Order Code RL32306
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2005:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated December 6, 2004
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
The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit
legislation, other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the
operation of programs and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to
constraints established in authorizing statutes. Congressional action on the budget
for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission of the President’s budget at
the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing the consideration
of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the Constitution, the
standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress
considers each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the
House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior and Related Agencies.
It summarizes the status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS
staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].
Appropriations for FY2005:
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 related agencies. H.R.
4568, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY2005, was passed
by the House (334-86) on June 17, 2004. The bill contained $20.03 billion. The
Senate companion bill, S. 2804, was reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations (S.Rept. 108-341) on September 14, 2004 and would have provided
$20.26 billion. Both the House and Senate bills reflected an increase over the
President’s FY2005 request ($19.98 billion), but a decrease from FY2004 ($20.55
billion). Both FY2005 bills included $500 million for emergency firefighting for
FY2005, with emergency funds available if certain conditions are met.
Currently, Interior and related agencies are being funded through December 8,
2004 through a continuing resolution, because FY2005 began October 1, 2004
without enactment of the annual appropriations bill. Appropriations for Interior and
related agencies have been included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2005 (H.R. 4818), which is being held in the Senate pending House action on
H.Con.Res. 528. The conference agreement on H.R. 4818 contains a total of $20.04
billion for Interior and related agencies, including $500 million for emergency
firefighting if certain conditions are met and an across the board rescission of
0.594%. However, the total does not reflect an additional across the board rescission
of 0.83% in the bill; H.Con.Res. 528 would change the rescission to 0.80%.
The House, Senate, and conference committee debated many controversial
policy issues during consideration of FY2005 funding. They included the appropriate
funding level for wildland fire fighting, land acquisition, and the arts; agency
competitive sourcing activities; agency maintenance backlogs; Indian trust fund
management; Outer Continental Shelf leasing; filling the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR); alteration of the Abandoned Mine Lands fund; snowmobiling in
Yellowstone National Park; commercial tours in the Cumberland Island National
Seashore; management of wild horses and burros on federal lands; categorical
exclusions for grazing on Forest Service lands; Missouri River management; and a
Biscuit post-fire logging project in Oregon. Other contentious provisions related to
lands and resources in Alaska, such as development of roads in the Tongass National
Forest (AK); challenges to logging projects in Alaska; an exchange of lands in the
Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge (AK); and fishery management in Alaska
wilderness. Some of the controversial provisions (both general and Alaska related)
were not included in the conference report.
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
FY2005 Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Current Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Legislative Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Status of Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Management of Lands and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wildland Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Oregon and California Grant Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Endangered Species Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 12
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Wildlife Refuge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Operation of the National Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
United States Park Police (USPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
National Recreation and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Construction and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Land Acquisition and State Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Enterprise Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
National Mapping Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Water Resources Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Biological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Science Support and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Budget and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
BIA Reorganization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
BIA School System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Insular Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
National Indian Gaming Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Forest Fires and Forest Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
State and Private Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Other Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration . . . . . . . . 45
Strategic Petroleum Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Naval Petroleum Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . . . . . 51
Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Diabetes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
FY2005 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
FY2005 House-Passed Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
FY2005 Senate Committee-Reported Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Facilities Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Smithsonian Institution Center for Materials Research and
Education (SCMRE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
National Museum of African American History and Culture . . . . . . . 58
National Zoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Trust Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
NEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
NEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Office of Museum Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
FY2005 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Overview of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
FY2005 Appropriations to DOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Missouri River Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Selected Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2000 to FY2004 . . . 7
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5. Funding for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . 13
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Migratory Bird Fund, FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 8. Appropriations for NPS, FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2004-FY2005 . . 25
Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2004-FY2005 . . 30
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 13. National Fire Plan Funding, FY2000-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 14. FS State & Private Forestry Funding, FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 15. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2004-FY2005 . . . 50
Table 16. Appropriations for IHS, FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 17. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . 59
Table 18. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 19. Appropriations from the LWCF, FY2001-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 20. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 21. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Table 22. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2000 to FY2004 . . . . . . . . . 76
Appropriations for FY2005:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On November 24, 2004, a third continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 115) was agreed
to that provided temporary FY2005 appropriations through December 8, 2004. A
continuing resolution was necessary because the regular annual appropriations bill
for Interior and related agencies (and other appropriations bills) was not enacted by
the beginning of FY2005 — October 1, 2004.
H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, became the
vehicle for appropriations for Interior and related agencies. The conference
agreement on H.R. 4818 contains a total of $20.04 billion for Interior and related
agencies, excluding an across the board rescission of 0.83% in the bill. Currently,
the bill is being held in the Senate pending action by the House on H.Con.Res. 528,
which would change the rescission to 0.80%. A vote on H.Con.Res. 528 is
scheduled in the House on December 6, 2004.
Introduction
The annual Interior and related agencies appropriations bill includes funding for
agencies and programs in four separate federal departments, as well as numerous
related agencies and bureaus. The bill includes funding for the Department of the
Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation (funded in Energy and Water
Development Appropriations laws), and 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, but excludes permanent budget authorities. Increases and
decreases generally are calculated on comparisons between the funding levels
appropriated for FY2004, requested by the President for FY2005, and recommended
CRS-2
by Congress for FY2005. The House Committee on Appropriations is the primary
source of the funding figures used throughout the report. Other sources of
information include the Senate Committee on Appropriations, agency budget
justifications, and the Congressional Record. In the tables throughout this report,
some columns of funding figures do not add to the precise totals provided due to
rounding. Finally, some of the DOI websites provided throughout the report and
listed at the end have not been consistently operational due to a court order regarding
Indian trust funds litigation. Nevertheless, they are included herein for reference
when the websites are operational.
FY2004 Budget and Appropriations
For FY2004, Congress enacted a total appropriation of $20.55 billion. This total
was higher than the FY2003 funding level ($20.11 billion). It reflects an across-the-
board cut of 0.646% in the FY2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act (P.L. 108-108) and an additional across-the-board cut of 0.590% in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199). It also reflects a
supplemental appropriation of $500.0 million for urgent wildland fire suppression.
Many controversial issues arose during consideration of the FY2004 Interior and
related agencies appropriations bill. Key funding issues included the appropriate
levels of appropriations for wildland firefighting and land acquisition. In other
controversial areas, the FY2004 law (1) continued the automatic renewal of expiring
grazing permits and leases for FY2004 — FY2008; (2) extended the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program; (3) modified procedures for seeking judicial review of
timber sales in Alaska, primarily in the Tongass National Forest; (4) capped funds
for competitive sourcing efforts of agencies and required documentation on the
initiative; and (5) led to a stay of a court decision requiring an accounting of Indian
trust funds and trust asset transactions since 1887. However, the FY2004 law
dropped language on other contentious issues, including barring funds from being
used (1) to implement changes to BLM regulations on Recordable Disclaimers of
Interest in Land, (2) for the Klamath Fishery Management Council, and (3) for Outer
Continental Shelf leasing activities in the North Aleutian Basin planning area, which
includes Bristol Bay, Alaska. For further information on these issues and FY2004
funding generally, see CRS Report RL31806, Appropriations for FY2004: Interior
and Related Agencies, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.
FY2005 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview. A continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 115), agreed to on
November 24, 2004, is providing temporary FY2005 appropriations for activities
funded through the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill (as well as other
appropriations bills) through December 8, 2004, because FY2005 began October 1,
2004 without enactment of an Interior appropriations bill. Currently, annual
appropriations for Interior and related agencies have been included in H.R. 4818, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005. The conference report on the bill
contains a total of $20.04 billion for Interior and related agencies, including an across
the board rescission of 0.594%. However, the total does not reflect an additional
across the board rescission in the bill of 0.83% in the bill. The conference report
CRS-3
currently is being held in the Senate pending House action on H.Con.Res. 528, which
is scheduled for December. H.Con.Res. 528 would change the rescission to 0.80%.
In earlier action, H.R. 4568, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
bill for FY2005, was passed by the House (334-86) on June 17, 2004. The bill
contained $20.03 billion. The Senate companion bill, S. 2804, was reported by the
Senate Committee on Appropriations (S.Rept. 108-341) on September 14, 2004. The
bill provided $20.26 billion. Both the House-passed and Senate Committee-reported
bills reflected an increase over the President’s FY2005 request ($19.98 billion), but
a decrease from the FY2004 enacted level ($20.55 billion). The FY2004 enacted
level reflected $500 million in supplemental funding for emergency firefighting.
Similarly, both the House-passed and Senate Committee-reported bills included $500
million for emergency firefighting for FY2005; emergency funds would become
available if certain conditions are met. (The House bill also contained $500 million
for emergency firefighting for FY2004, included prior to the enactment of
supplemental funds for this purpose in P.L. 108-287).
The FY2005 House-passed bill contained higher funding than the Senate
Committee-reported bill in areas including
! Fossil Energy Research and Development, +59.3 million
! Bureau of Indian Affairs, +$58.7 million
! Indian Health Service, +$35.6 million
! Clean Coal Technology, +20.0 million
! National Endowment for the Arts, +$10.0 million
! National Endowment for the Humanities, +6.7 million
The FY2005 House-passed bill contained lower funding as compared to the
Senate Committee-reported bill in areas including:
! Energy Conservation, -$198.2 million
! Federal Land Acquisition, -$168.6 million
! National Park Service, -$92.4 million
! U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, -$46.3 million
! Bureau of Land Management, -$29.6 million
! Forest Service, -$24.8 million
! Smithsonian Institution, -$7.2 million
The House-passed bill contained $3.02 billion for the National Fire Plan for
FY2005, which comprises the Forest Service wildland fire program and firefighting
on DOI lands. The Senate committee-reported bill included $2.98 billion for the
National Fire Plan. Both figures reflected $500 million for emergency fire fighting
for FY2005 that would become available if certain conditions are met. The President
had requested $2.47 billion for the National Fire Plan for FY2005, and Congress had
enacted $3.29 billion for FY2004, including supplemental funding.
For federal land acquisition and grants to states, under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, the House-passed bill included $140.0 million. An amendment
to increase funding for land acquisition was defeated by the House Committee on
Appropriations. The Senate committee-reported bill contained significantly higher
CRS-4
funds — $311.1 million. The President had requested $314.0 million for FY2005,
while $263.5 million was enacted for FY2004.
Major Legislative Action on Appropriations. The President’s FY2005
budget request for Interior and related agencies totaled $19.95 billion. The House
and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on the Interior held a series of hearings
on the FY2005 budget requests. Subsequently, on June 3, 2004, the House
Subcommittee on Interior appropriations approved the draft Interior appropriations
bill and on June 9, 2004, the House Committee on Appropriations marked up and
ordered the bill reported with amendments. The Committee bill was reported on
June 15, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-542). The bill contained a total of $20.03 billion for
FY2005, including $500 million for emergency wildland firefighting. (The bill also
contained $500 million for FY2004 for emergency wildland firefighting, which was
enacted subsequently in other legislation.) A full committee amendment to the bill
removed $227.0 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program with the
expectation that the funds would be added to the appropriations bill for Labor, HHS,
Education, and Related Agencies. As passed by the House, H.R. 4568 also contained
$20.03 billion for FY2005.
H.R. 4568 was referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations on June 21,
2004. However, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior approved
its own bill on June 23, 2004, reportedly containing $19.76 billion plus $1.0 billion
for emergency firefighting for FY2004 and FY2005 if needed. On September 14,
2004, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its bill (S. 2804, S.Rept.
108-341) with $20.26 billion, including $500 million in supplemental fire funds. The
Committee rejected a contentious amendment to strike language in the bill to change
a trigger that requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement drought
conservation measures on the Missouri River. The Committee also voted to
reauthorize collection of the fee for the Abandoned Mine Land Fund through May
31, 2005.
Major Issues. Controversial policy and funding issues typically have been
debated during consideration of the annual Interior and related agencies
appropriations bills. Debate on FY2005 funding levels focused on issues that have
been controversial in the past, including the issues listed below.
! Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate
level of funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of
borrowing funds from other agency programs to fight wildfires;
implementation of a new program for wildland fire protection and
locations for fire protection treatments; and impact of environmental
analysis, public involvement, and challenges to agency decisions on
fuel reduction activities. (For more information, see the “Bureau of
Land Management” and “Forest Service” sections in this report.)
! Land Acquisition, including the appropriate level of funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and
the state grant program, and extent to which the fund should be used
for activities not involving land acquisition. (For more information,
CRS-5
see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in
this report.)
! Arts and Humanities, including whether funding for the arts and
humanities is an appropriate federal responsibility, and if so what
should be the proper level of federal support for cultural activities;
as well as the appropriateness of some grants for arts and
humanities. (For more information, see the “Smithsonian
Institution” and “National Endowment for the Arts and National
Endowment for the Humanities” sections in this report.)
! Competitive Sourcing, namely the extent to which government
functions should be privatized, agency funds can and should be used
for such “outsourcing,” and agencies are communicating
appropriately with Congress on their outsourcing activities. (For
more information, see the section in this report on “Competitive
Sourcing of Government Jobs.”)
! Maintenance Backlogs, primarily the adequacy of agency activities
to determine the extent of their maintenance backlogs, the priority
of the backlog relative to other agency responsibilities, and the
appropriate level of funds to reduce the backlog. (For more
information on the backlog of the National Park Service, the focus
of the Bush Administration, see the “National Park Service” section
in this report.)
! Indian Trust Funds, especially the method by which an historical
accounting will be conducted of tribal and Individual Indian Money
(IIM) accounts to determine correct balances, and a class-action
lawsuit against the government involving tribal and IIM accounts.
(For more information, see the section in this report on the “Office
of Special Trustee for American Indians.”)
! Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly the moratorium on
preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico; oil
and gas leases in offshore California; and the possibility of opening
to oil and gas development the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area,
which includes Bristol Bay, AK. (For more information, see the
“Minerals Management Service” section in this report.)
! Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), notably whether the SPR should
continue to be filled to capacity as ordered by President Bush. (For
more information, see the “Strategic Petroleum Reserve” section in
this report.)
! Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Fund, including whether, as part of
AML reauthorization, to change the program as sought by the
Administration to address state and regional concerns, including a
change to return unobligated state share balances in the fund to the
CRS-6
states. (For more information, see the “Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement” section in this report.)
! Snowmobiling in Park Units, particularly whether to allow or
prohibit the use of funds for snowmobiling in Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Memorial Parkway. (For more information, see the “National Park
Service” section in this report.)
! Roads in the Tongass National Forest, notably whether to allow or
prohibit the use of funds for roads for timber harvesting in the
Tongass National Forest in Alaska. (For more information, see the
“Forest Service” section in this report.)
! Missouri River Management, essentially over the implementation of
drought conservation measures on the Missouri River and water
levels for upper and lower Missouri River Basin states.
Status of Bill. Table 1 below contains information on congressional
consideration of the FY2005 Interior appropriations bill.
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2005
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
Report
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage Report
House
Senate
Law
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
108-542
6/17/04
108-341
6/3/04 6/23/04 6/15/04
(334-86)
9/14/04
Major Funding Trends
During the 10-year period from FY1995 to FY2004, Interior and related
agencies appropriations increased by 52% in current dollars, from $13.52 billion to
$20.55 billion. Most of the growth occurred during the latter years. For instance,
during the five-year period from FY1995 to FY1999, appropriations increased by 6%
in current dollars, from $13.52 billion to $14.30 billion. By contrast, during the most
recent five years, from FY2000 to FY2004, funding increased by 38% in current
dollars, from $14.91 billion to $20.55 billion. See Table 2 below. The single
biggest increase during the decade occurred from FY2000 to FY2001, when the total
appropriation rose 27% in current dollars, from $14.91 billion to $18.89 billion.
Much of the increase was provided to land management agencies for land
conservation and wildland fire management. See Table 22 below for a budgetary
history of each agency, bureau, and program from FY2000 to FY2004.
CRS-7
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2000
to FY2004
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
$14.91
$18.89
$19.16
$20.11
$20.55
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. However, they do reflect rescissions. Further, the FY2004 figure reflects a supplemental
appropriation of $500.0 million for wildland fire fighting.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 261 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 FY2005, the House approved a funding level of $1.85 billion for the BLM,
while the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported $1.88 billion for the agency.
Both levels reflect sizeable increases over the President’s request, largely due to their
inclusion of $100.0 million in supplemental funds for fighting wildland fires in
FY2005. Both the House-passed and Senate committee-reported levels represent a
decrease from the FY2004 level. See Table 3 below.
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the House-passed bill for FY2005 contains $840.4 million, nearly level
funding compared with FY2004 ($839.8 million) and the President’s request for
FY2005 ($837.5 million). The Senate committee-reported bill would provide the
highest funding level — $855.7 million. This line item funds an array of BLM land
programs, including protection, recreational use, improvement, development,
disposal, and general BLM administration. The House-passed, Senate committee-
reported, and President’s request all provide an increase in funds for certain programs
and activities. For instance, they increase funds for Wild Horse and Burro
Management, to accelerate efforts to remove wild horses and burros from public
land, and for Wildlife and Fisheries, partly for sage grouse habitat conservation. For
other programs, the House-passed, Senate committee-reported, and President’s
request all provide decreases from the FY2004 level. For example, decreases are
proposed for Range Management; Cadastral Survey; and Deferred
Maintenance/Infrastructure Improvement, which funds the deferred maintenance
backlog. While the House provides an increase over FY2004 for Resource Protection
and Law Enforcement, both the President’s request and Senate committee-reported
bill contain decreases. For Energy and Minerals, including Alaska Minerals, the
CRS-8
President and the House seek decreases from FY2004, while the Senate committee-
reported bill contains an increase.
The House-passed and Senate committee-reported bills for FY2005 would
continue to bar funds included 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, 2004, would
be allowed to proceed, and third party contractors would be authorized to process the
mineral examinations on those applications.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2005,
the House approved, and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended,
$843.1 million. This is a decrease of $40.5 million (5%) from the FY2004 level of
$883.6 million, but an increase of $100.0 million (13%) over the Administration’s
request. The FY2004 level includes $100 million in emergency supplemental money
for fire fighting expenses, that was included in P.L. 108-287, the Department of
Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act for FY2005. The House-passed and Senate
committee-reported bills also include $100.0 million for emergency firefighting for
FY2005, that would become available if certain conditions are met. These contingent
funds are intended to preclude borrowing from other BLM programs to fight
wildfires; such borrowing has been typical in recent years.
The House and the Administration seek an increase of $25.4 million (14%) for
BLM fuels reduction, particularly in the wildland-urban interface. The Senate
Appropriations Committee supported an increase of $20.4 million (11%) to reduce
fuel loads. The House Appropriations Committee required the BLM to report on the
methods used to prioritize fuel projects, which are to be in common with the Forest
Service, to ensure that funds are used for the highest priorities. (For additional
information on wildland fires, see the “Forest Service” section in this report.)
In its report, the House Committee on Appropriations expressed concern that
fire funding for preparedness and suppression may not maintain the level of readiness
needed for public safety that existed in FY2002 and FY2003 (H.Rept. 108-542, p.
17). The Committee directed the BLM to analyze current readiness levels, and adjust
the level of funds for preparedness and suppression if the agency determines that
maintaining preparedness funding at no less than the FY2003 level will result in
lower overall firefighting costs.
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 implementation of
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire
Plan, which emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to catastrophic
fires, among other provisions.
CRS-9
Construction. The House-passed level for construction for FY2005 is $15.0
million, which is higher than the President’s request ($6.5 million), Senate
committee-reported amount ($9.0 million), and FY2004 enacted level ($13.8
million). In its report on the FY2005 appropriations bill, the House Appropriations
Committee encouraged the Administration to provide adequate funding for BLM’s
deferred maintenance construction projects and directed the agency to provide a list
of projects to be undertaken with the additional construction funds (H.Rept. 108-542,
p. 18).
Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition for FY2005, the House approved
$4.5 million, $13.9 million (76%) lower than the FY2004 level and $19.5 million
(81%) lower than the Administration’s request for FY2005. Most of the House funds
are for program management. The House did not fund new acquisitions, and
similarly the House Appropriations Committee did not earmark funds for
acquisitions, in contrast to past practice, calling new acquisitions a “low priority”
(H.Rept. 108-542, p. 5). By contrast, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $22.9 million for land acquisition, primarily for 11 earmarked
acquisitions. For FY2004, Congress reduced funds for land acquisition to $18.4
million from the FY2003 level of $33.2 million, due to “the unfocused direction” in
agency land acquisition, according to the House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept.
108-195, p. 10). Money for land acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)
Oregon and California Grant Lands. For the (O&C) Grant Lands, which
include highly productive timber lands, the House and Senate Appropriations
Committee both supported increases over FY2004 but decreases from the President’s
budget request. This activity funds programs related to revested Oregon and
California Railroad grant lands and related areas, including for land improvements
and managing, protecting, and developing resources on these lands. The House, but
not the Senate Appropriations Committee, appears to have supported repaying the
Judgment Fund for payments made to settle timber sales contracts in western Oregon
under the Contract Disputes Act.
CRS-10
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
Bureau of Land Management
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Management of Lands and Resources
$839.8
$837.5
$840.4
$855.7
Wildland Fire Management
883.6 b
743.1
843.1c
843.1
Central Hazardous Materials Fund
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
Construction
13.8
6.5
15.0
9.0
Land Acquisition
18.4
24.0
4.5
22.9
Oregon and California Grant Lands
105.4
116.1
111.6
113.6
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeitures a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
Total Appropriations
1,893.2 b
1,759.4
1,846.8 c
1,876.4 c
a The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
b Includes $98.4 million to replace monies borrowed from other accounts in FY2003 for fire fighting, and $100.0 million
for emergency firefighting enacted in P.L. 108-287.
c Includes $100.0 million for emergency firefighting in FY2005.
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its website at
[http://www.doi.gov].
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm].
CRS Report RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,”and R.S. 2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau
of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands,
by Marc Humphries.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2005, the House approved $1.26 billion for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), less than the Administration requested ($1.33 billion) and less than
CRS-11
enacted for FY2004 ($1.31 billion). The Senate committee-reported level was $1.31
billion. By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the
Resources Management account. The President’s FY2005 request was $951.0
million, a slight decrease from the FY2004 level of $956.4 million; the House
approved $970.5 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee reported $966.3
million. Among the programs included in Resources Management are the
Endangered Species program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The
Administration proposed to reduce the program from $137.0 million in FY2004 to
$129.4 million in FY2005. The House increased funding to $138.6 million; the
Senate Committee level is $136.3 million. See Table 4 below.
A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are
listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The Landowner
Incentive Program would increase from $29.6 million in FY2004 to $50.0 million for
FY2005 under the President’s proposal. Stewardship Grants would increase from
$7.4 million in FY2004 to $10.0 million under the President’s proposal. The
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and
territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) would increase from $81.6
million in FY2004 to $90.0 million for FY2005 under the President’s request.
However, for FY2005, the House approved cuts in most of these programs, relative
to both the President’s request and the previous year. In contrast, Senate Committee
levels were roughly equivalent to FY2004 levels. (See Table 4.)
Under the President’s request, overall FY2005 funding for the endangered
species program and related programs would increase from FY2004 by $23.8 million
(9%). Under the House bill, there would be a decrease from FY2004 of $15.4 million
(-6%), while the Senate decrease from FY2004 would be much smaller, $0.2 million
(-0.09%).
CRS-12
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate Conservation
$9,808
$8,610
$10,110
$9,470
— Listing
12,135
17,226
16,226
15,500
— Consultation
47,146
45,450
47,200
45,450
— Recovery
67,907
58,154
65,054
65,877
Subtotal, Endangered Species Program
136,996
129,440
138,590
136,297
Related Programs
— Landowner Incentive Program
29,630
50,000
15,000
29,000
— Stewardship Grants
7,408
10,000
5,000
7,500
— Cooperative Endangered Species
81,596
90,000
81,596
82,600
Conservation Funda
Subtotal, Related Programs
118,634
150,000
101,596
119,100
Total Appropriations
255,630
279,440
240,186
255,397
a In FY2004, $50 million of this fund was derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF); the President’s
FY2005 budget request calls for the entire amount to be derived from LWCF. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committee kept the LWCF portion to $50 million.
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 and FY2004 for various
renovations, improvements, and activities to celebrate the centennial; it included all
of this funding under operations and maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS). For operations and maintenance in FY2005, the President
proposed $387.7 million, a decrease of 1% from $391.4 million in FY2004. Of this
amount, $66.5 million was earmarked for deferred maintenance in FY2004; the
President’s budget proposed the same figure for FY2005. The House approved
$389.4 million and Senate Committee reported $391.5 million; neither contained an
earmark for deferred maintenance.
The President proposed $51.3 million for Law Enforcement — a decrease of
$2.4 million from the FY2004 level ($53.7 million). The House bill calls for $53.4
million, and the Senate Committee bill, $53.0 million.
Land Acquisition. For FY2005, the Administration proposed $45.0 million
for Land Acquisition, a 5% increase from the FY2004 level of $43.1 million. The
House approved significantly less — $12.5 million. The Senate Committee on
CRS-13
Appropriations would provide a higher level of funds — $49.9 million. This
program is funded from appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
In the past, 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, emergency acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, general overhead
(“Cost Allocation Methodology”). Recently, less of the funding has been reserved for
traditional land acquisition; the House bill continues this trend by allocating no funds
for federal refuge lands. In contrast, the Senate committee-reported bill provided
equal or greater funding for these programs, as well as allocating $34.7 million for
federal refuge lands. (See Table 5; for more information, see “Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF)” below.)
Table 5. Funding for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Comm.
Acquisition
$8,395
$8,365
$8,000
$8,365
Management
Cost Allocation
2,033
2,000
2,000
2,000
Methodology
Exchanges
494
1,000
500
1,750
Inholdings
1,481
2,500
1,000
1,500
Emergencies &
988
2,000
1,000
1,500
Hardships
Acquisitions —
29,700
29,176
0
34,749
Federal Refuge
Lands
Total
43,091a
45,041
12,500
49,864
aIn FY2004, a transfer of $4,968,000 was made to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for purchase of
a conservation easement on the Quinault reservation in Washington state. This transfer is not reflected
in the table.
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, and
county governments have long urged additional appropriations to make up the
difference. Congress generally provides additional funding. The Administration,
House, and Senate Committee supported $14.4 million for FY2005. This level is up
slightly from the FY2004 level of $14.2 million. When combined with the estimated
CRS-14
receipts, this appropriation level would cover 43% of the authorized full payment,
down from the FY2004 level of 47% of the authorized amount.
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, rhinoceroses, and great apes. The
President’s budget again proposes to move funding for the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. Congress rejected the proposed
transfer in FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004. For FY2005, the President proposes $9.5
million for the MSCF (including the proposed transfer of the NMBCF to this
program). The proposal includes cuts in programs for great apes and African and
Asian elephants, in contrast to increases in programs for rhinos, tigers, and
neotropical migratory birds. The House approved $100,000 in increases over the
President’s request for each of these subprograms, and Senate Committee levels
generally were between these two. See Table 6 below.
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005
FY2005
Multinational Species
FY2004
FY2005
House
Senate
Conservation Fund
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
African elephant
$1,383
$1,350
$1,450
$1,400
Tiger and Rhinos
1,383
1,450
1,550
1,500
Asian elephant
1,383
1,350
1,450
1,400
Great Apes
1,383
1,350
1,450
1,400
(Neotropical Migratory Birds)
(3,951)
(4,000)
(4,400)
(4,000)
Total Appropriations
5,532
5,500
5,900
5,700
Note: The Neotropical Migratory Bird 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-FY2005.
Because Congress has rejected the transfer three times, 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. A portion of the funding is set aside for competitive grants to tribal
governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining state portion is for matching
grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined on a formula basis. The President
proposed $80.0 million, an increase from $69.1 million in FY2004. The House would
cut the program to $67.5 million, while the Senate Committee approved an increase
smaller than that requested by the President. See Table 7 below.
CRS-15
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
State and Tribal
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Wildlife Grants
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Comm.
State Grants
$61.1
$71.6
$59.5
$69.0
Tribal Grants
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.0
Administration
2.1
2.4
2.0
n/a a
Total Appropriations
69.1
80.0
67.5
75.0
a The Senate Committee did not earmark a specific amount for administration, other than
requiring that administrative expenses are to be deducted only after the $6.0 million set-
aside for tribal grants.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website 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) is responsible for the National Park System,
currently comprising 388 separate and diverse units with more than 84 million acres.
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 park
system uses some 20 types of designations, including national park, to classify sites,
and visits to these areas total close to 280 million annually. The NPS also supports
some land conservation activities outside the park system.
The President’s FY2005 budget request for the NPS is $2.36 billion, $101.9
million above the FY2004 enacted level of $2.26 billion. The House-passed NPS
total is $2.27 billion, $9.2 million above the FY2004 enacted level, but $92.7 million
less than the Administration’s request. The Senate committee-reported bill matches
the President’s request ($2.36 billion), which is $92.4 million more than the House
approved funding level. See Table 8 below.
Several House floor amendments affecting the NPS, but not tied to specific
funding accounts were considered. The House rejected an amendment to reinstate a
Clinton era rule that would phase out use of private snowmobiles in Yellowstone and
Grant Teton National Parks and on the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway
which links them. The Bush Administration has sought to overturn the rule. Last
CRS-16
year the House defeated a similar amendment. An amendment to ban the use of
funds in the bill to kill bison straying from Yellowstone National Park also was
defeated. An amendment was adopted requiring the Interior Secretary to report to
Congress giving “a date certain of when and whether the public shall have full access
to the Statue of Liberty including all areas that were closed after 9/11.”
Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line item
accounts for more than two-thirds of the total NPS budget. It covers resource
protection, visitors’ services, facility operations, facility maintenance, and park
support programs. For FY2005, the President’s request and the House-passed bill
allow $1.69 billion, $76.5 million (5%) more than was appropriated for FY2004
($1.61 billion). The Senate committee-reported bill recommends $1.69 billion, $2.8
million more than the President’s request and the House-passed bill for NPS
operations.
In its report on the FY2005 bill, the House Committee on Appropriations
expressed concerns regarding the erosion of operating funds for core programs which
they attributed to “unbudgeted costs,” including cost-of-living increases, storm
damage, anti-terrorism requirements, and management initiatives such as competitive
sourcing. The Committee also urged the Park Service to approve only essential
domestic travel, and requested that the Park Service Director submit all requests for
foreign travel to the Committee prior to approval. For FY2005, Park advocacy
groups estimate that the national parks operate, on average, with two-thirds of needed
funding. As a visible symbol of the federal government and environmental
protection, the condition, care, and operation of the National Parks is politically
potent in an election year.
Table 8. Appropriations for NPS, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
National Park Service
Request
House
Senate
Approp.
Passed
Comm.
Operation of the National Park System
$1,609.6
$1,686.1
$1,686.1
$1,689.0
U.S. Park Police
77.9
81.2
81.2
81.2
National Recreation and Preservation 61.8
37.7
53.9
63.0
Urban Park and Recreation Fund
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
Historic Preservation Fund
73.6
77.5
71.5
71.3
Construction
329.9
329.9
297.6
330.0
Land and Water Conservation Fund a
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
— Assistance to States
93.8
93.8
91.5
94.0
— NPS Acquisition
41.8
84.3
16.0
61.8
Subtotal, Land Acquisition and State
135.6
178.1
107.5
155.8
Assistance
Total Appropriations
2,258.6
2,360.5
2,267.8
2,360.2
a Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
CRS-17
United States Park Police (USPP). This budget item supports law
enforcement programs of the U.S. Park Police, primarily in the urban park areas of
New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. Core responsibilities include
protecting historic monuments and memorials, maintaining order during special
events and demonstrations, and providing presidential security and dignitary escort.
The USPP also provides investigative, forensic, and other services to support law-
enforcement trained and commissioned rangers working in park units system-wide.
The FY2004 conference agreement was critical of USPP’s failure to implement 2001
recommendations by the National Academy of Public Administration to address
problems of budget accountability, management issues, and overtime. Language in
the report on the House-passed FY2005 bill urges the NPS and DOI to resolve
ongoing USPP fiscal and management problems before the end of the calendar year
2004. For FY2005, Administration priorities focus on terrorist threat preparedness.
The FY2005 request of $81.2 million includes $1.0 million for non-recurring costs
associated with the 2005 Presidential Inauguration and $2.0 million for enhanced
security and anti-terrorism efforts. The House-passed bill and the Senate committee-
reported bill also would provide $81.2 million, $3.3 million above FY2004. In an
ongoing dispute, the USPP Chief was suspended from duty in December 2003 and
officially fired in July, 2004, for talking to the press about agency funding issues.
The U.S. Merit System Protection Board, a quasi-judicial agency that protects federal
workers from management abuse, is currently reviewing a petition for reinstatement.
National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds a variety of
park recreation and resource protection programs, as well as programs connected
with State and local community efforts to preserve cultural and national heritage
resources. The FY2005 request is $37.7 million, a decrease of $24.0 million (39%)
from FY2004 ($61.8 million). The reduction is attributable to (1) the proposed
discontinuance of statutory aid programs, and (2) the curtailment of heritage area
funding (from $14.3 million in FY2004 to $2.5 million in FY2005). In recent years,
the Administration’s requests for heritage areas have been significantly lower than
the previous year’s appropriation, but Congress has consistently restored or increased
heritage area funding. The House-passed bill would provide $15.1 million for the
Heritage partnership program, an increase of $12.6 million above the request, and the
reports of both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees make specific
funding recommendations for each National Heritage Area. The Senate committee
-reported bill recommends $14.3 million for National Heritage Areas, $11.8 million
above the request. The House-passed bill allows $3.8 million for Statutory or
Contractual Aid, or $9.0 million below the FY2004 enacted level and $3.8 million
above the FY2005 request ($0.0). The Senate Committee recommends $12.1 million
for Statutory or Contractual Aid, or $8.3 million more than the House approved. The
House bill allows $53.9 million for the FY2005 National Recreation and Preservation
line item, or a total of $16.1 million above the request. The Senate committee-
reported bill recommends $63.0 million, $25.3 million more that the request and $9.1
million more that the House approved.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This matching grant
program, created in 1978, was intended to help low-income inner city neighborhoods
rehabilitate existing recreational facilities. Funding for new program grants was
problematic (about $2 million annually) until the Conservation Spending Category
(CSC) was created in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act, with $30.0 million for
CRS-18
UPARR. In FY2001 and FY2002, Congress appropriated $30.0 million for UPARR.
For FY2003, appropriations were $298,000 for program administrative costs, and the
FY2004 appropriation was $301,000 to administer previously awarded grants. For
FY2005, as in the preceding three budgets, the President requested no funds for
UPARR and asked Congress to eliminate the separate UPARR line item and return
program grant administration for previously awarded grants to the National
Recreation and Preservation line item. The House-passed bill has no line-item
funding for UPARR and provides for a transfer, allowing $316,000 under National
Recreation and Preservation for urban park grant administration. The Senate
Committee also recommends eliminating the UPARR line item and would transfer
limited UPARR grant administration funding to the National Recreation and
Preservation line. Under pending legislation (H.R. 4100) designed to replicate the
CSC with a trust fund derived from offshore energy revenues, UPARR could receive
up to $125 million annually for 20 years.
Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds the
construction, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. The FY2005 budget
requests $329.9 million for NPS construction, essentially the same as the FY2004
level. The House-passed bill allows $297.6 million for construction, a decrease of
$32.3 million below the FY2004 enacted level and the budget request. The Senate
committee-reported bill recommends $330.0 million, or $32.4 million more than the
House approved.
The FY2005 Administration request includes $394.8 million for facility
maintenance (in Operation of the National Park System line item), $24.7 million
(7%) more than the FY2004 appropriation ($370.1 million). The House-passed and
Senate committee-reported bills combine facility operation and facility maintenance
into a single “maintenance” category; they do not specify the amount for facility
maintenance. The Senate committee-reported bill recommends $577.3 million for
NPS maintenance activities while the House-passed bill contains $573.2 million.
The House-passed total for facility operation, facility maintenance, and
construction is $870.8 million. The total recommended by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations is $907.4 million. Combined, the Administration has requested
$724.7 million for construction and facility maintenance only, an increase of $24.7
million (4%) from FY2004 ($700.0 million). The Administration asserts that this
combined total addresses the backlog of deferred maintenance, and with $78 million
from recreation fees and $310 million from the Highway Trust Fund, total spending
to reduce the maintenance backlog in FY2005 will be more than $1.1 billion.
However, the backlog was estimated to be $4.9 billion in FY2002 and $5.6 billion
in FY2003. Further, other DOI sources estimate the FY2004 appropriation for
deferred maintenance at $319.3 million, and the FY2005 request at $332.5 million.
These figures may cause some to raise questions about the magnitude and
effectiveness of funding for construction and facility maintenance in reducing the
backlog. (For information on the maintenance backlog, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10093, National Park Management and Recreation, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.)
The House-passed bill includes language that would impose a temporary
moratorium on partnership construction projects (those undertaken by friends groups
CRS-19
or corporate or foundation sponsorship) in excess of $5 million, unless approved by
the Appropriations Committees. This is an effort to control low priority, large,
expensive construction projects outside the regular budget process that result in
increased needs for operations and maintenance funding, thereby compounding
operational shortfalls and delaying critical backlog projects and other service
priorities. The Senate Appropriations Committee chose not to impose a blanket
moratorium on partnership projects.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. The FY2005 budget requested
a total of $178.1 million, with $84.3 million for federal land acquisition and $93.8
million for state assistance. The total is $42.5 million (31%) more than FY2004
appropriations ($135.6 million). The federal program provides funds to acquire
lands, or interests in lands, for inclusion within the National Park System, while state
assistance is for park land acquisition and recreation planning and development by
the states. The funds provided to the states are allocated through a formula, with
states determining their spending priorities.
The House-passed bill allows $107.5 million for NPS land acquisition and state
assistance, $70.6 million below the budget request and $28.1 million below the
FY2004 enacted level. Within the total, $91.5 million would go to state assistance
and $16.0 million is for federal land acquisition program activities. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommends $155.8 million for land acquisition and state
assistance, $48.3 million more than the House but $22.3 million less than the request.
The Senate committee recommendation allows $94.0 million for state assistance and
$61.8 million for NPS land acquisition.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Under this
trial program, participating units of the four major federal land management agencies
are authorized to retain and spend receipts from entrance and user fees without
further appropriation. A portion of fee receipts is distributed to other agency sites.
The NPS estimates Fee Demo receipts of $124.7 million for FY2004 and $122.8
million for FY2005. The FY2004 Interior appropriations law extended Fee Demo
through December 2005 for fee collection and through FY2008 for expenditures, to
give the authorizing committees more time to consider the controversial issue of a
permanent program. Fee Demo has been extended multiple times by appropriations
laws. On May 19, 2004, the Senate approved S. 1107 to authorize a permanent
program for the NPS only. The Administration favors a permanent multi-agency
program but there has been no consensus in Congress on this issue. (For more
information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10093, National Park Management and
Recreation, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at
[http://www.nps.gov/].
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid to states (primarily through State Historic
Preservation Offices), certified local governments, and territories and the Federated
States of Micronesia for activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act.
These activities include protecting cultural resources and restoring historic districts,
sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and culture. Preservation
CRS-20
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.
The House-passed FY2005 Interior appropriations bill would provide $71.5
million for the Historic Preservation Fund, a decrease of 8% from the FY2005
Administration’s budget request ($77.5 million) and a 3% decrease from the FY2004
level ($73.6 million). The Senate committee-reported version of the bill would
provide $71.3 million for HPF. It does not include funds for HBCUs, but would
increase tribal grants to $3.3 million. See Table 9 below.
A major issue that often reappears during the appropriations process is whether
historic preservation programs should be funded by private money rather than the
federal government. Congress eliminated permanent federal funding for the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, but has provided appropriations under Save
America’s Treasures to preserve nationally significant intellectual and cultural
artifacts and historic structures. Due to concerns that the program did not reflect
geographic diversity, appropriations law now requires that project recommendations
be subject to approval by the Appropriations Committees prior to distribution of
funds. The FY2005 House-passed bill and the Senate committee-reported bill would
provide $30.0 million for Save America’s Treasures, a decrease of 8% from the
FY2004 level ($32.6 million) and the same as the FY2005 request. However, the
FY2005 House-passed bill and the Senate committee-reported bill do not include
funding for the Administration’s initiative for “Preserve America” grants. These
grants-in-aid, recommended by the President for funding at $10.0 million, would
have supplemented Save America’s Treasures in supporting community efforts to
develop resource management strategies and to encourage heritage tourism. Preserve
America grants were to be competitively awarded on a 50/50 matching basis, as one-
time seed money grants.
In the past, the Historic Preservation Fund included funds for the preservation
and restoration of historic buildings and structures on Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU) campuses. An appropriation in FY2001 of $7.2 million
represented the unused authorization remaining under law. There was no funding for
HBCUs under HPF for FY2002 or FY2003, although in FY2004 funding of $3.0
million was provided with competitive grants administered by the NPS. The FY2005
House-passed bill would provide funding for HBCUs at $4.0 million, but the Senate
committee-reported bill excludes funding for HBCUs.
There is no longer federal funding for the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, previously funded as part of the Historic Preservation Fund Account.
The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 to “protect and preserve”
historic American sites significant to our cultural heritage. It is technically a private
non-profit corporation, but it received federal funding until FY1998. Since that time,
the National Trust generally has not received direct federal funding in keeping with
Congress’s plan to make it self-supporting. However, relatively small appropriations
were provided in FY2003 and FY2004, with $0.5 million in FY2004 for the National
Trust’s Endowment Fund for the care and maintenance of the most endangered
historic places. The FY2005 House-passed bill and the Senate committee-reported
bill do not include funding for the National Trust’s endowment fund.
CRS-21
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
Historic Preservation
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Grants-in-Aid to States and Territoriesa
$34,569
$34,570
$34,570
$38,000
Tribal Grants
2,963
2,963
2,963
3,250
Save America’s Treasures
32,594
30,000
30,000
30,000
Preserve America Grants-In-Aid
—
10,000
—
—
HBCU’s
2,963
—
4,000
—
National Historic Trust Endowment
494
—
—
—
Grant/Historic Sites Fund
Total Appropriations
73,583
77,533
71,533
71,250
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.
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website 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 premier science agency in
providing physical and biological 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 2004, the
USGS is celebrating the 125th anniversary of its creation.
Funds for the USGS are provided under the heading 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. For FY2005,
the Senate committee-reported bill would provide $939.5 million for the USGS and
the House-passed bill would provide $944.5 million, an increase of $19.7 million and
$24.7 million, respectively, over the Administration’s request of $919.8 million, and
$1.5 million and $6.5 million, respectively, over the FY2004 enacted level of $938.0
million. See Table 10 below. The FY2005 House-passed and Senate committee-
reported bill would create a new line item in the USGS budget called Enterprise
Information, similar to the Administration’s request, yet with different funding
amounts. (See below for details.) In its report on the FY2005 bill, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations states that it has reinstated most of the individual
CRS-22
projects targeted for elimination in the Administration’s request. Further, the
Committee states that there should be a stronger emphasis placed on the core
programs of the USGS.
Both the Senate committee-reported and the House-passed bill, as well as the
Administration’s request for FY2005, would provide a decrease in funding in five of
the six activities traditionally conducted by the USGS compared to the FY2004
enacted levels, with the decreases partly offset by funding for Enterprise Information.
Enterprise Information. The Administration proposed a new line item for
funding within the USGS for FY2005 called Enterprise Information. This would
consolidate funding of all USGS information needs including information
technology, security, services, and resources management, as well as capital asset
planning. Funding for these functions previously was distributed among several
different USGS offices and budget sub-activities. The House-passed bill includes
this new line item and would provide $44.1 million for Enterprise Information for
FY2005, a decrease of $1.0 million from the Administration’s request of $45.1
million. The Senate-reported bill includes $45.2 million for this line item.
There are three primary programs within Enterprise Information: (1) Enterprise
Information Security and Technology, which supports management and operations
of USGS telecommunications (e.g., computing infrastructure and email); (2)
Enterprise Information Resources, which provides policy support, information
management, and oversight over information services; and (3) Federal Geographic
Data Coordination, which provides operational support and management for the
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The FGDC is an interagency,
intergovernmental committee that encourages collaboration to make geospatial data
available to state, local and tribal governments, as well as communities.
National Mapping Program. The National Mapping Program aims to
provide access to high quality geospatial data and information to the public. The
House-passed bill would provide $122.8 million, while the Senate committee-
reported bill would provide $119.8 million. The largest decrease within this program
would be for the Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program, which would receive
$74.7 million under the House-passed bill — a decrease of $6.1 million from
FY2004. The Senate committee-reported bill would provide $71.8 million for this
program, which is even a greater decrease from FY2004. Under the House-passed
bill and the Senate committee-reported bill, the Land Remote Sensing and
Geographic Analysis and Monitoring sub-activities would be funded at $33.2 million
and $14.8 million, respectively, which are similar to the Administration’s request and
their FY2004 enacted levels.
In its report on the FY2005 bill, the House Committee on Appropriations states
that no solutions to degraded satellite imagery in the Landsat 7 program have been
proposed and that the Committee would not increase or reprogram funding for the
program. In its report on the bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee also has
stated its concern about the program and that the USGS has no clear guidance on how
to proceed. Landsat 7 is a satellite that takes remotely-sensed images of the Earth’s
land surface and surrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring.
Last year, approximately 25% of the data from the Landsat 7 Satellite began showing
CRS-23
signs of degradation. Nevertheless, an interagency panel concluded that the Landsat
7 Satellite data “continues to provide a unique, cost-effective solution to operational
and scientific problems.”1 The House committee also states that it supports the
acquisition of long-term satellite data and that the USGS should collaborate with
other agencies to place the next generation Landsat sensors in orbit. The Senate
Appropriations Committee also has stated that the USGS is responsible for satellite
operations and data collecting, and that the USGS, DOI, and “administration officials
at a higher policy level” should work towards a resolution on this issue (S.Rept. 108-
341, p. 30).
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, the House-passed bill would provide $230.9
million for FY2005, $10.1 million over the Administration’s request of $220.8
million, and $3.3 million below the FY2004 enacted level of $234.2 million. The
Senate-reported bill would provide $228.2 million for this heading, which is $6.0
million below the FY2004 enacted level and $7.5 million above the Administration’s
request. This line item covers programs in three activities: Hazard Assessments,
Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments. The House-passed
bill would provide $75.0 million for hazards assessments, $77.3 million for
landscape and coastal assessments, and $78.6 million for resource assessments;
whereas the Senate-reported version would provide $74.2 million, $75.5 million, and
$78.5 million, respectively, for these activities.
The House-passed bill and the Senate-reported bill would provide $6.5 million
more than the Administration’s request of $15.1 million for the mineral resources
program. This program conducts inquiries into the conditions affecting mining and
materials processing industries. The House-passed bill would provide $1.3 million
above the Administration’s request for the Advanced National Seismic System
(ANSS). ANSS provides real-time information about earthquakes and their effects
on buildings and other structures.
Water Resources Investigations. For the Water Resources Investigations
heading, the House-passed bill would provide $211.2 million for FY2005, $8.6
million above the Administration’s request of $202.7 million, and $4.5 million less
than the FY2004 enacted level of $215.7 million. The Senate committee-reported
bill would provide $212.9 million for this heading, which is $10.3 million above the
Administration’s request, and $2.8 million below the FY2004 enacted level.
All three programs within this line item would receive less funding than in
FY2004 under the Administration’s request. The House-passed bill would provide
$141.5 million for the Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments and Research activity
in FY2005, a decrease of $3.8 million from the FY2004 enacted level; $63.3 million
for the Cooperative Water Program, a decrease of $0.7 million from the enacted
level; and $6.5 million for Water Resources Research Institutes, similar to the
enacted level. The Senate committee-reported bill would provide $143.1 million for
the Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessments and Research activity in FY2005, $63.4
1 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Budget Justification and Performance
Information: Fiscal Year 2005 (Reston, VA: 2004).
CRS-24
million for Cooperative Water Program, and $6.5 million for Water Resources
Research Institutes.
As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2004 budget requests, the
FY2005 request has sought to discontinue USGS support for Water Resources
Research Institutes because, it alleges, most institutes have succeeded in leveraging
sufficient funding for program activities from non-USGS sources. Congress has
restored funding for the institutes from FY2002 to FY2004.
Biological Research. For FY2005, the House-passed bill would provide
$172.0 million for Biological Research, $4.4 million above the Administration’s
request of $167.6 million, and $2.6 million below the FY2004 enacted level of
$174.5 million. The Senate committee-reported bill would provide $172.8 million
for this program, which is $5.2 million above the Administration’s request and $1.8
million below the FY2004 enacted level.
The House Appropriations Committee expressed concern in its report on the bill
about the growth of the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), citing
that the number of planned regional and thematic nodes is too high and not
adequately justified. The Committee directed the USGS to locate all new “thematic”
nodes in the same location as regional nodes to consolidate operational expenses.
The NBII is a collaborative program that aims to provide increased access to data and
information on the nation’s biological resources. The Committee also directed the
USGS to develop a long-term plan to address the number and location of new units
in the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Program. The Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Program is a partnership between federal and state governments
and academia to provide research, management, and technical assistance to maintain
DOI managed lands and waters.
For FY2005, the House-passed bill and the Administration propose to continue
work on reducing harmful invasive species and wildlife diseases. The USGS expects
to complete an assessment of invasive species threats in the National Wildlife Refuge
System and to continue to research and map “hotspots” of invasive species impacts
throughout the United States.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for management and dissemination
of scientific information. For FY2005, the House-passed bill would provide $67.5
million for science support, which is $1.2 million less than the Administration’s
request of $68.7 million, and $23.3 million less than enacted in FY2004. The Senate
committee-reported bill would provide $65.4 million for science support, which is
$3.3 million less than the Administration’s request and $25.4 million less than the
FY2004 enacted level. The Administration justifies its proposed reduction by noting
that funds normally provided in this account would be proposed for the Enterprise
Information Program, which is expected to provide information support that
previously was done by Science Support. Facilities focuses on the costs for
maintenance and repair of facilities. The House-passed bill would provide $95.9
million for facilities for FY2005, which is the same as the Administration’s request,
and $2.9 million above the FY2004 level of $93.0 million. The Senate committee-
reported bill would provide $95.0 million for facilities.
CRS-25
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
House
Senate
U.S. Geological Survey
Enacted
Request
Passed
Comm.
Enterprise Information
$0.0
$45.1
$44.1
$45.2
National Mapping Program
129.8
118.9
122.8
119.8
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes
234.2
220.8
230.9
228.2
Water Resources Investigations
215.7
202.7
211.2
212.9
Biological Research
174.5
167.6
172.0
172.8
Science Support
90.8
68.7
67.5
65.4
Facilities
93.0
95.9
95.9
95.0
Total Appropriations
938.0
919.8
944.5
939.5
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at [http://www.usgs.gov/].
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the
Offshore Minerals Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue
Management (MRM) Program. 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.
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.
Budget and Appropriations. The Administration’s budget request for
MMS for FY2005 proposed $282.4 million. This included $7.1 million for Oil Spill
Research, $275.3 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management
(comprised of $146.1 million for OMM, $81.9 million for MRM, and $47.3 million
for General Administration). Of this total, $178.7 million would derive from
appropriations and $103.7 million from offsetting collections which MMS has been
retaining from collections since 1994. The total FY2005 budget request was 4% over
the $270.5 million provided for FY2004, with the appropriation increasing by 5%.
The House-passed bill supports funding all MMS accounts at levels identical to the
Administration’s request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends a total
of $282.0 million for MMS, with $178.3 million from appropriations and $103.7
million from offsetting collections. The Senate Appropriations Committee supported
all requested and House-passed funding levels, except it recommended a slightly
lower level for OMM — $145.7 million.
CRS-26
The MMS estimates that it collects and disburses over $6 billion in revenue
annually. This amount fluctuates based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas.
Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40%
to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties accounted for not more than
25%.
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts are being considered as part of the FY2005 appropriations process, as they
were for FY2004. The FY2004 appropriations law continued the moratorium on
preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Sales in the
Eastern GOM have been especially controversial. Industry groups contend that the
sales are too limited, given what they say is an enormous resource potential, while
environmental groups and some state officials argue that the risks to the environment
and local economies are too great. The FY2004 law continued leasing moratoria in
other areas, including the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.
However, in a controversial development, the law (P.L. 108-108) omitted
language that would have prohibited funding for preleasing and leasing activity in the
North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, currently under a leasing moratorium. There
is some interest in eventually opening the area to oil and gas development as an offset
to the depressed fishing industry in the Bristol Bay area. Environmentalists and
others oppose this effort. The North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, containing
Bristol Bay, is not in the MMS current five-year (2002-2007) leasing plan. Under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. §1331), the
Secretary of the Interior submits five-year leasing programs that specify the time,
location, and size of lease sales to be held during that period.
The House-passed and Senate Committee-reported bills for FY2005 continue
to support the moratoria on leasing and preleasing activity in certain sections of the
OCS, including the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and the Eastern GOM. However,
like the FY2004 law, they do not prohibit funding for preleasing and leasing activity
in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area.
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), 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
CRS-27
Court decision.2 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.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website
at [http://www.mms.gov].
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-
87) established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
to ensure that land mined for coal would be returned to a condition capable of
supporting its pre-mining land use. SMCRA also established an Abandoned Mine
Lands (AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites
that pose serious health or safety hazards. Congress’s intention was that individual
states and Indian tribes would develop their own regulatory programs incorporating
minimum standards established by law and regulations. Fee collections have been
broken up into “federal” and “state” shares. Grants are awarded to the states after
applying a distribution formula to the annual appropriation and drawing upon both
the federal and state shares. In instances where states have no approved program,
OSM directs reclamation in the state.
Several states have been pressing in recent years for increases in the AML
appropriations, with a particular eye on the unappropriated balances in the state share
accounts that now exceed $1 billion. The total unappropriated balance — including
both federal and state share accounts in the AML fund — is expected to approach
$1.75 billion by the end of FY2004. Western states are additionally critical of the
program because, as coal production has shifted westward, these states are paying
more into the fund. They argue that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of
the reclamation burden as more of the sites requiring remediation are in the East.
Authorization to collect fees for the AML fund expires at the end of September
2004; the Administration has submitted legislation that would reauthorize fee
collections and make a number of changes to the program to address state and
regional concerns. Other legislative proposals for reauthorization of AML
collections have been introduced in both the House and Senate. This issue has been
controversial. In light of the narrowing prospects that agreement can be reached on
the various proposals, the Senate Committee on Appropriations added a short-term
extension to May 31, 2005 during its markup of the Interior appropriations bill. The
House version of the bill has no comparable language.
A significant feature in the Administration reauthorization proposal with
significant bearing on the budget request is a ten-year plan to return the unobligated
state share balances to the states. The Administration asked for $53.0 million to
carry out the plan in the first year. Consequently, the Administration’s request for
2 For further information, see Platts Inside Energy, December 16, 2002, p.7 (Washington,
DC: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2002).
CRS-28
AML was $243.9 million, a large increase (28%) above the $190.6 million enacted
in FY2004. Neither the House nor Senate Committees on Appropriations embraced
the Administration’s plan and the requested $53.0 million increase. The House
committee recommended an appropriation of $194.1 million for the AML fund —
$49.8 million less than the Administration request but $3.5 million above the
FY2004 appropriation. The full House concurred with the Committee’s
recommendation. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $190.9
million for AML grants distributions — a reduction of $3.2 million from the House
level, and $53.0 million from the President’s request.
“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. Currently, grants to the states from the AML fund are based on states’ current
and historic coal production. The minimum funding level for each of these states was
increased to $2.0 million in 1992. However, over the objection of those states who
would have preferred the full authorization, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million
to minimum program states since FY1996. As part of its reauthorization plan, the
Administration proposes to assure $2.0 million annually to minimum program states,
but the House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations are maintaining the $1.5
million level.
The other component of the OSM budget is for Regulation and Technology
programs. For Regulation and Technology, Congress provided $105.4 million in
FY2004, and the Administration has requested $108.9 million for FY2005. Included
in the FY2005 request is $10.0 million in funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams
Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002-2004, and $10.0 million for the Small
Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). The House Appropriations Committee and
the full House agreed to these requested levels. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations added $1.0 million to the House level for the Regulation and
Technology budget, with instruction to OSM to contract with the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a study coal reserves and
current technologies in mining.
In total, the Administration requests $352.8 million for OSM, a 19% increase
over the FY2004 level of $296.0 million. As detailed above, the House agreed to a
total spending level of $303.0 million, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations
supported $300.8 million.
CRS Report RL32373. Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected
Issues, by Robert L. Bamberger.
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its website at [http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm].
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally-
recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and
historically has been the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs
provided or funded through the BIA include government operations, courts, law
CRS-29
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 FY2004 direct appropriations were $2.30 billion. For FY2005, the
Administration proposed $2.25 billion, a decrease of $47.0 million (-2%) below
FY2004. The House approved $2.33 billion for FY2005, an increase of $34.0
million (1%) over FY2004 and $81.1 million (4%) over the Administration’s request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $2.28 billion, or $24.7 million
(-1%) below FY2004 and $22.3 million (1%) above the request. For the BIA, its
major budget components, and selected BIA programs (shown in italics), Table 11
below presents FY2004 appropriations; FY2005 figures for the Administration’s
proposal, the House-passed bill, and the Senate Committee recommendations; and
the percentages of change based on the Senate Committee bill. Decreases are shown
with minuses. Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization
of the Bureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in the
BIA school system.
CRS-30
Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
Senate Percent
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Change From:
Passed
Comm.
FY04
Request
Operation of Indian Programs
— Tribal Priority Allocations
$770,637
$775,631
$775,631
$780,631
1%
1%
— -Contract Support Costs
133,648
133,314
133,314
136,314
2%
2%
— - Other Recurring Programs
614,136
600,611
612,103
616,340
<1%
3%
— -School Operations
522,003
522,368
527,310
522,368
<1%
0%
——Tribally-Controlled Colleges
48,600
43,390
43,390
55,890
15%
29%
— Non-Recurring Programs
75,641
73,011
73,161
77,403
2%
6%
— Central Office Operations
88,506
134,444
145,021
123,444
39%
-8%
——Office of Federal
1,350
1,307
1,307
1,307
-3%
0%
Acknowledgment
——Trust Services
5,252
19,340
19,340
19,340
268%
0%
——Information Resources
38,233
67,205
59,910
57,205
50%
-15%
Technology
— Regional Office Operations
63,686
62,523
41,946
62,523
-2%
0%
— Special Programs and Pooled
280,100
283,257
287,171
291,457
4%
3%
Overhead
——Public Safety and Justice
172,495
182,600
182,600
182,600
6%
0%
Subtotal, Operation of Indian
1,892,706
1,929,477
1,935,033
1,951,798
3%
1%
Programs
Construction
346,825
283,126
348,626
283,126
-18%
0%
— Education Construction
294,954
229,083
294,583
229,083
-22%
0%
Land and Water Claim
54,866
34,771
44,771
34,771
-37%
0%
Settlements and Miscellaneous
Payments
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
6,417
6,421
6,421
6,421
<1%
0%
Total Appropriations
2,300,814
2,253,795
2,334,851
2,276,116
-1%
1%
BIA Reorganization. In April 2003, Secretary of the Interior Norton began
implementing a reorganization of the BIA, the office of Assistant Secretary-Indian
Affairs (AS-IA), and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) in the
Office of the Interior Secretary (see “Office of Special Trustee” section below). The
reorganization arises from issues and events related to trust funds and trust assets
management, and is integrally related to the reform and improvement of trust
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), and cover about 45 million acres of tribal trust land and 10 million acres
of individual Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate services,
processing of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), surveys, appraisals, probate
functions, land title records activities, and other functions.
CRS-31
The BIA, however, has been frequently charged with mismanaging Indian trust
funds and trust assets. Investigations and audits in the 1980s and after supported
these criticisms, especially in the areas of accounting, linkage of owners to assets,
and retention of records. This led to a trust reform act in 1994 and the filing of an
extensive court case in 1996 (see “Office of Special Trustee” section below). The
1994 act created the OST, assigning it responsibility for oversight of trust
management reform. In 1996 trust fund management was transferred to the OST
from the BIA, but the BIA retained management of trust assets.
Unsuccessful efforts at trust management reform in the 1990s led DOI to
contract in 2001 with a management-consultant firm. The firm’s recommendations
included both improvements in trust management and reorganization of the DOI
agencies carrying out trust management and improvement. Following nearly a year
of DOI consultation on reorganization with Indian tribes and individuals, DOI
announced the reorganization in December 2002, even though the department and
tribal leaders had not reached agreement on all aspects of reorganization. DOI,
however, faced a deadline in the court case to file a plan for overall trust management
reform, and reorganization was part of DOI’s plan.
The current reorganization plan of BIA, AS-IA, and OST chiefly involves trust
management structures and functions. Under the plan, the BIA’s trust operations at
regional and agency levels will remain in those offices but be split off from other BIA
services. The OST will add trust officers to BIA regional and agency offices to
oversee trust management and provide information to Indian trust beneficiaries.
Certain tribes, however, that had been operating trust management reform pilot
projects with their regional BIA offices under self-governance compacts are excluded
from the reorganization, under the FY2004 appropriations act. The BIA, OST, and
AS-IA, together with the Office of Historical Trust Accounting in the Secretary’s
office, also are implementing a trust management improvement project, announced
in March 2003, which includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, and
procedures, historical accounting for trust accounts, reduction of backlogs,
modernization of computer technology (the court case led in 2001 to a continuing
shutdown of BIA’s World-Wide-Web connections), and maintenance of the
improved system.
Many Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the plaintiffs in the court case,
have been critical of the new reorganization and have urgently asked that it be
suspended. Tribes argue that the reorganization is premature, because new trust
procedures and policies are still being developed; that it insufficiently defines new
OST duties; and that other major BIA service programs are being limited or cut to
pay for the reorganization. For FY2005, the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committees sought to respond to tribal concerns by continuing the FY2004 provision
(dropped in the Administration’s proposal) that excludes from reorganization certain
tribes that have been operating trust management reform pilot projects with their
regional BIA offices. Neither the House nor the Senate Committee, however,
suspend or stop the reorganization.
BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools
and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating about 48,000
students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-determination
CRS-32
contracts and other grants, operate 120 of these institutions; the BIA operates the
remainder. BIA-funded schools’ key problems are low student achievement and,
especially, a large number of inadequate school facilities.
Some observers feel tribal operation of schools will improve student
achievement. To encourage tribal boards to take over operation of current BIA-
operated schools, for FY2004, Congress created an administrative cost fund of $2.9
million to pay tribal school boards’ start-up administrative costs. The Administration
proposal deleted this fund for FY2005, arguing that tribes were showing insufficient
interest in operating BIA-funded schools. The House restored the fund (at $3.0
million) but the Senate Appropriations Committee did not.
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 has estimated the current backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million,
but this figure changes as new repair needs appear each year. Table 11 above shows
FY2004 and FY2005 education construction appropriations. The Administration
proposed reducing FY2005 appropriations for replacement-school construction by
$61.0 million, because a number of school replacement projects funded in previous
years are still under construction. The Administration also proposed adding
appropriations language authorizing the BIA to reassume management of school
construction projects that are under tribal self-determination contracts if the
construction does not begin within 18 months of funding availability, arguing that
some projects under self-determination contracts have been too slow in commencing.
The House restored $65.5 million in total education construction funds and dropped
the proposed language authorizing BIA reassumption of construction projects, but the
Senate Committee recommendation accepts the Administration’s proposed funding
amount ($229.1 million) and reassumption language.
Because construction appropriations are, in some tribes’ view, not reducing
construction needs fast enough, Indian tribes have urged Congress to explore
additional sources of construction financing. In the FY2001-FY2004 Interior
appropriations acts, Congress authorized a demonstration program that allows tribes
to help fund construction of BIA-funded, tribally-controlled schools. The
Administration proposed increasing the funding for this program by $4.0 million in
FY2005, to a total of $9.9 million, to which the House and the Senate Committee
agreed.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].
CRS Report RS21670. Major Indian Issues in the 108th Congress, by Roger Walke.
CRS-33
Departmental Offices
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to four insular areas (Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), as well as three other insular
areas (Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Federated States of Micronesia
(FSM), and Palau) formerly included in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
OIA staff also manages relations between these jurisdictions and the federal
government and works 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; and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the
appropriations process.
Permanent and indefinite appropriations historically constitute roughly 70% to
80% of the OIA budget and consist of two parts. For FY2005 the Administration
estimates that a total of roughly $305 million will be available, as follows:
! $196 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau)
under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free
Association;3 and,
! $109 million in fiscal assistance, divided between the U.S. Virgin
Islands for estimated rum excise and income tax collections and
Guam for income tax collections.
These funding levels represent a slight increase over current FY2004 levels,
according to the FY2005 budget justification submitted to Congress.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the balance (roughly 20% to 30%) of the OIA budget. Two accounts —
Assistance to Territories (AT) and the Compact of Free Association (CFA) —
comprise discretionary and current mandatory funding. Discretionary funding for
FY2004 was set at $82.1 million, with AT funded at $75.7 million and CFA at $6.4
million. This constituted a 15% decrease from the amount appropriated for such
payments in FY2003 ($96.8 million). The FY2005 request would reduce AT funding
to $73.0 million, and CFA assistance to $5.9 million, for a total of $78.9 million.
The House approved $75.0 million for AT and $5.5 million for CFA for FY2005, a
total of $80.4 million. This constitutes a 2% decline from the amount appropriated
for FY2004 and a 2% increase over the FY2005 request. The Senate Appropriations
Committee reported a level slightly lower than that approved by the House — $74.3
million for AT and $5.4 million for CFA assistance, a total of $79.7 million for
FY2005.
3 Portions of the Compacts of Free Association with the FSM and the RMI expired in the
fall of 2001 and have been renegotiated. Legislation to approve the amended compacts has
been enacted (P.L. 108-188). For background, see CRS Report RL31737, The Marshall
Islands and Micronesia: Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the United
States, by Thomas Lum. The Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994 and
will terminate in FY2009.
CRS-34
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 recently
negotiated compacts with the FSM and RMI include accountability measures and
performance review requirements.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html].
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For FY2005, the
Administration proposed to fund the PILT program at $226.0 million, nearly level
funding with the $224.7 million appropriated in FY2004. The House agreed with the
President’s request. A House floor amendment to add $15.0 million to PILT was
defeated. Supporters of the amendment claimed that rural western areas need
additional PILT funds to provide the kinds of services that counties with more private
land are able to provide. Opposition to the amendment centered on proposed
reductions in funding for the Smithsonian Institution and the National Endowment
for the Humanities to offset the increase for PILT.
The Senate committee-reported bill contains $230.0 million for PILT, an
increase of $5.3 million over the FY2004 enacted level and $4.0 million over the
Administration’s request and House-passed level.
The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their
jurisdictions because federally owned land is not taxed. Since the beginning of the
program in 1976, payments of more than $3 billion have been made. However, the
program has been controversial because in recent years appropriations have been
substantially less than authorized amounts.
For FY2004, the Administration proposed, and Congress agreed, 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, and certain other federal lands, in addition to BLM lands.
For further information on the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, see the BLM
website at [http://www.blm.gov/pilt/].
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 in 1996, at Congress’s 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” section
above.)
CRS-35
Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal
funds owned by about 300 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset
value of about $2.9 billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual
Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 260,000 accounts with a current total asset
value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2005 budget
justifications.) The funds include monies received from claims awards, land or water
rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from income from land-based
trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as from investment income.
The FY2005 budget proposal provided $322.7 million for the OST, $113.7
million (54%) over FY2004. The House approved $238.3 million for OST for
FY2005, 14% over FY2004 but 25% below the Administration’s proposal. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $246.3 million, 18% over FY2004
but 22% below the Administration proposal. Table 12 below presents figures for
FY2004 and FY2005 for the OST; selected OST programs are shown in italics.
Key issues for the OST are its current reorganization, an historical accounting
for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal and IIM accounts.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
Senate Percent
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Change From:
Passed
Comm.
FY2004
Request
Federal Trust Programs
$187,305
$247,666
$196,267
$196,267
5%
-21%
— Historical Accounting
44,446
109,400
58,000
58,000
30%
-47%
Indian Land Consolidation
21,709
70,000
42,000
50,000
130%
-29%
Total Appropriations
$209,014
$317,666
$238,267
$246,267
18%
-22%
Reorganization. Both OST and BIA began a reorganization in 2003 (see
“Bureau of Indian Affairs” section above), one aspect of which is the creation of OST
field operations. OST is installing fiduciary trust officers and administrators at the
level of BIA agency and regional offices. Many Indian tribes disagree with parts of
the OST and BIA reorganization and have asked Congress to put it on hold so that
OST and BIA can conduct further consultation with the tribes.
Historical Accounting. The historical accounting effort 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 be large and time-consuming. The Interior Department has proposed an
extensive, five-year, $335 million project to reconcile IIM accounts. Most of the
increase that the Administration proposed for the OST for FY2005 is for historical
accounting, which would increase from $44.4 million in FY2004 to $109.4 million
CRS-36
in FY2005. Of the proposed $109.4 million total for historical accounting, $80.0
million would be for IIM accounts and $29.4 million for tribal accounts. Both the
House-passed bill and the Senate Appropriations Committee’s recommendation
increase funds for historical accounting but cap the amount at $58.0 million, or $51.4
million below the request. The House Appropriations Committee, in its report on the
FY2005 bill, explained that the cap is related to ongoing mediation and settlement
discussions in the trust-funds litigation and to the possibility of large future
appropriations if these efforts fail.
Litigation. An 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.4 Many OST activities are related to the
Cobell case, including litigation support activities, but the most significant issue for
appropriations concerns the method by which the historical accounting will be
conducted to estimate IIM accounts’ proper balances. The DOI’s proposed method
was estimated by the Department to cost $335 million over five years and produce
a relatively low total owed to IIM accounts; the plaintiffs’ method, whose procedural
cost is uncertain, was estimated to produce a figure of $176 billion owed to IIM
accounts.
In 2003, the court conducted a lengthy trial to decide which historical
accounting method to use in estimating the IIM accounts’ proper balances.
Previously, in the first phase of the Cobell case, in 1999 the court had found that DOI
and the Treasury Department had breached trust duties regarding the necessary
document retention and data gathering needed for an accounting, and regarding the
business systems and staffing to fix trust management. The lawsuit’s final phase will
determine the amount of money owed to the plaintiffs, based on the historical
accounting method chosen.
Congress has, for several years, been concerned about the current and potential
costs of the Cobell lawsuit, although it has eliminated proposed appropriations
language directing settlement of the case. The Appropriations Committees have
expressed concern that the IIM lawsuit was jeopardizing DOI trust reform
implementation and have required reports from DOI on the costs and benefits of
historical accounting methods, including statistical sampling.
The court’s decision on historical accounting was delivered on September 25,
2003. The court rejected both the plaintiffs’ and DOI’s proposed historical
accounting plans and instead ordered DOI to account for all trust fund and asset
transactions since 1887, without using statistical sampling. The Interior Department
estimated that the court’s choice for historical accounting would cost $6-12 billion.
The FY2004 Interior appropriations conference report added a controversial new
provision aimed at the court’s September 25, 2003, decision. The provision directed
4 Cobell v. Norton (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). Updated information is available on the
websites of the plaintiffs at [http://www.indiantrust.com], the DOI at [http://www.doi.gov/
indiantrust/], and the Justice Department at [http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/
index.htm].
CRS-37
that no statute or trust law principle should be construed to require the Interior
Department to conduct the historical accounting until either Congress has delineated
the department’s specific historical accounting obligations or December 31, 2004,
whichever is earlier. The conferees asserted in the conference committee report that
the court-ordered historical accounting is too expensive, beyond the intent of the
1994 Act, and likely to be appealed, and that Congress needs time to resolve the
historical accounting question or settle the suit. Opponents in the House and Senate
argued that the provision is of doubtful constitutionality, since it directs courts’
interpretation of law and effectively suspends a court order in an ongoing case, and
further is unjust to the plaintiffs and might undermine the Interior Department’s
incentives to negotiate a settlement.
The FY2004 conference report with this provision passed both the Senate and,
narrowly, the House, and was enacted on November 10, 2003. Based on this
provision, the DOI on the same day appealed the court’s September 25, 2003, order.
On November 12, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
temporarily stayed the September 25 order. That temporary stay is still in effect. On
September 15, 2004, the Appeals Court heard arguments in the case. While no bill
has since been introduced to delineate the historical accounting obligation, the IIM
plaintiffs and the federal government on April 5, 2004, announced agreement on two
mediators in their case.5 The House Appropriations Committee’s report on the
FY2005 appropriations bill expressed encouragement at the mediation and at
commitments by the House and Senate authorizing committees to develop a
legislative solution. Mediation continues, although an undated statement on the
plaintiffs’ website said the mediation was not progressing and blamed the
government.6
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its website at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
CRS Report RS21670. Major Indian Issues in the 108th Congress, by Roger Walke.
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)
of 1988 (P.L. 100-497, as amended) 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 chief appropriations issue for NIGC is whether its funding is
adequate for its regulatory responsibilities.
The NIGC is authorized to receive annual appropriations of $2 million, but its
budget authority consists chiefly of annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II and III
operations. IGRA currently caps NIGC fees at $8 million per year. The NIGC in
recent years has requested additional funding because it has experienced increased
demand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field investigations.
5 For more information, see the joint press release of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
and the House Committee on Resources at [http://indian.senate.gov/108press/040504.htm].
6 See Eloise Cobell letter at [http://www.indiantrust.com], accessed June 24 and September
18, 2004.
CRS-38
Congress, in the FY2003-FY2004 appropriations acts, increased the NIGC’s fee
ceiling to $12 million, but only for FY2004-FY2005. In the FY2005 budget, the
Administration proposed language amending IGRA to create an adjustable, formula-
based ceiling for fees instead of the current fixed ceiling. The Administration argued
that a formula-based fee ceiling would allow NIGC funding to grow as the Indian
gaming industry grows. Gaming tribes do not support the increased fee ceiling or the
proposed amendment of IGRA’s fee ceiling, arguing that NIGC’s budget should first
be reviewed in the context of extensive tribal and state expenditures on regulation of
Indian gaming, and that changes in NIGC’s fees should be developed in consultation
with tribes. The House bill and the Senate Committee recommendation do not
include the Administration’s proposed amendment to IGRA and instead extend to
FY2006 the increase in the NIGC fee ceiling to $12 million. Language in the Senate
Committee report allows the NIGC to use negotiated rulemaking with tribes in
developing regulations.
During FY1999-FY2004, all NIGC activities were funded from fees, with no
direct appropriations. The Administration proposed no direct appropriations for the
NIGC for FY2005, and both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
agree.
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended an FY2005 Forest Service
budget of $4.27 billion. The total is $24.8 million (nearly 1%) more than the House-
passed level of $4.25 billion, $33.1 million (1%) more than the President’s request
of $4.24 billion, and $708.7 million (14%) less than FY2004 appropriations of $4.98
billion (including supplemental funds). The House-passed and Senate committee-
reported bills also contain $400 million in emergency FS wildfire funding for
FY2005 that would become available if certain conditions are met.
The House considered floor amendments that could affect the FS. The House
agreed to the Chabot amendment to prohibit funding for forest development roads to
remove timber from the Tongass National Forest (AK). This amendment would, for
FY2005, substantially implement the Clinton roadless area rule for the Tongass
National Forest, essentially overturning the temporary December 30, 2003 Bush rule
exempting the Tongass from the Clinton roadless rule. It also would likely constrain
time harvesting in the Tongass during FY2005, but would not prevent maintenance
of existing roads. The Senate committee-reported bill did not include such a
provision.
The House rejected the Udall amendment to prevent completion of new NFMA
planning regulations, on the grounds that the existing 1982 regulations are outdated
and cumbersome and the 2000 Clinton regulations (which have not been
implemented) are unworkable. The amendment was supported because the draft
Bush regulations would eliminate the NEPA analysis of plans, would end population
CRS-39
viability standards for native species, and would otherwise alter existing planning
processes and standards.
Forest Fires and Forest Health. Fire funding and fire protection programs
have been controversial. 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. (For
historical background and descriptions of funded activities, see CRS Report
RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)
The National Fire Plan comprises the FS wildland fire program and fire fighting
on DOI lands; the DOI wildland fire monies are appropriated to the BLM. Congress
does not fund the National Fire Plan in any one place in Interior appropriations acts.
The total can be derived by combining the several accounts which the agencies
identify as National Fire Plan funding. This shows the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $2.98 billion for FY2005, including emergency funds of
$100 million for the BLM and $400 million for the FS, if needed. This is $36.8
million (1%) less that the House provided ($3.02 billion, including emergency funds
of $100 million for the BLM and $400 million for the FS, if needed), $514.7 million
(21%) above the budget request, and $310.9 million (9%) less than FY2004
appropriations ($3.29 billion), including enacted emergency funding of $947.3
million. See Table 13 below.
For the BLM, the Senate committee-reported bill recommended $843.1 million
for FY2005, equal to the House-passed level, $100.0 million (13%) more than the
request (exactly equal to the emergency funding), and $40.5 million (5%) less than
the FY2004 appropriation ($883.6 million, including $198.4 million in emergency
funding). For the FS, the Senate recommended $2.14 billion, including $400.0
million of emergency funding. This is $36.8 million (2%) less than the House-passed
level, $414.7 million (24%) more than the request ($1.73 billion), and $270.4 million
(11%) less than the FY2004 appropriation ($2.41 billion, including $748.9 million
in emergency funding).
CRS-40
Table 13. National Fire Plan Funding, FY2000-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
b
FY2004c
d
House
Senate
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Forest Service
— Wildfire Suppression
$139.2
$319.3
$255.3
$418.0
$597.1
$685.4
$658.0
$658.4
— Emergency Funding a
390.0
425.1
266.0
919.0
748.9
0.0
400.0
400.0
— Preparedness
408.8
611.1
622.6
612.0
671.6
d 666.2
693.6
686.0
— Other Operations
97.2
557.2
446.8
371.5
392.6
373.6
425.1
395.5
Subtotal, Forest Service
1,035.1
1,912.7
1,590.7
2,320.5
2,410.3
1,725.2
2,176.7
2,139.9
BLM
— Wildfire Suppression
158.1
153.1
127.4
159.3
192.9
221.5
221.5
221.5
— Emergency Funding a
200.0
199.6
54.0
225.0
198.4
0.0
100.0
100.0
— Preparedness
165.8
314.7
280.8
275.4
274.3
262.6
262.6
262.6
— Other Operations
67.0
309.7
216.2
215.4
218.0
258.9
258.9
258.9
Subtotal, BLM
591.0
977.1
678.4
875.2
883.6
743.1
843.1
843.1
Total National Fire Plan
— Wildfire Suppression
297.3
472.4
382.7
577.3
790.0
906.9
879.5
879.9
— Emergency Funding a
590.0
624.6
320.0
1,144.0
947.3
0.0
500.0
500.0
— Preparedness
574.6
925.9
903.4
887.4
945.9
949.2
956.3
948.6
— Other Operations
164.2
866.9
663.0
586.9
610.6
612.2
684.0
654.4
Total Appropriations
1,626.1
2,889.8
2,269.1
3,195.6
3,293.9
2,468.3
3,019.8
2,983.0
Notes: Includes funding from BLM and FS Wildland Fire Management accounts, from FS State and Private Forestry
(Cooperative Fire Protection), and for FY2005, from FS National Forest System (Hazardous Fuels Reduction). Excludes $30.0
million of FY2005 funds for fuel reduction, hazard mitigation, and rehabilitation in the San Bernardino (CA) National Forest and
$10.0 million for a wildfire training facility in San Bernardino County, CA, transferred to the Forest Service under P.L. 108-287.
This table differs from the more detailed tables in CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte, because
that report rearranges data to distinguish funding for protecting federal lands, for assisting in nonfederal land protection, and for
fire research and other activities.
a Emergency supplemental and contingent appropriations are included in agency totals.
b Includes supplemental of $636.0 million for the FS and $189.0 million for the BLM ($825.0 million total) in P.L. 108-7 and of
$283.0 million for the FS and $36.0 million for the BLM ($319.0 million total) in P.L. 108-83.
c Includes repayment of $299.2 million for the FS and $98.4 million for the BLM ($397.6 million total) of earlier borrowings for
fire suppression in P.L. 108-108, and a supplemental of $49.7 million for the FS in P.L. 108-199. Also includes $400.0 million
for the FS and $100.0 million for the BLM ($500.0 million total), included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for
FY2005 (P.L. 108-287), for emergency firefighting in FY2004.
d Fire research and fire facilities funds are included under Other Operations. The BLM traditionally has included fire research
and fire facilities funding under Preparedness, and the FS has proposed to move these from Other Operations to Preparedness in
its FY2005 budget request.
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
CRS-41
and private assistance). For more information on these activities, see CRS Report
RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
For FY2005, the Senate committee-reported appropriations bill recommended
$879.9 million for wildfire suppression, $0.5 million more than the House provided,
$27.0 million (3%) less than the budget request, and $89.9 million (11%) more than
FY2004 appropriations. The increase above FY2004 is roughly proportional between
the agencies, with FS and BLM suppression funding both rising by more than 10%
(by $61.3 million and $28.6 million, respectively). The request is based on an
average fire year, and contains no contingent or emergency funding ($947.3 million
enacted for FY2004). If the fire season is worse than average, the agencies have the
authority to borrow unobligated funds from any other account to pay for firefighting.
Such borrowings typically are repaid in subsequent appropriations (commonly
emergency appropriations bills), although to date, FY2003 borrowings have not been
fully repaid. The House included $500.0 million in emergency funding ($100.0
million for the BLM and $400.0 million for the FS), if needed, for each of FY2004
and FY2005, to preclude borrowing from other accounts to fight wildfires.
Supplemental emergency firefighting funds for FY2004 were enacted in the FY2005
DOD appropriations (P.L. 108-287) after the House passed the Interior appropriations
bill. The Senate Committee recommended $500.0 million in FY2005 emergency
funding ($100.0 million for the BLM and $400.0 million for the FS).
For FY2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $948.6
million for fire preparedness, $7.7 million less than the House (1%), $0.6 million
(0.1%) less than the request, and $2.7 million (0.3%) more than FY2004. The
differences among the FY2005 request, House-passed level, and Senate Committee-
recommended level are entirely in FS fire preparedness, as BLM fire preparedness
is the same in all three columns.
The Senate Appropriations Committee also recommended decreasing other fire
operations, to $654.4 million, while the House-passed level is $684.0 million, a
decrease of $29.6 million (4%). The Senate level is $42.2 million (7%) above the
request and $43.8 million (7%) above FY2004. The differences in other fire
operations funds are again exclusively in FS funding levels. Other fire operations
include fuel reduction funding under the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative and
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148), and other authorities.
The Senate recommended $470.5 million for fuel reduction, $5.0 million (1%) less
than the House-passed level and the FY2005 request, and $53.1 million (13%) more
than in FY2004. The increase from FY2004 is nearly proportional between the
agencies. In addition, §8098 of P.L. 108-287, the FY2005 DOD appropriations act,
transferred $30.0 million of DOD funds to the FS for fuel reduction, hazard
mitigation, and rehabilitation in the San Bernardino NF (CA) and $10.0 million for
a wildfire training facility in San Bernardino County (CA).
Finally, the House directed $8.0 million from two State and Private Forestry
accounts (discussed below) — $5.0 million from state fire assistance and $3.0
million from forest stewardship — to be used to support community wildfire
protection planning. The Senate Committee report does not include similar guidance.
CRS-42
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 Senate Committee recommended total S&PF funding of $291.2
million, $8.7 million (3%) more than the House-passed total, $3.2 million (1%) less
than the budget request, and $38.0 million (12%) less than FY2004 appropriations
(including $24.9 million of emergency S&PF funding included under National Fire
Plan emergency funding, above). Large shifts in funding within S&PF — in forest
health management, in cooperative fire assistance, in cooperative forestry, and in
international programs — are proposed.
For forest health management (insect and disease control on federal and
cooperative [nonfederal] lands), the Senate Committee recommended $81.2 million,
equal to the FY2005 request, $21.8 million (21%) less than the House passed, and
$17.3 million (18%) less than FY2004 appropriations. The President proposed $10.0
million for a new Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund to rapidly address invasive
species problems, although similar proposals in the previous two budget requests
have been rejected by Congress. The House and Senate Committee again rejected
this proposal. In addition, funds for forest health management are included in
National Fire Plan Other Operations (see above). The Senate Committee
recommended $12.7 million for such funds, equaling the budget request, $12.3
million (49%) below the House passed funding, and $12.0 million (49%) below
FY2004.
For S&PF Cooperative Fire Assistance to states and volunteer fire departments,
the Senate Committee recommended $36.0 million, $5.8 million (14%) less than the
House passed, $5.9 million (20%) more than the FY2005 request, and $27.3 million
(43%) less than FY2004 (including $24.9 million of FY2004 emergency S&PF
funding included under National Fire Plan Emergency Funding, above). In addition,
funds for cooperative fire assistance are included in National Fire Plan Other
Operations (see above). The Senate Committee recommended $48.7 million for such
funding, $0.7 million (2%) more than the House passed, $6.5 million (15%) more
than the FY2005 budget request, and $10.5 million (18%) less than FY2004 funding.
For Cooperative Forestry programs (assistance for forestry activities on state and
private lands), the Senate Committee recommended funding of $167.4 million, $36.3
million (28%) more than the House passed, $10.3 million (6%) less than the FY2005
budget request, and $6.0 million (4%) more than FY2004. Much of the Senate
Committee’s recommended changes is in two programs: Forest Legacy, for
purchasing title or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses,
such as for residences; and Economic Action Programs (EAP), for rural community
assistance, wood recycling, and Pacific Northwest economic assistance. The Senate
Committee recommended $76.3 million for Forest Legacy, substantially ($33.2
million, 77%) above the $43.1 million passed by the House, and substantially ($23.7
million, 24%) below the $100.0 million proposed by the Administration for FY2005.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $20.0 million for EAP, double
the House-passed level, and down $5.6 million (22%) from FY2004. The
Administration again proposed to terminate funding for this program. Other program
changes are more modest.
CRS-43
In a related move, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees included
language in their bills as reported to effect the Administration’s proposal to cancel
the $40.0 million in mandatory funding for the forest land enhancement program
(FLEP). The program was enacted in the 2002 Farm Bill (P.L. 107-171, §8002) to
provide financial assistance to forest landowners for forestry practices. In addition,
the Administration borrowed $50.0 million of FLEP funds for firefighting in the
summer of 2003, and $10.0 million was repaid in the FY2004 Interior Appropriations
Act. The language cancelling the remaining $40.0 million of FLEP funding was
removed in the House-passed version of the FY2005 Interior appropriations bill on
the House floor on a point of order.
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations), the
Senate Committee recommended $6.5 million, matching the House-passed funding,
$1.1 million (21%) more than the request, and $0.6 million (10%) more than FY2004
appropriations.
Table 14. FS State & Private Forestry Funding, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Forest Health Management
$98.6
$81.2
$103.0
$81.2
— Federal Lands a
53.8
46.0
55.0
46.0
— Cooperative Lands a
44.7
25.2
48.0
35.2
— Emerging Pests & Pathogens
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
Fund
Cooperative Fire Assistance a
38.4
30.1
41.8
36.0
— State Assistance a b
33.4
25.1
36.4
30.0
— Volunteer Asst. a
5.0
5.0
5.4
6.0
Cooperative Forestry a
161.4
177.7
131.1
167.4
— Forest Stewardship
31.9
40.7
37.0
33.0
— Forest Legacy
64.1
100.0
43.1
76.3
— Urban & Community Forestry
34.9
32.0
32.0
33.1
— Economic Action a
25.6
0.0
10.0
20.0
— Forest Resource Info. & Analysis
4.9
5.0
9.0
5.0
International Programs
5.9
5.4
6.5
6.5
Total State & Private Forestry b
304.3
294.4
282.4
291.2
a Excludes funding provided under the Wildland Fire Management account.
b The FY2004 figure excludes emergency funding of $24.9 million, enacted in P.L. 108-199, and
shown in National Fire Plan funding, above.
CRS-44
Infrastructure. For FY2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended funding of $516.2 million for FS Capital Improvement and
Maintenance. Facilities (buildings) would be funded at $202.8 million, $6.4 million
(3%) more than the House-passed level, $11.4 million (6%) more than the request,
and $11.6 million (5%) less than FY2004. The FY2004 level includes $10.0 million
in P.L. 108-287 for building a wildfire training center in California. Roads funding
would be $231.6 million, $3.7 million (2%) more than the House-passed level and
the request, and $3.0 million (1%) less than FY2004. Trails funding would be $71.8
million, matching the request, $5.0 million (6%) less than the House-passed level,
and $2.9 million (4%) less than FY2004. Deferred maintenance and infrastructure
improvement is funding to reduce the agency’s backlog of deferred maintenance,
estimated at $6.8 billion as of September 2003. The Senate Committee
recommended $10.0 million, matching the request, $11.9 million (54%) less than the
House-passed level and $21.6 million (68%) less than FY2004 funding.
Land Acquisition. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$82.5 million for FS Land Acquisition from the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
including $13.0 million for acquisition management and $69.5 million for land
purchases. This is $67.0 million (432%) above from the House-passed level ($15.5
million), $15.6 million (23%) above the budget request ($66.9 million), and $16.2
million (24%) above FY2004 ($66.4 million). The differences are almost entirely for
land purchases.
Other Accounts. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$279.9 million for FS Research, $0.8 million (0.3%) less than the House-passed level
and the budget request, and $13.5 million (5%) above FY2004. The Senate
recommended $1.39 billion for the National Forest System (NFS), $12.5 million 1%)
less than the House-passed level, $2.5 million (0.2%) less than the request —
excluding the proposed transfer of fuel reduction from wildfire management to NFS
— and $21.3 million (2%) more than FY2004. (Fuel reduction funding is discussed
under the National Fire Plan, above.) The House also included $10.0 million for a
Centennial of Service challenge to fund cost-share projects in celebration of the
agency’s 100th birthday in February 2005; the Senate Committee did not recommend
comparable funding.
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its website at
[http://www.usda.gov/].
For further information on the U.S. Forest Service, see its website at
[http://www.fs.fed.us/].
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, 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 RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS-45
CRS Report RS21880. Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Issue Brief IB10124. Wildfire Protection Legislation in the 108th Congress, by
Ross W. Gorte.
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request of $635.8 million for fossil energy
research and development is 5% less than the amount enacted for FY2004 ($672.8
million) but 2% higher than the enacted amount for FY2003 ($620.8 million). Major
funding categories and amounts include Coal and Other Power Systems ($470.0
million), Natural Gas Technologies ($26.0 million), Petroleum Technology ($15.0
million), and Program Direction and Management Support ($106.0 million). The
House supports $601.9 million for fossil energy research and development with
significant differences with the President in: Coal and Other Power Systems ($381.7
million), Natural Gas Technologies ($41.6 million), and Petroleum Technology
($34.5 million). The Senate Appropriations Committee’s recommendation is $542.5
million for fossil energy R&D programs, about $130.2 million below the FY2004
level, $93.3 million below the Administration’s request, and $59.4 million below the
House-supported funding level. The Senate Committee’s lower level of funding is
largely attributable to the lower amounts for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)
and FutureGen, discussed below.
The Administration requested $287.0 million for CCPI for FY2005, 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
Administration would incorporate the FutureGen program within the CCPI and
would fund it at $237.0 million. Other CCPI programs would receive $50.0 million.
The FutureGen project is a Bush Administration initiative designed to establish the
feasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from a coal-fired plant yielding no
emissions. 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 Administration sought $237 million in
rescissions in the CCTP program for FY2005, offsetting the request for FutureGen.
The CCTP eventually will be phased out.
The House however, did not support FutureGen as a separate account or the
amount requested, but rather supported it using $18.0 million of previously
appropriated CCTP money for FutureGen in FY2005. The House also deferred
$237.0 million of CCTP funds for future FutureGen requirements. In its report on
the FY2005 bill, the House Appropriations Committee expressed disappointment
with the emphasis of the request on funding major, new, long-term energy research
efforts, such as FutureGen, at the expense of ongoing energy programs that are
expected to yield energy savings and emissions reductions over the next decade
(H.Rept. 108-542, p. 7). The House approved $105.0 million for the CCPI.
CRS-46
The Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the House in its level of
funding for Future Gen ($18.0 million), while providing a separate line item for that
purpose. The Committee also deferred (rather than rescinded) $257 million for
CCTP. The Senate Committee did agree with the Administration in supporting $50.0
million for the CCPI.
The House supported higher levels of funding than requested by the President
for many fossil energy technologies. In its report, the House Appropriations
Committee recommended restoring many of the proposed reductions for research to
improve fossil energy technologies. The House Committee stated that it would be
“fiscally irresponsible” to discontinue research in which major investments have been
made before that research is concluded (H.Rept. 108-542, p.8).
Under the Administration’s request, research and development (R&D) on
natural gas would have been cut by 40% to $26.0 million from last year’s funding
level of $43.0 million. The House supported natural gas R&D at $41.6 million. A
key difference is in infrastructure projects. The Administration sought zero funding
in FY2005, while the House-passed bill included $7.1 million in infrastructure
funding. Under the President’s budget, R&D on petroleum technology would be
trimmed by 57% to $15.0 million from the FY2004 appropriations level, but the
House-passed funding of $34.7 million is slightly below the FY2004 level. The
Administration sought $3.0 million in Petroleum Exploration and Production while
the House supports $18.0 million for FY2005. The Administration’s request also
would have reduced funding for the fuels program by nearly half, providing $16.0
million for transportation fuels and chemicals and zero funding for solid and
advanced fuels research. The House would fund these programs at $30.6 million in
FY2005, almost as much as in FY2004 ($31.2 million). The Administration sought
to fund Sequestration R&D, which would test new and advanced methods for
greenhouse gas capture, separation, and reuse, at $49.0 million in FY2005 while the
House supports $46.0 million. The Senate committee-reported bill’s
recommendations are closely aligned with the House for funding of Natural Gas
($41.1 million), Petroleum Technology ($31.1 million), and Distributed Generation
Systems ($72.0 million).
For further information on the Department of Energy (DOE), see its website at
[http://www.doe.gov/engine/content.do].
For further information on Fossil Energy, see its website 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 650 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.
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
CRS-47
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 and have been projected to continue into 2005.
Deliveries scheduled for late 2002 and the first months of 2003 were delayed due to
tightness in world oil markets.
There have been three attempts during the second session of the 108th Congress
to temporarily suspend deliveries of RIK oil to the SPR. On March 11, 2004, during
debate on the FY2005 budget resolution, the Senate agreed to another suspension of
deliveries of RIK oil, and sale of this oil instead. Several members of the House also
have voiced support for deferral of deliveries. During House floor debate on the
Interior appropriations bill, Representative Sanders offered an amendment to suspend
RIK deliveries and forbid the expenditure of funds in the bill to maintain the SPR
above 647 million barrels, the level at which the SPR was when the Senate passed
its budget resolution. The amendment was rejected. The most recent attempt to
suspend fill occurred on September 14, 2004, during debate on H.R. 4567, the
FY2005 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Senator Byrd
proposed suspension of RIK fill in order to provide $470 million in additional
funding for homeland security purposes. The amendment fell on a point of order.
The Bush Administration has consistently maintained that the 100,000-200,000
barrels per day of deliveries to the SPR are marginal volumes too small to affect oil
markets, and deliveries of RIK are now scheduled through April 2005.
The current program costs for the SPR are almost exclusively dedicated to
maintaining SPR facilities and keeping the SPR in readiness should it be needed.
The costs of transporting RIK oil to SPR sites are now borne by the contractors, so
no new money has been requested for the SPR petroleum account beginning with
FY2004.
The request for SPR for FY2005 is $177.1 million — $172.1 million for the
SPR and $5.0 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR).
Congress agreed to a funding level of $175.9 million for the program in FY2004,
including $4.9 million for the NHOR. The 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. The House agreed to the
requested levels, as has the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Comprehensive energy legislation appears stalled in the Senate. The legislation
(H.R. 6, S. 2095) would permanently authorize the SPR and NHOR. It also would
require that the SPR be filled to its authorized capacity of 1 billion barrels (its current
capacity is roughly 700 million barrels) as soon as practicable. (However, S. 2095
would not authorize $1.5 billion for expansion of the SPR as would H.R. 6.)
For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, see its website at
[http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/].
CRS Issue Brief IB87050, The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
CRS-48
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 (Naval Petroleum Reserve -1 (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 Naval Oil Shale Reserve-2 (NOSR-2) to the Ute Indian Tribe; the
FY2001 National Defense Authorization (P.L. 106-398) provided for the transfer.
The United States 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, UT. In
1999, NOSR-3 was transferred to the Department of the Interior in 1999).
Conditions of the transfer of NOSR-3 — and the prior sale of the Elk Hills field —
were that DOE remained responsible for environmental remediation activities.
This leaves in the Naval Petroleum Reserves program two small oil fields in
California and Wyoming, which will generate estimated revenue to the government
of roughly $7.2 million during FY2005. Congress provided $18.0 million to
maintain the Naval Petroleum Reserves (NPR) during FY2004. Similarly, the House
agreed to the Administration’s recommendation to maintain spending at $18.0
million in FY2005. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has recommended the
same level.
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 (CTRF) 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
FY2004 budget provided $72.0 million, including an advance appropriation of $36.0
million for the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, to be paid on October 1 of the following
fiscal year. For FY2005, the Administration also has requested $72.0 million, and
the House agreed to $72.0 million pending a final determination of how much
additional money is due to the CTRF. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also
recommended $72.0 million, including an advance appropriation of $36.0 million,
payable on October 1, 2005.
For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, see its
website at [http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/].
Energy Conservation. The FY2005 budget request (Budget Appendix, p.
397) notes that the “Administration’s energy efficiency programs have the potential
to produce substantial benefits for the Nation — both now and in the future — in
terms of economic growth, increased energy security and a cleaner environment.”
In particular, the request “continues the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to accelerate the
worldwide availability and affordability of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles.”
The Administration’s request sought $875.9 million for energy efficiency, which
is $2.1 million, or 0.2%, less than the FY2004 appropriation. Compared with the
FY2004 appropriation, the request would have cut R&D funding from $606.9 million
CRS-49
to $543.9 million, a decrease of $62.9 million, or 10%. The request also includes
$291.2 million for Weatherization, which is $64.0 million more than the FY2004
appropriation. See Table 15 below.
In its report (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 123) on the FY2005 Interior bill, the House
Appropriations Committee states that “the jurisdiction for the Weatherization
Program has been moved to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHE), which has jurisdiction for the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that also includes funding for
weatherization.” The House-passed LHE bill (H.R. 5006, H.Rept. 108-636) has
$238.0 million for Weatherization, which includes $11.0 million added by H.Amdt.
721. This is $10.8 million more than the FY2004 appropriation and is $53.2 million
less than the DOE request. Also, the report (p. 128) “encourages” DOE to conduct
“an up-to-date assessment” of the Weatherization program comparable to the benefit-
cost evaluation conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1994.
In the Interior bill, the House approved $656.1 million for DOE energy
conservation funding in FY2005, excluding the Weatherization program. Combined
with $238.0 million for Weatherization funding in the LHE bill, the House approved
a total of $894.0 million for FY2005. Thus, compared with the Administration’s
request, the House seeks an increase of $18.1 million, or 2%. This is comprised of
$67.1 million more for R&D and $48.9 million less for grants.
CRS-50
Table 15. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
Senate
Senate
Percent
Percent
FY2005
FY2005
Change
Change
DOE Energy
FY2004
FY2005
House
Senate
From
From
Conservation
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
House
FY2004
Vehicle Technologies
$178.0
$156.7
167.4
168.5
1%
-5%
Fuel Cell Technologies
65.2
77.5
71.0
75.0
6%
15%
Intergovernmental
308.6
364.1
322.7
310.4
-4%
1%
— Weatherization Grantsa
227.2
291.2
238.0
230.0
-3% 1%
Distrib. Energy Resources
61.0
53.1
62.5
58.1
-7%
-5%
Building Technologies
59.9
58.3
64.9
67.3
4%
12%
Industrial Technologies
93.1
58.1
84.9
66.9
-21%
-28%
Biomass/Biorefinery
7.5
8.7
12.7
7.7
-39%
2%
Federal Energy
19.7
17.9
17.9
18.9
6%
-4%
Management
Program Management
85.0
81.7
90.2
81.7
-9%
-4%
R&D Subtotal
606.9
543.9
611.0
580.5
-5%
-4%
Grants Subtotal
271.1
332.0
283.1
273.8
-3%
1%
Total Appropriations a
$878.0
$875.9
$894.0
854.3
-4%
-3%
a The House Appropriations Committee moved the jurisdiction for the Weatherization Program to the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHE). In the LHE appropriation bill (H.R. 5006,
H.Rept. 108-636), the House approved $238.0 million for Weatherization, including $11.0 million added by H.Amdt.
721 (Sanders).
The House Appropriations Committee’s report (p. 7) noted “disappointment”
that the request emphasized funding for “long-term” efforts such as FreedomCAR,
at the expense of ongoing programs that will yield energy and emissions savings
“over the next ten years.” Thus, the report recommends (p. 8) “restoring many of the
reductions proposed in the budget request for energy conservation research ...
[because] it would be fiscally irresponsible to discontinue research in which we have
made major investments without bringing that research to a logical conclusion.”
Also, the report explains (p. 7) that R&D funding needs to be higher than the request
to “... achieve the goals of energy independence, dramatically lower energy
consumption, and significantly reduced emissions.” To this end, the House
Committee recommended, and the House approved, an R&D increase of $67.0
million over the request. This difference includes $26.8 million (46%) more for
Industrial Technologies, $11.8 million more for Intergovernmental Programs, and
$6.5 million less for Fuel Cell (FreedomCAR) Technologies. (For more information,
see CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.)
The report of the House Appropriations Committee contains a number of
provisions affecting energy conservation. They are: (1) DOE should implement all
recommendations by the National Academy for Public Administration to eliminate
positions and achieve administrative cost savings; (2) the DOE budget document for
FY2006 should include sub-activities in the program table; (3) DOE should invest
more in stationary fuel cells; (4) research on fuel cell start-ups in freezing weather
CRS-51
should get “sufficient” funding; (5) DOE should do a new solicitation for off-
highway research; (6) the Vulcan Beam Line shall receive a $1.0 million earmark;
(7) performance assessments should be conducted for the Building America program;
(8) staffing and program funding for Industries of the Future should not be reduced
further; (9) competitive grants for the metal casting industry should go to consortia
focused on small business participation; (10) DOE should supplement funding for the
State Technologies Advancement Collaborative (STAC) program; (11) the
Cooperative Program with States should be closely coordinated with DOE’s Fossil
Energy Program; (12) funding for the review of programs by the National Academy
of Science should be fixed as a permanent annual expense line; and (13) DOE is
encouraged to contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to perform another in-
depth evaluation of the Weatherization Program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported (S. 2804, S.Rept. 108-341) the
FY2005 Interior Appropriations bill with $854.3 million for DOE’s Energy
Efficiency Program. It includes $580.5 million for R&D, which is $30.4 million less
than the House bill. Also, the Senate committee-reported bill includes $230.0
million for Weatherization grants, which is $8.0 million less than the House
approved in the LHE bill. Within R&D, the Committee seeks $4.0 million more than
the House for Fuel Cells but less than the House in other areas: $18.0 million less for
Industrial Technologies, $8.5 million less for Program Management, $5.0 million less
for Biomass and Biorefineries, and $4.4 million less for Distributed Energy
Resources. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy Efficiency:
Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.)
For further information on energy conservation, see the DOE website at
[http://www.eere.energy.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.
CRS Report RL32543. Energy Saving Performance Contracts, by Anthony
Andrews.
Department of Health and Human Services:
Indian Health Service
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is responsible for providing comprehensive
medical and environmental health services for approximately 1.5 million to 1.7
million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to 562 federally
recognized tribes located in 35 states. Health care is provided through a system of
federal, tribal, and urban Indian-operated programs and facilities. IHS provides
direct health care services through 36 hospitals, 59 health centers, 2 school health
centers, 49 health stations, and 5 residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribal
groups, through IHS contracts and compacts, operate another 13 hospitals, 172 health
centers, 3 school health centers, 260 health stations (including 176 Alaska Native
CRS-52
village clinics), and 28 residential treatment centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups
also operate 9 regional youth substance abuse treatment centers and 2,252 units of
residential quarters for staff working in the clinics.
IHS funding is separated into two Indian Health budget categories: Health
Services, and Facilities. The House-passed total for IHS appropriations for FY2005
is $3.03 billion, an increase of 2% above the President’s FY2005 request for $2.97
billion, and an increase of 4% over the FY2004 appropriation of $2.92 billion. The
Senate committee-reported bill would provide $3.00 billion, a 1% decrease from the
House, but a 1% increase over the request and a 3% increase over the FY2004
enacted appropriation (see Table 16 below).
Health Services. Of the total IHS appropriations, 87% of the House amount
would be used for Health Services, and 13% for the Health Facilities program, while
the Senate Committee’s recommended split is 86% for Health Services and 14% for
the Health Facilities program. IHS Health Services are funded not only through
congressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from private health
insurance and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The House, the Senate committee-reported bill,
and the President’s request all estimate the total reimbursement in FY2005 at $598.7
million, an increase of about $31.0 million or 6% over $567.6 million in FY2004.
The IHS Health Services budget in the House bill is $2.63 billion, $98.0 million
(4%) over the FY2004 budget of $2.53 billion, while the Senate committee-reported
bill includes $2.63 billion, $5.3 million over the House amount, and $103.3 million
(4%) over the FY2004 appropriation. The Services budget has several subcategories:
clinical services, preventive health services, and other services.
The Clinical Services budget includes by far the most programs, representing
about 70% of the IHS budget. The House Clinical Services budget of $2.12 billion
is $15.0 million over the requested budget of $2.10 billion, while the Senate
committee-reported budget of $2.12 billion is a $20.3 million increase over the
request. Clinical Services include primary care at IHS and tribally run hospitals and
clinics. The House level is an increase of $90.3 million, or 4%, over the FY2004
level of $2.02 billion for Clinical Services, while the Senate recommends an increase
of $95.6 million, or 5% over the FY2004 level. Within the amount for Clinical
Services, hospital and health clinic programs would receive $1.31 billion from the
House and $1.30 billion from the Senate committee-reported bill. The FY2004 level
was $1.25 billion. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees agreed to the
requested amounts for dental programs ($110.3 million), for mental health programs
($55.8 million), and for alcohol and substance abuse programs ($141.7 million). The
House set $479.1 million for contract care while the Senate increased this level by
$12 million to $491.1 million. Contract care means health services are purchased
from local and community health care providers when IHS cannot provide medical
care and specific services through its own system. The House-passed and Senate
committee-reported bills both contain $18.0 million for a catastrophic health
emergency fund, as requested.
For Preventive Health Services, both the House and Senate committee-reported
bill would provide a FY2005 appropriation of $112.2 million, the same level as the
CRS-53
President’s request, and an increase of $5.3 million, or 5%, from the $106.9 million
appropriated in FY2004. Funding for each program within preventive health services
would increase over FY2004 levels. Program totals would be $45.6 million for
public health nursing, $12.6 million for health education in schools and communities,
$1.6 million for immunizations in Alaska, and $52.4 million for the tribally
administered community health representatives program that supports tribal
community members who work to prevent illness and disease in their communities.
For other health services, the FY2005 House-passed and Senate Appropriations
Committee recommendations total $401.0 million, a slight increase over the FY2004
appropriation of $398.5 million. These activities include $32.4 million for health-
related activities in off-reservation urban health projects, $30.8 million for
scholarships to health care professionals, $2.4 million for tribal management grants
to tribes, $5.7 million for self-governance, and $62.3 million ($0.5 million more than
the President’s request) for IHS administration and management costs for programs
it operates directly. The increase is needed to pay for IHS headquarters staffing
because staff decreases over the past several years have hampered the agency’s
capability to perform oversight and outreach activities. In addition, the House-passed
and Senate committee-reported appropriation and the President’s request contain
$267.4 million for contract support costs for FY2005, the same amount appropriated
in FY2004. Contract support costs are awarded to tribes for administering programs
under contracts or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L.
93-638, as amended). They pay for costs tribes incur for financial management,
accounting, training, and program start up. Most tribes and tribal organizations are
participating in new and expanded self-determination contracts and self-governing
compacts.
Facilities. The IHS’s Facilities category includes money for the construction,
maintenance, and improvement of both health and sanitation facilities. The House-
passed FY2005 appropriation of $405 million is a $50.6 million (14%) increase over
the President’s request of $354.4 million, and a $13.7 million (3%) increase over the
FY2004 appropriation of $391.4 million. The Senate committee-reported bill
includes a total facilities appropriation of $364.1 million, $9.7 million (3%) more
than the President’s request, but $27.2 million (7%) less than the FY2004
appropriation, and $40.9 million (10%) less than the House level. Differences
between the request and the appropriations bills show up mainly in the amount for
construction. The President requested $41.7 million for construction, down from
$94.6 million in FY2004. The House raised this budget item to $99.3 million,
whereas the Senate Committee decided on $55.4 million, more than the request but
less than the House.
Diabetes. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), Congress
created two programs for diabetes: the IHS Special Diabetes Program for Indians;
and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Special Research Program for Type 1
Diabetes. The law required that the SCHIP appropriation for FY1998 through
FY2002 be reduced by $60 million each year, with $30 million going to the NIH
Type 1 research program and $30 million allocated to the IHS diabetes program. In
2000, the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (part of P.L. 106-534) increased
funding for each of these diabetes programs and extended authority for grants to be
made under both. For each grant program, total funding was increased to $100
CRS-54
million for FY2001, FY2002, and FY2003. For FY2001 and FY2002, $30 million
of the $100 million came from the SCHIP program appropriation and $70 million
came from the general Treasury. In FY2003, the whole $100 million was drawn
from the general Treasury out of funds not otherwise appropriated.
In December 2002, Congress extended the funding for these special diabetes
programs, through amendments to the Public Health Service Act (P.L. 107-360),
authorizing $150 million for each of the programs each year for FY2004 through
FY2008. This funding from the general Treasury is separate from regular IHS and
NIH appropriations.
Table 16. Appropriations for IHS, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
Indian Health Service
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health Clinic
$1,249.8
$1,295.4
1310.4
1303.7
Programs
— Dental Health
104.5
110.3
110.3
110.3
— Mental Health
53.3
55.8
55.8
55.8
— Alcohol and Substance Abuse
138.3
141.7
141.7
141.7
— Contract Care
479.1
479.1
479.1
491.1
— Catastrophic Health
—
18.0
18.0
18.0
Emergency Fund
Subtotal, Clinical Services
2,024.9
2,100.2
2115.2
2120.5
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health Nursing
42.6
45.6
45.6
45.6
— Health Education
11.8
12.6
12.6
12.6
— Community Health Reps.
51.0
52.4
52.4
52.4
— Immunization (Alaska)
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Subtotal, Preventive Health
106.9
112.2
112.2
112.2
Other Services
— Urban Health Projects
31.6
32.4
32.4
32.4
— Indian Health Professions
30.8
30.8
30.8
30.8
— Tribal Management
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
— Direct Operations
60.7
61.8
62.3
62.3
— Self-Governance
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.7
— Contract Support Costs
267.4
267.4
267.4
267.4
Subtotal, Other Services
398.5
400.5
401.0
401.0
Subtotal, Indian Health Services
2,530.4
2,612.8
2,628.3
2,633.6
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and
48.9
48.9
50.9
48.9
Improvement
CRS-55
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
Indian Health Service
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
— Sanitation Facilities
93.0
103.2
93.2
99.2
— Construction Facilities
94.6
41.7
99.3
55.4
— Facilities and Environmental
137.8
143.6
143.6
143.6
Health Support
— Equipment
17.1
17.1
18.1
17.1
Subtotal, Indian Health Facilities
391.4
354.4
405.0
364.1
Total Appropriations
2,921.7
2,967.3
3,033.4
2,997.8
Medicare/Medicaid
(567.6)
(598.7)
(598.7)
(598.7)
Reimbursements
Special Diabetes Program for
Indians a
150.0a
— a
— a
— a
a The Special Diabetes Program for Indians has an authorization of $150 million for FY2004 through
FY2008 but the program is not funded through the IHS appropriation, but rather through the general
Treasury.
For further information on the Indian Health Service, see its website at
[http://www.ihs.gov/].
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) and its predecessor
were created pursuant to a 1974 act (P.L. 93-531, as amended) to resolve a lengthy
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originally set aside by
the federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, the lands
were partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe living on land
partitioned to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes, and
bonuses, at federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary.
ONHIR’s chief activities consist of land acquisition, housing acquisition or
construction, infrastructure construction, and post-move support, all for families
being relocated, as well as certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.
Congress has been concerned, at times, about the speed of the relocation process and
about avoiding forced relocations or evictions.
For FY2004, ONHIR received an appropriation of $13.4 million. For FY2005,
the Administration proposed $11.0 million, an 18% decrease, to which the House
agreed. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends $5 million, a reduction
of 63% from the FY2004 appropriation, arguing that carryover funds from previous
fiscal years will offset the reduction.
Relocation began in 1977 and is not yet complete. ONHIR has a backlog of
relocatees who are approved for replacement homes but have not yet received them.
Most families subject to relocation were Navajo — an estimated 3,485 Navajo
families had resided on land partitioned (or judicially confirmed) to the Hopi, while
27 Hopi families had lived on Navajo partitioned land, according to ONHIR data.
CRS-56
While 95% of the Navajo families have been relocated to replacement homes,
ONHIR estimates that 163 Navajo families as of the end of FY2003 have yet to
complete relocation. Most of these remaining 163 Navajo families are not currently
living on Hopi partitioned land, but a majority have not reached the stage of seeking
a replacement home. Fourteen of the 163 Navajo families are still residing on Hopi
partitioned land, according to ONHIR, and some of them refuse to relocate. All but
one of the 27 Hopi families on Navajo partitioned land had completed relocation by
the end of FY2003, according to ONHIR.
ONHIR estimated in its FY2004 strategic plan that it would complete relocation
moves by the end of FY2006 and post-move assistance by the end of FY2008, but
stated that this schedule depended on infrastructure needs and relocatees’ decisions.
Congressional committees have in the past expressed impatience with the speed of
relocation but have not recently criticized the current pace.
A long-standing proviso in ONHIR appropriations language, retained in the
FY2004 act, prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi
partitioned lands unless a replacement home were provided. This language appears
to prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families in the near future,
because of ONHIR’s backlog of approved relocatees awaiting replacement homes.
As the backlog is reduced, however, forced eviction may become an issue, if any
remaining Navajo families refuse relocation and if the Hopi Tribe were to exercise
a right under P.L. 104-301 (a 1996 settlement of related Hopi-U.S. issues) to begin
legal action against the United States for failure to give the Hopi “quiet possession”
of all Hopi partitioned lands.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education, and research complex
of 17 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 National 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. It is estimated to be 70% federally funded, and also is supported by various
types of trust funds. A federal commitment to fund the Smithsonian Institution had
been established by legislation in 1846.
FY2005 Budget. The Bush Administration proposes $628.0 million for the
Smithsonian, a 5.0% increase over the enacted FY2004 level ($596.3 million). See
Table 17 below. For Salaries and Expenses, the Smithsonian would receive $499.1
million, a 2.0% increase over the FY2004 amount of $488.7 million. Salaries and
Expenses cover administration of all of the museums and research institutions that
are part of the Smithsonian Institution. In addition, it includes program support and
outreach, and facilities services (security and maintenance).
FY2005 House-Passed Appropriations. The House-passed appropriation
for the Smithsonian ($619.8 million) reflects a 4% increase over the FY2004 law
with a 1% decrease from the Administration’s request. The Smithsonian Institution’s
Salaries and Expenses account would receive $496.9 million, an increase of $8.3
CRS-57
million over the FY2004 law but a decrease of $2.2 million from the
Administration’s request.
FY2005 Senate Committee-Reported Appropriations. The Senate
committee-reported appropriations bill for the Smithsonian Institutions (627.0
million) reflects an increase of $7.2 million over the House level and of $30.7 million
over the FY2004 level. The Smithsonian’s Salaries and Expenses account would
receive $490.1 million, a decrease of $9.0 million from the Administration’s request
and a decrease of $6.8 million from the House-passed level.
Facilities Capital. Beginning in FY2004, a new account title — Facilities
Capital — “ is being used; it is comprised of revitalization, construction, and
facilities planning and design. The FY2004 law provided $107.6 million and the
FY2005 budget would provide $128.9 million for Facilities Capital. The House-
passed FY2005 bill would provide $122.9 million for Facilities Capital, a $15.3
million increase over the FY2004 law. The House figure includes $106.9 million for
revitalization, $8.0 million for construction, and $8.0 million for facilities planning
and design. The Senate committee-reported bill would provide $136.9 million for
Facilities Capital, including $9.0 million for construction, $8.0 million for facilities
planning and design, and $119.9 million for revitalization. Revitalization funds are
for addressing advanced deterioration in SI buildings, helping with routine
maintenance and repair in Smithsonian Institution facilities, and making critical
repairs.
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The Administration
request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate committee-reported bill would provide
$32.2 million for operating expenses for the NMAI, a decrease from the FY2004 law
of $38.1 million. In the past the NMAI was 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 National Mall. Proponents argued that there had been too long a
delay in providing a museum in Washington to house the Indian collection. Based
on an estimate of $219.3 million for construction of the Indian museum, the
Smithsonian Institution indicated that some of its trust funds in addition to SI’s
Salaries and Expenses funds could be used to cover opening costs. The
groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI took place September 28, 1999 and the
official grand opening ceremony was September 21st, 2004, beginning with a
celebration called the “First Americans Festival.”
Smithsonian Institution Center for Materials Research and
Education (SCMRE). The direction of SI’s research priorities is of concern to
Congress. A past 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
provided that an independent, “blue ribbon” science commission be established to
deal with this and other decisions. 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.” Of the
76 recommendations in the Science Commission report, according to the SI, more
than three quarters of them have been addressed in their attempts to revitalize
CRS-58
science. The FY2004 law provided $3.5 million for the SCMRE, and the FY2005
House-passed bill, Senate committee-reported bill, and President’s budget would
provide the same.
National Museum of African American History and Culture. A new
National Museum of African American History and culture (NMAAHC) has been
established within the Smithsonian Institution through P.L.108-184. The museum
will collect, preserve, study and exhibit African American historical and cultural
material and will focus on periods of history including the time of slavery,
Reconstruction, the Harlem Renaissance, and the civil rights movement. The
FY2005 budget and the Senate committee-reported bill would provide $5.0 million
whereas the House-passed bill would provide $4.0 million for the NMAAHC for
selection of personnel for planning, site selection, and capital fund raising. The
opening of the National Museum of the American Indian brings with it the question
of space left on the Mall for the NMAAHC, and whether or not another space will
be offered and approved by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the
Commission of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Memorial Commission.
National Zoo. The FY2005 request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate
committee-reported bill would provide $17.8 million for salaries and expenses at the
National Zoo. Recently, Congress and the public have been concerned about the
National Zoo’s facilities and the care and health of its animals. The Smithsonian
Institution has a plan to revitalize the zoo, making the facilities safer for the public
and healthier for the animals. The Administration’s request specified an estimated
$19 million (under the Facilities Capital account) to begin the National Zoo’s
revitalization, to include construction of a new elephant facility to be completed by
2007. According to SI, the National Zoo is 110 years old and the physical
environment is deteriorating — many of the largest animals (e.g., lions, tigers, and
elephants) are housed in the oldest areas. Space is a major health concern. The new
construction, designed to provide ample space for elephants and other animals, will
put the National Zoo in compliance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
American Zoo and Aquarium Association standards, and will help to correct the
“infrastructure deficiencies” found throughout the National Zoo. The estimated total
cost of the National Zoo revitalization is $68.3 million, including future years’
funding for completing construction in FY2006. This figure does not include an
estimated $12 million expected to be raised from private funds.
Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian
Institution receives income from trust funds to expand its programs. The SI trust
fund includes general trust funds, contributions from private sources, and government
grants and contracts from other agencies. General trust funds include investment
income and revenue from “business ventures” such as the Smithsonian magazine, and
retail shops. There are also trust funds that are private donor-designated funds that
specify and direct the purpose of funds. Finally, government grants and contracts are
provided by various government agencies for projects specific to the Smithsonian
Institution, and they are estimated to total $104.1 million in FY2004.
Of concern to Congress is the extent to which the Smithsonian Institution has
control when donor and sponsor designated funds put restrictions on the use of that
funding. Designated funds in FY2004 were projected to total $84.5 million. There
CRS-59
is concern that donor designated funding may require a building to be renamed for
that individual or corporate donor, even if an appropriate name is already being used..
In addition, there is debate over whether or not companies who are allowed to
advertise at cultural events might in some way compromise the integrity of the
Smithsonian Institution. The Congress has been considering these issues as part of
the fiscal year appropriations debates for the past few years in order to help maintain
the strength of the Smithsonian Institution.
Table 17. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2004-
FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2004
FY2005
Smithsonian Institution (SI)
House
Senate
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Salaries and Expenses
$488,653
$499,125
$496,925
$490,125
Facilities Capital
— Revitalization
89,553
111,910
106,910
119,910
— Construction
9,876
8,990
7,990
8,990
— Facilities Planning and
8,197
8,000
8,000
8,000
Design
Subtotal, Facilities Capital
107,626
128,900
122,900
136,900
Total Appropriations
596,279
628,025
619,825
627,025
For further information on the Smithsonian Institution, see its website 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 NEA and NEH authorization expired at the end of FY1993, but they have been
operating on temporary authority through appropriations law. The Institute of
Museum and Library Services and the Office of Museum Services were created by
P.L. 104-208, and reauthorized by P.L. 108-81.
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.
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
CRS-60
federal government has a long tradition of support for culture and that abolishing
NEA and NEH could curtail or eliminate programs that have national significance
and purpose (such as national touring theater and dance companies.) 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.
NEA. NEA’s direct grant program for the arts 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 that lack cultural facilities and programs.
For FY2005, the House-passed Interior appropriations bill would provide
$131.0 million for NEA, 8% higher than the Senate committee-reported bill and
FY2004 appropriation ($121.0 million), but a decrease of 6% from the
Administration’s budget ($139.4 million). See Table 18 below. The FY2005
House-passed bill contained a floor amendment that added $10.0 million to the
American Masterpieces program for NEA and $3.5 million to NEH’s We the People
program, while offsetting these amounts through cuts to DOI’s departmental
management. The FY2005 budget had proposed the American Masterpieces program
to be funded under NEA grants and state partnerships. This national initiative would
include touring programs, local presentations and arts education in the fields of
dance, visual, arts and music. The Senate committee-reported bill did not provide
additional funds for the American Masterpieces program, although the Committee,
stated that the program “has merit”(S.Rept. 108-341, p. 77). During consideration
of the bill in committee, some members of the Senate Appropriations Committee
urged that when the bill comes to the floor or to conference, that the House-passed
level for NEA be accepted — $131.0 million.
In addition, the House-passed bill and the Senate committee-reported bill would
provide $21.7 million for 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.
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.7 Congress continues to restate the language of NEA reforms in
appropriations laws. For example, the FY2004 appropriations law and both the
FY2005 House-passed and Senate committee-reported appropriations bills retain
language on 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
7 The debate involved whether or not some of the grants given were for artwork that might
be deemed obscene, culminating in a 1998 Supreme Court decision (NEA v. Finley
(CA9,100F.3d 671)) 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.” No NEA
projects have been judged obscene by the courts. Also, NEA eliminated grants to
individuals by arts discipline with some exceptions.
CRS-61
individuals except for literature fellowships, National Heritage fellowships, or
American Jazz Master fellowships.
NEH. 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.
The House-passed FY2005 bill would provide $142.0 million for NEH, a
decrease of 12% from the FY2005 budget of $162.0 million, but an increase of 5%
over the FY2004 appropriation and the Senate committee-reported bill of $135.3
million. The FY2005 House-passed measure includes $16.1 million for NEH
matching grants and $125.9 million for grants and administration. Through a floor
amendment to the House-passed bill, the We the People initiative would be funded
at $13.4 million, a 35% increase over the FY2004 appropriation and Senate
committee-reported amount of $9.9 million, but a significant decrease (59%) from
the Administration’s request of $33.0 million. These grants include model
curriculum projects for schools to improve course offerings in the humanities —
American history, culture, and civics.
Office of Museum Services. The Office of Museum Services provides
grants-in-aid to museums in the form of leadership grants, museum conservation,
conservation project support, museum assessment, and General Operating Support
(GOS) to help over 400 museums annually to improve the quality of their services
to the public. Effective with FY2003, the appropriation for the Office of Museum
Services (OMS) was moved from the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill
to the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies. For further information on FY2005
appropriations, see CRS Report RL32303, Appropriations for FY2005: Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, by Paul M. Irwin.
CRS-62
Table 18. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005
FY2005
Arts/
FY2004
FY2005
House
Senate
Humanities Funding a
Approp.
Budget
Passed
Comm.
NEA
— Challenge America Arts Fund
b
$21,729
$22,000
$21,729
$21,729
— National Initiative: American
Masterpieces b
—
15,000
10,000
—
Subtotal, NEA
120,972
139,400
130,972
120,972
NEH
— NEH Grants and
119,386
145,878
125,877
119,386
Administration
— NEH Matching Grants
15,924
16,122
16,122
15,924
Subtotal, NEH
135,310
162,000
141,999
135,310
Total Appropriations
256,282
301,400
272,971
256,282
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 Included in the NEA subtotal.
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its website
at [http://arts.endow.gov/].
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
website at [http://www.neh.gov/].
For further information on the Institute of Museum and Library Services, see its
website 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 LWCF is authorized at $900 million annually through FY2015. However,
these funds may not be spent without an appropriation. The LWCF is used for three
purposes. First, the four principal federal land management agencies — Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest
Service — draw primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The sections on those
agencies earlier in this report identify funding levels for their land acquisition
activities. Second, the LWCF funds acquisition and recreational development by
state and local governments through a grant program administered by the NPS.
Third, Presidents have requested, and Congress has appropriated, money from the
CRS-63
LWCF to fund some related activities that do not involve land acquisition. This third
use is a recent addition, starting with the FY1998 appropriation. Programs funded
have varied from year to year. Most of the appropriations for federal acquisitions
generally are earmarked to management units, such as a specific National Wildlife
Refuge, while the state grant program rarely is earmarked.
Through FY2004, the total authorized amount that could have been appropriated
from the LWCF since its inception was $27.2 billion. Actual appropriations have
been $13.8 billion. Table 19 shows appropriations since FY2001 and the
Administration request and congressional actions for FY2005. For the five years
ending in FY2001, appropriators had provided generally increasing amounts from the
fund for federal land acquisition. The total had more than quadrupled, rising from
a low of $138.0 million in FY1996 to $453.2 million in FY2001. However, since
then appropriations have declined significantly, to a low of $169.7 million in
FY2004.
Table 19. Appropriations from the LWCF, FY2001-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005
FY2005
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
House
Senate
Agency
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Passed
Comm.
Federal Acquisition
— BLM
$56.5
$49.9
$33.2
$18.4
$24.0
$4.5
$22.9
— FWS
121.1
99.1
72.9
43.1
45.0
12.5
49.9
— NPS
124.9
130.1
74.0
41.8
84.3
16.0
61.8
— FS
150.7
149.7
132.9
66.4
66.9
15.5
82.5
Subtotal, Federal
453.2
428.8
313.0
169.7
220.2
48.5
217.1
Acquisition
Grants to States
90.3
144.0
97.4
93.8
93.8
91.5
94.0
Other Programs
456.0
110.0
166.5
433.2
586.2
92.5
237.8
Total
999.5
682.8
576.9
696.7
900.2
232.5
549.0
Appropriations
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 - FY2005 from Appropriations
Committees’ documents.
Reductions of the magnitude that occurred in FY2003 and again in FY2004 for
federal land acquisition and state grants were last seen in the early and mid 1990s as
part of efforts to address the federal budget deficit. Not only did the total for federal
land acquisition and grants to states (excluding other programs) decline in FY2003
and again in FY2004, but each of the five component accounts also declined each
year. Currently, the federal budget deficit has drawn increased attention, and other
priorities have become more pressing in the wake of the many components of the war
on terrorism.
FY2005 Appropriations. The Administration requested a total of $900.2
million for FY2005, of which a total of $314.0 million would go the federal land
CRS-64
acquisition and state grants. The remainder, $586.2 million, is the largest amount
requested in the program’s history for purposes other than land acquisition and
stateside grants. The programs and amounts, listed on page DH-48 of the FY2005
Interior Budget in Brief, include Forest Service’s Forest Stewardship Program ($40.7
million), Forest Legacy Program ($100.0 million), and Urban and Community
Forestry Program ($32.0 million); and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s State and
Tribal Wildlife Grants ($80.0 million), Landowner Incentive Grants ($50.0 million),
Private Stewardship Grants ($10.0 million), Cooperative Endangered Species Grants
($90.0 million), and North American Wetlands Conservation Fund Grants ($54.0
million).
The House-passed legislation would provide no new funding for earmarked
acquisitions. The report of the House Committee on Appropriations characterizes
these acquisitions as “a low priority” (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 5). Funds in the House
bill either mirror, or are reductions from, the Administration’s request and would go
largely to acquisition management. State grants would remain almost unchanged
from FY2004 under this bill. The largest change is that the House-passed bill would
provide $92.5 million for only two other programs — the Forest Legacy Program and
the Habitat Conservation Program portion of the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund. This is nearly $500 million less than the Administration’s
request for funding for other programs. In the minority views attached to the report,
Representatives Obey and Dicks state that they “disagree with the illogically-driven
opposition to land acquisition,” but do not comment on LWCF funding for other
programs (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 180).
The total for LWCF in Senate committee-reported legislation, $549.0 million,
would be less of a reduction from funding in past years than the House-passed bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee provides almost the same total as the
Administration requested for federal land acquisition, although the amount for the
NPS is more than $22 million less than the request, while the amount for the FS more
than $15 million than the Administration request. More specifically, the Senate
committee-reported bill earmarks $17.9 million for 11 BLM sites, $34.7 million for
36 FWS sites, $45.3 million for 19 NPS sites, and $66.5 million for 37 FS sites.
State grants are almost the same as the House bill. The Senate committee-reported
bill provides more than $237 million to 5 other programs, 4 of which are
administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
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, which is also being called the Conservation
Trust Fund by some, combines funding for more than two 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
FY2001 Interior appropriations law authorized that total spending for CSC would
CRS-65
grow each year by $160.0 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 CSC
funding is subject to the appropriations process. (Also, how programs are
categorized, or “scored,” matters — the Administration and the Appropriations
Committees disagree on whether all or portions of funding for some programs should
be credited to the CSC.) The appropriations history through 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, about $410 million
less than the authorized target of $1.44 billion.
! The 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 was $1.00 billion, and the target is $1.56
billion. (The Administration had 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.) The total appropriated is unclear.
None of the FY2004 bills or accompanying committee reports identified funding
levels for the CSC, with one exception. The House Appropriations Committee report
included “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.
For FY2005, the Department of the Interior has stated that it is requesting $1.05
billion for the CSC, an increase of $140 million over the FY2004 appropriation for
the same group of programs. However, these totals do not include requests from the
Forest Service or Department of Commerce. Neither the Forest Service nor the
Department of Commerce is using the CSC as a structure for organizing or tabulating
their requests.
It appears that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees did not use the
CSC structure for their funding decisions on conservation-related programs. The
House Appropriations Committee’s report accompanying the FY2005 House-passed
CRS-66
bill mentions the CSC only in the minority views, where Representatives Obey and
Dicks state that the bill would fund the CSC at $850 million below the $1.7 billion
target for FY2005. The report does not include other funding levels or discussions
of the CSC.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report accompanying the FY2005
appropriations bill has a discussion of conservation funding (S.Rept. 108-341, p.5).
It states that the committee “remains concerned” about proposals to create “direct
entitlement funding” for selected conservation programs, thereby removing them
from the annual oversight of the appropriations process. It notes that the Committee
continues to provide funding for many of these programs.
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
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 to create
a comprehensive plan to restore, protect, and preserve the entire South Florida
ecosystem, which includes the Everglades (P.L. 104-303). A portion of this plan, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), completed in 1999, provides
for federal involvement in the restoration of the ecosystem. Congress authorized the
Corps to implement CERP in Title IV of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (WRDA 2000, P.L. 106-541). While restoration activities in the South Florida
ecosystem are conducted under several federal laws, WRDA 2000 is considered the
seminal law for Everglades restoration.
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
CRS-67
implemented over approximately 36 years, with an estimated total cost of $7.8
billion; the total federal share is estimated at $3.9 billion.8
Overview of Appropriations. Appropriations for restoration projects in the
South Florida ecosystem have been provided as part of several annual appropriations
bills. 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, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau
of Indian Affairs.
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 (Department of Agriculture and
Related Agencies Appropriations). (For information on other Everglades funding,
see CRS Report RL32307, Appropriations for FY2005: Energy and Water
Development, coordinated by Carl Behrens and Marc Humphries).
From FY1993 to FY2004, federal appropriations for projects and services
related to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem exceeded $2.0 billion
dollars, and state funding topped $3.6 billion.9 The average annual federal cost for
restoration activities in Southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to be
approximately $286 million per year.10 For FY2005, the Administration requested
$231.0 million for the Department of the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers
for restoration efforts in the Everglades. Of this total, $67.0 million is for the
implementation of CERP.
FY2005 Appropriations to DOI. For DOI, it is unclear how much money
the House-passed or Senate committee-reported bills would provide for restoration
activities in the South Florida ecosystem for FY2005. Many of the restoration
activities are listed within program headings under several agencies, and the FY2005
House-passed and Senate committee-reported bills and accompanying committee
reports do not provide total dollar amounts. Some restoration activities, however,
are included in these documents and can be found in Table 20 below.
The Administration has requested a total of $105.9 million for CERP and non-
CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida ecosystem for FY2005.
This is approximately $36.8 million above the FY2004 enacted level of $69.1
8 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 $14.8
billion.
9 These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
10 This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.
CRS-68
million. Of this total, the NPS requested $85.4 million for land acquisition,
construction, and research activities; the FWS requested $12.3 million for land
acquisition, refuges, ecological services, and other activities; the USGS requested
$7.8 million for research, planning, and modeling; and the BIA requested $0.4
million for water projects on Seminole Tribal lands. For conducting activities
authorized by CERP, DOI has requested $8.9 million for FY2005. See Table 20
below.
Table 20. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
Agencies Requesting Funding for
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Everglades Restoration
Approp.
Request
House
Senate
Passed
Comm.
National Park Service
— CERP
$5,463
$5,463
n/a
n/a
— Park Operations a 23,991
24,780
n/a
n/a
— Land Acquisition
-5,000 b 40,000
n/a
n/a
— Everglades Acquisitions Management
1,800
1,800
n/a
n/a
— Modified Water Delivery
12,830
8,077
8,077
8,077
— Everglades Research
3,937
3,937
n/a
n/a
— South Florida Ecosystem Task Force
1,308
1,308
n/a
n/a
Subtotal, NPS
44,329
85,365
n/a
n/a
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP
3,309
3,351
n/a
n/a
— Land Acquisition
0
750
n/a
n/a
— Ecological Services
2,523
2,554
n/a
n/a
— Refuges and Wildlife
9,784
4,906
n/a
n/a
— Law Enforcement
628
636
n/a
n/a
— Fisheries
98
100
n/a
n/a
Subtotal, FWS
16,342
12,297
n/a
n/a
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and Coordination 7,847
7,847
n/a
n/a
Subtotal, USGS
7,847
7,847
n/a
n/a
Bureau of Indian Affairs
— Stormwater treatment on Seminole Tribal
539
396
150
n/a
lands
Subtotal, BIA
539
396
150
n/a
Total Appropriations
69,057
105,905
n/a
n/a
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2005, The Interior Budget in Brief, (Washington, DC: February
2004) and H.Rept. 108-542, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY2005.
a This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park, Biscayne
National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve.
b This reflects a transfer of $5.0 million to FWS for water quality monitoring and mitigating invasive species.
n/a = indicates information not available.
CRS-69
The Administration’s FY2005 request for funding restoration activities in the
Everglades is $36.8 million above the FY2004 enacted level. The primary increase
is in NPS land acquisition, where $40.0 million is requested for the acquisition of
mineral rights underlying Big Cypress National Preserve. The Collier Resources
Company has mineral rights in the preserve and 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. Appropriators did not include this
funding in FY2004 appropriations because the agreement had not been formally
approved and a DOI inquiry assessing the value of the mineral rights had been
initiated.12 According to the Office of the Inspector General, the inquiry is ongoing.
The House-passed and the Senate committee-reported bills do not explicitly provide
funds for these mineral rights.
In both the House-passed and Senate committee-reported appropriations bills
for FY2005, $10.7 million is provided for planning and interagency coordination of
Everglades restoration activities. It is unclear how these funds relate to the
Administration’s request for Everglades restoration funds. In past years, these funds
have been distributed to fund CERP and the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force,
among other activities.
In its report on the FY2005 bill, the House Appropriations Committee expressed
concerns over the coordination and research towards restoring the South Florida
ecosystem. The House Committee directs the DOI to submit by November 2004 a
report describing the research projects to be funded by the NPS and USGS with
FY2005 appropriations. Further, the Committee directs the DOI to submit a report
describing how it is implementing recommendations made by the General
Accounting Office and National Academy of Sciences regarding coordination and
management of Everglades research. The Senate committee report does not
explicitly state this concern, but a provision in the bill provides that NPS construction
funds for implementation of modified water deliveries to ENP are to be spent in
accordance with the FY2004 Interior Appropriations law. That law places conditions
on appropriations based on the monitoring of phosphorus pollution. (See below for
details.)
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation. The Administration, House-
passed bill, and Senate committee-reported bill would provide $8.1 million for the
Modified Water Deliveries Project, which is $4.7 million below the FY2004 enacted
level of $12.8 million. According to the FY2004 Interior Appropriations law, funds
appropriated in this act and any prior acts for this project will be provided unless
administrators of four federal departments/agencies (Secretary of the Interior,
Secretary of the Army, Administrator of the EPA, and the Attorney General) indicate
in their joint report (to be filed annually until December 31, 2006) that water entering
the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park do
not meet state water quality standards, and the House and Senate Committees on
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 J. Eskovitz, “Everglades Mineral Assets,” Naples Daily News, Jan. 31, 2004.
CRS-70
Appropriations respond in writing disapproving the further expenditure of funds.
These provisions also are included in the House-passed and Senate committee-
reported bills for FY2005 appropriations.
These provisions were enacted based on concerns regarding a Florida State Law
(Chapter 2003-12, enacted on May 20, 2003) that amended the Everglades Forever
Act of 1994 (Florida Statutes §373.4592) by authorizing a new plan to mitigate
phosphorus pollution in the Everglades. Phosphorus is one of the primary water
pollutants in the Everglades and a primary cause for ecosystem alteration in the
Everglades. Some Members of Congress reacted to the Florida laws unfavorably and
wrote letters expressing their disapproval.13 Provisions conditioning funds on the
achievement of water quality standards were not requested in the Administration’s
budget for FY2005. (For more information see CRS Report RL32131, Phosphorus
Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.)
For further information on Everglades Restoration, see the website of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program at [http://www.sfrestore.org] and the website
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.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara A. Johnson.
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs
The Bush Administration’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative would subject
diverse commercial activities to public-private competition. The goal of this
government-wide effort, first outlined in 2001, is to save money through competition
between government and private businesses in areas where private businesses might
provide better commercial services, for instance, law enforcement and maintenance.
The initiative has been controversial, with concerns including 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 centered on
the National Park Service and the Forest Service. According to one National Park
13 Joint statement by Reps. C.W. Bill Young, David Hobson, Ralph Regula, Charles Taylor,
Clay Shaw, and Porter Goss, released by the House Committee on Appropriations, April 29,
2003.
CRS-71
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.14 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.15
Language on competitive sourcing is contained in the House-passed and Senate
committee-reported versions of the FY2005 Interior appropriations bill. Both bills
outline spending limits for competitive sourcing studies of agencies, unless Congress
approves the reprogramming of additional funds under revised reprogramming
guidelines printed in H.Rept. 108-330. Both bills limit Forest Service spending on
such studies to no more than $2.0 million, and DOE spending to no more than $0.5
million. DOI would be capped at $2.5 million under the House-passed bill, and
$3.25 million under the Senate committee-reported bill.
The FY2005 House-passed bill also would require the Secretaries of DOI, DOE,
and Agriculture (for the Forest Service) to report annually to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on competitive sourcing activities during the previous
year. The reports are to contain detailed information, including the numbers of
competitive sourcing competitions announced and completed; the costs, savings, and
improvements in services that result from competitions; and the number of federal
employees affected by competitive sourcing. The House-passed bill further requires
that for activities and functions involving more than 10 federal employees, a
contracted function must be less costly to the government by 10% of the
government’s personnel-related costs or $10.0 million, whichever is lower.
The FY2004 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 108-108) also contained spending
limits for competitive sourcing studies of agencies and required agencies to report
annually to Congress on their competitive sourcing activities. It further required
agencies to specify in their annual budget submissions the level of funding requested
for such studies. In adopting the language, conferees expressed support for the
“underlying principle” of the Administration’s initiative, but concern that the effort
was being conducted too fast for its costs and implications to be understood and “in
violation” of guidelines on reprogramming funds. The FY2005 Senate committee-
reported bill would expressly repeal related provisions of P.L. 108-108.
During consideration of the FY2004 Interior appropriations bill, the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees had expressed concern that the agencies were
spending significant sums on competitive sourcing, although the Administration did
not request funds, or receive funds from Congress, for this purpose. In particular,
there was concern that the Forest Service was reprogramming money without
approval. In its report, the House Committee on Appropriations expressed concern
about the “massive scale, seemingly arbitrary targets, and considerable costs
associated with this initiative” (H.Rept. 108-195, p.9). Both chambers had included
14 Guy Gugliotta, “Archaeologists on the Block?,” The Washington Post, July 15, 2003, p.
A17.
15 Matthew Daly, “Forest Service Considers Plan to Open 10,000 Jobs to Private Sector,”
The Associated Press on the Web, June 30, 2003.
CRS-72
language on competitive sourcing in their FY2004 bills, with the House barring
agencies from using funds in the bill to begin new competitive sourcing studies. The
President threatened to veto the bill if this language was included. The Senate
adopted an amendment to require the Secretary of the Interior to report annually to
Congress on competitive sourcing. (For more information on competitive sourcing
generally, see CRS Report RL32017, Circular A-76 Revision 2003: Selected Issues,
by L. Elaine Halchin, and CRS Report RL32079, Federal Contracting of
Commercial Activities: Competitive Sourcing Targets, by L. Elaine Halchin.)
Missouri River Management
An ongoing controversy over conflicting water levels for upper and lower
Missouri River Basin states was an issue during the markup of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations of the FY2005 Interior appropriations bill. A provision to change
a trigger that requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement
drought conservation measures on the Missouri River remains in S. 2804 after a
debate to have it removed during Committee markup. The drought conservation
measures would suspend navigational releases from Missouri River reservoirs if
storage at the reservoirs falls below a defined level. No similar language is included
in the House-passed bill.
The current trigger established by the Corps’ 2004 Missouri River Master Water
Control Manual is 31 million acre-feet (MAF) of storage at a March 15 storage
check.16 The trigger in S. 2804 is for the suspension of navigation if the storage level
is at or below 40 MAF at any time during the year (not just on March 15).
Supporters believe this storage level is necessary to avoid adverse impacts to upper
basin interests, including recreation and certain species basin wide. While the full
impact of the provision may not be clear, the general impact would be an increase in
the number of Missouri River navigation seasons that are either eliminated or
shortened. This would retain more Missouri River water in the upper basin reservoirs
during extended drought, which are used for multiple purposes including
economically important recreation and water supply. For the last few years, these
upper basin reservoirs have experienced low water levels during an ongoing drought
in the basin, and navigation has continued in the lower basin although at a minimum
service level and with a shortened navigation season. Upper basin interests argue
that harm would be incurred by recreation and other interests in their states as a result
of drawn-down reservoir levels, while lower basin interests fear that more storage
and less releases could unduly harm the navigation industry. For more information
on the Missouri River management debate, see CRS Issue Brief IB10120, Army
Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for Congress, by Nicole T. Carter
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Current storage levels are 36 MAF; anticipated storage on March 15, 2005 is
estimated to be between 34 MAF and 36.5 MAF. If enacted before October 6, the
1 6 The manual is available at [http://www.nwd-mr.usace.army.mil
/rcc/reports/mmanual/MasterManual.pdf]. Even when drought conservation measures are
in effect, the Corps is required to maintain releases for other lower basin purposes, such as
water intakes for drinking water and thermal power plant cooling water.
CRS-73
Senate Appropriations Committee provision could affect the 2004 navigation season.
Based on the estimates for early 2005, under the provision water would likely be
retained in the upper basin reservoirs by delaying the start to the 2005 navigation
season until the snow runoff fills the reservoirs above 40 MAF in May or June. Once
the nesting season on the sandbars of the Missouri River begins in May for two
federally-listed endangered shorebirds, release increases may be difficult until the end
of the nesting season (mid- to late-August) due to the potential to flood nests or
destroy chicks, unless other measures to protect the nests and chicks are feasible.
The lack of a specific date to trigger drought conservation measures could result in
an on-and-off navigation season when storage is near 40 MAF, thus reducing the
predictability and reliability for the navigation industry. Concerns have also been
raised regarding the impact of reduced Missouri River flows on the Middle
Mississippi River, during years when the Mississippi River basin is experiencing low
runoff conditions. The Missouri River is a tributary to the Middle Mississippi River,
the middle component of a major inland waterway that transports agricultural and
other products.
CRS-74
Table 21. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005 House
FY2005 Senate
Bureau or Agency
FY2004 Approp.c FY2005 Request
Passed
Comm.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
$1,893,233
$1,759,355
$1,846,817d
$1,876,432d
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1,308,405
1,326,053
1,263,204
1,309,479
National Park Service
2,258,581
2,360,544
2,267,809
2,360,242
U.S. Geological Survey
937,985
919,788
944,498
939,486
Minerals Management Service
170,297
178,680
178,680
178,280
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement
295,975
352,768
303,011
300,768
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2,300,814
2,253,795
2,334,851
2,276,116
Departmental Offices a 682,674
820,316
705,581
734,501
Total, Title I
9,847,964
9,971,299
9,844,451
9,975,304
Title II: Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
4,979,899
4,238,103
4,646,398d
4,671,185d
Department of Energy
— Clean Coal Technology
-185,000
-237,000
-237,000
-257,000
— Fossil Energy R & D
672,770
635,799
601,875
542,529
— Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
17,995
18,000
18,000
18,000
— Elk Hills School Lands Fund
72,000
72,000
72,000
72,000
— Energy Conservation
877,985
875,933
656,071
854,299
— Economic Regulation
1,034
—
—
—
— Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)
170,949
172,100
172,100
172,100
— SPR Petroleum Account
—
—
—
—
— Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
4,939
5,000
5,000
5,000
— Energy Information Administration
81,100
85,000
85,000
84,000
Subtotal, DOE
1,713,772
1,626,832
1,373,046
1,490,928
Indian Health Service
2,921,715
2,967,272
3,033,370
2,997,772
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
13,366
11,000
11,000
5,000
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native
Culture and Arts Development
6,173
6,000
6,000
6,000
Smithsonian Institution
596,279
628,025
619,825
627,025
National Gallery of Art
98,225
104,100
104,100
103,119
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
32,159
33,486
27,152
33,486
Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars
8,498
8,987
8,987
8,987
National Endowment for the Arts
120,972
139,400
130,972
120,972
National Endowment for the Humanities
135,310
162,000
141,999
135,310
Commission of Fine Arts
1,405
1,793
1,793
1,793
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs
6,914
5,000
7,000
6,000
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
3,951
4,600
4,600
4,600
National Capital Planning Commission
7,635
8,155
7,999
8,000
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
39,505
41,433
41,433
41,433
CRS-75
FY2005 House
FY2005 Senate
Bureau or Agency
FY2004 Approp.c FY2005 Request
Passed
Comm.
Presidio Trust
20,445
20,000
20,000
20,000
Total, Title II: Related Agencies
10,706,223
10,006,186
10,185,674
10,281,610
Grand Total (in Bill) b
20,554,187 19,977,485
20,030,125
d
20,256,914 d
Source: House Appropriations Committee and Congressional Record.
a Departmental Offices includes Insular Affairs, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), and the Office of the Special Trustee for
American Indians.
b Figures do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments.
c Figures reflect an across-the-board cut of 0.646% in the FY2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations law
(P.L. 108-108) and an across-the-board cut of 0.59% in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199). They include $500.0
million for emergency firefighting contained in P.L. 108-287.
d Column total reflects $500.0 million for emergency firefighting that would become available if certain conditions are met. Specifically,
the BLM portion is $100.0 million and the FS portion is $400.0 million.
CRS-76
Table 22. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2000 to FY2004
($ in thousands)
Agency or Bureau
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
$1,231,402
$2,147,182
$1,872,597
$1,877,892
$1,893,233
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
875,093
1,227,010
1,276,424
1,248,533
1,308,405
National Park Service
1,803,847
2,135,219
2,380,074
2,239,430
2,258,581
U.S. Geological Survey
813,376
882,800
914,002
919,272
937,985
Minerals Management Service
116,318
139,221
156,772
170,312
170,297
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
& Enforcement
291,733
302,846
306,530
295,179
295,975
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1,869,052
2,187,613
2,212,876
2,257,243
2,300,814
Departmental Offices a
319,869
352,519
367,144
624,609
682,674
General Provisions
—
12,572
—
—
—
Total for Department
7,320,690
9,386,982
9,486,419
9,632,470
9,847,964
Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service
2,819,933
4,435,391
4,130,416
4,869,839
4,979,899
Department of Energy
1,226,393
1,453,644
1,766,470
1,740,532
1,713,772
Indian Health Service
2,390,728
2,628,766
2,759,101
2,849,661
2,921,715
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation
8,000
14,967
15,148
14,397
13,366
Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Culture & Arts Development
2,125
4,116
4,490
5,454
6,173
Smithsonian Institution
438,130
453,854
518,860
544,875
596,279
National Gallery of Art
67,590
75,485
85,335
92,842
98,225
JFK Center for the Performing Arts
33,871
33,925
38,310
33,690
32,159
Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars
6,763
12,283
7,796
8,433
8,498
National Endowment for the Arts
97,628
97,785
98,234
115,732
120,972
National Endowment for the Humanities
115,260
119,994
124,504
124,936
135,310
Institute of Museum and Library
Services
24,307
24,852
26,899
b
b
Challenge America Arts Fund
—
6,985
17,000
c
c
Commission of Fine Arts
1,021
1,076
1,224
1,216
1,405
National Capital Arts and Cultural
Affairs
6,973
6,985
7,000
6,954
6,914
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
2,989
3,182
3,400
3,643
3,951
National Capitol Planning Commission
6,288
6,486
8,011
7,206
7,635
Holocaust Memorial Museum
33,161
34,363
36,028
38,412
39,505
CRS-77
Agency or Bureau
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Presidio Trust
44,300
33,327
23,125
21,188
20,445
Total for Related Agencies
7,325,460
9,447,466
9,671,351
10,479,010
10,706,223
Grand Total for All Agencies
14,911,650
18,892,320
19,157,770
20,111,480d
20,554,187e
Source: House Appropriations Committee and Congressional Record.
a Departmental Offices includes Insular Affairs, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) for FY2003 and FY2004, and Office of
the Special Trustee for American Indians. 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 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. The total appropriation for FY2003
includes an FY2003 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 108-83) adding $36.0 million for BLM, $5.0 million for FWS, and
$283.0 million for FS.
e Figures in this column reflect an across-the-board cut of 0.646% in the FY2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L.
108-108) and an across-the-board cut of 0.59% in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199). They include $500.0
million for emergency firefighting contained in P.L. 108-287.
CRS-78
For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL32373. Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected
Issues. By Robert L. Bamberger.
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 M. Lynne
Corn and Eugene H. Buck.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,”and R.S. 2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL31621. Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau
of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
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 A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS21670. Major Indian Issues in the 108th Congress, by Roger Walke.
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 and Pervaze
A. Sheikh.
CRS-79
Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS20002. Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL32393. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resources Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent, M. Lynne Corn, Ross W.
Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, David Whiteman, and Kori Calvert.
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. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National
Forests, by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh
and Barbara Johnson.
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 RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, 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 Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS-80
CRS Issue Brief IB10124. Wildfire Protection in the 108th Congress, by Ross W.
Gorte.
Selected Websites
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://appropriations.house.gov/]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://appropriations.senate.gov/]
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 Democratic Caucus
[http://www.dems.gov/]
House Republican Conference
[http://www.gop.gov/]
Office of Management and Budget
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/]
Senate Democratic Conference
[http://www.democrats.senate.gov/]
Senate Republican Policy Committee
[http://rpc.senate.gov/]
CRS-81
Title I: Department of the Interior17
Department of the Interior (DOI)
[http://www.doi.gov/]
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm]
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
[http://www.fws.gov/]
Historic Preservation
[http://www2.cr.nps.gov/]
Insular Affairs
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html]
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
[http://www.mms.gov/]
National Park Service (NPS)
[http://www.nps.gov/]
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians
[http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
[http://www.usgs.gov/]
Title II: Related Agencies
Departments.
Agriculture, Department of (USDA)
[http://www.usda.gov/]
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service
[http://www.fs.fed.us/]
Energy, Department of (DOE)
[http://www.doe.gov/engine/content.do]
17 Some of the DOI websites may not be operational due to a court order regarding Indian
trust funds litigation. Nevertheless, they are included herein for reference when the websites
are operational.
CRS-82
Energy Budget
[http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/05budget/]
Energy Conservation Programs
[http://www.eere.energy.gov/]
Fossil Energy
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/]
Naval Petroleum Reserves
[http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/]
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
[http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/]
Health and Human Services, Department of (HHS)
[http://www.dhhs.gov/]
Indian Health Service (IHS)
[http://www.ihs.gov/]
Agencies.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
[http://www.achp.gov]
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development
[http://www.iaiancad.org/]
Institute of Museum and Library 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/]
CRS-83
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/]