H.R. 2691 , the FY2004 Interior and Related AgenciesAppropriations Act, was enacted into law on November 10, 2003 ( P.L. 108-108 ). The conference report had passed the House narrowly (216-205) on October 30,2003, and was approved by the Senate (87-2) on November 3, 2003. On January 23, 2004, the President signed H.R. 2673 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ). This act contains anacross-the-board cut of 0.59% for Interior and related agencies, as well as most otherFY2004 appropriations laws. The FY2004 enacted numbers in this report reflect thiscut. The annual Interior and related agencies appropriations bill includes funding foragencies and programs in four separate federal departments, as well as numeroussmaller agencies and bureaus. The bill includes funding for the Interior Department,except for the Bureau of Reclamation (funded by Energy and Water DevelopmentAppropriations laws), and funds for some agencies or programs in three otherdepartments -- Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services. Title I of thebill includes agencies within the Department of the Interior which manage land andother natural resource or regulatory programs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, andinsular areas. Title II of the bill includes the Forest Service of the Department ofAgriculture; several activities within the Department of Energy, including researchand development programs, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, and theStrategic Petroleum Reserve; and the Indian Health Service in the Department ofHealth and Human Services. In addition, Title II includes a variety of relatedagencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, John F.Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, theNational 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 asrescissions, transfers, and deferrals, but excludes permanent budget authorities. Increases and decreases generally are calculated on comparisons between the fundinglevels appropriated for FY2003 and requested by the President or recommended byCongress for FY2004. For FY2003, Congress enacted ( P.L.108-7 ) which appropriated $18.96 billion for Interior and related agencies, plus $825.0 million for wildland fire fighting effortsin FY2002, for a total of $19.79 billion. Congress subsequently enacted P.L. 108-83 containing an additional $324.0 million in FY2003 emergency funding, consistingof: $5.0 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service for Resource Management, $36.0million for the Bureau of Land Management for wildland firefighting, and $283.0million for the Forest Service for wildland firefighting. With the emergency funding,the FY2003 total was $20.11 billion. On July 7, 2003, the Administration requested emergency FY2003 supplemental funding that included $289.0 million for firefighting efforts. The request consistedof $253.0 million for the Forest Service, and $36.0 million for the Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) for fighting fires on lands of the Department of the Interior(DOI). The President stated that the monies were needed to ensure sufficient fundingfor the 2003 fire season, as large portions of the West are at risk of catastrophic firethis summer. The money was intended for fire suppression and emergencyrehabilitation activities. The President stated that with the supplemental money,funding for wildland fire suppression would be at the 10-year average. On July 11, 2003, the Senate passed H.R. 2657 containing the requested level ($289.0 million) of supplemental funding for wildfires. The Senatealso adopted an amendment adding another $25.0 million to remove dead trees inforests devastated by insects, which could exacerbate fire threats. On July 21, 2003,the House Committee on Appropriations ordered reported a draft measure containing$319.0 million in FY2003 supplemental funds for fire fighting, reflecting a $30.0million increase over the President's request. However, the House passed H.R. 2859 on July 25, 2003, without supplemental funds for wildlandfire fighting. On July 31 the Senate passed the bill without amendment, clearing itfor action by the President. The law ( P.L.108-69 ) did not contain supplemental fundsfor wildland fire fighting. Congress subsequently included FY2003 emergency supplemental funding for wildfire fighting in the FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. As enacted, P.L. 108-83 contained $319.0 million for wildland firefighting efforts in FY2003,comprised of $36.0 million for the Bureau of Land Management and $283.0 millionfor the Forest Service, plus $5.0 million for Resource Management of the Fish andWildlife Service. The Senate-passed version of the FY2004 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill, H.R. 2691 , contained an additional $400.0 millionin emergency funding for wildfire fighting, comprised of $75.0 million for the BLMand $325.0 million for the Forest Service. The President subsequently submitted a$400.0 million supplemental request for fire funding, consisting of $99.0 million forBLM and $301.0 million for the Forest Service. While the House-passed bill did notcontain emergency monies, the House conferees were instructed to support the Senatefunding level in conference. The FY2004 law contained $98.4 million in emergencyfunding for BLM firefighting efforts, and $299.2 million for the Forest Service, fora total of $397.6 million in emergency funds. The money was appropriated to replacefunds borrowed from other accounts for wildland fire fighting. President Bush's FY2004 budget for Interior and related agencies totaled $19.89 billion. On July 10, 2003, the House Committee on Appropriations reported a bill( H.R. 2691 , H.Rept. 108-195 ) for Interior and related agenciescontaining a total of $19.60 billion for FY2004. On the same date, the SenateCommittee on Appropriations reported a companion bill ( S. 1391 , S.Rept. 108-89 ) containing $19.61 billion for FY2004. On July 17, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2691 (268-152) containing a total of $19.60 billion for Interior and related agencies for FY2004. OnSeptember 23, 2003, the Senate passed its version with $19.61 billion, plus $400.0million in emergency funding for wildland fire management to repay transfers fromother accounts for fire fighting efforts in FY2003, for a bill total of $20.01 billion. With the additional fire funds, the Senate total was $411.2 million more than passedby the House and $121.3 million more than requested by the Administration. However, the Senate-passed level for FY2004 was $99.2 million less than the totalappropriated for FY2003, including the emergency supplemental in P.L.108-83 . Following passage of the bill, the Senate appointed conferees on H.R. 2691 on September 23, 2003. The House subsequently appointedits conferees on October 1. Before appointing its conferees, the House agreed to amotion to instruct its conferees to support the additional $400.0 million inemergency firefighting funds included in the Senate-passed version of the bill. OnOctober 27, 2003, a brief formal conference committee meeting was held. Aconference report ( H.Rept. 108-330 ) was filed on October 28, 2003, and narrowlypassed the House (216-205) on October 30 and was approved by the Senate (87-2)on November 3. The narrow passage in the House has been attributed to theinclusion in the bill of a provision that led to a stay -- a temporary suspension -- ofa court decision requiring an exhaustive, expensive accounting of Indian trust landsand trust asset transactions since 1887. The President signed H.R. 2691 into law on November 10, 2003, as P.L. 108-108 . From the start of FY2004 on October 1, 2003 until the enactmentof the bill, Interior and related agencies were funded under the provisions of acontinuing resolution. The FY2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contained $20.01 billion for FY2004, which reflected an across-the-board cut in the law of0.646%. This figure, and figures throughout this report, reflect an additionalacross-the-board cut of 0.59%, which was included in the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ). This across-the-board cut also appliesto most other FY2004 appropriations laws. The FY2004 enacted level was slightly less than enacted for FY2003 (less than 1% lower). See Table 21 below for a comparison of FY2003-FY2004 InteriorAppropriations. The FY2004 level was essentially the same as the amount approvedby the Senate (less than 1% higher), and higher than the House-passed total (2%higher) and the President's request (less than 1% higher). The appropriate levels offunding for wildland firefighting and land acquisition were among the major issuesdebated. The FY2004 law contained $2.76 billion for wildland fire fighting by theForest Service and the Department of the Interior, approximately 13% less than thetotal enacted for FY2003. This figure includes an additional $49.7 million providedfor Forest Service wildland firefighting ion P.L.108-199 . (For further information,see "Bureau of Land Management" and "Forest Service" sections below.) For landacquisition (and state assistance) by the four major federal land managementagencies, the FY2004 law contained $263.4 million, 36% less than enacted forFY2003. (For further information, see "The Land and Water Conservation Fund(LWCF)" and "Conservation Spending Category" sections below.) Many controversial issues arose during consideration of the FY2004 Interior andrelated agencies appropriations bill, and were addressed by conferees. The FY2004law (1) continued the automatic renewal of expiring grazing permits and leases forFY2004 -- FY2008 (see "Bureau of Land Management" section below); (2)extended the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (see "National Park Service"section below); (3) modified procedures for seeking judicial review of timber salesin Alaska, primarily in the Tongass National Forest (see "Forest Service" sectionbelow); (4) capped funds for competitive sourcing efforts of agencies and requireddocumentation on the initiative (see the "Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs"section below); and (5) led to a stay of a court decision requiring an accounting ofIndian trust funds and trust asset transactions since 1887 (see Litigation in the"Office of Special Trustee for American Indians" section below ). The FY2004 law dropped language barring funds from being used (1) to implement changes to BLM regulations on Recordable Disclaimers of Interest inLand, (see "Bureau of Land Management" section below) (2) for the Klamath FisheryManagement Council (see "Klamath River Basin" section below), and (3) for OuterContinental Shelf leasing activities in the North Aleutian Basin planning area, whichincludes Bristol Bay, Alaska (see "Minerals Management Service" section below). Table 1 below contains information on congressional consideration of the FY2004 Interior appropriations bill. Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004 During the ten-year period from FY1994 to FY2003, Interior and related agencies appropriations increased by 50% in current dollars, from $13.39 billion to$20.11 billion including supplemental funds for FY2003. The change in constantFY2003 dollars is an increase of 21%. Most of the growth occurred during the latteryears. For instance, during the five-year period from FY1994 to FY1998,appropriations increased by 3% in current dollars, from $13.39 billion to $13.79billion, but decreased by 7% in constant dollars. By contrast, during the most recentfive years, from FY1999 to FY2003, funding increased by 41% in current dollars,from $14.30 billion to $20.11 billion, or 27% in constant dollars. 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, or 23% in constant dollars. Much of the increase was provided toland management agencies for land conservation and wildland fire management. See Table 22 below for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau, and program fromFY2000 to FY2003. Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1999 to FY2003 (budget authority inbillions of current dollars) Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do notreflect scorekeeping adjustments. However, they reflect rescissions. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 261.5 million acres of public land for diverse, and, at times, conflicting uses, such as energy and mineralsdevelopment, livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also isresponsible for about 700 million acres of federal subsurface mineral resourcesthroughout the nation, and supervises the mineral operations on an estimated 56million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another key BLM function is wildland firemanagement on about 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, and certainnon-federal land. The FY2004 appropriations law contained $1.79 billion for the BLM, less ($84.7 million, or 5%) than the FY2003 level ($1.88 billion). The enacted level isroughly the same as that passed by the Senate and requested by the Administration,while significantly higher than the House-passed amount. See Table 3 below. Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and Resources, the FY2004law provided $839.8 million, a $19.5 million (2%) increase over FY2003, when$820.3 million was appropriated. The enacted level was also an increase over thePresident's request and the House-passed level but a decrease from the Senate-passedamount. This line item funds an array of BLM land programs, including protection,recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLMadministration. Some of the increase for FY2004 is targeted for realty and ownership management as well as recreation management. For realty and ownershipmanagement, the FY2004 law provided $93.2 million, a $4.6 million (5%) increaseover FY2003 ($88.6 million). While the Administration and House had sought toreduce funds for this program ($80.9 million), the Senate had sought more funds($101.9 million) primarily to expedite the processing of native allotment applicationsand land selections under the Alaska Statehood Act. For managing recreation onBLM lands, the FY2004 law contained $66.4 million, a $6.5 million (11%) increaseover FY2003 ($59.8 million). The Administration, House, and Senate had soughtincreases. The House Appropriations Committee charged the BLM to report onefforts to develop a unified strategy for recreation management, asserted that BLMand the Forest Service should take measures to provide adequate public access forrecreation, and directed the agencies to submit a strategy for developing recreationalaccess plans for individual forests and public land units. The FY2004 appropriation law provided $80.3 million for transportation and facilities maintenance, which funds annual and deferred maintenance andinfrastructure improvement. This was a reduction ($2.4 million, or 3%) fromFY2003 ($82.8 million). The Administration, House, and Senate had sought toreduce funding. Energy and Minerals. The FY2004 appropriations law provided $110.0 million for the energy and minerals program,including Alaska minerals, an increase over FY2003 and the President's request. Both the House and Senate had recommended increases over FY2003, withprocessing of energy permits a focus. The House sought an increase to address thebacklog in processing permits for development of coalbed methane. In reportlanguage, the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed concern with thebacklog in processing oil and gas permits, and suggested that the BLM Directorestablish a pilot program in 5 states to eliminate the backlog and create a bestpractices program for permitting on federal lands. In the joint explanatory statement,the conferees modified the Senate report language to make the pilot programoptional, on the grounds that BLM has made progress in addressing the backlog ofoil and gas permits. The FY2004 law continued to bar funds included in the bill from being used for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of national monuments, as they wereon January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the presidential proclamations thatcreated the monuments. The law also continued the moratorium on accepting andprocessing applications for patents for mining and mill site claims on federal lands. However, applications meeting certain requirements that were filed on or beforeSeptember 30, 1994, would be allowed to proceed, and third party contractors wouldbe authorized to process the mineral examinations on those applications. Disclaimers of Interest. The FY2004 law did not include House-passed language with regard to disclaimers of interest,whereby the United States declares that it has no property interest in a parcel of land. A House floor amendment had originally sought to prohibit funds in the bill frombeing used to implement revised DOI regulations on disclaimers, which allow states,state political subdivisions, and others to apply for disclaimers regardless of whetherthey are the property owners of record. The House instead adopted a revisionlimiting the application of the amendment to certain lands -- national monuments,wilderness and wilderness study areas, park units, and national wildlife refuges. Opponents of the new regulation feared that it will be used to confirm "RS2477"highway rights of way, despite provisions of law barring new rules pertaining torecognition or validity of such rights of way unless authorized by Congress. Supporters welcomed the new regulations as a way to resolve ownership of property,including private property interests, thus allowing the potential for development. Grazing and Wild Horses and Burros Issues. The FY2004 law kept Senate language to continuethe automatic renewal of grazing permits and leases that expire, are transferred, orwaived during FY2004-FY2008 and that were issued by the Secretary of the Interioror the Secretary of Agriculture. The automatic renewal would continue until thepermit renewal process is completed under applicable laws and regulations, includingany necessary environmental analyses. The terms and conditions in expiring permitsor leases would continue under the new permit or lease until the renewal process iscompleted. The Secretaries are to report annually on the extent to which they arecompleting required analyses before permits expire, and biennially onrecommendations for ensuring the timely completion of permit renewals. Thelanguage also accorded the Secretaries discretion to determine the priority and timingfor completing the environmental analysis of grazing allotments. The House bill hada similar provision, but was limited to permits and leases expiring in FY2004. In its report, the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed "frustration" with the "escalating problems" in the Wild Horse and Burro Program. TheCommittee asked BLM to provide the results of a program audit and to prepare a costanalysis of alternatives to adoption for reducing animals on the range. Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2004, the FY2004 appropriations law contained$783.6 million, a significant reduction ($91.6 million, or 10%) from the FY2003enacted level ($875.2 million). The major difference is with regard to the amount offunds provided to replace money borrowed from other accounts for fire fightingduring the previous fiscal year. During FY2003, $189.0 million was appropriated tothe BLM to repay advances from other accounts for fire fighting during the prioryear, (1) whereas the FY2004 law contained $98.4million for this purpose. TheFY2004 law provided a substantial increase over the House-passed amount ($698.7million), a slight increase over the Senate-passed level ($773.7 million), and a slightdecrease from the Administration's request ($797.7 million). The wildland fire fundsappropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all Interior Department lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for wildland fire management to theForest Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments is the National Fire Plan, developed after the 2000 fireseason, which emphasizes reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute tocatastrophic fires, among other provisions. (For more information, see the "ForestService" section below.) In earlier action, the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern that funding may not achieve the level of readiness needed for public safety, and directedDOI to analyze readiness levels. The Senate Committee on Appropriations citeddeteriorating forest health as an underlying cause of wildland fire and encouragedBLM to implement Stewardship Contracting as quickly as possible and to report onits progress. Both the House and Senate had supported the President's request of$186.2 million for hazardous fuels reduction, including the wildland-urban interface. Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). The PILT program compensates local governments forfederal land within their jurisdictions because federally-owned land is not taxed. ThePILT program has been controversial because in recent years appropriations havebeen substantially less than authorized amounts. For FY2004, the Administrationproposed to shift the program from the BLM budget to Departmental Managementin 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 additionto BLM lands. The FY2004 law reflected the move to Departmental Management,and funded the program at $224.7 million, an increase over the President's request($200.0 million) and FY2003 ($218.6 million). This level would fund the programat approximately 65-70% of the level authorized in the complex PILT formula. Inproposing a reduction, the Administration expressed an intent to examine the PILTdistribution formula to determine if changes would achieve a distribution ofpayments to local governments that would, in their view, be more equitable. Land Acquisition. For LandAcquisition, the FY2004 law appropriated $18.4 million, most of which wasearmarked for 12 acquisitions. This is a $14.9 million (45%) reduction from FY2003($33.2 million). The Administration, House, and Senate, had sought to reducefunding for land acquisition, with the House seeking the largest cut. In its report, theHouse Appropriations Committee had expressed concern about "the unfocuseddirection" in the land acquisition program of the agencies, and had directed theSecretaries of DOI and Agriculture to develop a plan outlining the acreage goals andconservation objectives of federal land acquisition ( H.Rept. 108-195 , p. 10). Itsought alternatives to fee title land purchases, such as land exchanges and purchaseof conservation easements, which often are less expensive approaches. Money forland acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (Formore information, see the "Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)" sectionbelow.) Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in millions) Notes: a Funds for the PILT program are not reflected in column totals becausetheprogram has been transferred out of BLM to DOI Departmental Management. b The figures of "0" are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees. c Includes $189.0 million to replace monies borrowed from other accounts inFY2002 for fire fighting and a $36.0 million supplemental appropriation. d Includes $99.0 million in supplemental emergency funds to replace moniesborrowed from other accounts in FY2003 for fire fighting. e Includes $75.0 million to replace monies borrowed from other accounts in FY2003for fire fighting. f Includes $98.4 million to replace monies borrowed from otheraccounts in FY2003 for fire fighting. 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 RS2477 , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21634. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Consideration of Changes by the Bureau of Land Management , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20902 . National Monument Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL31392 . PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], coordinators. For FY2004, the Administration requested $1.29 billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a 3% increase over FY2003. The House approved $1.30billion, and the Senate, $1.34 billion. The conference approved $1.31 billion, a 5%increase, and this funding level was enacted into law for FY2004. By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources Management account. The President's FY2004 request was $941.5 million. TheFY2003 appropriation was $911.5 million plus a $5.0 million emergencysupplemental appropriation. The House approved $959.9 million, while the Senate'sfigure was $942.2 million. Counting subsequent recisions, the FY2004 level was$956.5 million, a 4% increase. Included in Resources Management are theEndangered Species Program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement, amongother things. Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species program is one of the perennially controversialportions of the FWS budget. For FY2004, the Administration proposed to reduce theprogram from $131.8 million to $128.7 million. See Table 4 below. The Houseapproved $134.5 million, and the Senate approved $135.2 million. The finalappropriations was $137.0 million, a 4% increase, and this level was enacted intolaw. A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The CooperativeEndangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and territories) wouldincrease from $80.5 million to $86.6 million under the President's request. Congressenacted $81.6 million, a 1% increase. The Landowner Incentive Program wouldincrease from a minus $260,000 (due to a net decrease resulting from a $40.0 millionrescission of FY2002 funds in the FY2003 law) to $40.0 million under thePresident's proposal. The House and Senate initially approved $40.0 million, but the FY2004 enacted level was $29.6 million. Stewardship Grants would increase froma minus $65,000 (due to a rescission of $10.0 million in FY2002 funds in the FY2003law) to $10.0 million under the President's proposal, which was likewise approvedby the House and Senate. (2) The FY2004 enacted levelwas $7.4 million. Under the President's request, overall FY2004 funding for the endangered species program and related programs would increase from FY2003 by $53.4 million(25%), largely due to increases in related programs rather than in the endangeredspecies program itself. However, this increase primarily reflects the FY2003rescission of prior year funding. The conference approved $255.6 million, an overallincrease of 21% -- less than either body approved separately and less than thePresident's request for this package of programs. This level was enacted into law. Table 4. Funding for Endangered SpeciesPrograms, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in thousands) National Wildlife Refuge System and LawEnforcement. On March 14, 2003, the nation observed thecentennial of the creation by President Theodore Roosevelt of the first NationalWildlife Refuge on Pelican Island in Florida. Accordingly, Congress appropriatedfunding in FY2003 for various renovations, improvements, and activities to celebratethe event; it included all of this funding under operations and maintenance for theNational Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). For operations and maintenance, thePresident proposed a decrease of 9% for FY2004 while the House approved anincrease of 8%, and the Senate supported a 5% increase. The final FY2004 level was$391.5 million, a 7% increase. For infrastructure improvements in the system, theAdministration requested $53.4 million but the House, the Senate, and the conferencerejected the proposal. Spending for the NWRS is under the "Refuges and Wildlife" budget activity, which includes programs which are not directly tied to the NWRS: recovery of theSalton Sea (in California), management of migratory birds throughout the countryand in cooperation with other nations, and law enforcement operations around thecountry. These programs are not included here, but are contained in tables inAppropriations Committee reports. See Table 5 below. Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in millions) Note: Funds for the YCC contained in brackets are included in the total foroperations and maintenance. The President proposed $52.7 million for Law Enforcement -- up $1.1 million from FY2003 ($51.6 million). The House approved a larger increase, to $54.4million. The Senate-passed bill contained $53.4 million, and the final FY2004 levelwas $53.7 million. Land Acquisition. For FY2004, the Administration proposed $40.7 million, a 44% decrease from the FY2003 levelof $72.9 million. The FY2004 level was $43.1 million, a 41% cut. The bulk of thisprogram has been for acquisition of federal refuge land, but a portion is used forclosely related functions such as acquisition management, land exchanges, andemergency acquisitions. In FY2003, 24% of Land Acquisition funding was allocatedto these related functions; the FY2004 request would have allocated 39% to them. These related functions constituted 31% of the enacted appropriation; the remainderwas for direct land acquisition. (For more information, see the "Land and WaterConservation Fund (LWCF)" section below.) 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 fromvarious activities carried out on the NWRS. However, these receipts are notsufficient for full funding of authorized amounts. Congress generally makes up someof the difference in annual appropriations. The Administration requested $14.4million for FY2004, up slightly from FY2003, and the FY2004 enacted level was$14.2 million. When combined with the estimated receipts, this appropriation levelwould cover 49% of the authorized full payment. Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has generated considerable constituent interestdespite the small size of the program. It benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers,the six species of rhinoceroses, and great apes. The President's budget againproposes to move funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund(NMBCF) into the MSCF. For FY2004, the President proposed $7.0 million for theMSCF (including the proposed addition of the NMBCF within this program). Congress rejected the proposed transfer in FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004. TheFY2004 enacted level for the MSCF represents a 16% increase over the previousyear. See Table 6 below. Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in thousands) Note: a This program was first authorized inFY2002, and is not part of the MSCF,although the transfer was proposed in the President's budgets for FY2002, FY2003,and FY2004. Because Congress has rejected the transfer three times, the program isnot 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 wascreated in the FY2001 Interior appropriations law ( P.L. 106-291 ) and further detailedin subsequent Interior appropriations bills. It lacks any other authorizing statute. Funds may be used to develop conservation plans as well as support specific practicalconservation projects. As of FY2002, a portion of the funding is set aside forcompetitive grants to tribal governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remainingstate portion is for matching grants to states. A state's allocation is determined ona formula basis. The President proposed a 7% decrease, but the enacted level was$69.1 million, a 7% increase. See Table 7 below. Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in millions) Notes: The House proposed that FWS be limited to 3% of the total appropriation foruse in administrative expenses. That figure is indicated here. NA indicates that there was no specific amount allocated to Administration of this program in the Senate bill, or in the conference agreement. However, the conferenceagreement required that the administrative costs be deducted from the state, ratherthan the tribal allocation. 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 [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21157 . Multinational Species Conservation Fund , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. 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 naturaland historic areas representing the cultural identity of the American people. The parksystem 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 supportsland conservation outside the park system. The FY2004 enacted level is $2.26 billion for the NPS. This is $19.2 million above the FY2003 enacted level ($2.24 billion), but $103.3 million below thePresident's request ($2.36 billion). The Senate-passed bill contained $2.32 billionand the House-passed bill provided $2.24 billion. See Table 8 below. Some amendments affecting the NPS were rejected on the floor. The House narrowly defeated (on a tie vote) an amendment that sought generally to prohibit useof funding to manage recreational snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand TetonNational Parks, and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway which linksthem. The amendment would have resulted in the phase-out of snowmobile use inthese park units, as provided for in a controversial Clinton Administration rule. (Formore information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10093, National Park Management andRecreation , coordinated by [author name scrubbed].) The House also rejected anamendment to ban the use of funds to kill bison straying from Yellowstone NationalPark. The FY2004 appropriations law contained language not directly tied to specific funding accounts. It modified House language on the Administration's competitivesourcing initiative by capping study expenditures by agencies, and establishedrigorous reporting requirements. (For more information, see the "CompetitiveSourcing of Government Jobs" section below.) The law retained Senate language tolimit displays of commercial sponsorship on the National Mall. It also replaced aHouse provision calling for a study of a controversial land exchange proposalinvolving Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Eastern Band of CherokeeIndians with the text of H.R. 1409 , that accomplishes the exchangedespite NPS concerns of unequal values. Further, the law retained the Senaterecommendation designating Congaree Swamp National Monument (SC) asCongaree National Park. Operation of the National ParkSystem. The park operations line item accounts for roughlytwo-thirds of the total NPS budget. It covers resource protection, visitors' services,facility operations, facility maintenance, and park support programs. For FY2004,the law provided $1.61 billion for NPS operations. This was $22.3 million below theAdministration's request, and $45.3 million more than the FY2003 level. The reportof the House Committee on Appropriations contained strong language regarding the"erosion" of NPS operating funds by the absorption of unbudgeted costs associatedwith management initiatives, including competitive sourcing, financial managementreform, and other activities. The Committee urged the Administration to submitmore realistic FY2005 budget justifications that factor in the true costs of fixed costincreases and management initiatives. Further, park advocacy groups estimate thatthe national parks operate, on average, with two-thirds of needed funding. Table 8. Appropriations for NPS, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in millions) Note: a Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority. Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds the construction, rehabilitation, and replacement ofpark facilities. The FY2004 law provided $329.9 million for NPS Construction, $2.6million more than the Administration's request ($327.3 million) and $4.2 millionmore than the FY2003 appropriation ($325.7 million). The Senate-passed billapproved $342.1 million and the House had allowed $303.2 million. The FY2004law provided $559.2 million for FY2004 for facility operation and maintenance (anactivity funded within the Operation of the National Park System line item), $10.5million less than the Administration requested ($569.7 million) and $39.2 millionmore the FY2003 appropriation ($520.0 million). The House had approved $569.2million and the Senate had provided $567.3 million. Combined, the Administration requested $897.0 million for construction and facility operation and maintenance, an increase of $51.3 million from FY2003($845.7 million). Of this total, the Administration stated that $705.8 million isapplicable to construction and annual and deferred maintenance projects in FY2004,implying that $191.2 million is for facility operations. The House approved asimilarly-combined total of $872.4 million, while the Senate approved $909.4million. The FY2004 law included a combined total of $889.1 million, or $43.4million above the FY2003 amount. (3) How to reducethe maintenance backlog for theNPS, estimated at $5.4 billion according to DOI, has been controversial and a stated priority of the Administration and some Members of Congress. (For information onthe maintenance backlog, see CRS Issue Brief IB10093, National Park Managementand Recreation , coordinated by [author name scrubbed].) United States Park Police (USPP). This line item supports the programs of the U.S. Park Police who operate primarilyin urban park areas. The USPP also provides investigative, forensic, and otherservices to support law-enforcement trained rangers working in park unitssystem-wide. For FY2004, the law provided $77.9 million for the USPP, the sameas for FY2003. The conference agreement was critical of USPP's failure toimplement recommendations made in a 2001 report by the National Academy ofPublic Administration to address problems of budget accountability, managementissues, and overtime. Administration priorities for FY2004 focus on border parksecurity problems. National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds park recreation and resourceprotection programs, as well as programs connected with local community efforts topreserve natural and cultural resources. The FY2004 request of $47.9 million wassignificantly less than FY2003 funding ($61.3 million). The House-passed billallowed $54.9 million, including $13.9 million for heritage partnerships and $6.5million for statutory and contractual aid. The Senate-passed bill provided $60.2million, with $13.6 million for heritage partnerships and $9.9 million for statutoryand contractual aid. The FY2004 law contained $61.8 million, with $14.3 millionfor heritage areas and $12.8 million for statutory and contractual aid. The FY2004 law established the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area (NC) and funded the area with $0.5 million. It also directed the NPS to conduct a heritage areastudy for Muscle Shoals, AL, using available funds. Study legislation was approvedby the 107th Congress ( P.L. 107-348 ), but no funds had been appropriated. Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This matching grant program, long popular withCongress, was designed to help low-income inner city neighborhoods rehabilitateexisting recreational facilities. Funding for new program grants was problematicuntil the Conservation Spending Category (CSC) was created in the FY2001 InteriorAppropriations Act, with $30.0 million for UPARR. The President did not requestfunds for UPARR in FY2002, but Congress funded the program at $30.0 million. Nofunding was requested for FY2003. Although the House approved $30.0 million andthe Senate supported $10.0 million, the conferees ultimately provided only $298,000for program administrative costs in FY2003. For FY2004, the Administration,House, and Senate agreed on $305,000 to administer previously awarded grants, butnot to provide money for a new round of grants. The FY2004 law provided $301,000for program administration. Land Acquisition and State Assistance. The FY2004 law provided a total of $135.6 million,with $41.8 million for federal land acquisition and $93.8 million for state assistance. The total was $103.0 million less than the Administration's request ($238.6 million)and $35.7 million less than the FY2003 enacted level ($171.3 million). TheHouse-passed bill contained $131.2 million, and the Senate $158.5 million. Thefederal program provides funds to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for inclusionwithin the National Park System, while the state assistance program is for park landacquisition and recreation planning and development by the states. State-sideappropriated funds are allocated to states through a formula, with the statesdetermining their internal spending priorities. Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Under this trial program, the four major federal landmanagement agencies are authorized to retain and spend receipts from entrance anduser fees. The receipts are available without further appropriation for projects at thecollecting sites that reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance and enhance visitorexperience. A portion of fee receipts is distributed to other agency sites. The NPSestimates Fee Demo receipts of $141.9 million for FY2004. The FY2004 law extended Fee Demo for 15 months -- through December 2005 for fee collection, and 1 year -- through FY2008, for fee expenditures. While theSenate-passed bill did not have a Fee Demo provision, the House-passed bill wouldhave extended Fee Demo for two years. The extension is to give the authorizingcommittees more time to consider the controversial issue of a permanent program. A House amendment to limit the extension of the fee demo program to national parkunits was defeated. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10093, NationalPark Management and Recreation , coordinated by [author name scrubbed].) For further information on the National Park Service , see its website at http://www.nps.gov/ . CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation , by [author name scrubbed], coordinator. Historic Preservation. TheHistoric Preservation Fund (HPF), administered by the NPS, provides grants-in-aidto states (primarily through State Historic Preservation Offices), certified localgovernments, and territories and the Federated States of Micronesia for activitiesspecified in the National Historic Preservation Act. These activities includeprotection of cultural resources and restoration of historic districts, sites, buildings,and objects significant in American history and culture. Preservation grants arenormally funded on a 60% federal- 40% state matching share basis. In addition, theHistoric Preservation Fund provides funding for cultural heritage projects for Indiantribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. The FY2004 appropriations law provided $73.6 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, $6.6 million above the budget request, $2.6 million above theHouse-passed bill, and $2.2 million below the Senate-passed measure. The FY2004appropriation included $0.5 million for the National Trust for Historic Preservation;$34.6 million for grants-in-aid to states and territories; $3.0 million for Indian tribes;$32.6 million for Save America's Treasures, former President Clinton's Millenniuminitiative; and $3.0 million for the restoration of buildings on campuses ofHistorically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). See Table 9 below. A major issue is whether historic preservation programs should be funded byprivate money rather than the federal government. Congress eliminated permanentand annual federal funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, but hasprovided specific appropriations for Millennium projects under Save America'sTreasures. Save America's Treasures grants are given to preserve nationallysignificant intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures includingmonuments, historic sites, artifacts, collections, artwork, documents, manuscripts,photographs, maps, journals, film and sound recordings. Due to concerns that theSave America's Treasures program did not reflect geographic diversity,appropriations law now requires that project recommendations be subject to approvalby the Appropriations Committees prior to distribution of funds. The FY2004 lawprovided $32.6 million for Save America's Treasures, $2.8 million more than enactedfor FY2003. In the past, the Historic Preservation Fund account has included the preservation and restoration of historic buildings and structures on Historically Black Colleges andUniversities (HBCU) campuses. Funds in Section 507 of P.L. 104-333 (TheOmnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996) were earmarked forpreservation projects for HBCU buildings, particularly those listed in the NationalRegister of Historic Places that required immediate repairs. An appropriation inFY2001 of $7.2 million represented the unused authorization remaining from P.L.104-333 . There was no funding for HBCU's under HPF for FY2002 or FY2003. ForFY2004, both the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill restored funding, withcompetitive grants administered by the National Park Service. The FY2004 lawprovided $3.0 million for the HBCU program for FY2004. There is no longer permanent federal funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, previously funded as part of the Historic Preservation Fund Account. The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 to "protect and preserve"historic American sites significant to our cultural heritage. It is technically a privatenon-profit corporation, but it received federal funding until FY1998. Since that time,the National Trust generally has not received direct federal funding in keeping withCongress' plan to make it self-supporting. However, the FY2004 appropriations lawprovided $0.5 million for the National Trust's endowment fund for the care andmaintenance of the most endangered historic places. Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in thousands) Notes: a The term "grants in aid to States and Territories" is used in conjunctionwith the budget and refers to the same program as Grants in aid to State HistoricPreservation Offices. b Funding for the Historic Preservation Fund in the 2004 budget has its majorcomponents listed under the "conservation spending category." 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 [author name scrubbed]. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation's primary science agency in providing earth and biological science information related to natural hazards; certainaspects of the environment; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. Inaddition, it is the federal government's principal civilian mapping agency and aprimary source of data on the quality of the nation's water resources. The traditional presentation of the budget for the USGS is in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and Research , with six activities falling under that heading:The National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; WaterResources Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities. TheFY2004 Interior appropriations law provided $938.0 million for the USGS, whichis $42.5 million above the Administration's request of $895.5 million and $18.7million above the FY2003 appropriation of $919.3 million. The Senate-passedversion of the bill contained $928.9 million and the House-passed version approved $935.7 million. See Table 10 below. The FY2004 law provided increases in funding over the Administration's request for five of the six activities conducted by the USGS, but funded ScienceSupport at $0.7 million less than the request of $91.5 million. Compared to theFY2003 enacted level, all programs except for the National Mapping Program showan increase in appropriations. National Mapping Program. The National Mapping Program aims to provide access to high quality geospatial data andinformation to the public. The FY2004 law provided $129.8 million for thisprogram, an increase of $9.3 million over the Administration's request of $120.5million and a decrease of $3.4 million from the FY2003 enacted level of $133.2million. Sub-programs within the National Mapping Program were funded at levelslower than FY2003 enacted levels. The FY2004 law contained $80.8 million for theCooperative Topographic Mapping Program, $33.7 million for the Land RemoteSensing Program, and $15.2 million for geographic analysis and monitoring. The conference report discussed the significance of the Landsat 7 Satellite Program and made recommendations for improving the program. Landsat 7 is asatellite that takes remotely sensed images of the Earth's land surface andsurrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring. Conferencemanagers stated that the USGS should secure data purchase agreements with otherfederal agencies and others in the user community to establish a stable fundingsource. Managers also recommended that the USGS consult with users of mediumresolution data to determine if degraded data can be used. Degraded data isacknowledged by the managers as a problem of the Landsat 7 Program. Conference managers stated their support for improving the management of collected data at the EROS Data Center, specifically the initiatives to convertarchived remote sensing data to a modern disk-based storage system, and implementing remote mirroring technology. Remote mirroring technology utilizesmirror sites, which are exact copies of an existing site that are made to reduce theload on the source site and speed up access for users in locations geographically faraway from the server. Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. This heading covers programs in three budgetsub-activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, andResource Assessments. For Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activities,the FY2004 appropriations law contained $234.2 million for FY2004 -- an increaseof $12.6 million above the Administration's request of $221.6 million and $1.0million above the FY2003 enacted level of $233.2 million. The FY2004 law provided funding for assessment programs that is similar to FY2003 enacted levels. For geologic hazards and assessments, $75.3 million wasincluded; for geologic landscape and coastal assessments, $78.4 million; and forgeologic resource assessments, $80.5 million. The FY2004 law included $16.0 million for conducting inquiries into how economic conditions are affecting mining and materials processing industries. In theconference report, there are increases of $1.7 million over House-recommendedlevels for volcanic monitoring, as well as increases of $0.3 million for the NationalCooperative Geological Mapping program and $1.5 million for the Minerals at Riskprogram in Alaska. The Administration requested a decrease of $13.4 million foraggregate and industrial mineral studies, minerals research and assessment activities,and the Alaska Minerals-At-Risk program. Both the House- and Senate-passed billsprovided support for the USGS mineral resources program, and in their respectivereports noted the relevance of mineral resource and assessment research for nationalsecurity and infrastructure development as well as for assisting the U.S. mineralindustry. Water Resources Investigations. For the Water Resources Investigations heading, the FY2004 law appropriated$215.7 million, which is $15.6 million over the Administration's request of $200.1million and $8.6 million above the FY2003 enacted level of $207.2 million. The FY2004 law provided $64.0 million for cooperation with states or municipalities for water resource investigations. Most programs within the WaterResources Investigations heading received greater funding than enacted levels inFY2003. The Ground Water Resources Program was provided $6.0 million forFY2004; the National Water Quality Assessment Program, $63.3 million; the ToxicSubstances and Hydrology, $14.9 million; Hydrological Research and Development,$17.1 million; the National Streamflow Information Program, $14.2 million; andHydrological Networks and Analysis, $29.9 million. The FY2004 law also provided$6.4 million for Water Resources Research Institutes. As was the case with the BushAdministration's FY2002 and FY2003 budget requests, the FY2004 request soughtto discontinue USGS support for Water Resources Research Institutes based on thefinding that most institutes have been successful in leveraging sufficient funding forprogram activities from non-USGS sources. Congress also restored funding for theInstitutes in FY2002 and FY2003. Biological Research. ForFY2004, the law appropriated $174.5 million, $5.6 million above theAdministration's request of $168.9 million and $4.7 million above the FY2003enacted level of $169.8 million. The law further stated that no funds provided forbiological research can be used to conduct new surveys on private land unless thesurveys are specifically authorized by the property owner in writing. Funding forFY2004 increased for biological research and monitoring programs ($135.1 millionfor FY2004) and biological information management and delivery ($24.7 million forFY2004). The conference report identified a decrease of $1.0 million below the House-passed level for invasive species research and $0.6 million for chronic wastingdisease research. Chronic wasting disease is a progressively degenerative andultimately fatal disease in deer and elk. Proposed funding will be used to conductstudies to determine the transmission of the disease among deer and elk populations. Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs associated with modernizing theinfrastructure for management and dissemination of scientific information. ForFY2004, the law provided $90.8 million for Science Support, which is $0.7 millionless than the Administration's request of $91.5 million, and $5.6 million over theFY2003 enacted level of $85.2 million. Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. The FY2004 law provided $93.0 million for the Facilities budget, nearly the same as theAdministration's request, ($0.4 million above), and $2.2 million over the FY2003enacted level of $90.8 million. The conference managers stated that they are awarethat the facilities budget may not be sufficient for rent and operations of somefacilities. The managers attributed this deficiency, in part, to insufficient funds beingtransferred to facilities in previous years. The managers directed the USGS toresolve this issue by developing a funding strategy for their facilities by March 2004. The conference managers added $3.0 million to the USGS budget for FY2004 to counter streamlining reductions in the Administration's request. They directed theUSGS to spread these funds to program areas on a pro-rata basis. Table 10. Appropriations for theU.S. Geological Survey, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in millions) For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey , see its website at http://www.usgs.gov/ . The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the Offshore Minerals Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals RevenueManagement (MRM) Program, formerly known as the Royalty ManagementProgram. OMM administers competitive leasing on outer continental shelf lands andoversees production of offshore oil, gas, and other minerals. MRM collects anddisburses bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal onshore and Outer ContinentalShelf (OCS) leases and Indian mineral leases. MMS anticipates collecting about $5.8billion in revenues in FY2004 from offshore and onshore federal leases. Revenuesfrom onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were collected, the GeneralFund of the U.S. Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues from the offshoreleases are allocated among the coastal states, Land and Water Conservation Fund, theHistoric Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury. Budget and Appropriations. TheFY2004 law funded MMS programs at $270.5 million, including $7.0 million for oilspill research and $263.5 million for the Royalty and Offshore Minerals Managementprogram. Funding for the Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management program isfurther broken down as follows: $139.3 million for OMM, $79.7 million for MRM,and $44.5 million for administrative activities. Of the total for MMS, $100.2 millioncame from offsetting collections that MMS has been retaining from OCS receiptssince 1994 while $170.3 million is derived from direct appropriations. The Administration's proposed budget for MMS for FY2004 was $271.5 million. This proposal included $7.1 million for oil spill research, and $264.4million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. Of the total budget, $171.3million would have derived from appropriations, and $100.2 million from offsettingcollections. The House supported the Administration's request. The Senateapproved slightly more for MMS -- $273.3 million -- comprised of $7.1 million inoil spill research and $266.2 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. Of the total budget, $173.1 million would have derived from appropriations and$100.2 million would come from offsetting collections. The MMS mineral leasing revenue estimates are higher for FY2004 than in FY2003. Current revenue estimates for these years are $5.8 billion and $5.1 billionrespectively. Price fluctuation is the most significant factor in the revenue swings. Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for40%-45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties accounted for not more than25%. Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding accounts were considered during theFY2004 appropriations process. The FY2004 appropriations law continued themoratorium on preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico exceptfor Lease Sale 181 off the Florida coast. Sales in the Eastern GOM have beenespecially controversial. Industry groups contend that the sales are too limited, givenwhat they say is an enormous resource potential, while environmental groups andsome state officials argue that the risks to the environment and local economies aretoo great. The FY2004 law continued leasing moratoria in other areas, including theAtlantic and Pacific Coasts and parts of Alaska. However, in a controversial development, the law omitted language that would have prohibited funding for preleasing and leasing activity in the North AleutianBasin Planning Area, currently under a leasing moratorium. There is some interestin eventually opening the area to oil and gas development as an offset to thedepressed fishing industry in the Bristol Bay area. Environmentalists, among others,oppose this effort. The North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, containing Bristol Bay,is not in the MMS current 5-year (2002-2007) leasing plan. Under the OuterContinental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1331), the Secretary of theInterior submits 5-year leasing programs that specify the time, location, and size oflease sales to be held during that period. Controversy over MMS oil and gas leases in offshore California has drawncongressional interest. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.1451), development of federal offshore leases must be consistent with state coastalzone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended 36 out of the 40 leases at issue inoffshore California by granting lease suspensions, but the State of Californiacontended that it should have first reviewed the suspensions for consistency with thestate's coastal zone management plan. In June 2001 the U.S. Court for the NorthernDistrict of California agreed with the State of California and struck down the MMSsuspensions. 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 leasedevelopment plan that involved 20 leases using existing drilling platforms. However,on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the DistrictCourt decision. The Department of the Interior did not appeal this decision and iscurrently working with lessees to resolve the issue. A breach-of-contract lawsuit hasbeen filed against MMS by nine oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in compensationfor their undeveloped leases. In a related effort, House-Senate conferees on the energy bill ( H.R. 6 ) considered but did not include language calling for a comprehensive inventory ofOCS oil and natural gas resources. The House had agreed to a non-binding motionto instruct conferees to remove the OCS inventory language from conferenceconsideration, among other changes. Supporters of the inventory contended that itis important for enhancing domestic oil and gas supply and reducing foreign imports. Opponents argued that it could lead to the removal of the leasing moratoria currentlyin place for much of the U.S. coastline. For further information on the Minerals Management Service , see its website at http://www.mms.gov . 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 capableof supporting its pre-mining land use. SMCRA also established an Abandoned MineLands (AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sitesthat pose serious health or safety hazards. Congress's intention was that individualstates and Indian tribes would develop their own regulatory programs incorporatingminimum standards established by law and regulations. OSM is required to maintainoversight of state regulatory programs. In some instances states have no approvedprogram, and in these instances OSM directs reclamation in the state. Congress provided OSM $295.2 million in the FY2003 appropriations law. The Administration's request for FY2004 was $281.2 million. The House and Senate bothapproved higher levels -- $301.2 million and $297.6 million respectively. TheFY2004 law included $296.0 million. For the AML Fund, which is one of the two primary components of OSM, the Administration requested $174.5 million for FY2004, marginally higher than theAdministration requested for FY2003, but a reduction of $16.0 million from the$190.5 million approved for FY2003 by Congress. The FY2004 law provided a totalof $190.6 million. In earlier action, the full House had accepted the AppropriationsCommittee's recommendation of $194.5 million for the AML Fund, $20.0 millionabove the Administration request, and $4.0 million more than the level enacted byCongress for FY2003. In approving this level, the House Appropriations Committeenoted "the great amount of reclamation work that remains to be done..." ( H.Rept.108-195 , p. 64). The Senate Committee on Appropriations and the full Senate hadsupported a boost over the Administration's request for the AML fund, increasing itby $16.4 million to $190.9 million. The other component of the OSM budget is for Regulation and Technology programs. For Regulation and Technology, the Administration requested $106.7million. Included in the FY2004 request was $10.0 million in funding for theAppalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002-2003, and$10.0 million for the Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). The requestedlevel was approved by both bodies ($106.7 million), while the enacted level wasslightly lower -- $105.4 million. Grants to the states from annual AML appropriations are based on states' current and historic coal production. "Minimum program states" are states withsignificant AML problems, but with insufficient levels of current coal production togenerate significant fees to the AML fund. The minimum funding level for each ofthese states was increased to $2.0 million in 1992. However, over the objection ofthese states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program statessince FY1996. The FY2003 appropriations provided $1.5 million to minimumprogram states and the FY2004 law proposed no change. In general, several states have been pressing in recent years for increases in the AML appropriations. The unappropriated balance of AML collections in the fundis expected to approach $1.75 billion by the end of FY2004. For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement , see its website at http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm . The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally- recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, andhistorically has been the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programsprovided or funded through the BIA include government operations, courts, lawenforcement, fire protection, social programs, education, roads, economicdevelopment, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection,implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust assets (real estateand natural resources), and partial gaming oversight. BIA's FY2003 direct appropriations were $2.26 billion. For FY2004, the House approved $2.31 billion, an increase of $52.1 million over FY2003 and $16.6 millionover the Administration's request. The Senate approved $2.32 billion, which was$63.2 million over FY2003 and $27.7 million more than the request. The FY2004law contained $2.30 billion for BIA, $43.6 million more than FY2003 and $8.1million over the request. Table 11 below presents figures for FY2003 and FY2004for the BIA and its major budget components; selected BIA programs are shown initalics. Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of theBureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in the BIAschool system. Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in thousands) BIA Reorganization. In April 2003, Secretary of the Interior Norton initiated a reorganization of the BIA, the officeof Assistant Secretary -- Indian Affairs (AS-IA), and the Office of Special Trusteefor American Indians (OST) in the Office of the Interior Secretary (see "Office ofSpecial Trustee" section below). The reorganization, announced in December 2002,arises from issues and events related to trust funds and trust assets management, andis 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 thelands' surface and subsurface economic resources (e.g., timber, grazing lands, orminerals), and cover about 45 million acres of tribal trust land and 10 million acresof individual Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate services,processing of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), surveys, appraisals, probatefunctions, land title records activities, and other functions. The BIA had, however,historically mismanaged Indian trust funds and trust assets, especially in the areas ofaccounting and retention of records. This led to a trust reform act in 1994 and anextensive court case in 1996 (see "Office of Special Trustee" section below). The1994 act created the OST, assigning it responsibility for oversight of trustmanagement reform. Trust fund management was transferred to the OST from theBIA in 1996, but the BIA still manages trust assets. Unsuccessful efforts at trust management reform in the 1990s led DOI to contract with a management-consultant firm. The firm's recommendations includedboth improvements in trust management and reorganization of the DOI agenciescarrying out trust management and improvement. Events in the court case helpedpush DOI to act on these recommendations. The current reorganization of BIA, AS-IA, and OST chiefly involves trust management structures and functions. Under the plan, the BIA's trust operations atregional and agency levels are being split off from other BIA services. The OST willhave trust officers at BIA regional and agency offices overseeing trust managementand providing information to Indian trust beneficiaries. The BIA, OST, and AS-IA, together with the Office of Historical Trust Accounting in the Secretary's office, are also implementing a trust managementimprovement project, announced in March 2003, which includes improvements intrust asset systems, policies, and procedures, historical accounting for trust accounts,reduction of backlogs, 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. While DOI carried out numerousconsultation meetings with tribes through much of 2002, they did not reachagreement before DOI announced the reorganization. Tribes argue that thereorganization is premature, because new trust procedures and policies are still beingdeveloped, and that it insufficiently defines new OST duties. Congress has thus far supported the BIA/OST reorganization. The House Appropriations Committee's report for FY2004 urged DOI to implement thereorganization as quickly as possible, and the Senate defeated a proposed amendmentto stop BIA/OST reorganization (by transferring $79.3 million from OST to theIndian Health Service). The Senate did add a provision to the FY2004 appropriationsbill excluding from reorganization certain tribes that have been operating trustmanagement reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices. The FY2004 lawretained this Senate provision. BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools and peripheral dormitories, with over2,000 structures, educating about 48,000 students in 23 states. Tribes and tribalorganizations, under self-determination contracts and other grants, operate 120 ofthese institutions; the BIA operates the remainder. BIA-funded schools' keyproblems are low student achievement and, especially, a high level of inadequateschool facilities. Some observers feel tribal operation of schools will improve student achievement. The Bush Administration suggested language in the FY2003 Interiorappropriations bill encouraging privatization, but the Appropriations Committeesdisagreed and urged additional funding and consultation with tribes. In the FY2004bill, the House and Senate approved a provision creating a $3 million fund to paytribal school boards' start-up administrative costs to encourage tribal boards to takeover operation of current BIA-operated schools. The FY2004 law retained thisprovision. Many BIA school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. BIA education construction covers both construction of new schoolfacilities to replace facilities that cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair ofexisting facilities. Schools are replaced or repaired according to priority lists. TheBIA estimates the current backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million, butthis figures changes as new repair needs appear each year. Table 11 above showsFY2003 and FY2004 education construction appropriations. Because constructionappropriations are not reducing the need fast enough, Indian tribes have urgedCongress to explore additional sources of construction financing. In the FY2001-FY2004 Interior appropriations acts, Congress has authorized a demonstration program that allows tribes to help fund construction of BIA-funded,tribally-controlled schools. The FY2004 Act added provisions allowingnon-BIA-funded schools to participate in the demonstration project, although firstpriority for grants would be assigned to BIA-funded schools and only grantees' thatwere already BIA-funded would be eligible for BIA school-operations funding. TheFY2004 law also enacts a controversial land exchange between the Eastern CherokeeTribe of North Carolina and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, to allow thetribe to build several replacement schools. For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs , see its website at http://www.oiep.bia.edu . The main BIA website at http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html is offline because of a court orderin the trust funds litigation (see "Office of Special Trustee" section below). CRS Report RS21670. Major Indian Issues in the 108th Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-851(pdf) . Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. 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). Thechief issue for NIGC is whether its funding is adequate for its regulatoryresponsibilities. 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 IIIoperations. IGRA currently caps NIGC fees at $8 million per year. The NIGC inrecent years has requested additional funding because it has experienced increaseddemand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field investigations. Congress, in the FY2003 appropriations act, increased the NIGC's fee ceiling to $12million, but only for FY2004. In the FY2004 budget, the Administration proposedlanguage amending IGRA to create an adjustable, formula-based ceiling for feesinstead of the current fixed ceiling. The Administration argued that a formula-basedfee ceiling would allow NIGC funding to grow as the Indian gaming industry grew.Gaming tribes did not support the increased fee ceiling or the proposed amendmentof IGRA's fee ceiling, arguing that NIGC's budget should first be reviewed in thecontext of extensive tribal and state expenditures on regulation of Indian gaming, andthat changes in NIGC's fees should be developed in consultation with tribes. TheFY2004 act did not include the Administration's proposed language, but did extendthe temporary $12-million fee ceiling through FY2005. During FY1999-FY2003, all NIGC activities were funded from fees, with no direct appropriations. For FY2004, the Administration, House, Senate, and enactedbill provided no direct appropriations for the NIGC. The FY2004 conference report expressed concern about several existing tribes who are trying to establish gaming operations in states or areas where they haveeither no reservations or no traditional connection. It directed the NIGC and theInterior Department to implement fully existing statutes and regulations coveringsuch situations. Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, in theSecretary of the Interior's office, was authorized by Title III of the American IndianTrust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-412 ). The Office of SpecialTrustee (OST) generally oversees the reform of Interior Department management ofIndian trust assets, the direct management of Indian trust funds, establishment of anadequate trust fund management system, and support of departmentclaims-settlement activities related to the trust funds. Indian trust funds formerlywere managed by the BIA, but in 1996, at Congress' direction and as authorized by P.L. 103-412 , the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust fund management fromthe BIA to the OST. (See "Bureau of Indian Affairs" section above.) Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by about 290 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total assetvalue of about $2.8 billion; and (2) individual Indians' funds, known as IndividualIndian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 230,000 accounts with a current total assetvalue of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2004 budgetjustifications.) The funds include monies received both from claims awards, land orwater rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from income fromnon-monetary trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as investment income. FY2003 funding for the OST was $148.3 million, which included $140.4 million for federal trust programs -- trust funds management, trust systemsimprovements, settlement and litigation support, and historical trust accounting -- and $7.9 million for the Indian land consolidation pilot project. The purpose of theland consolidation project is to purchase and consolidate fractionated ownerships ofallotted Indian trust lands, thereby reducing the costs of managing tens of thousandsof IIM accounts representing tiny fractional interests. For FY2004, theAdministration proposed transferring the land consolidation project from OST toBIA, but neither the House, Senate, nor enacted bill included this transfer. The House approved a FY2004 funding level of $240.6 million for the OST, an increase of $92.3 million (62%) over FY2003 but $55.0 million (-19%) less than theAdministration proposal. Included in the House FY2004 bill were $219.6 million forfederal trust programs (up $79.3 million, or 56%, over FY2003 but $55.0 million, or 20%, less than the Administration proposal) and $21.0 million for the Indian landconsolidation pilot project (up $13.0 million, or 163%, over FY2003 and the sameas the Administration's proposal). The Senate approved $242.6 million for the OST;the amount approved for federal trust programs was identical to that approved by theHouse, but the Senate approved $2.0 million more for the land consolidation projectthan did the House. The Senate Appropriations Committee report urged the DOI todirect land consolidation funds to reservations that already try to reduce landfractionation. The FY2004 law provided $209.0 million for the OST, $60.7 million (41%) over FY2003 but $86.6 million (-29%) less than the request. Included were $187.3million for federal trust programs and $21.7 million for land consolidation. Table12 below presents figures for FY2003 and FY2004 for the OST; the HistoricalAccounting program is shown in italics. Key issues for the OST are its current reorganization, an historical accounting for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal and IIM accounts. Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, FY2003-FY2004 ($ inthousands) Reorganization. Both OST and BIA have recently begun a reorganization (see "Bureau of Indian Affairs" section above),one aspect of which is the creation of OST field operations. OST will have fiduciarytrust officers and administrators at the level of BIA agency and regional offices. Many Indian tribes disagree with parts of the reorganization and have asked Congressto put it on hold so that OST and BIA can conduct further consultation with thetribes. About $15.1 million of the proposed FY2004 increase was to fund the newfield operations. The House, Senate, and enacted bill approved the proposed amountfor reorganization. The House Appropriations Committee report encouraged theInterior Department to implement the reorganization. The Senate did not explicitlyendorse or oppose the OST/BIA reorganization, but defeated a proposed amendmentto stop reorganization by transferring $79.3 million from OST to the Indian HealthService. Historical Accounting. The historical accounting seeks to assign correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especiallybecause of litigation. Because of the long historical period to be covered (someaccounts may date from the 19th century), the large number of IIM accounts, and thelarge number of missing account documents, an historical accounting based on actualaccount transactions is expected to require large and time-consuming projects. TheInterior Department has proposed an extensive, five-year, $335-million project toreconcile IIM accounts. Most of the appropriations increase that the Administrationproposed for the OST for FY2004 was for historical accounting, which would havegone from $17.5 million in FY2003 to $130 million in FY2004. Of this $112.5million increase for historical accounting, $82.5 million would have been for IIMaccounts and $30 million for tribal accounts. The House and Senate reduced totalhistorical accounting funds to $75 million, or $55 million less than theAdministration proposal. The conference report, as enacted, reduced historicalaccounting funds even further, to $44.4 million, to be used only for necessary,short-term historical accounting activities. This reduction was in tandem with acontroversial provision discussed under "Litigation" below. Litigation. An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit ( Cobell v. Norton ) was filed in 1996, in the federal district courtfor the District of Columbia, against the federal government by IIM account holders. (4) Many OST activities are related to the Cobell case, including litigation-supportactivities, but the most significant issue for appropriations concerns the method bywhich the historical accounting will be conducted to estimate IIM accounts' properbalances. The DOI's proposed method was estimated by the Department to cost $335million over five years and produce a relatively low total owed to IIM accounts; theplaintiffs' method, whose procedural cost is uncertain, was estimated to produce afigure 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 thefirst phase of the Cobell case, in 1999 the court had found that DOI and the TreasuryDepartment had breached trust duties regarding the necessary document retention anddata gathering needed for an accounting, and regarding the business systems andstaffing to fix trust management. The lawsuit's final phase will determine theamount of money owed to the plaintiffs, based on the historical accounting methodchosen. Congress has for several years been concerned about the current and potential costs of the Cobell lawsuit, although it has defeated appropriations language directingsettlement of the case. The Appropriations Committees have expressed concern thatthe IIM lawsuit was jeopardizing DOI trust reform implementation and have requiredreports from DOI on the costs and benefits of historical accounting methods,including statistical sampling. Congress also, in the FY2003 Interior appropriationsact, required a summary for Congress of a full historical accounting performed forfive of the plaintiffs, capped the compensation of two court-appointed officialsmonitoring trust reform, and authorized the Interior Secretary to help employees payfor legal costs related to the IIM suit. The summary of the historical accounting for the five plaintiffs, which was based on a methodology closer to that proposed by DOI, was transmitted to Congressin 2003. According to the House Committee, it indicated a very low error rate in theaccounts' transactions. In its initial reduction of the amount for FY2004 historicalaccounting, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the funding should beadequate for a statistical sampling model (part of DOI's proposed methodology) andthat the reduction was not an endorsement of the plaintiffs' accounting model. ForFY2004, Congress retained the provisions capping the court officials' compensationand assisting federal employees in paying legal bills related to the IIM litigation. The court's decision on historical accounting was delivered on September 25, 2003. The court rejected both the plaintiffs' and DOI's proposed historicalaccounting plans and instead ordered DOI to account for all trust fund and assettransactions since 1887, without using statistical sampling. The Interior Departmentestimated 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 decision. The provision directed thatno statute or trust law principle should be construed to require the InteriorDepartment to conduct the historical accounting until either Congress has delineatedthe department's specific historical accounting obligations or December 31, 2004,whichever is earlier. The conferees asserted in the conference committee report thatthe court-ordered historical accounting is too expensive, beyond the intent of the1994 Act, and likely to be appealed, and that Congress needs time to resolve thehistorical accounting question or settle the suit. Opponents in the House and Senateargued that the provision is of doubtful constitutionality, since it directs courts'interpretation of law and effectively suspends a court order in an ongoing case, andfurther is unjust to the plaintiffs and might undermine the Interior Department'sincentives 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 thisprovision, the DOI on the same day appealed the court's September 25 order. OnNovember 12, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbiatemporarily stayed the September 25 order. 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 [author name scrubbed]. Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial assistance to the U.S. territories (Guam,American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands) as well as three former insular areas (Republic of the MarshallIslands (RMI), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), and Palau), manages relationsbetween these jurisdictions and the federal government, and attempts to build thefiscal and government capacity of units of local government. Funding for the OIAconsists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite appropriations and (2)discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the appropriations process. OIA funding for FY2004 is set at $366 million. This constitutes a reduction of 5% from the President's request ($387 million) and roughly 5% more than theamount approved for FY2003 ($350 million). Permanent and indefinite appropriations historically constitute roughly 70% to 80% of the OIA budget and consist of two parts. For FY2004 they total $284million, as follows: $162 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau) formerly included in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under conditionsset forth in the respective Compacts of Free Association; (5) and, $122 million in fiscal assistance to the U.S. Virgin Islands for estimated rum excise and income tax collections, and to Guam for income taxcollections. Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations constitute the remaining balance (roughly 20% to 30%) of the OIA budget. Twoaccounts -- Assistance to Territories (AT) and the Compact of Free Association(CFA) -- comprise discretionary and current mandatory funding. As enacted,discretionary funding for FY2004 was set at $82.1 million, with AT funded at $75.7million and CFA at $6.4 million. This constituted a 15% decrease from the amountappropriated for such payments in FY2003 ($96.8 million). The FY2004 requestwould have reduced AT funding to $71.3 million and CFA assistance to $16.1million, for a total of $87.5 million. Little debate has occurred in recent years on funding for the territories and the OIA. In general, Congress continues to monitor economic development and fiscalmanagement by government officials in the insular areas. For further information on Insular Affairs, see its website at http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html . The FY2004 law contained a Forest Service (FS) budget of $4.54 billion,including $348.9 million in FS emergency funding. The total is $120.8 million (3%)more than the Senate-passed budget of $4.42 billion (including $325.0 millionemergency borrowing repayment); $362.8 million (9%) more than the House-passedbudget of $4.18 billion, and $180.9 million (4%) more than requested by theAdministration (including a $301.0 million emergency borrowing repayment). A significant amendment to FS management was debated on the Senate floor. The Senate-reported bill modified procedures for seeking judicial review of timbersales in FS Region 10 (Alaska, primarily the Tongass National Forest). A Senateamendment to strike the language was defeated. The section shortens timeframes forfiling suits related to these timber sales. The FY2004 law retained this provision. Two significant amendments to FS management were defeated on the House floor. The Udall (of New Mexico) amendment would have prohibited funding tofinalize or implement the National Forest System planning regulations proposed onDecember 6, 2002, by the Bush Administration. An Inslee amendment would haveprohibited funding to propose, finalize, or implement changes to the Protection ofRoadless Areas rule finalized on January 12, 2001, by the Clinton Administration. Forest Fires and Forest Health. Fire funding and fire protection programs were among the most controversial issuesconfronted during consideration of the FY2003 Interior appropriations bill. In fact, inthe 2nd Session of the 107th Congress, the Senate did not pass an Interior appropriationsbill largely due to disputes about fire funding and a new program for wildfireprotection. The ongoing discussion, including during consideration of the FY2004Interior appropriations bill, includes questions about funding levels and locations forvarious fire protection treatments, such as thinning and prescribed burning to reducefuel loads and clearing around structures to protect them during fires. Another focusis whether, and to what extent, environmental analysis, public involvement, andchallenges to decisions hinder fuel reduction activities. National Fire Plan. The FY2004 funding debate continued the increased attention in recent years to wildfires and thedamage they cause. The severe fire seasons in the summers of 2000 and 2002prompted substantial debates and proposals related to fire control and fire protection. The 2000 fire season led the Clinton Administration to propose a new program, calledthe National Fire Plan, which applied to BLM lands as well as to Forest Service lands,with $1.8 billion to supplement the $1.1 billion requested before the fire season began. The National Fire Plan comprises the Forest Service wildland fire program and firefighting on DOI lands; the DOI wildland fire monies are appropriated to the BLM. Congress enacted much of the proposal for FY2001, adding money to the FY2001request for wildfire operations, fuel reduction, burned area restoration, firepreparedness, and programs to assist local communities. Total appropriations for theFY2001 National Fire Plan, covering BLM and FS fire funds, were $2.86 billion. Thehigher wildfire funding level has generally been continued. (For historical backgroundand descriptions of funded activities, see CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire ProtectionFunding , by [author name scrubbed].) FY2004 Appropriations. The FY2004 law contained National Fire Plan funding (for the FS and BLM) of $2.76 billion,including emergency borrowing repayment. This is $138.5 million more than theSenate-passed level, $456.9 million more than the House-passed level, and $139.8million more than the amount requested. The Senate had included emergencyborrowing repayment authority of $400.0 million ($325.0 million for the FS and $75.0million for the BLM) in title IV of the bill. The President subsequently asked for a$400.0 million emergency appropriation to repay borrowed monies for fire fighting,split $99.0 million for BLM and $301.0 million for the FS. The FY2004 law containedthe same total for emergency contingency funding ($400.0 million), but with anacross-the-board cut, for $299.2 million for the FS and $98.4 million for the BLM. Inaddition, the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 108-199 ) included $49.7million in FS emergency funding for fuel reduction and state fire assistance. See Table13 below. Table 13. Federal Wildland Fire Management Appropriations, FY2000-FY2004 ($ in millions) Notes: a Emergency supplemental and contingent appropriations are included inagency 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 millionfor the BLM ($319.0 million total) in P.L.108-83 . c Includes supplemental of $49.7 million for the FS in P.L. 108-199 in the WildlandFire Management and State and Private forestry line items. The FS and BLM wildland fire line items include funds for fire suppression (fighting fires), preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention, anddetection), and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel treatment, research, and state andprivate assistance). The FY2004 budget request as well as the House, Senate, andenacted levels for suppression were significantly higher than the enacted FY2003appropriations, but they included significantly less emergency wildfire funds. See Table 13 above. The FY2004 law reduced BLM wildfire funding (including emergency borrowing repayment) to $783.6 million, $14.1 million (2%) below the request, $84.9 million(12%) above the House-passed level, and $9.9 million (1%) above the Senate-passedlevel. Much of the difference is the result of varying levels of emergency funding. TheFY2004 law nearly matched the requested and Senate-passed levels for BLM firesuppression and other fire operations, reducing the amounts by $2.4 million and $2.7million, respectively. It reduced the amount for fire preparedness by $8.4 million (3%),to $274.3 million. The House had shifted $25.0 million from fire suppression to firepreparedness ($20.0 million) and other fire operations ($5.0 million). The FY2004 law provided FS wildfire funding of $2.00 billion, including $348.9 million in emergency funding. This is $128.6 million (7%) more than theSenate-passed level, $372.1 million (23%) more than the House-passed level, and$153.9 million (8%) more than the request. Much of the difference from the requestand House level is emergency funding. The FY2004 law increased FS fire suppressionnearly to the requested level, substantially above the House and Senate levels. Itreduced FS fire preparedness from the House and Senate levels, but the level is $61.9million (10%) above the request. For other FS fire operations, the FY2004 lawprovided $354.2 million, $25.5 million (8%) more than the Senate-passed level and$52.4 million (13%) less than the House-passed level. In the House Appropriations Committee, an amendment was offered to add $550 million for FY2003 fire suppression, as the fire season was again expected to be severe,and not all FY2002 borrowed funds had been repaid even with the $825.0 million insupplemental firefighting funds enacted in P.L. 108-7 , the FY2003 omnibusappropriations act. The amendment was withdrawn on promises that the fundingshortfall would be made up later. On July 7, 2003, the Administration requestedemergency supplemental funding of $289.0 million for FY2003 FS and BLMfirefighting efforts. On July 11, the Senate passed a bill ( H.R. 2657 ,Legislative Branch Appropriations) containing the supplemental funding, with anamendment adding another $25.0 million to remove dead trees in forests devastated byinsects that could exacerbate wildfire threats. The FY2004 legislative branchappropriations conference report, containing $319.0 million in supplemental FY2003firefighting funds for the FS and BLM ($30.0 million more than requested), wasenacted as P.L.108-83 , and these funds are included in Table 13 above. This is inaddition to the $397.6 million of emergency borrowing repayment included in theFY2004 Interior appropriations law, and the $49.7 million (split equally between statefire assistance and hazardous fuel reduction) in P.L. 108-199 . State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center of debate, many changes have been proposedin State and Private Forestry (S&PF) -- programs that provide financial and technicalassistance to states and to private forest owners. For FY2004, Congress provided$329.2 million of total S&PF funding. This is $33.8 million (11%) more than theSenate, $38.4 million (13%) more than the House, and $13.4 million (4%) more thanrequested. Of the total, the conference agreement directed that $64.5 million comefrom the Land and Water Conservation Fund; this is $20.2 million less from the Landand Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) than had been directed by the Senate, while theHouse had provided no direction on S&PF spending from LWCF. Levels differ significantly within S&PF funding. For forest health management (insect and disease control on federal and cooperative (nonfederal) lands), the FY2004law contained $98.6 million, $16.5 million (20%) more than the Senate and the request,and $4.4 million (4%) less than the House-passed level of $103.0 million. The House,Senate, and enacted bills rejected the request for a new $12.0 million Emerging Pestand Pathogens Fund to rapidly address invasive species problems, but the Senate andthe FY2004 law allowed $2.0 million to be used for emerging problems. In addition,the FY2004 law provided $24.7 million for forest health management in other wildfireoperations appropriations, more than double the Senate-passed and requested level of$11.9 million, and nearly matching the House-passed level of $25.0 million. For FY2004, Congress provided $63.3 million for S&PF cooperative fire assistance to states and to volunteer fire departments, including $24.9 million inemergency supplemental funding in P.L. 108-199 . The total is $32.7 million (107%)above the Senate, $22.2 million (54%) more than the House, and $32.8 million (108%)above the request. In addition, the FY2004 Interior act included $59.2 million incooperative fire assistance in other wildfire operations appropriations, $3.2 million(6%) more than the Senate, $0.1 million (0.2%) less than the House, and $4.5 million(8%) more than the Administration requested. The FY2004 law contained $161.4 million for cooperative forestry programs, $15.3 million (9%) less than the Senate, $20.8 million (15%) more than the House, and$36.9 million (19%) less than the request. Major differences pertain to the forestlegacy and economic action programs. For the forest legacy program (for purchasingtitle or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, such as forresidences), the FY2004 law appropriated $64.1 million, $20.6 million (24%) less thanthe Senate level of $84.7 million; $18.6 million (41%) more than the House level of$45.6 million; and $26.7 million (29%) less than the Administration's request of $90.8million. The law also retained the S&PF Economic Action Program (EAP, includingrural community assistance and wood recycling, and the Pacific Northwest economicassistance) at $25.6 million, $1.6 million (7%) more than the Senate and $8.2 million(47%) more than the House-passed level. The Administration had proposedterminating the EAP. The law did not include any EAP funding in other wildfireoperations appropriations; the House had included $6.0 million in other wildfireoperations appropriations for the EAP, whereas the Senate included $5.0 million inother wildfire operations funding to implement the Community Forest Restoration Act(title VI of P.L. 106-393 ). Infrastructure. The FY2004 law retained separate funding for Infrastructure Improvement (to reduce the agency'sbacklog of deferred maintenance, estimated at $6.5 billion as of October 2002) at $31.6million. The Senate had passed $25.0 million, while the House had passed $47.0million. The Administration had proposed terminating this funding and replacing itwith increased capital improvement and maintenance funds for roads and trails of$23.1 million (8%) from FY2003. Land Acquisition. The FY2004 law appropriated $66.4 million for Land Acquisition, $10.1 million (13%) less than theSenate level of $76.4 million, $37.1 million (127%) more than the House level of $29.3million, and $22.2 million (50%) more than the $44.1 million requested. Most of thedifference is in land purchases (rather than in acquisition management), with the lawproviding $51.3 million for purchases compared to $60.1 million passed by the Senate,$14.4 million passed by the House, and $27.8 million requested for land purchases. The FY2003 appropriation for land acquisition was $132.9 million, with $118.0million for land purchases. Other Accounts. The FY2004 law provided $266.4 million for FS Research, $0.2 million more than the Senate, $0.8million less than the House, and $14.2 million (6%) more than the Administration'srequest. It also included $1.37 billion for the National Forest System (NFS), $4.9million (0.3%) less than the Senate, $28.9 million (2%) less than the House, and $3.7million (0.3%) less than the request. As requested, and as passed by the House and theSenate, the law included an FS administrative provision allowing the agency to transferup to $15 million to Interior (for the FWS) or Commerce (for NOAA Fisheries) toexpedite consultations under the Endangered Species Act. 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 [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30647 . The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], coordinators. CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10124. Wildfire Protection Legislation in the 108th Congress , by[author name scrubbed] Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The FY2004 law funded fossil fuel research anddevelopment programs at $672.8 million, about 30% more than the President's request,10% higher than the House-passed level, and 13% higher than the Senate figure. Themajor differences in funding levels include the $169.9 million for the Clean CoalPower Initiative, ($39.9 million over the Administration's request and House- andSenate-passed funding level of $130.0 million) and the $8.9 million allocated for theFutureGen R&D project of the Department of Energy (DOE). The FutureGen projectis a 10-year, $1 billion Bush Administration initiative designed to establish thefeasibility of producing electricity and hydrogen from a coal-fired plant yielding noemissions. The FY2004 law also deferred spending $97.0 million (as in the Senateversion) from the previously appropriated Clean Coal Technology (CCT) account butrescinded an additional $88.0 million from CCT not contained in the Administration'srequest or in the House or Senate versions of the bill. The FY2004 law providedincreases to the Administration's request and the Senate- and House-passed bills inFuels and Power Systems, Natural Gas, and Petroleum Technology. The lawestablished a separate account of $988,000 for the U.S./China Energy andEnvironmental Center, previously funded out of the Clean Coal Technology account. The Bush Administration's FY2004 budget request of $514.3 million for fossil energy research and development was less than the appropriated amount for FY2003($620.8 million) and higher than the FY2003 request ($489.3 million). The Houseapproved fossil fuel programs at $609.3 million. The Senate approved a total of $593.5million for fossil energy. A key difference between the House and Senate versions wasthat the House-passed bill provided funds for the administration of the clean coalprogram as did the FY2004 law. The Administration requested $130.0 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) for FY2004 as part of a $2 billion, 10-year commitment. The program isdesigned for "funding advanced research and development and a limited number ofjoint government-industry-funded demonstrations of new technologies that can enhancethe reliability and environmental performance of coal-fired power generators,"according to DOE. The CCPI is along the lines of the Clean Coal Technology Program(CCTP), which has completed most of its projects and has been subject to rescissionsand deferrals since the mid-1990s. The CCTP eventually will be phased out. In theSenate-passed bill, up to $9.0 million of previously appropriated CCTP would havebeen used for research supporting the FutureGen project and the production ofelectricity and hydrogen from coal. The conferees supported funding this projectseparately at $8.9 million under the Fossil Energy R&D account, and that level wasenacted. The Administration's proposal would have cut research and development (R&D) on natural gas by 44% to $26.5 million, and R&D on petroleum by two-thirds to $15.0million. The FY2004 law supported natural gas funding at $43.0 million andpetroleum technology programs at $35.1 million. In a statement in the House Committee's report, the Committee disagreed with the Administration's approach to fossil energy R&D for FY2004. The Committeeconsidered the Administrations approach unbalanced, with too heavy a focus on a fewmajor initiatives and not enough emphasis on long-term R&D on traditional sourcesof energy, particularly oil and natural gas technologies ( H.Rept. 108-195 , p. 12-13.). The Administration's request would have phased out funding for the fuels program, including R&D on ultra-clean fuels technology, reducing the funding to $5.0million for FY2004 from $31.2 million in FY2003. However, the House supported$30.6 million for the Fuels Program in FY2004 while the Senate supported $24.9million. The FY2004 law provided $31.2 million. Funding levels for Sequestration R&D, which would test new and advanced methods for greenhouse gas capture, separation, and reuse, would have increased underthe FY2004 Administration's request by $22.1 million to $62.0 million. However, theHouse approved essentially flat funding for FY2004 -- $40.8 million -- as comparedwith $39.9 million for FY2003, as did the Senate -- $39.8 million. The FY2004 lawfunded the program at $40.3 million. For further information on the Department of Energy (DOE), see its website at http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=DOEHOME . 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 ConservationAct ( P.L. 94-163 ) in late 1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurringsalt domes in Louisiana and Texas in which more than 600 million barrels of crude oilare stored. The purpose of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oilwhich may be tapped in the event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oilsupply, or an interruption threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdownfrom the Reserve. Volatility in oil prices since the spring of 1999 prompted calls fromtime-to-time for drawdown of the Reserve, but both the Clinton and BushAdministrations did not think circumstances warranted it. In mid-November 2001, President Bush ordered that the SPR be filled to capacity (700 million barrels) using royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil. This is oil turned over to thefederal government as payment for production from federal leases. Acquiring oil forthe SPR by RIK avoids the necessity for Congress to make outlays to finance directpurchase of oil; however, it also means a loss of revenues to the Treasury in so far asthe royalties are paid in wet barrels rather than in cash. Deliveries of RIK oil began inthe spring of 2002. The fill rate has varied depending upon geopolitical and marketconditions. Deliveries scheduled for late 2002 and the first months of 2003 weredelayed due to tightness in world oil markets. With the end of the military phase of thewar with Iraq, deliveries of RIK oil to the SPR ramped up during the spring andexceeded 200,000 barrels per day during the summer. The Administration is currentlyfilling the SPR at a rate of about 100,000 barrels per day. The costs of transportingRIK oil to SPR sites are now borne by the contractors, so no new money wasrecommended for the SPR Petroleum Account for FY2004. The FY2004 budget request for the SPR, $180.1 million, was approved by the House on July 17, 2003. The SPR budget included $159.0 million for storage facilitiesdevelopment and operations, $16.1 million for management of the SPR sites, and $5.0million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR). The full Senateprovided $178.1 million, a decrease of $2.0 million from the request, with storagefacilities development and operations bearing the entire reduction. The FY2004 lawprovided $175.9 million, including $155.0 million for storage facilities developmentand operations. It also included $15.9 million for management of the SPR sites, and$4.9 million for the NHOR. The FY2004 law did not include Senate language that would have required the Energy Department to develop procedures to assure that the SPR is filled consistentwith the objective of minimizing acquisition costs -- including revenue foregone whenthe oil is acquired under the RIK program -- and consistent with maximizing domesticsupply. The language, agreed to on the floor, stemmed from a study that suggested thatthe Administration's acquisition schedule diverted oil from markets at inopportunetimes, exacerbating crude price increases. (6) The NHOR, established by the Clinton Administration, houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and RhodeIsland. Savings in the cost of leasing these facilities has reduced the cost ofmaintaining the NHOR. The House, Senate, and FY2004 law contained $5.0 million,adjusted to $4.9 million. The FY2004 law did not include Senate language that wouldhave required the Secretary of Energy to deliver a report to Congress by December 1,2003, that would have set out assumptions and specify scenarios for use of the NHORand make recommendations for alternative formulae to authorize a drawdown. TheHouse Appropriations Committee had made a comparable recommendation. Theprovision reflected that some in Congress were not satisfied with the formula currentlyin place that permits drawdown of the NHOR. The FY2003 appropriation provided a total of $179.6 million for the SPR. This consisted of $157.8 million for storage facilities development and operations; $13.9million for management; $1.9 million in new money for the SPR Petroleum Account,reflecting a level of $7.0 million for transportation of RIK oil, less a $5.0 millionrescission of unobligated prior-year funds; and $6.0 million for the Northeast HomeHeating Oil Reserve. The FY2003 law also reauthorized the SPR through FY2008. Conference report language on comprehensive energy legislation ( H.R. 6 ) would require that the SPR be filled to its current capacity ofroughly 700 million barrels as soon as practicable, and would authorize $1.5 billion forexpansion of the SPR to 1 billion barrels. H.R. 6 also would permanentlyauthorize the Reserve. The conference report passed the House but became stalled inthe Senate in November 2003. The outcome for comprehensive energy legislation isunclear. 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 [author name scrubbed]. Naval Petroleum Reserves. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1996 ( P.L. 104-106 ) authorized sale of thefederal interest in the oil field at Elk Hills, CA (NPR-1). On February 5, 1998,Occidental Petroleum Corporation took title to the site and wired $3.65 billion to theU.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 of1999. On January 14, 2000, the Department of Energy (DOE) returned theundeveloped NOSR-2 to the Ute Indian Tribe; the FY2001 National DefenseAuthorization ( P.L. 106-398 ) provided for the transfer. The U.S. retains a 9% royaltyinterest in NOSR-2, with any proceeds to be applied to the costs of remediating auranium mill tailings site near Moab, Utah. This leaves in the Naval Petroleum Reserves program two small oil fields in California and Wyoming, which will generate estimated revenue to the government ofroughly $6.9 million during FY2003. The request to maintain the Naval PetroleumReserves (NPR) for FY2004 was $16.5 million, of which $5.6 million was forenvironmental remediation at NOSR-3, transferred to the Department of the Interiorin 1999. Under terms of the transfer, DOE remained responsible for remediation. TheFY2004 request ($16.5 million) was a decrease of $1.2 million from the FY2003appropriation ($17.7 million). The House approved the Appropriations Committee'sboost of the NPR budget to $20.5 million, adding $4.0 million to restore funding forthe Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC). The Senate Appropriations Committee -- and subsequently the full Senate -- set funding for the NPR at $17.9 million. The Committee agreed with the House thatfunding should be maintained for the RMOTC, adding $3.0 million for operation of theCenter, and $728,000 for program direction. However, the Committee approved only$500,000 for restoration activities, a reduction of $2.3 million from the level requestedby the Administration. The final FY2004 appropriation was slightly less than $18.0million, decreasing the funds intended for restoration activities by about $2.5 millionfrom the House-passed 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 CaliforniaTeachers' Retirement Fund is to receive 9% of the Elk Hills sale proceeds after thecosts of sale have been deducted. The agreement between DOE and Californiaprovided for five annual payments of $36.0 million beginning in FY1999, with thebalance due to be paid in equal installments in FY2004 and FY2005. The FY2003budget request included an advance appropriation of $36.0 million for the Elk HillsSchool Lands Fund, to be paid at the start of FY2004. This was enacted in the FY2003appropriations law. The FY2004 budget request sought an appropriation of $36.0 million, pending the completion of divestment activities and calculation of the remaining balance owedto the California Teachers' Retirement Fund. The House agreed to the AppropriationsCommittee's recommendation to make the $36.0 million request an advanceappropriation that will be payable on October 1, 2004 instead of October 1, 2003. TheSenate and FY2004 law concurred as well. The FY2004 law maintained $36.0 millionplus an advance appropriation for FY2005 of $36.0 million for a total of $72.0 million. For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves , see its website at http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/ . Energy Conservation. The FY2004 budget request stressed that the Administration's energy efficiency programs canimprove economic growth, energy security, and the environment. The requestpresented, and Table 14 below shows, a new budget structure that reflects the recentreorganization of DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The Administration proposed to decrease conservation funding under EERE from$891.8 million in FY2003 to $875.8 million in FY2004. The main Administrationinitiatives are: (1) FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuels, reflected in a $22.4 million, or41%, increase for Fuel Cell Technologies to help reduce foreign oil dependence,improve electric power infrastructure security and reliability, and curb greenhouse gasemissions; (2) the National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), whichwould receive $9.5 million to promote competitive project solicitations to reducegreenhouse gas emissions; and (3) the Weatherization grants program, which wouldincrease by $64.7 million, or 29%, to reduce energy bills and improve energyaffordability for low-income families. Table 14. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in millions) Note: a Using EERE's new account structure for FY2004, the House AppropriationsCommittee's report's narrative and budget table included $5.0 million for the EnergyEfficiency Science Initiative as part of the FY2004 total for Program Management. Incontrast, using EERE's old account structure for FY2003, the report's budget tableshows FY2003 funding for the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative in its own accountline, separate from the Program Management account line. To offset these increases, the FY2004 request proposed several decreases. Compared to the FY2003 appropriation, the FY2004 request would have cut overallfunding by $16.0 million, or 2%, not accounting for inflation. R&D funding wouldhave declined from $623.5 million to $548.8 million, a drop of $74.7 million, or 12%. The House approved $879.5 million for DOE energy conservation funding in FY2004. Compared to the Administration's request, this would have been an increaseof $3.7 million, or 0.4%. However, compared to the FY2003 appropriation, this wouldhave been a decrease of $12.3 million, or 1%, excluding inflation. In House flooraction, an amendment added $15.0 million for Weatherization grants with anunspecified $15.0 million offsetting cut in energy conservation. The House Appropriations Committee report ( H.Rept. 108-195 , p. 12) stated that DOE "needs to do a better job measuring potential program success and discontinuingprograms that do not yield expected results." Further, it asserted that incrementaltechnology improvements are key to short-term and mid-term energy efficiencyimprovements and related emission reductions. In particular, the Committee stated thatit restored many DOE-proposed energy conservation reductions because "it would befiscally irresponsible to discontinue research in which we have made major investmentswithout bringing that research to a logical conclusion." Among other agreements, the Committee concluded that ( H.Rept. 108-195 , p. 122-123): (1) several positions will be eliminated, based on the EERE reorganization,(2) the National Academy of Public Administration's recommendations as to its reviewof the reorganization should be implemented as soon as possible after delivery, (3) theFY2005 budget justification document should include a program specific table withgreater detail about sub-activities, (4) the State Technologies AdvancementCollaborative should be continued and supplemented with other program funds, (5)EERE cooperative programs should be closely coordinated with certain fossil energyprograms, (6) the National Climate Change Technology Initiative should be moreclearly defined, and (7) the National Academy of Sciences program review shouldbecome a continuing annual review. The Senate approved $861.6 million for FY2004 DOE energy conservation funding. Compared to the Administration's request, this would have been a decreaseof $14.1 million, or 1.6%, excluding inflation. However, compared to the FY2003appropriation, this would have been a decrease of $30.1 million, or 3.4%, excludinginflation. This difference included a cut of $35.9 million for R&D and an increase of$5.8 million for grants. The Senate approved a provision that would define electricthermal storage technology as a weatherization measure. The Senate also approved aprovision that would incorporate "neighborhood electric vehicle" (one that is bothlow-speed and has zero emissions) into the definition of alternative-fueled vehicles,making it eligible for certain incentives. The Interior Appropriations conference approved $883.2 million for DOE energy conservation funding. However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY2004 ( P.L.108-199 ) included an across-the-board rescission of 0.59%. Thus, a total of $878.0million was enacted for FY2004. Compared to the Administration's request, this is anincrease of $2.2 million, or 0.3%. However, compared to the FY2003 appropriation,this is a decrease of $13.8 million, or 1.5%. The FY2004 level included a cut of $16.6million for R&D and an increase of $2.9 million for grants. The conference managers agreed on many directives, special provisions, and clarifications for energy conservation. The two provisions recommended by the Senatewere not included in the FY2004 law. However, the conference report noted that theSecretary of DOE has the authority to add measures, such as electric thermal storagetechnology, to the list of eligible weatherization measures. Seven of the key provisionsin the conference agreement follow: (1) support for the Climate Change TechnologyInitiative (CCTI) should proceed, but only with funding from existing programs; (2) with increased funding provided above the request for non-petroleum-fuels, DOE shalldesign/engineer at least two additional natural gas vehicle infrastructure platforms formedium duty trucks, develop liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles, and conductresearch on fueling stations that could dispense compressed natural gas, liquefiednatural gas, and compressed hydrogen; (3) $7.75 million is provided for the NextGeneration Lighting Initiative; (4) the DOE Secretary is empowered to considermaking electrochemical storage technology eligible for weatherization grants, asproposed in the Senate bill; (5) no funding is provided in FY2004 for the EnergyEfficiency Science Initiative; (6) funds provided by the Interior bill shall not be usedto support programs funded by the Energy and Water bill; and (7) a concertedtechnology transfer effort should be applied to new conservation technologiesdeveloped at national laboratories. For further information on energy conservation , see the DOE website at http://www.eere.energy.gov/ . The Indian Health Service (IHS) carries out the federal responsibility of assuring comprehensive medical and environmental health services for approximately 1.5 millionto 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) who belong to 562federally recognized tribes located in 35 states. Health care is provided through asystem of federal, tribal, and urban Indian operated programs and facilities. IHSprovides direct health care services through 36 hospitals, 59 health centers, 2 schoolhealth centers, 49 health stations, and 5 residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribalgroups, under IHS contracts and compacts, operate another 13 hospitals, 172 healthcenters, 3 school health centers, 260 health stations, including 176 Alaska Native villageclinics, and 28 residential treatment centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also operate9 regional youth substance abuse treatment centers and more than 2,252 units ofresidential quarters for staff working in the clinics. IHS funding is separated into two Indian health budget categories: services and facilities. The FY2004 law contained total IHS appropriations of $2.92 billion forFY2004, which is $72.1 million (3%) over the FY2003 appropriation of $2.85 billion. The House had recommended $2.95 billion and the Senate had recommended $2.94billion. See Table 15 below. Of the total IHS appropriations enacted for FY2004, 87%would be used for health services, and 13% for the health facilities program. The Senate considered three amendments affecting IHS funding. First, an amendment to give IHS an additional $292 million for FY2004 fell on a point of orderthat it violated provisions of the Budget Act. Senator Daschle used a recently-published study to support a claim that additional funding was needed to combat unmethealth needs and to show that the U.S. Government in 2003 spent $1,914 per capita onmedical care for American Indian and Alaska Natives while spending $3,803(approximately twice as much) on medical care for federal prisoners. (7) Second, theSenate also rejected an amendment that sought to strike funding for the reorganizationplan for the BIA and OST and transfer the funds to the IHS. However, the Senate agreed to a third amendment that sought to ensure that IHS funds are not redirected to programs and projects that have not been fully justified in theAdministration's budget request and supported by the House and Senate AppropriationsCommittees. The FY2004 law modified this provision to prohibit the use of funds forassessments or charges by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) thatare not specifically identified in the budget request and the agreement, or approved bythe House and Senate Appropriations Committees through the reprogramming process. The provision also restricted reductions in IHS personnel, as in recent years. IHS services are funded not only through congressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from private health insurance and federal programs such asMedicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Both theHouse and Senate estimated that IHS will collect $567.6 million in reimbursements inFY2004, a $117.6 million or 26% increase over the estimated amount of $450.0 millionfor FY2003. The IHS health services budget has several subcategories: clinical services, preventive health services, and other services. Clinical services include basic primarycare for inpatient and outpatient services at IHS hospitals and clinics. The FY2004 lawcontained a total of $2.02 billion for clinical services, which was $51.1 million (3%)over the FY2003 level of $1.97 billion. The law provided all programs within clinicalservices with increases over FY2003, but only funding for hospital and health clinicprograms increased over the President's request. Specifically, $1.25 billion (62%)would go to support programs for hospitals and clinics; this was an increase of $37.8million (3%) over FY2003 and $55.2 million (5%) over the Administration's request. Dental health received $104.5 million; mental health received $53.3 million, andsubstance abuse treatment received $138.3 million. For contract health services, whichare services purchased from local and community health care providers when IHScannot provide medical care and specific services through its own system, the FY2004law contained $479.1 million. This was a $14.0 million reduction (3%) from thePresident's request. For preventive health services, the FY2004 law contained $106.9 million, an increase of $4.3 million (4%) over the FY2003 appropriation of $102.6 million. Itprovided all programs within preventive health services with increases over FY2003,but with flat or decreased funding relative to the President's request. The law contained$42.6 million for public health nursing, $11.8 million for health education in schoolsand communities, $1.6 million for immunizations, and $51.0 million for the communityhealth representatives (CHR) program. The CHR program, which is triballyadministered, supports tribal community members who work to prevent illness anddisease in their communities. For other health-related activities, the FY2004 law contained a total of $398.5 million, adecrease of $1.0 million (less than 1%) from FY2003 and $8.5 million (2%)from the President's request. The law provided $31.6 million to support health-relatedactivities in off-reservation urban health projects, $30.8 million for scholarships tohealth care professionals, $2.4 million for costs associated with providing tribalmanagement grants to tribes, $60.7 million for IHS administration and managementcosts for programs it operates directly, $5.7 million for self-governance, and $267.4million for contract support costs. The law did not contain increases requested by theAdministration for scholarships, self-governance, or contract support costs. Contractsupport costs are awarded to tribes for administering programs under contracts orcompacts authorized under the Indian Self-Determination Act ( P.L. 93-638 , asamended). They include costs for expenses tribes incur for financial management,accounting, training, and program start-up. Most tribes and tribal organizations areparticipating in new and expanded self-determination contracts and self-governingcompacts. The IHS's facilities category includes money for the construction, maintenance, and improvement of both health and sanitation facilities. The FY2004 law contained$391.4 million, a 5% increase over the FY2003 appropriation of $373.7 million. Table 15. Appropriations for IHS, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in millions) For further information on the Indian Health Service, see its website at http://www.ihs.gov/ . 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) that was the end resultof a lengthy dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originallyset aside by the federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974act, the lands were partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe livingon land partitioned to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes,and bonuses, at federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary. Congress has beenconcerned, at times, about the speed of the relocation process and about avoidingforced relocations or evictions. ONHIR's chief activities consist of housing acquisition and construction, land acquisition, infrastructure construction, post-move family support, and certificationof families' eligibility for relocation benefits. For FY2003, ONHIR received appropriations of $14.4 million. For FY2004, the Administration, the House, and the Senate all recommended $13.5 million, adecrease of $865,000, or 6%. The FY2004 law provided $13.4 million. 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 are Navajo -- an estimated 3,477 Navajo familiesresided on land partitioned to the Hopi, while 27 Hopi families were on Navajopartitioned land. While a large majority of the Navajo families have been relocatedto replacement homes, the House Appropriations Committee estimated in 2003 that190 Navajo families still have yet to complete relocation. Most of these remainingNavajo families are not currently living on Hopi partitioned land, but a majority havenot begun the process of acquiring replacement housing. All but one of the 27 Hopifamilies had completed relocation by the end of FY2002, according to ONHIR. ONHIR estimated in its strategic plan that it would complete relocation moves by theend of FY2006 and post-move assistance by the end of FY2008, but the scheduledepended on infrastructure needs and relocatees' decisions. Congressionalcommittees have in the past expressed impatience with the speed of relocation butat present have not criticized the current pace. Many Navajo families have resisted relocation for years, while the Hopi Tribe has insisted on their relocation. About 16 of the 190 remaining Navajo families arestill on Hopi partitioned land, according to the House Committee, and some of themrefuse to relocate. In 1996 Congress approved "accommodation agreements," with75-year leases, for Navajo families who wished to remain on Hopi partitioned land( P.L. 104-301 ), as a means of compromise between the Navajo families and the HopiTribe. Most Navajo families then on Hopi partitioned land signed the agreements,but resistant Navajo families remain. A long-standing proviso in ONHIR appropriations language, retained in the FY2004 act, prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopipartitioned lands unless a replacement home were provided. This language appearsto 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 anyNavajo families refuse relocation and if the Hopi Tribe were to exercise a right under P.L. 104-301 to begin legal action against the United States for failure to give theHopi "quiet possession" of all Hopi partitioned lands. The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education, and research complex of 16 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and research facilities throughout theUnited States and around the world. Nine of its museums and galleries are locatedon the Mall between the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument. The SI isresponsible 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 oftrust funds. A federal commitment to fund the Institution had been established bylegislation in 1846. Appropriations. The FY2004 law provided a total of $596.3 million for the Smithsonian Institution, $12.6 millionabove the House-passed level ($583.7 million) and $18.3 million above theSenate-passed bill ($577.9 million). The enacted level is an increase over theFY2004 Administration budget ($566.5 million) and the FY2003 appropriation($544.9 million.) The increase above the FY2003 appropriation is primarily foroperations of, and transportation of collections to, the new National Museum of theAmerican Indian; for renovation at the National Zoo; other revitalization ofdeteriorating SI buildings; and SI security. For the Smithsonian Institution's Salariesand Expenses, the FY2004 law provided $488.7 million -- an increase of $12.1million above the FY2004 request and $42.6 million above the FY2003appropriation. See Table 16 below. Facilities Capital. For FY2004, a new account title, "Facilities Capital" was used; it is comprised of revitalization,construction, and facilities planning and design. The FY2004 law provided $107.6million for "Facilities Capital," with $89.6 million for "revitalization." Therevitalization program is to address advanced deterioration in SI buildings, help withroutine maintenance and repair in Smithsonian Institution facilities, and make criticalrepairs. National Museum of the American Indian(NMAI). The FY2004 law did not specify new construction moneyfor the museum. However, under Smithsonian Institution's Salaries and Expenses,it provided approximately $38.1 million for operations of the NMAI to help supportthe Museum's opening. The NMAI had been controversial. Opponents ofconstructing a new museum argued that the current Smithsonian Institution museumsneeded renovation, repair, and maintenance more than the public needed anothermuseum on the Mall. Proponents argued that there had been too long a delay inproviding a museum in Washington to house the Indian collection. Based on a newestimate of $219.3 million for construction of the Indian museum, the SmithsonianInstitution indicated that some of its trust funds could be used to cover opening costs. The groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI took place September 28, 1999 and theprojected opening is September of 2004. Smithsonian Institution Center for Materials Research and Education (SCMRE). The direction of SI's researchpriorities is of concern to Congress. A recent controversy involved the proposedclosing of the Smithsonian Institution Center for Materials Research and Education(SCMRE), which the Smithsonian Institution decided to retain. The FY2002 InteriorAppropriations law had provided that an independent "blue ribbon" ScienceCommission would be established and meet before any final decision about closingthe SCMRE. The Commission's report of January, 2003 noted that science programsof the Smithsonian Institution have eroded over time due to a "long-term trend indeclining support for mandatory annual salary increases." The FY2004 law providedessentially level funding for the SCMRE ($3.5 million). Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian Institution receives trust funds to expand itsprograms. The SI trust fund includes general trust funds, contributions from privatesources, and government grants and contracts from other agencies. General trustfunds include investment income and revenue from "business ventures" such as theSmithsonian magazine, and retail shops. There are also trust funds that are privatedonor-designated funds that specify and direct the purpose of funds. Finally,government grants and contracts are provided by various government agencies forprojects specific to the Smithsonian Institution, and they were projected to be $87.0million for FY2003. Tracking of the Smithsonian Institution's Trust fund expenditures has been of concern to the Congress. In FY2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriationsrecommended instituting a plan, that the Smithsonian Institution has now developed,to track trust fund budget proposals and expenditures. According to the InspectorGeneral of the Smithsonian Institution, there was a discrepancy between what theBoard of Regents approved and actual expenditures. This matter has been resolved. Table 16. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2003-FY2004 ($ in thousands) For further information on the Smithsonian Institution , see its website at http://www.si.edu/ . 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 NationalEndowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH),and the Institute of Museum Services (IMS), now constituted as the Institute ofMuseum and Library Services (IMLS) with an Office of Museum Services (OMS). The authorizing act, the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act,was last reauthorized in 1990 and expired at the end of FY1993, but NEA and NEHhave since been operating on temporary authority through appropriations law. The104th Congress established the Institute of Museum and Library Services and createdthe Office of Museum Services ( P.L. 104-208 ). Among the questions Congress continually considers is whether funding for the arts and humanities is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Some opponentsof 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 privatesupport. Proponents of federal support for arts and humanities contend that thefederal government has a long tradition of support for culture and that abolishingNEA and NEH could curtail or eliminate programs that have national significanceand purpose (such as national touring theater and dance companies.) Somerepresentatives of the private sector say that they are unable to make up the gap thatwould be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts. NEA. For FY2004, Congress enacted $121.0 million for NEA. See Table 17 below. NEA's direct grant programcurrently supports approximately 1,600 grants. State arts agencies are now receivingover 40% of grant funds, with 1,000 communities participating nationwide,particularly from under-represented areas. The NEA total included $21.7 million forthe Challenge America Arts fund, a program of matching grants for arts education,outreach and community arts activities for rural and under-served areas. The NEAis required to submit a detailed report to the House and Senate AppropriationsCommittees 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 areconsidered. (8) Congress continues to restate thelanguage of NEA reforms inappropriations laws. The FY2004 appropriations law retained language on fundingpriorities and restrictions on grants, including that no grant may be used generally forseasonal support to a group, and no grants may be for individuals except for literaturefellowships, National Heritage fellowships, or American Jazz Master fellowships. NEH. The NEH generally supports grants for humanities education, research, preservation and publichumanities programs; the creation of regional humanities centers; and developmentof humanities programs under the jurisdiction of the 56 state humanities councils. NEH also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match privatedonations in support of humanities institutions. The FY2004 appropriations lawprovided $135.3 million for NEH, including $119.4 million for Grants andAdministration and $15.9 million for Matching Grants. The enacted level is anincrease of $10.4 million (8%) above the FY2003 appropriation ($124.9 million) and$16.7 million (11%) below the Administration's request ($152.0 million). TheAdministration sought a 22% increase for NEH above the FY2003 appropriation,primarily to provide for a new program entitled the "We the People initiative." TheFY2004 law provided $9.9 million for the "We the People Initiative grants." Thesegrants will include model curriculum projects for schools to improve course offeringsin 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 ofleadership grants, museum conservation, conservation project support, museumassessment, and General Operating Support (GOS) to help over 400 museumsannually to improve the quality of their services to the public. Effective withFY2003, the appropriation for the Office of Museum Services (OMS) was movedfrom the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill to the appropriations bill forthe Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and relatedagencies. For FY2004, IMLS would receive $262.2 million, comprised of $31.4million for OMS, $198.2 million for Library services, and $32.6 million for specifiedprojects ( P.L. 108-199 ). For further information, see CRS Report RL31803 , Appropriations for FY2004: Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education , by[author name scrubbed]. Table 17. Arts and Humanities Funding,FY2003-FY2004 ($ in thousands) Notes: a Beginning with FY2003, the Office of Museum Services as part of IMLSis included in the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor-HHS-Ed andRelated Agencies. b The total for NEA grants and administration includes the Challenge Americaprogram. For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts , see its websiteat 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 Services , see its website at http://www.imls.gov/ . CRS Report RS20287 . Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding , by[author name scrubbed]. The four principal land management agencies -- Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest Service -- drawprimarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The presentations about each of thoseagencies earlier in this report identify funding levels for their land acquisitionactivities. The LWCF also funds acquisition and recreational development by stateand local governments through a state grant program administered by the NPS. Inrecent years, Congress also has appropriated money from the LWCF to fund somerelated activities that do not involve land acquisition. Appropriations for federalacquisitions generally are earmarked to specific management units, such as aNational Wildlife Refuge, while the state grant program rarely is earmarked. Fundsmay not be spent without an appropriation. The LWCF is authorized at $900 millionannually through FY2015. Through FY2004, the total amount that potentially could have been appropriated from the LWCF since its inception was $27.2 billion. Actual appropriations havebeen $13.6 billion. In recent years, until FY2003, appropriators provided generallyincreasing amounts from the Fund for federal land acquisition and the state grantprogram. The total had more than quadrupled, rising from a low of $138 million inFY1996 to $573 million in FY2002. However, the FY2003 appropriation was $410million, a decrease of $163 million from FY2002. Further, the FY2004 total of $263million is a decrease of $147 million from FY2003. This amount is less than boththe Administration request and the Senate-passed amount, but more than then theHouse-passed amount, as shown in Table 18 below. This table shows thecomponents of LWCF appropriations for FY2001 through FY2004. Table 18. LWCF Funding for Federal Land Acquisition and State Grants, FY2001-FY2004 ($ in millions) Source: Data for FY2001compiled by the Department of the Interior Budget Office; data forFY2002 from Interior Appropriations Conference Report ( H.Rept. 107-234 ); data for FY2003 andFY2004 from Appropriations Committees' documents. Note: In some recent years, Congress has appropriated LWCF Funds to federal agencies forpurposes other than land acquisition and stateside grants. These funds for other purposes are notincluded in this table. This process started when Congress provided $72 million for other purposesin the FY1998 Interior appropriations law. In FY1999, no funding was appropriated for otherpurposes. Since then, funding for other purposes has included $15 million in FY2000, $456 millionin FY2001, $135 million in FY2002, and $197 million in FY2003. The FY2004 budget requestincludes $554 million for other conservation programs, and the FY2004 law provided about $221million. Reductions of the magnitude that occurred in FY2003 and again in FY2004were last seen in the early and mid 1990s as part of efforts to address the federalbudget deficit. This time, the federal budget deficit is becoming important, and otherpriorities have become more pressing in the wake of the many components of the waron terrorism. The lower FY2003 and FY2004 appropriation requests of $532 millionand $348 million, respectively, for land acquisition contrasted with the Bushadministration request for full funding for FY2002. In the FY2003 legislativeprocess, the decline continued chronologically with each step; the House approvedless funding ($528 million) than the Administration requested, then the Senateapproved less funding ($464 million) than the House, and the conference committeeagreed to a total of $410 million, which was $118 million less than the House-passedtotal and $54 million less than the Senate-passed total. The FY2004 appropriationdid not follow this progression, although the end result is a large reduction from thepreceding year. Not only did the total decline in FY2003 and again in FY2004, buteach of the five component accounts also declined. In FY2004, the Administration requested the largest amount in the program's history -- $554 million -- for purposes other than land acquisition and statesidegrants. The programs and amounts are listed in appendix E of the FY2004 InteriorBudget in Brief . In recent years, Congress has appropriated funds for other programs,as identified in the note following Table 18 above. For FY2004, the Presidentsought to fund specific programs using the LWCF including: Forest Service's ForestStewardship Program ($65.6 million), Forest Legacy Program ($90.8 million), andUrban and Community Forestry Program ($37.9 million); the Department of theInterior's interagency Cooperative Conservation Initiative ($113.2 million); and Fishand Wildlife Service's State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ($60.0 million), LandownerIncentive Grants ($40.0 million), Stewardship Grants ($10.0 million), CooperativeEndangered Species Grants ($86.6 million), and North American WetlandsConservation Fund Grants ($49.6 million). Both the full House and Senate agreed with this approach for FY2004 for funding other programs, but provided less total funding and funding for fewerprograms from the LWCF. The House provided a total of $260 million and theSenate provided $175 million, while the FY2004 law provided about $221 million. More specifically, the FY2004 law provided $29.6 million for Landowner IncentiveGrants, $7.4 million for Stewardship Grants, $49.4 million for CooperativeEndangered Species Grants, $69.1 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, and$64.2 million for State and Private Forestry Programs, as well as small amounts totwo other programs. For FY2004, the Administration again sought funding for the Cooperative Conservation Initiative to promote conservation through partnerships that matchBLM, NPS, and FWS funds with local contributions. In FY2003, the BushAdministration had first proposed this Initiative, and sought $100 million. Half thistotal was to come from the state grant program portion of the LWCF, and theremainder would have come from the operating accounts of the three DOI landmanagement agencies. Congress appropriated $14.9 million to this Initiative forFY2003. In contrast to the FY2003 request, the entire FY2004 request of $113.2million was to come from the LWCF. Neither the House nor Senate bills for FY2004funded this Initiative, and no funds were included in the FY2004 law. Congress created the Conservation Spending Category (CSC), as an amendment to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, in the FY2001Interior appropriations law. The CSC, which is also being called the ConservationTrust Fund by some, combines funding for more than 2 dozen resource protectionprograms including the LWCF. It also includes some coastal and marine programsfunded through Commerce appropriations. This action was in response to both theClinton Administration request for substantial funding increases in these programsunder its Lands Legacy Initiative, and congressional interest in increasingconservation funding through legislation known as the Conservation andReinvestment Act (CARA), which passed the House in the 106th Congress. The CSC law authorized that total spending under the category would grow each year by $160 million, from $1.6 billion in FY2001 (of which $1.2 billion would bethrough the Interior appropriations laws and the remainder through the Commerceappropriations laws) to $2.4 billion in FY2006. All funding each year is subject tothe appropriations process. How programs are categorized matters -- theAdministration and the Appropriations Committees disagree on whether all orportions of funding for some programs, such as the Cooperative ConservationInitiative, should be credited to the CSC. The appropriations history through FY2004is 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 appropriationsprograms and $0.48 billion for Commerce appropriations programs (provided in TitleIX of P.L. 106-522 ). Totals for Interior and Commerce funding were both increasesfrom 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 targetof $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, Congressprovided $1.03 billion, less than the authorized target of $1.44billion. The Administration's FY2004 request totaled $1.33 billion, according to estimates compiled by Interior and Commerce Appropriations subcommittee staffs. This amount was below the target of $2.08 billion. For the Interior portion, therequest was $1.00 billion, and the target was $1.56 billion. The Administration hadan alternative estimate that increased the total FY2004 request to $1.22 billion forInterior programs, but it was based on some different assumptions about whichprograms to include. For FY2004, none of the bills or accompanying committee reports identified funding levels for the CSC, with one exception. The House AppropriationsCommittee report included "additional views" by Representatives Obey and Dicksin which they inserted 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 $991million. During floor consideration, Representative Obey offered an amendment tofund this difference by rescinding 3.21% of the tax cut for taxpayers with adjustedgross incomes in excess of $1 million. The amendment was rejected on a point oforder raised by both Resource Committee Chair Pombo and Interior Appropriationssubcommittee Chair Taylor against including authorizing legislation in anappropriations bill. For further information on the CSC, see Table 19 below. The table has not been updated for FY2004 since the chambers and the conference committee did notaddress the CSC in bill or report language. Table 19. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations,FY2001-FY2004 ($ in millions) a b Source: House Appropriations Committee. Notes: a The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985(2 U.S.C. 901(c)) as amendedestablished 3 discretionary spending categories. Title VIII of P.L. 106-291 established a fourth category ofdiscretionary spending -- for "conservation." That law also identified the specific activities that would beincluded within the "conservation spending category." The category essentially includes those activities,identified by Congress, in particular budget accounts (or portions thereof) providing appropriations topreserve and protect lands, habitat, wildlife, and other natural resources; to provide recreationalopportunities; and for other purposes. This table presents the current and proposed distribution of theseconservation funds. Dashes indicate that the funding is understood to be zero, either because nothing wasprovided or sought, or because the account did not exist. Further, several programs in this category havenot received separate funding under conservation spending for FY2001-FY2003 or as proposed in theFY2004 budget will not receive separate funding. They include Competitive Grants for Indian Tribes, FWS Neotropical Migratory Birds, FS Stewardship Incentive and FS Stewardship, DepartmentalManagement (BIA Water Settlement), and National Wildlife Refuge fund, FWS. In FY2003, the House, Senate, and appropriations law ( P.L. 108-7 ) did not contain calculations of funding for the CSC. The joint explanatory statement of the conference report on the enacted measure stated thatno funds in the law are derived from the CSC, but that most of the programs previously funded under thatcategory are continued in FY2003. The table has not been updated for FY2004 since neither of the chambers nor the conference committee included a tabulation of funding in bill or report language. b Subtotals and totals may not add due to rounding. c $50.0 million of this total is part of a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative, and the remaining$150.0million would be distributed to states using an allocation formula developed by the Administration for thetraditional land acquisition and site development activities of states. d Departmental Management /BIA Water Settlement is not listed because it was a one-time requestinFY2003 for $3.0 million. The FY2003 request for $3.0 million is not included in the total. e For FY2001, an additional $50.0 million was appropriated for formula grants which wereauthorized inTitle IX of the FY2001 Commerce appropriations law. Further, the FY2002 enacted amount does not reflecta proposed rescission of $25.0 million. f The FY2004 appropriations history indicates that the rescission in FY2002 was not adopted, i.e.that theIncentive Grant programs and Stewardship grants programs were sustained in FY2002. g The State and other conservation programs subgroup also includes the FWS Migratory Bird Fundand theFWS Multinational Species fund. The FY2003 funding for these was $3.0 million for migratory birds and$4.8 million for multinational species, and the FY2004 request was $0 and $7.0 million respectively. h Funds for FS, Forest Stewardship were not considered part of the CSC in FY2001 and FY2002so the tabledoes not reflect funds for this program. It was proposed to be funded in the FY2003 request at $49.5 million,but did not receive funding. i The FY2003 appropriations and FY2004 request is a total for BLM, FWS, and NPS. j The final total includes $7.8 million derived from the FWS Migratory Bird Fund ($3.0 million) and FWSMultinational species fund($4.8 million) k The FY2004 request of $7 million for the FWS Multinational Species Fund is reflected in theFY04 requestfinal total for the CSC. CRS Report RL30444(pdf) . 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. The alterations of the natural flow of water by a series of canals, levees, and pumping stations, combined with agricultural and urban development, are thoughtto be the leading causes of environmental deterioration in the South Floridaecosystem. In 1996, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)to create a comprehensive plan to restore, protect, and preserve the entire SouthFlorida ecosystem, which includes the Everglades (P.L 104-303). A portion of thisplan, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), completed in 1999,provides for federal involvement in the restoration of the ecosystem. Congressauthorized the Corps to implement CERP in Title IV of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000, P.L. 106-541 ). While restoration activitiesin the South Florida ecosystem are conducted under several federal laws, WRDA2000 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 engagedin a collaborative effort to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The principalobjective of CERP is to redirect and store "excess" freshwater currently beingdischarged to the ocean via canals, and use it to restore the natural hydrologicalfunctions of the South Florida ecosystem. CERP seeks to deliver sufficient water tothe natural system without impinging on the water needs of agricultural and urbanareas. The federal government is responsible for half the cost of implementingCERP, and the other half is borne by the State of Florida, and to a lesser extent, localtribes and other stakeholders. CERP consists of 68 projects that are expected to beimplemented over approximately 36 years, with an estimated total cost of $7.8billion; the total federal share is estimated at $3.9 billion. (9) Overview of Appropriations. Appropriations for restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem have beenprovided as part of several annual appropriations bills. The Department of theInterior and Related Agencies Appropriations laws have provided funds to severalDOI agencies for restoration projects. Specifically, DOI conducts CERP andnon-CERP activities in Southern Florida through the National Park Service, Fish andWildlife 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 ofCommerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations),U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (VA, HUD, and Related AgenciesAppropriations), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Department ofAgriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations). (For other Everglades funding,see CRS Report RL31807 , Appropriations for FY2004: Energy and WaterDevelopment , coordinated by Carl Behrens and [author name scrubbed]). From FY1993 to FY2003, federal appropriations for projects and services related to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem have exceeded $1.9 billiondollars, and state funding has topped $3.6 billion. (10) The average annual federal costfor restoration activities in Southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to beapproximately $286 million/year. (11) For FY2004,the Administration requested$311.0 million for restoration efforts in the Everglades, $46.9 million above theFY2003 enacted level of $264.1 million. (12) Ofthis total, $48.0 million was requestedfor the implementation of CERP. FY2004 Appropriations to DOI. With regard to DOI for FY2004, $69.1 million was appropriated for CERP andnon-CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida ecosystem. This was$43.2 million below the requested level of $112.3 million. Of the total appropriated,the NPS was appropriated $44.3 million for construction and research activities, $42.0 million below the request for $86.4 million. The FWS received $16.3 millionfor refuges, ecological services, and other activitie, an increase of $3.4 million overits request for $12.9 million. The USGS received $7.8 million for research, planning,and the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative, a decrease of $0.8 million from itsrequest of $8.6 million. Lastly, the BIA received $0.5 million for water projects onSeminole and Miccosukee Tribal lands, $0.1 million over its request of $0.4 million. For conducting activities authorized by CERP, DOI received $8.8 million. See Table20 below. Table 20. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,FY2003-FY2004 ($ in thousands) Source: South Florida Ecosystem Task Force, FY2004 Cross-Cut Budget at: http://www.sfrestore.org/documents/cc2004/index%2004.htm , accessed July 2, 2003. Notes: N/A indicates that information is not available. a This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, Dry TortugasNational Park,Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve. b These funds were recommended by the House Appropriations Committee to be transferred fromunobligated balances from last year (FY2003). The largest difference between the requested amount of funding for the DOI for restoration in South Florida and the appropriated amount was $40 million requestedfor the acquisition of mineral rights in the Big Cypress Preserve. The CollierResources Company has mineral rights and has reached an agreement in principle tosell them to the DOI. (13) Forty million dollarswould cover a portion of the cost of themineral rights, estimated at $120 million. Appropriators, however, did not includethis funding in the FY2004 appropriations because the agreement had not beenauthorized and a recent DOI inquiry has been initiated. (14) The FY2004 law: 1) exempted funds appropriated for the implementation of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 ( P.L. 101-229 ), and2) funds appropriated to Florida for acquiring lands for Everglades restoration froma prohibition on using DOI appropriations for filing declarations of takings orcondemnations without the approval of the Appropriations Committees. Arestoration project authorized by P.L. 101-229 , the Modified Water DeliveriesProject, is expected to use condemnation if required land is owned by unwillingsellers. Transfer of Funds. The FY2004 law contained provisions that directed the funds to be transferred among restorationactivities in the Everglades. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized to use prioryear unobligated funds for acquiring lands in the Everglades watershed to transfer$5.0 million to the FWS for monitoring water quality, eradicating invasive plants,and bolstering the recovery of endangered species. Further, the Secretary of theInterior was authorized to transfer necessary funds (from the same accounts) to theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement additional water quality improvementtechnologies for portions of the Everglades ecosystem that affect the LNWR. Thisassistance is expected to help the state of Florida meet its water quality standards. The Secretary also was authorized to use any remaining funds from the accountsdescribed above to fund Everglades restoration activities on DOI lands, subject to theapproval of a reprogramming request by the House and Senate Committees onAppropriations. These provisions may have originated from the House Committeereport for FY2004, which stated that the State of Florida may not view the acquisitionof land for the implementation of CERP as its highest priority. Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades. Several concerns regarding restoration efforts in theEverglades were presented in the House Committee report on Interior appropriations. One concern was over a Florida State Law (Chapter 2003-12, enacted on May 20,2003) that amended the Everglades Forever Act of 1994 (Florida Statutes ï¿½373.4592)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 primarycause for ecosystem alteration in the Everglades. Some critics argue that this newlaw extends previously established phosphorus mitigation deadlines for theEverglades, and may compromise efforts to restore the Everglades, as well asjeopardize federal appropriations for CERP. Proponents of the law argue that thenew plan represents a realistic strategy for curbing phosphorus. A subsequent lawof the Florida State Legislature (May 27, 2003, S 00054-A) attempted to addresssome of these concerns. Some Members of Congress reacted to these new lawsunfavorably and wrote letters expressing their disapproval. (15) Their concerns alsowere reflected in conditions that were included in the FY2004 Interior appropriationsconference agreement. Specifically, several provisions that condition funds for restoration based on the achievement of water quality standards were included in the FY2004 law. Funds forthe Modified Water Deliveries Project will be provided unless administrators of fourfederal departments/agencies (Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of the Army,Administrator of the EPA, and the Attorney General) jointly file a report annuallyuntil 2006 indicating that water entering the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National WildlifeRefuge and Everglades National Park meet state water quality standards, and theHouse and Senate Committees on Appropriations respond in writing disapprovingthe further expenditure of funds. Similar conditions also are present in the House-and Senate-passed versions of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations. For a review of this issue, and a side-by-side comparison of the FY2004 Interiorappropriations language and the Energy and Water Appropriations bills, see CRS Report RL32131 , Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades , by Pervaze Sheikh andBarbara Johnson. For further information on Everglades Restoration , see the website of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program at http://www.sfrestore.org and the websiteof the Corps of Engineers at http://www.evergladesplan.org/ . CRS Report RL31621(pdf) . Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on Implementation and Early Lessons , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21331(pdf) . Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20702 . South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan , by [author name scrubbed] and PervazeA. Sheikh. CRS Report RL32131 . Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. Competitive Sourcing of GovernmentJobs. The Bush Administration is considering privatizing numerousand diverse government jobs, under its "competitive sourcing" initiative firstoutlined in 2001. The goal is to save money through competition betweengovernment and private businesses in areas where private businesses might providebetter commercial services, for instance, law enforcement and maintenance. Underthe "outsourcing" plan, as it is commonly known, agencies are to submit some oftheir jobs to competition with the private sector. The plan has been controversial,with concerns as to whether it would save the government money and whether theprivate sector could provide the same quality of service in certain areas. Thecompetitive sourcing initiative was considered during the Interior appropriationsprocess as well during the appropriations process for other departments and agencies,and also is being examined by authorizing committees. For agencies funded by the Interior appropriations bill, concern has centered on the National Park Service and the Forest Service. According to one Park Servicesource, 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. (16) The ForestService was reported to be consideringa plan that would allow the private sector to compete for more than a quarter of itsapproximately 40,000 jobs. (17) The House and Senate Appropriations Committees expressed concern that the agencies are spending significant sums on outsourcing, although the Administrationdid not request or receive funds for this purpose. In particular, there was concern thatthe Forest Service was reprogramming money without approval. In its report, theHouse 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). The House and Senate included language on outsourcing in their Interior appropriations bills. The House-passed bill sought to bar agencies from using fundsin the bill to begin new outsourcing studies. The President threatened to veto the billif this language was included. The Senate rejected a floor amendment that, like theHouse-passed language, would have prohibited funds in the bill from being used toinitiate competitive sourcing studies. Instead, the Senate adopted an amendment torequire the Secretary of the Interior to report annually to Congress on outsourcing. Among other issues, the reports were to address the numbers of outsourcingcompetitions announced and completed; the costs, savings, and improvements inservices that result from contracting out; and the number of federal employeesimpacted by outsourcing. The final language enacted for FY2004 outlined spending limits for outsourcing studies of agencies during FY2004. Specifically, it limited Forest Service spendingon outsourcing studies to no more than $5.0 million. DOI was capped at $2.5 millionand DOE was limited to $0.5 million unless Congress approves the reprogrammingof additional funds under revised reprogramming guidelines printed in the jointexplanatory statement of the conference report. For outsourcing studies involvingmore than 10 federal employees, a contracted function must be less costly to thegovernment by 10% or $10.0 million, whichever is lower. The FY2004 law also required the DOI agencies and DOE programs funded by the bill, as well as the Forest Service, to report annually to Congress on theiroutsourcing activities. As had been recommended by the Senate, the reports are tocontain detailed information including the numbers of outsourcing competitionsannounced and completed; the costs, savings, and improvements in services thatresult from contracting out; and the number of federal employees impacted byoutsourcing. For FY2004, the agencies are to submit a detailed competitive sourcingproposal to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 60 days ofenactment of the bill. Beginning in FY2005, the agencies are required to specify intheir annual budget requests the level of funding requested for outsourcing studies. In adopting the outsourcing language, conferees expressed support for the"underlying principle" of the Administration's outsourcing initiative, but concern thatthe effort was being conducted too fast for its costs and implications to be understoodand "in violation" of guidelines on reprogramming funds. Klamath River Basin. TheFY2004 law did not contain a provision prohibiting Interior Department funding ofthe Klamath Fishery Management Council. Such a provision had been included inthe House Committee reported and House-passed bills, but no similar provision wasincluded by the Senate. In addition, a House floor amendment to prohibit farmersfrom planting certain crops on new leases in two Klamath Basin national wildliferefuges was defeated. The House provisions sparked considerable controversyamong interested parties. They relate to an on-going conflict in the Klamath RiverBasin over water allocations for farmers in the Klamath River Project area in theUpper Basin and water needed to avoid harm to three federally listed fish species. The Bureau of Reclamation (Department of the Interior) is currently operating theKlamath Project under a one-year operations plan announced in April 2003 while itcontinues to work on completing a 10-year operations plan. The FWS and NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries completed consultationon a 2002 10-year plan on May 31, 2002; however, the Bureau rejected the FWS andNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)/NOAA Fisheries biological opinions onits 10-year operating plan and stated that it would comply for the immediate futurebut also requested new consultation. Controversies continue over science and dataused to support the agencies' decisions, and recent court decisions have sought toaddress such concerns. For more information on the Klamath controversy, see CRSIssue Brief 10072, Endangered Species: Difficult Choices , by [author name scrubbed], M.Lynne Corn, and [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report RL31098(pdf) , Klamath River BasinIssues: An Overview of Water Use Conflicts , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. "Bear Baiting". On July 17, 2003,the House rejected an amendment to restrict the use of funds by the Forest Serviceor BLM to administer any action related to bear baiting, except to prevent thepractice. No other action was taken on the issue in the remainder of the FY2004appropriations process. Bear baiting is a hunting practice involving the intentionalfeeding of bears for the purpose of enticing bears to a particular area to be hunted. A significant factor cited by opponents of the amendment was the generalpre-eminence of states in controlling wildlife within their boundaries, andpreservation of their major role in wildlife management on federal lands. Certainprocedural questions relating to hearings on H.R. 1472 , a bill related toending bear baiting on federal lands, also were raised by Members who objected tothe hearing process. Amendment proponents argued that the practice is cruel andunsportsmanlike, and that banning bear baiting appeared to have little effect on bearpopulations in states that had disallowed it. Table 21. Department of the Interior and Related AgenciesAppropriations,FY2003-FY2004 ($ in thousands) Source: House Appropriations Committee and Congressional Record . Notes: a Departmental Offices includes Insular Affairs, the Office of theSpecial Trustee for American Indians, andthe Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). b Figures do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments. c FY2003 enacted figures include an across-the-board cut of 0.65% in the FY2003 consolidatedappropriations law( P.L. 108-7 ). The total includes $825.0 million for wildland fire emergencies, consisting of $189.0 million for BLMand $636.0 million for the Forest Service. These funds are to repay amounts transferred from other accounts forfire fighting in FY2002. The total appropriation for FY2003 includes an FY2003 Supplemental appropriation ( P.L.108-83 ) adding $36.0 million for BLM, $5.0 million for FWS, and $283.0 million for FS. d Figures reflect an across-the-board cut of 0.646% in the FY2004 Interior and Related AgenciesAppropriationslaw ( P.L.108-108 ) and a 0.59% across-the-board cut in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 ( P.L.108-199 ). Table 22. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2000 toFY2003 ($ in thousands) Notes: a Departmental Offices includes Insular Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee forAmerican Indians for all years, and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) for FY2003. ForFY2000-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 theappropriations bill for the Departments of Labor-HHS-Education and Related Agencies. c Funding ($17.0 million) for Challenge America Arts Fund is included in the total figure for theNational Endowment for the Arts. d Figures in this column reflect an across-the-boar cut of 0.65% in the FY2003 consolidatedappropriations law ( P.L. 108-7 ). The total also includes $825.0 million for wildland fireemergencies, consisting of $189.0 million for BLM and $636.0 million for the Forest Service. Thesefunds are to repay amounts transferred from other accounts for fire fighting in FY2002. The totalappropriation 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. CRS Report RL30444(pdf) . 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 [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21331(pdf) . Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-851(pdf) . Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21402 . Federal Lands, "Disclaimers of Interest," and RS2477 , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL31621(pdf) . Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on Implementation and Early Lessons , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues , by Jeffrey Zinn. CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21157 . Multinational Species Conservation Fund , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20902 . National Monument Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation , by [author name scrubbed], coordinator. CRS Report RL31392 . PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20702 . South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural Resource Protection , by Jeffrey Zinn. CRS Report RS20002(pdf) . Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL32393 . Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management , by [author name scrubbed], Coordinator, M. LynneCorn, [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], David Whiteman, and Kori Calvert. CRS Report RL30335(pdf) . Federal Land Management Agencies' Permanently Appropriated Accounts, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and Carol HardyVincent. CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition andDisposal Authorities , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], coordinators. CRS Report RL32131 . Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20287 . Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20822(pdf) . Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21442 . Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30647 . The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20852(pdf) . The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status and Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20985 . Stewardship Contracting for the National Forests , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL31679. Wildfire Protection: Legislation in the 107th Congress and Issues in the 108th Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. Information regarding the budget, supporting documents, and relateddepartments, agencies and programs is available at the following web or gopher sites. House Committee on Appropriations . http://www.house.gov/appropriations Senate Committee on Appropriations . http://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 Republican Conference . http://www.gop.gov/ Office of Management and Budget . http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 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/ 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.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=DOEHOME Energy Budget. http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/ 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 Services . http://www.imls.gov/ John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts . http://Kennedy-Center.org/ National Capital Planning Commission . http://www.ncpc.gov National Endowment for the Arts . http://arts.endow.gov/ National Endowment for the Humanities . http://www.neh.gov/ National Gallery of Art . http://www.nga.gov/ Smithsonian Institution . http://www.si.edu/ U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum . http://www.ushmm.org/ Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars . http://wwics.si.edu/ 

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 withinthree other departments -- Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services. It also fundsnumerous smaller related agencies. President Bush's FY2004 budget for Interior and related agencies totaled $19.89 billion, $220.5million (1%) less than enacted for FY2003 ($20.11 billion). On July 17, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2691 (268-152) containing a total of $19.60 billion for Interior and relatedagencies for FY2004. On September 23, 2003, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2691 with a total of $20.01 billion. A conference report was filed on October 28, 2003, and agreedto by the House (216-205) on October 30 and approved by the Senate (87-2) on November 3, 2003. The bill was signed into law on November 10, 2003 ( P.L. 108-108 ). The final FY2004 appropriation provided $20.01 billion for the Department of Interior andRelated agencies, which reflected two across-the-board cuts: a 0.646% cut in the Interiorappropriations statute ( P.L.108-108 ), and a 0.59% cut in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ). The FY2004 enacted level is slightly less than enacted for FY2003 (less than 1% lower). It is essentially the same as the amount approved by the Senate (less than 1% higher), and higher thanthe House-passed total (2% higher) and the President's request (less than 1% higher). Theappropriate levels of funding for wildland firefighting and land acquisition were among the majorissues debated. The FY2004 law contained $2.76 billion for wildland fire fighting by the ForestService and the Department of the Interior, approximately 13% less than the total enacted forFY2003. For land acquisition (and state assistance) by the four major federal land managementagencies, the law contained $263.4 million, 36% less than enacted for FY2003. Many controversial issues arose during consideration of the FY2004 Interior and relatedagencies appropriations bill, and were addressed by conferees. The FY2004 law (1) continued theautomatic renewal of expiring grazing permits and leases for FY2004 -- FY2008; (2) extended theRecreational Fee Demonstration Program; (3) modified procedures for seeking judicial review oftimber sales in Alaska, primarily in the Tongass National Forest; (4) capped funds for competitivesourcing efforts of agencies and required documentation on the initiative; and (5) led to a stay of acourt decision requiring an accounting of Indian trust funds and trust asset transactions since 1887. The law dropped language barring funds from being used (1) to implement changes to regulationsof the Bureau of Land Management on Recordable Disclaimers of Interest in Land, (2) for theKlamath Fishery Management Council, and (3) for Outer Continental Shelf leasing activities in theNorth Aleutian Basin planning area, which includes Bristol Bay, Alaska. Key Policy Staff a Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance; RSI =Resources, Science, and Industry.