FY2003 level and is slightly lower than the House level. For forest legacy, the
Committee recommended $84.7 million, $6.1 million (7%) less than requested and
$39.1 million (86%) more than the House level. The Committee recommended $24.0
million for EAP, $6.6 million (38%) more than the House, but included no EAP
funds in other wildfire operations appropriations. The Committee also proposed
eliminating S&PF funding for forest resource information and analysis.
Infrastructure. The House retained, and the Senate Committee recommended
retaining, separate funding for Infrastructure Improvement (to reduce the agency’s
backlog of deferred maintenance, estimated at $6.5 billion as of October 2002). The
House passed $47.0 million, $1.4 million (3%) more than enacted for FY2003, while
the Senate Committee recommended $25.0 million, $20.6 million (45%) less than
enacted for FY2003. The Administration had proposed terminating this funding and
replacing it with increased capital improvement and maintenance funds for roads and
trails of $23.1 million (8%) from FY2003. The House passed $312.9 million for
these activities, $10.8 million (3%) less than requested and $12.3 million (4%) more
than enacted for FY2003, in addition to retaining funds for infrastructure
improvement. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $298.0 million
for these activities, $25.7 million (8%) less than requested and $14.9 million (5%)
less than the House-passed level.
Land Acquisition. The House passed $29.3 million for Land Acquisition —
$14.9 million for acquisition management and $14.4 million for land purchases. This
is $14.8 million (34%) below the request, with most of the reduction in land
purchases. (The $1.5 million decline recommended for acquisition management is

CRS-40
largely offset by $1.4 million recommended for cash equalization payments to
complete land exchanges.) The House level is $103.7 million (78%) below the
FY2003 appropriation of $132.9 million. Nearly all the decrease — $102.6 million
— is in the 90% decline for land purchases. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $77.0 million for Land Acquisition, $32.9 million (75%) more than
requested and $47.8 million (163%) more than the House level.
Other Accounts. The House passed $267.2 million for FS Research, up $15.1
million (6%) from the request and $17.2 million (7%) from the FY2003 level. The
increase is primarily for forest inventory and analysis (FIA). The House also enacted
$1.39 billion for the National Forest System (NFS), $25.2 million (2%) more than
requested and $41.3 million (3%) more than enacted for FY2003. Nearly every
activity within NFS appears to be increased, with a decline—in inventory and
monitoring—being offset by the increase in FS Research. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $266.2 million for FS Research, $14.0 million (6%) more
than the request and $1.0 million less than the House level. The Committee also
recommended $1.37 billion for NFS, $1.1 million (less than 1%) above the request
and $24.1 million (2%) less than the House level. Also, the House passed, and the
Senate Committee recommended, an FS administrative provision allowing the
agency to transfer up to $15 million to Interior (for the FWS) or Commerce (for
NOAA Fisheries) to expedite consultations under the Endangered Species Act.
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.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, 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/].

CRS-41
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). The House
approved fossil fuel programs at $609.3 million. Significant differences between the
House and the Administration include funding for transportation fuels, natural gas,
petroleum technologies, and greenhouse gas control, the use of prior year balances,
and the administration of the clean coal program. The bill reported by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations contains a total of $593.5 million for fossil energy.
A key difference between the House and Senate Committee versions is that the
House-passed bill provides funds for the administration of the clean coal program.
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 House-passed bill and the Senate Committee support the President’s request
of $130.0 million for its CCPI. However, the House supports a deferral of $86.0
million and the Senate committee recommends deferring $97.0 million from
previously appropriated Clean Coal Technology Program funds.
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 House however, would support these
programs at $36.5 million for natural gas, a reduction of $10.5 million from FY2003,
and $32.2 million for petroleum and oil technology programs, a decrease of $9.8
million from FY2003. The Senate committee recommends $41.9 million for natural
gas and $34.5 million for petroleum and oil technology programs.
In a statement in the House Committee’s report, the Committee disagrees with
the Administration’s approach to fossil energy R&D for FY2004. The Committee
considers the Administrations approach unbalanced, with too heavy a focus on a few
major initiatives and not enough emphasis on long-term R&D on traditional sources
of energy, particularly oil and natural gas technologies.
The Administration’s request would phase out funding for the fuels program,
including R&D on ultra-clean fuels technology, reducing the funding to $5.0 million
for FY2004 from $31.2 million in FY2003. However, the House supports $30.5
million for the Fuels Program in FY2004 while the Senate Committee recommends
$24.9 million.

CRS-42
Funding levels for Sequestration R&D, which would test new and advanced
methods for greenhouse gas capture, separation, and reuse, would increase under the
FY2004 Administration’s request by $22 million to $62.0 million. However, the
House approved essentially flat funding for FY2004—$40.8 million as compared
with $39.9 million for FY2003—as did the Senate Committee—$39.8 million.
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 more than 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 both 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 ramped up during the
spring and will likely exceed 200,000 barrels per day during much of the summer.
The FY2004 budget request for the SPR, $180.1 million, was approved by the
House on July 17, 2003. The SPR budget includes $159.0 million for storage
facilities development and operations, $16.1 million for management of the SPR
sites, and $5.0 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR). 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.
In agreeing to $5.0 million, the House Appropriations Committee asked that DOE
advise both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, by December 1, 2003,
as to the “circumstances” under which the NHOR might be used. The Committee’s
request may imply that some in Congress are not satisfied with the formula currently
in place that permits drawdown of the NHOR. The costs of transporting RIK oil to
SPR sites are now borne by the contractors, so no new money is recommended for
the SPR Petroleum Account for FY2004.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $178.1 million, a decrease
of $2.0 million from the request, with storage facilities development and operation
bearing the entire reduction. Specifically, the Committee included $157.0 million for

CRS-43
storage facilities development and operations. It also included $16.1 million for
management of the SPR sites, and $5.0 million for the NHOR, as requested.
The FY2003 appropriation provided a total of $179.6 million for the SPR. This
consisted of $157.8 million for storage facilities development and operations; $13.9
million for 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. The FY2003 law also 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. H.R. 6 would also permanently authorize
the Reserve.
S. 14, still under debate in the Senate, would also permanently
authorize the SPR, but does not seek to expand it.
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 was $16.5 million, of which $5.6 million was
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 was a decrease of $1.2 million from the FY2003
appropriation ($17.7 million). The House approved the Appropriations Committee’s
boost to the NPR budget to $20.5 million, adding $4.0 million to restore funding for
the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC).
The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended funding at $17.9
million. The Committee agreed with the House that funding should be maintained
for the RMOTC, adding $3.0 million for operation of the Center, and $728,000 for
program direction. However, the Committee approved only $500,000 for restoration
activities, a reduction of $2.3 million from the level requested by the Administration.

CRS-44
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
School Lands Fund, to be paid at the start of FY2004. This was enacted in the
FY2003 appropriations law.
The FY2004 budget request sought an appropriation of $36.0 million, pending
the completion of divestment activities and calculation of the remaining balance
owed to the California Teachers’ Retirement Fund. The House agreed to the
Appropriations Committee’s recommendation to make the $36.0 million request an
advance appropriation that will be payable on October 1, 2004 instead of October 1,
2003. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has made the same recommendation.
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. The request presents (and Table 13 shows) a new
budget structure that reflects the recent reorganization of DOE’s Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The Administration proposes to decrease
conservation funding under EERE from $891.8 million in FY2003 to $875.8 million
in FY2004.
The main Administration initiatives are:
(1) FreedomCAR and
Hydrogen Fuels, reflected in a $22.4 million, or 41%, increase for Fuel Cell
Technologies to help reduce foreign oil dependence, improve electric power
infrastructure security and reliability, and curb greenhouse gas emissions; (2) the
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), which would receive $9.5
million to promote competitive project solicitations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions; and (3) the Weatherization grants program, which would increase by
$64.7 million, or 29%, to reduce energy bills and improve energy affordability for
low-income families.
Table 13. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
DOE Energy
FY2003
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004
S. Comm
Conservation
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
vs.
Passed
Comm.
House
Vehicle Technologies
$177.3
$157.6
$184.4
$174.2
-$10.2
Fuel Cell Technologies
55.1
77.5
56.5
68.5
12.0
Intergovernmental
314.4
357.0
322.5
311.5
-11.0
Weatherization Grants
223.5
288.2
240.0
230.0
-10.0
Distrib. Energy
61.1
51.8
64.3
57.5
-6.7
Resources
Building Technologies
59.4
52.6
59.0
62.1
3.1

CRS-45
Industrial Technologies
98.6
64.4
97.7
76.4
-21.3
Biomass/Biorefinery
24.6
8.8
0.0
10.8
10.8
Federal Energy Mgmt.
19.3
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Program Management a
77.0
76.7
90.2
80.7
-9.5
Energy Eff. Sci.
5.0
0.0
[5.0]
0.0
0.0
Initiative a
Climate Tech. Initiative
0.0
9.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rescissions & Transfers
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
R&D Subtotal
623.5
548.8
594.5
587.6

Grants Subtotal
268.2
327.0
285.0
274.0

General Reduction


-15.0

15.0
Total Appropriations
$891.8
$875.8
$879.5
$861.6
-17.8
a Using EERE’s new account structure for FY2004, the House Appropriations Committee’s report’s
narrative and budget table includes $5.0 million for the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative as part
of the FY2004 total for Program Management. In contrast, using EERE’s old account structure for
FY2003, the report’s budget table shows FY2003 funding for the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative
in its own account line, separate from the Program Management account line.
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%.
The House approved $879.5 million for DOE energy conservation funding in
FY2004. Compared to the Administration’s Request, this is an increase of $3.7
million, or 0.4%. However, compared to the FY2003 appropriation, this is a decrease
of $12.3 million, or 1%, excluding inflation. In House floor action, an amendment
added $15.0 million for Weatherization grants with an unspecified $15.0 million
offsetting cut in energy conservation.
The House Appropriations Committee report (p. 12-13) says that DOE “needs
to do a better job measuring potential program success and discontinuing programs
that do not yield expected results.” Further, it states that incremental technology
improvements are key to short-term and mid-term energy efficiency improvements
and related emission reductions. In particular, the Committee says it restored many
DOE-proposed energy conservation reductions because “it would be fiscally
irresponsible to discontinue research in which we have made major investments
without bringing that research to a logical conclusion.” Several more Committee
agreements (p. 122-123) include that: (1) several positions will be eliminated, based
on the EERE reorganization, (2) the National Academy of Public Administration’s
recommendations as to its review of the reorganization should be implemented as
soon as possible after delivery, (3) the FY2005 budget justification document should
include a program specific table with greater detail about sub-activities, (4) the State
Technologies Advancement Collaborative should be continued and supplemented
with other program funds, (5) EERE cooperative programs should be closely
coordinated with certain fossil energy programs, (6) the National Climate Change
Technology Initiative should be more clearly defined, and (7) the National Academy
of Sciences program review should become a continuing annual review.

CRS-46
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $861.6 million for energy
conservation, which is $17.8 million, or 2%, less than the House approved and $14.1
million less than the request. Compared to FY2003, the Committee recommendation
would cut overall funding by $30.1 million, or 3%, not accounting for inflation.
Grants would increase by $5.8 million, but R&D would decline from $623.5 million
to $587.6 million, a drop of $35.9 million, or 6%. The decline for R&D includes cuts
of $28.4 million, or 47%, for Industries of the Future - Specific; $13.8 million for
Biomass/Biorefinery R&D; $10.3 million for Fuels Technology (in the Vehicles
Program); $2.7 million to terminate the National Industrial Competitiveness through
Energy, Environment, and Economics (NICE³) program (Industrial Technologies);
and $2.4 million for Rebuild America (Building Technologies). Partially offsetting
this, Fuel Cell Technologies would increase by $13.4 million.
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 these
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 House-passed bill recommends total IHS appropriations of $2.95
billion for FY2004, which is $99.0 million or 3.5% over the FY2003 appropriation
of $2.85 billion. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends slightly
less—$2.94 billion—an $88.1 million or 3% increase over the FY2003 appropriation
and 0.4% less than the House-passed amount. Of the total IHS appropriations
recommended by both the House and the Senate Committee, 87% would be used for
health services, and 13% for the health facilities program. IHS services are funded
not only through congressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from

CRS-47
private health insurance and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the
State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Both the House-passed bill and the
Senate Committee estimate that IHS will collect $567.6 million in reimbursements
in FY2004, a $117.6 million or 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
clinical services in FY2004, the House-passed bill recommends $2.044 billion, $70.5
million or 3.6% over the FY2003 level of $1.97 billion while the Senate Committee
recommends $2.037 billion or $6.9 million less than the House. Within the House’s
clinical services recommendation, $1.27 billion or 62% would go to support
programs for hospitals and clinics while the Senate Committee recommended $1.25
billion or 1.3% less than the House. Dental health would receive $105.8 million
from the House and $105.1 million from the Senate Committee; for mental health,
the House passed $54.0 million and the Senate Committee approved $53.6 million;
and for substance abuse treatment, the House bill has $140.0 million while the Senate
Committee recommends $139.1 million. For contract health services, the House
recommends $478.0 million while the Senate Committee increased this category to
$490.0 million or 3.1% over FY2003.
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.
For preventive health services, the House-passed bill recommends $108.3
million and the Senate Committee recommends $107.6 million, both increases over
the FY2003 appropriation of $102.6 million. These totals include funding for public
health nursing (House, $43.1 million; Senate Committee, $42.9 million), health
education in schools and communities (House, $11.94 million; Senate Committee,
$11.87 million), immunizations (House, $1.58 million; Senate Committee, $1.57
million), and the community health representatives (CHR) program (House, $51.6
million; Senate Committee, $51.3 million). The CHR program, which is tribally
administered, supports tribal community members who work to prevent illness and
disease in their communities.
For other health-related activities, the House has a total of $403.5 million and
the Senate Committee approved a total of $401.5 million to support health-related
activities in off-reservation urban health projects (House, $32.0 million; Senate
Committee, $31.8 million), scholarships to health care professionals (House and
Senate, $31.2 million), funding for costs associated with providing tribal
management grants to tribes (House, $2.41 million; Senate Committee $2.39
million), IHS administration and management costs for programs it operates directly
(House and Senate Committee, $61.5 million), self-governance (House and Senate
Committee, $5.7 million), and contract support costs (House $270.7 million; Senate
Committee, $269.0 million). The House and Senate Committee did not support
requested increases for the scholarships or self-governance categories, but at the
request of tribes they did increase funding for the administration and management of
IHS-operated programs by 8.6% over the President’s requested amount. 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

CRS-48
amended). They include costs for expenses tribes incur for financial management,
accounting, training, and program start-up. The budget request reflects the fact that
most tribes and tribal organizations are participating in new and expanded
self-determination contracts and self-governing compacts.
The IHS’s facilities category includes money for the construction, maintenance,
and improvement of both health and sanitation facilities. The House recommends
$392.6 million for FY2004, while the Senate Committee recommends $391.2
million, both increases 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
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 House Appropriations Committee
estimates that 190 Navajo families have yet to complete relocation, including about
16 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, the House-passed bill, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
all recommend $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. As for FY1997-FY2002, the FY2003 appropriations law would
forbid ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi partitioned lands unless

CRS-49
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 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
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 House-passed bill would provide $583.7 million for the
Smithsonian Institution for FY2004, and the Senate Appropriations Committee
would provide $578.0 million, both increases over the FY2004 Administration
budget ($566.5 million) and the FY2003 appropriation ($544.9 million.) For the
Smithsonian Institution’s Salaries and Expenses, the House-passed bill would
provide $489.7 million, and the Senate Committee would provide $488.0 million,
also increases over the FY2004 budget ($476.5 million) and the FY2003
appropriation ($446.1 million.) See Table 14.
Facilities Capital. For FY2004, the House-passed bill and the Administration
are using a new account title, “Facilities Capital,” now comprised of revitalization,
construction, and facilities planning and design. The House-passed bill would
provide $94.0 million for “Facilities Capital” while the Senate Appropriations
Committee and the Administration recommended $90.0 million. For “revitalization”
the House-passed bill would provide $75.7 million, an increase of $4.0 million above
the Senate Committee’s and Administration’s recommendation ($71.7 million.) The

CRS-50
revitalization program is to address the cases of “advanced deterioration”in SI
buildings, to help meet the needs of routine maintenance and repair in all
Smithsonian Institution facilities, and to 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 House-passed bill,
Senate Appropriations Committee’s bill, and FY2004 Administration budget would
provide no new federal funds for completion of the Mall museum’s construction, as
compared to an FY2003 appropriation of $15.9 million. However, both bills and the
Administration would provide approximately $38 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
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 House-passed bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and
the FY2004 Administration budget would provide essentially level funding for the
SCMRE ($3.5 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

CRS-51
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 ($72.0
million) is available to the Smithsonian Institution’s Astrophysical Observatory for
research and development.
Tracking of the Smithsonian Institution’s Trust fund expenditures has been of
concern to the Congress. In FY2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended instituting a plan, that the Smithsonian Institution has now developed,
to track trust fund budget proposals and expenditures. According to the Inspector
General of the Smithsonian Institution, there was a discrepancy between what the
Board of Regents approved and actual expenditures. This matter has been resolved.
Table 14. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2003-2004
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2004
Smithsonian Institution
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
(SI)
Approp.
Request
passed
Comm.
Salaries and Expenses
$446,096
$476,553
$489,748
$487,989
Repair, Restoration, and
82,883



Alteration of Facilities
Facilities Capital

89,970
93,970
89,970
Construction
15,896



SI total
544,875
566,523
583,718
577,959
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).
For FY2004, the House-passed bill would provide $127.5 million for NEA
(including $27.0 million for the Challenge America Arts fund), $10.0 million above
the Senate Committee’s and the FY2004 Administration’s recommendation ($117.5
million.) During consideration of H.R. 2691, the House agreed to an amendment that

CRS-52
increased funding for NEA by $10 million and for NEH by $5 million, while
offsetting these amounts through decreases in the National Park Service,
Departmental Management, and Forest Service. This represents an increase of $11.8
million over the FY2003 appropriation for NEA ($115.7 million, which included
$16.9 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund). See Table 15. NEA’s direct
grant program currently supports approximately 1,600 grants. State arts agencies are
now receiving over 40% of grant funds, with 1,000 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 under-served 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.
For FY2004, the House-passed bill would provide $142.0 million for NEH, the
same as the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation, an increase of $17.1
million above the FY2003 appropriation ($124.9 million) but $10.0 million below
the Administration budget ($152.0 million). The House-passed figure includes the
$5.0 million added on the floor. The House, Senate Committee, and Administration
would add funds ($10.0 million, $15.0 million, and $25.0 million respectively) 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 FY2003 appropriation provided $243.9 million for both libraries and museums.
The House Appropriations Committee recommends $238.1 million for IMLS for
FY2004 and the Senate Appropriations Committee would provide $243.9 million.
The FY2004 Administration request for IMLS is $242.0 million, including $30.3
million for OMS. 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. (See the
report on Labor-Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations for
further information.)
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

CRS-53
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
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 15. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2004
Arts/
FY2003
FY2004
House
Senate
Humanities Funding a
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
NEA
$115,732b
$100,480
$127,480
$117,480
Challenge America Arts Fund
{16,889}b
17,000
{27,000}b
{17,000}b
Subtotal NEA
115,732
117,480
127,480
117,480
NEH grants and administration
108,919
135,878
125,878
125,878
NEH matching grants
16,017
16,122
16,122
16,122
Subtotal NEH
124,936
152,000
142,000
142,000
a
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.
b The total for NEA grants and administration includes the Challenge America program.

CRS-54
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 (NPS), 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 acquisition and recreational development by state and local governments
through a state grant program administered by the NPS. 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. However, the FY2003 appropriation was $410
million, a decrease of $163 million. FY2004 funding is likely to be less, as the
request totaled $348 million while the House bill would provide $198 million and the
Senate bill would provide $317 million. Table 16 shows the components of LWCF
appropriations for FY2001 through FY2003, the Bush Administration requests for
FY2003 and FY2004, and the House-passed and Senate Committee amounts for
FY2004.

CRS-55
Table 16. LWCF Funding for Federal Land Acquisition and State Grants,
FY2001-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2004
FY2004
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2004
Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
BLM
$56
$50
$45
$33
$24
$14
$26
FWS
121
99
70
73
41
23
65
NPS Federal
125
130
86
74
79
34
55
Acquisitions
NPS
Administered
90
144
200a
97
160
98
104
State Grants
FS
156
150
131
133
44
29
77
Total
548
573
532 b
410
348
198
327
Source: Data for 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 this table. This process 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, and both the House-passed and Senate Committee bills for FY2004 fund some
of these programs using LWCF funds.
a This figure includes $50 million for a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative, which was not funded by the House or
Senate, but was appropriated at $14.9 million by the conference committee 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.
Reductions of the magnitude that can be anticipated in FY2004 were last seen
in the early and mid 1990s as part of efforts to address the federal budget deficit.
This time, the federal budget deficit is becoming important, and other priorities have
become more pressing in the wake of the many components of the war on terrorism.
The lower FY2003 and FY2004 appropriation requests of $532 million and $348
million, respectively, for land acquisition contrasted with the Bush administration
request for full funding for FY2002. In the FY2003 legislative process, the decline
continued chronologically with each step; the House approved less funding ($528
million) than the Administration requested, then the Senate approved less funding
($464 million) than the House, and the conference committee agreed to a total of
$410 million, which was $118 million less than the House-passed total and $54
million less than the Senate-passed total.
Not only was the total lower than in
FY2002, but each of the five component accounts also were reduced. For FY2004,
under both bills each federal agency account (but not the state grants) would be
reduced from FY2003.
In FY2004, the Administration requested the largest amount in the program’s
history—$554 million— for purposes other than land acquisition and stateside
grants. The programs and amounts are listed in appendix E of the FY2004 Interior

CRS-56
Budget in Brief. In recent years, Congress has appropriated the fund for other
programs, as identified in the note following table 16.
For FY2004, 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).
Both the full House and Senate Committee on Appropriations agreed with this
approach for FY2004, but have provided less total funding and funding for fewer
programs from the LWCF. The House provides a total of $260 million, while the
Senate provides $175 million. More specifically, both chambers provide $40 million
for Landowner Incentive Grants, $10 million for Stewardship Grants, $50 million for
Cooperative Endangered Species Grants, and $75 million for State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants. In addition, the House bill provides $85 million for State and
Private Forestry Programs.
The Administration again sought funding for the Cooperative Conservation
Initiative to promote 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 was to come from the LWCF. Neither the
House-passed nor Senate Committee bill for FY2004 bill would fund this Initiative.
The report of the Senate Committee on Appropriations instructs each of the four
federal agencies receiving LWCF monies to identify (to the Appropriations
Committee by May 1 each year) any unobligated balances that had been provided
more than 3 years earlier. Each agency would have to document why any of these
identified funds should not be reprogrammed, transferred, or rescinded.
The
Committee ties a need for this review to the current demand for funds to pay for
emergency fire suppression. However, it does not restrict spending identified funds
on fire suppression.
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-57
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 up to FY2004 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 Administration’s FY2004 request totaled $1.33 billion, according to
estimates compiled by Interior and Commerce Appropriations subcommittee staffs.
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.) Neither the House-passed nor Senate Committee-reported bills for FY2004,
or their accompanying committee reports, identify the funding levels for the CSC,
with one exception.
The House Appropriations Committee report includes
“additional views” by Representatives Obey and Dicks in which they insert a table
to document, by program, the difference between the $1.56 billion target and their
estimate of the total funding for CSC programs of $991 million. During floor
consideration, Representative Obey offered an amendment to fund this difference by
rescinding 3.21% of the tax cut for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes in excess
of $1 million. The amendment was rejected on a point of order raised by both
Resource Committee Chair Pombo and Interior Appropriations subcommittee Chair
Taylor against including authorizing legislation in an appropriations bill.
For further information on CSC, see Table 19 at the end of this report. Table
19 will be updated after the appropriations committee staff prepare tables estimating
FY2004 funding.

CRS-58
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
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.7
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.8 The average annual federal cost
for restoration activities in Southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to be
7 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.
8 These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.

CRS-59
approximately $286 million/year.9 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.10 Of this total, $48.0 million is requested for
the implementation of CERP. Complete information is not available in the House-
passed bill and the Senate Committee-reported bill on funding for activities and
projects related to restoring the Everglades. Funding for many of the restoration
activities is generally not calculated or listed within the House and Senate Committee
reports and is determined later by federal agencies when funds are appropriated.
Programmatic changes and some funding totals are given in bills and reports. These
changes and totals are discussed below.
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 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
$8.9 million. See Table 17.
Table 17. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI
Budget, FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands; N/A is not available)
Agencies requesting funding for
FY2003
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004
Everglades Restoration
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Comm.
National Park Service
Interagency coordination and
N/A
N/A
$10,887
$10,887
planning activities. a
CERP
$5,513
$5,555
N/A
N/A
Park Operations b
23,874
24,194
N/A
N/A
Land Acquisition
14,924
40,000
N/A
N/A
Water quality improvements,
0
0
[32,000] c
N/A
eradicating exotic species, and
endangered species recovery
Modified Water Delivery
9,935
12,990
0
12,990
9 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South Florida.
10 This figure is based on the contributions of all federal agencies.

CRS-60
Agencies requesting funding for
FY2003
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004
Everglades Restoration
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Comm.
Critical Ecosystem Studies
3,974
0
N/A
N/A
Initiative
South Florida Ecosystem Task
1,320
1,332
N/A
N/A
Force
Everglades Acquisitions
2,782
2,300
N/A
N/A
Management
NPS Total
62,322
86,371
N/A
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Service
CERP
3,329
3,351
N/A
N/A
Land Acquisition
2,484
1,964
N/A
N/A
Ecological Services
2,537
2,554
N/A
N/A
Refuges and Wildlife
3,682
4,306
N/A
N/A
Law Enforcement
632
636
N/A
N/A
Fisheries
99
100
N/A
N/A
Water quality monitoring and
0
0
5,000
N/A
eradicating invasive species
(Transferred
from NPS)
FWS Total
12,763
12,911
N/A
N/A
U.S. Geological Survey
Research, Planning and
8,580
8,636
N/A
N/A
Coordination
Critical Ecosystem Studies
0
4,000
0
N/A
Initiative
USGS Total
8,580
12,636
N/A
N/A
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Stormwater treatment on Seminole
393
396
N/A
N/A
Tribal lands
DOI TOTALS
84,058
112,314
N/A
N/A
a This funding was not defined and could include funding for CERP, the South Florida Ecosystem
Task Force, or other restoration activities done by the NPS.
b This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National
Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve.
c These funds are recommended by the House Appropriations Committee to be transferred from
unobligated balances from last year (FY2003).
Source:
South
Florida
Ecosystem
Task
Force,
FY2004
Cross-Cut
Budget
at:
[http://www.sfrestore.org/documents/cc2004/index%2004.htm], accessed July 2, 2003.
Appropriations for other restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem
have been provided to the Corps (Energy and Water Development Appropriations),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 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). (For other Everglades funding,
see CRS Report RL31807 Appropriations for FY2004: Energy and Water
Development
).

CRS-61
The total funding for restoration activities in the Everglades is unclear from the
House-passed Interior appropriations bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee
reported bill. 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.11 Forty million dollars would cover a portion of the cost of the mineral
rights, estimated at $120 million.
The House-passed bill would provide $68.1 million for the NPS to conduct
Everglades restoration, a reduction of $18.3 million from the Administration’s
request of $86.4 million and an increase of $5.8 million from the FY2003 enacted
level of $62.3 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation is
not given. The House-passed version of the bill did not recommend funding for the
Modified Water Deliveries Project for FY2004 unless certain reporting requirements
are met (outlined below).
The Senate Appropriations Committee, however,
recommended $13.0 million for the Modified Water Deliveries Project.
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades. Several
concerns regarding restoration efforts in the Everglades are presented in the House
Committee report on Interior appropriations. One concern is over 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. Excess levels of phosphorus result 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 of
Representatives, issued a joint statement that encouraged the Governor of Florida to
veto the bill.12 A subsequent law of the Florida State Legislature (May 27, 2003, S
00054-A) attempted to address some of these concerns.
The House Committee report states that these laws could delay the restoration
and protection of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
(LNWR) and ENP, and hinder the implementation of CERP. The House Committee
also believes that federal money for restoring the Everglades should be tied to
progress in improving water quality. The Senate Appropriations Committee has not
11 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.
12 The letter is available at:
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/108_1/04everglades.htm], accessed May 21,
2003.

CRS-62
indicated a position on this issue and has not referred to it in either the Senate
Committee bill or report.
The House passed Interior appropriations bill and the House Committee report
provide several directives related to phosphorus mitigation and restoration in the
Everglades:
! The House bill directs that funds for completing the Modified Water
Deliveries Project be available unless: 1) a report filed by the heads
of specified agencies concludes that the state of Florida is not
meeting state water quality standards and its obligations to improve
water quality (i.e., phosphorus mitigation) in the ARM Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge (LNWR) and ENP, and 2) the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees disapprove in writing of the
further expenditure of funds.
! The House Committee report directs EPA to report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations as to whether the
amendments to Florida’s 1994 Everglades Forever Act are consistent
with state water quality standards under the Clean Water Act.
! The House Committee report states that the state of Florida may not
view the acquisition of land for the implementation of CERP as its
highest priority and directs that $32 million of prior year unobligated
appropriations meant to assist Florida in acquiring lands be used
instead to fund other high priority restoration projects.
! The House-passed bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to redirect
$5.0 million under the NPS to the FWS for implementing additional
water quality monitoring and eradication of invasive exotics at the
LNWR. The bill and report authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
transfer funds to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement
additional water quality improvement technologies for portions of
the Everglades ecosystem that affect the LNWR. This assistance is
expected to help the state of Florida meet its water quality standards.
Everglades Research. The House Committee report cites studies from the
General Accounting Office and National Research Council that suggest that efforts
to coordinate scientific information for Everglades research need to be improved.13
To accomplish this improvement, the Committee directs the Scientific Coordination
Team, that was created by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, to
develop a science plan that identifies and addresses the scientific gaps in the
restoration effort in the Everglades.
13 The reports referred to are Science and the Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration,
National Research Council (Washington, DC: 2003), 154 p. and South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration: Task Force Needs to Improve Science Coordination to Increase the Likelihood
of Success
, General Accounting Office (Washington, DC: March 2003), 58p.

CRS-63
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 and Pervaze
A. Sheikh.
Other Issues.
Outsourcing of Government Jobs.
The Bush Administration is
considering privatizing numerous and diverse government jobs, under its
“competitive sourcing” initiative outlined in 2001. The goal is to save money
through competition between government and private businesses, in areas where
private businesses might provide better commercial services, e.g., law enforcement
and maintenance. Under the “outsourcing” plan, as it is commonly known, agencies
are to submit at least 15% of their jobs to competition with the private sector. The
plan has become increasingly controversial, with concerns as to whether it would
save the government money and whether the private sector could provide the same
quality of service in certain areas.
For agencies funded by the Interior appropriations bill, concern has focused on
the National Park Service and the Forest Service. According to one Park Service
source, more than 11,000 of the Park Service’s 19,000 jobs were judged to be not
“inherently governmental” and are therefore being considered under the initiative,
with 1,708 possibly outsourced. The Forest Service was reported to be considering
a plan that would allow the private sector to compete for more than a quarter of its
approximately 40,000 jobs.
The Interior appropriations bills, as approved by the House and reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, seek to limit the outsourcing initiative. The bill
approved by the House would bar agencies from using funds in the bill to begin new
outsourcing studies.
An amendment to strike this section was offered then
withdrawn on the House floor. In its report, the House Committee on Appropriations
expresses concern about the “massive scale, seemingly arbitrary targets, and
considerable costs associated with this initiative.” The Committee’s report requires
each agency to submit a report, by March 1, 2004, on the results of completed studies
and the schedules, plans, and cost estimates for future outsourcing competitions.
The language in the Senate Committee bill is limited to the Forest Service, and
would bar the agency from initiating or continuing competitive sourcing studies until
the Appropriations Committees have received and approved a competitive sourcing
proposal. Both Committees expressed concern that the agencies are spending

CRS-64
significant sums on outsourcing, although the Administration did not request or
receive funds for this purpose. In particular, there was concern that the Forest
Services was reprogramming money without approval, and some Members discussed
penalizing the agency; the agency expects to spend $10 million on outsourcing in
FY2003. The Senate Committee also expresses concern that the experiences of
agencies with competitive sourcing is apparently not being considered as part of the
current initiative. The competitive sourcing initiative is also being examined by the
authorizing committees.
Klamath River Basin. A provision (§138, general provisions) prohibiting
Interior Department funding of the Klamath Fishery Management Council was
included in the FY2004 Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 2691) reported from the
House Appropriations Committee and passed by the House on July 17, 2003 (no
similar provision is included in the Senate-reported S. 1391). In addition, a House
floor amendment to prohibit farmers from planting certain crops on new leases in two
Klamath Basin national wildlife refuges was defeated. The House provisions have
sparked considerable controversy among interested parties. These provisions relate
to an on-going conflict in the Klamath River Basin over water allocations for farmers
in the Klamath River Project area in the Upper Basin and water needed to avoid harm
to three federally listed fish species. The Bureau of Reclamation (Department of the
Interior) is currently operating the Klamath Project under a one-year operations plan
announced in April 2003 while it continues to work on completing a 10-year
operations plan. The FWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries completed consultation on a 2002 10-year plan on May 31, 2002;
however, the Bureau rejected the FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)/NOAA Fisheries biological opinions on its 10-year operating plan and
stated that it would comply for the immediate future but also requested new
consultation. Controversies continue over science and data used to support the
agencies decisions, and recent court decisions have sought to address concerns. For
more information on the Klamath controversy, see: CRS Issue Brief Endangered
Species: Difficult Choices
, and CRS Report RL31098, Klamath River Basin Issues:
An Overview of Water Use Conflicts
.

CRS-65
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 RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,” and RS2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
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.
Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey Zinn.

CRS-66
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 Report RL31679. Wildfire Protection: Legislation in the 107th Congress and
Issues in the 108th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.

CRS-67
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Information regarding the budget, supporting documents, and related
departments, agencies and programs is available at the following web or gopher sites.
House Committee on Appropriations.
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
[http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide.
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]
Congressional Budget Office.
[http://www.cbo.gov/]
General Accounting Office.
[http://www.gao.gov]
House Republican Conference.
[http://www.gop.gov/committeecentral/docs/pubs/appropriationsroundup/]
Office of Management and Budget.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/]
Title I: Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior (DOI).
[http://www.doi.gov/]
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
[http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html]
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm]
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
[http://www.fws.gov/]
Historic Preservation.
[http://www2.cr.nps.gov/]
Insular Affairs.
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html]
Minerals Management Service (MMS).
[http://www.mms.gov/]

CRS-68
National Park Service (NPS).
[http://www.nps.gov/]
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.
[http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
[http://www.usgs.gov/]
Title II: Related Agencies
Departments.
Agriculture, Department of (USDA).
[http://www.usda.gov/]
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service.
[http://www.fs.fed.us/]
USDA Strategic Plan.
[http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm]
Energy, Department of (DOE).
[http://www.energy.gov/]
DOE Strategic Plan.
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm]
Energy Conservation Budget
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/
Energy Conservation Programs
[http://www.eren.doe.gov/]
Fossil Energy.
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/]
Naval Petroleum Reserves.
[http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml]
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
[http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml]
Health and Human Services, Department of (HHS).
[http://www.dhhs.gov/]

CRS-69
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-70
Table 18. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2004
FY2003
FY2004
Bureau or Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
$1,841,893
$1,700,521
$1,696,844
$1,722,947
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,243,533
1,285,227
1,296,265
1,338,228
National Park Service
2,239,430
2,361,873
2,240,323
2,320,861
U.S. Geological Survey
919,272
895,505
935,660
928,864
Minerals Management Service
170,312
171,321
171,321
173,121
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
295,179
281,168
301,168
297,592
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,257,243
2,292,761
2,309,340
2,320,412
Departmental Offices a
624,609
775,285
707,401
732,117
Total, Title I
9,591,471
9,763,661
9,658,322
9,834,142
Title II: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,586,839
4,057,972
4,177,103
4,094,708
Department of Energy
1,740,532
1,703,837
1,722,516
1,671,345
Clean Coal Technology
-87,000

-86,000
-97,000
Fossil Energy R & D
620,837
514,305
609,290
593,514
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves
17,715
16,500
20,500
17,947
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
Energy Conservation
891,769
875,793
879,487
861,645
Economic Regulation
1,477
1,047
1,047
1,047
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)
171,732
175,081
175,081
173,081
SPR Petroleum Account
1,954



Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve
5,961
5,000
5,000
5,000
Energy Information Administration
80,087
80,111
82,111
80,111
Indian Health Service
2,849,661
2,889,662
2,948,642
2,937,712
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation
14,397
13,532
13,532
13,532
Institute of American Indian and
Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development
5,454
5,250
5,250
6,250
Smithsonian Institution
544,875
566,523
583,718
577,959
National Gallery of Art
92,842
100,449
100,449
97,250
John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts
33,690
32,560
32,560
32,560
Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars
8,433
8,604
8,604
8,604

CRS-71
FY2004
FY2004
FY2003
FY2004
Bureau or Agency
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
National Endowment for the Arts
115,732
117,480
127,480
117,480
National Endowment for the
Humanities
124,936
152,000
142,000
142,000
Commission of Fine Arts
1,216
1,422
1,422
1,422
National Capital Arts and Cultural
Affairs
6,954
5,000
7,000
6,000
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
3,643
4,100
4,100
4,000
Natl. Capital Planning Comm.
7,206
8,230
7,730
8,030
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
38,412
39,997
39,997
39,997
Presidio Trust
21,188
20,700
20,700
20,700
Total, Title II: Related Agencies
10,196,010
9,727,318
9,942,803
9,779,549
Grand Total (in Bill) b
19,787,481 c
19,490,979
19,601,125
19,613,691
Source: House Appropriations Committee and Congressional Record.
a Departmental Offices includes Insular Affairs, the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, and the Payments
in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT).
b Figures do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments.
c 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-72
Table 19. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations
($ in millions)a b
Subcategory/Approps. Account
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2004
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
LWCF, Federal and State
BLM Federal Land Acquisition
$47.3
$49.9
$44.7
$33.2
$23.7
FWS Federal Land Acquisition
121.2
99.1
70.4
72.9
40.7
NPS Federal Land Acquisition
124.8
130.1
86.1
74.0
78.6
FS Federal Land Acquisition
150.9
149.7
130.5
132.9
44.1
NPS Stateside Grants and Administration
90.3
144.0
200.0c
97.4
160.0
Subtotal, Federal and State
534.5
572.9
531.7d
410.4
347.2
LWCF, Other
FWS State Wildlife Grantse
49.9
85.0 e
60.0
64.6
60.0
FWS Incentive Grant Programs

40.0f
50.0
(0.3)
40.0
FWS Stewardship Grants Program

10.0f
10.0
9.9
10.0
FWS Cooperative Endangered Species
104.7
96.2
91.0
80.5
86.6
Conservation Fund
FWS North American Wetlands
39.9
43.5
43.6
30.3
49.6
Conservation Fund
FS, Forest Legacy
59.9
65.0
69.8
68.4
90.8
FS, NFS Inventory and Monitoring
20.0

-


Subtotal, Other LWCF funded
274.4
339.7
324.4
253.4
337.0
Conservation Programs g h
Total LWCF
808.9
912.6
856.1
663.8
684.2
Conservation Programs
BLM MLR Cooperative Conservation


10.0
14.9 i
36.1i
Initiative
FWS RM Cooperative Conservation


18.0


Initiative
NPS ONPS Cooperative Conservation


22.0


Initiative
USGS State Planning Partnerships
24.9
25.0
13.6
20.0
20.0
Subtotal Conservation Programs
24.9
25.0
63.6
34.9
56.1

CRS-73
Subcategory/Approps. Account
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2003
FY2004
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Approp.
Request
Urban and Historic Preservation Programs
NPS Historic Preservation Fund
94.1
74.5
67.0
68.6
67.0
NPS Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery
29.9
30.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
Grants
FS Urban and Community Forestry
35.6
36.0
36.2
36.0
37.9
BLM Youth Conservation Corps
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
FWS Youth Conservation Corps
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
NPS Youth Conservation Corps
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
FS Youth Conservation Corps
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Subtotal Urban and Historic Preservation
165.7
147.5
110.5
111.8
112.2
Programs
Payments in Lieu of Taxes, BLM
49.9
50.0
15.0
59.6
50.0
Subtotal PILT
49.9
50.0
15.0
59.6
50.0
Federal Infrastructure Improvement Programs
BLM - Management of Lands & Resources
24.9
28.0
29.0
30.8
29.4
FWS - Resource Management
24.9
29.0
58.0
49.4
62.4
NPS - Construction
49.9
66.9
82.2
28.5
0.0
FS - Capital Improvement and Maintenance
49.9
61.0
50.9
45.6
0.0
Subtotal Federal Infrastructure
149.6
184.9
220.1
153.7
91.8
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.

CRS-74
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-75
Table 20. 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
$1,841,893
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
624,609
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

CRS-76
a
Departmental Offices includes Insular Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians for all years,
and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) for FY2003. For FY2000-FY2002, PILT monies are contained in
the BLM appropriation.
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.