On June 16, 2000, the House passed the FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill, H.R. 4578 ( H.Rept. 106-646 ) by a vote of 204-172. The FY2001recommended level of $14.6 billion is $1.7 billion below the President's request and$302 million below the FY2000 enacted level. The Interior Subcommittee of theSenate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate Appropriations Committeemarked up the bill on June 20, 2000 and June 22, 2000, respectively. On July 18,2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4578 ( S.Rept. 106-312 ) by a vote of 97-2. The FY2001-recommended level is $15.8 billion in total budget authority. AHouse-Senate conference agreement ( H.Rept. 106-914 ) provides for a funding levelof $18.8 billion. The conference report ( H.Rept. 106-914 ) was passed by the Houseon October 3, 2000 by a vote of 348-69 and was passed by the Senate on October 5,2000, by a vote of 83-13. President Clinton signed H.R. 4578 into law( P.L. 106-291 ) on October 11, 2000. The annual Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes fundingfor agencies and programs in four separate federal departments, as well as numeroussmaller agencies and diverse programs. The bill includes funding for the InteriorDepartment except the Bureau of Reclamation, but only segments of the funding ofthe other three departments, Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services.The President's FY2001 budget request for Interior and Related Agencies totals$16.32 billion compared to the $14.91billion enacted by Congress for FY2000. TitleI of the bill includes agencies within the Department of the Interior which manageland and other natural resource programs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and InsularAffairs. Title II of the bill includes the Forest Service of the Department ofAgriculture; research and development programs of the Department of Energy, theNaval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; andthe Indian Health Services in the Department of Health and Human Services. Inaddition, Title II includes a variety of related agencies, such as the SmithsonianInstitution, National Gallery of Art, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts,the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities,and the Holocaust Memorial Council. Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and RelatedAgencies Appropriations, FY2001 On February 7, 2000, President Clinton submitted his FY2001 budget to Congress. The FY2001 request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $16.32billion compared to the $14.91 billion enacted for FY2000 ( P.L. 106-113 ), anincrease of $1.41 billion. (With scorekeeping adjustments, including anacross-the-board cut of 0.38% for FY2000, the figures are $16.49 billion requestedfor FY2001 compared with $14.90 billion enacted for FY2000.) Significant increases above the FY2000 enacted level include: the Bureau of Indian Affairs (+ $331.9 million), the Forest Service (+ $290.1 million), the Fish andWildlife Service (+ $251.5 million), the National Park Service (+ $238.4 million),the U.S. Geological Survey (+ $82.0 million), the Bureau of Land Management(+$127.6 million), the Indian Health Service (+ $229.7 million), the NationalEndowment for the Arts (+ $52.4 million), and the National Endowment for theHumanities (+ $34.7 million). The only significant decrease involves Departmentof Energy programs (-$65.3 million). The Clinton Administration again introduced its Lands Legacy Initiative, requesting $1.4 billion for FY2001. Almost $1 billion of this amount is requestedin Interior appropriations. Of this amount, $735 million is included for theDepartment of Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, andthe National Park Service), and another $236 million is for the U.S. Forest Service,within the Department of Agriculture. While a diverse array of issues are raised during consideration of Interior appropriations legislation, a number have been perennially controversial. Theseinclude funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered Species program(+$49 million), and for the National Endowment for the Arts and the NationalEndowment for the Humanities. The Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee marked up the FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill on May 17, 2000. The FY2001recommended level of $14.6 billion is $1.7 billion below the President's request and$302 million below the FY2000 enacted level. Increases were provided for National Park Operations (+ $62 million to $1.4 billion), Bureau of Land Management (+ $30 million to $1.3 billion), NationalWildlife Refuges (+ $22 million to $345 million), Indian Health Service (+ $30million to $2.4 billion), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Operation of Indian Programs(+ $10 million to $1.7 billion), BIA education (+ $6 million to $508 million), andweatherization grants (+ $4 million to $139 million). The bill would also provide$350 million for emergency wildland firefighting (+ $200 million for the Departmentof the Interior and $150 million for the Forest Service) as a FY2001 emergencysupplemental appropriation. Major reductions include -$97 million for the ForestService, -$101 million for land acquisition, and -$80 million for new construction forland management agencies. The full House Appropriations Committee marked up the bill on May 25, 2000. No changes were made to the funding levels adopted at the Subcommittee level. TheOffice of Management and Budget has indicated that the President would veto theHouse bill in its present form. The Administration considers the funding levels to beinadequate for such areas as land acquisition, Indian programs, and energyconservation. The Interior Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the Interior bill on June 20, 2000 andJune 22, 2000, respectively. On July 18, 2000, the Senate passed the bill by a voteof 97-2. The FY2001 recommended level of $15.8 billion in total budget authorityis some $1.16 billion above the House-passed mark. The Senate recommended levelprovides increases above the House-passed levels for most of the agencies within thebill. For example: Forest Service (+ $251 million), Bureau of Indian Affairs (+ $205million), Department of Energy (+ $172.8 million), Fish and Wildlife Service (+$59.1 million), Geological Survey (+ $31.7 million), Bureau of Land Management(+ $28.1 million), and Smithsonian (+ $26.8 million). In addition, the Senate wouldprovide increases for the National Endowment for the Arts (+ $7 million) and theNational Endowment for the Humanities (+ $5 million). It should be noted that theSenate- passed total includes an FY2001 Emergency Supplemental for wildland firefighting of $240.3 million ($120.3 million for the Bureau of Land Management and$120 million for the Forest Service for hazardous fuels reduction). A House-Senate conference met on September 20 and September 21 and after further discussion between the conferees and the Administration agreed to a fundinglevel of $18.8 billion, some $3.8 billion above the FY2000 enacted level. Theconference agreement included $1.8 billion in emergency and supplemental funding($300 million above the President's request) for expenditures already incurred infirefighting and to restore areas damaged by Western wildfires. The conference alsoincluded a new Title VIII that would implement a modified version of the President'sLands Legacy Initiative over 6 years. Funding would start at a total of $1.6 billionin FY2001 ($1.2 billion for Interior Appropriations programs) and rise to $2.4 billionin FY2006. In addition, the conference provided significant increases for the IndianHealth Service (+ $214 million), Bureau of Indian Affairs programs (+ $272 million),Energy Conservation programs (+ $94.7 million), and Bureau of Land ManagementOperations (+ $66 million). (See Table 5 for the House, Senate, and Conferenceapproved funding levels.) The conference report ( H.Rept. 106-914 ) was passed by the House on October 3, 2000 by a vote of 348-69 and was passed by the Senate on October 5, 2000, by avote of 83-13. President Clinton signed H.R. 4578 into law ( P.L.106-291 ) on October 11, 2000. Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1996 to FY2000 (budget authority inbillions of current dollars) a a These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions. From FY1991 to FY1995, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations increased by 16%, from $11.7 billion to $13.5 billion, about 4%annually. Adjusting for inflation, Interior appropriations remained essentially flatduring this period. However, the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions andAppropriations Act of 1996 ( P.L. 104-134 ) provided funding of $12.54 billion,reducing FY1996 budget authority 9% below the FY1995 level. FY1997 fundingincreased to $13.1 billion, FY1998 to $13.8 billion, FY1999 to $14.3 billion, andFY2000 to $14.9 billion. (See Table 5 for a comparison of FY2000 and FY2001Interior Appropriations, and Table 7 for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau,and program from FY1995 to FY2000.) For further information on the budget of the Department of the Interior, see the World Wide Web site of DOI's Office of the Budget at http://www.doi.gov/budget/ . For further information on the Department of the Interior , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.doi.gov . For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the DOI or any of its bureaus, see DOI's Strategic Plan Overview FY1998-FY2002 athttp://www.doi.gov/fyst.html. For information on the Department of the Interior annual performance plan, see DOI's FY1999 Annual Performance Report/FY2001 Annual Performance Plan at http://www.doi.gov/gpra/99apr01app.html . Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 264 million acresof public land for a variety of uses, which are sometimes at odds. These includeextractive uses such as mining and energy development, livestock grazing, andtimber harvesting, as well as recreation, wild horses and burros, fish and wildlifehabitat, and preservation. The agency administers federal mineral leases andsupervises federal mineral operations on an additional 300 million acres underlyingfederal and private lands throughout the country, and handles wildfire control and suppression on 388 million acres. The conference agreement contains a total of $1.67 billion for the BLM for FY2001. This is significantly higher than the figure initially approved by the House($1.27 billion) and the Senate ($1.30 billion), enacted for FY2000 ($1.23 billion),and requested by the President for FY2001 ($1.36 billion). Most of the increase was provided for wildland fire management . Title I of the measure contains $625.5 million for wildland fire management, including a $200million contingent emergency appropriation. In addition, Title IV of the measurecontains a $353.7 million emergency supplemental appropriation for BLM forwildland fire management, for a total of $979.2 million in both non-emergency andemergency fire funds for BLM. The funds are used for fire fighting on all InteriorDepartment lands, and cover preparedness, suppression of fires, emergencyrehabilitation of burned land, and reducing hazardous fuels. The large increases forfire fighting are a response to the severe 2000 fire season, and include additionalfunds to improve preparedness, expand the fuels treatment program, stabilize andrehabilitate burned areas, and conduct community assistance programs. Title I of the conference agreement contains $709.7 million for management of lands and resources. Title V contains an additional $17.2 million emergencysupplemental appropriation for the same, for a total of $726.9 million. Further, TitleVIII also includes $25 million for deferred maintenance needs of the BLM. Thefunding level contained in the conference agreement is higher than the figure initiallyapproved by the House ($670.6 million) and the Senate ($689.1 million), enacted forFY2000 ($644.1 million), and requested for FY2001 ($715.2 million). The line itemfor management of land and resources funds an array of BLM land programs,including protection, use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLMadministration. The conference agreement provided increases for controlling noxiousweeds; caring for threatened and endangered species (sagebrush and prairiegrasslands); managing conservation areas, historic trails, and scenic rivers; updatingland use plans; and protecting wild horses and burros. The President had soughtincreases virtually across-the-board. For the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT), Tile I of the conferenceagreement contains $150 million, and Title VIII contains an additional $50 millionfor a total of $200 million. This figure is higher than the amount initially approvedby the House ($144.4 million) and the Senate ($148.0 million), enacted last year($134.4 million), and requested by the President for FY2001 ($135.0 million). ThePILT program compensates local governments for federal land within theirjurisdictions, because the federal government does not pay taxes on its land. It hasbeen controversial since its creation in 1976. (For more information on PILT, seeCRS Report 98-574, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified .) For the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands , the conference agreement contains the amount initially approved by the Senate ($104.3 million) rather than theamount approved by the House ($100.5 million). The conference figure is higherthan the level enacted last year ($98.8 million) but is identical to the President'srequest. In general, appropriations for O&C lands are used for management,protection, and development of the resources on these highly productive timber lands,which total about 3 million acres. Most of the increase sought by the President overlast year's level was for conducting species surveys, in response to litigation, priorto offering timber for sale under the President's Northwest Forest Plan governingtimber production. The Senate Committee report states that part of the increase is forthis purpose. This issue has been contentious. For land acquisition , Title I of the conference agreement contains $31.1 million. These funds would be divided among 16 acquisitions identified in the jointexplanatory statement. Title VIII of the measure contains $130 million in additionalfunding for land acquisition for DOI agencies generally, but does not identify theportion (if any) that would be allocated to the BLM. The House initially approved$19.0 million, while the Senate approved $10.6 million, both substantially below thePresident's request of $60.9 million and the amount ultimately allocated to the BLMfor FY2000 ($46 million). The additional funds (Title VIII) for land acquisition wereadded in conference as occurred last year when the President sought more moneythan the House and Senate initially approved (see "Lands Legacy Initiative" below.) The conference agreement contains $16.9 million for construction, which is more than the amount initially approved by the House ($5.3 million) and the Senate($15.4 million), enacted for FY2000 ($11.2 million), and requested by the Presidentfor FY2001 ($11.2 million). Some of the more expensive construction projectsfunded are a science center at the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument inUtah, the Coldfoot multi-agency visitor facility in Alaska, the Rock SpringsAdministrative Building in Wyoming, and the Caliente Administrative Building inNevada. For the four other activities , the conference agreement contains the levels initially passed by the House and Senate: for the central hazardous materials fund,$10.0 million; for range improvements, $10.0 million; for miscellaneous trust funds,$7.7 million; and for service charges, deposits, and forfeitures, $7.5 million. Issues. The conference agreement does not include language on national monuments, which had been one of the mostcontroversial issues in Interior funding. After a series of floor amendments, theinitial House-passed bill ultimately would have allowed agencies to use funds in thebill for planning and managing national monuments created by the President since1999, under the Antiquities Act of 1906. However, the language was not clear as towhether it 1) allowed funds to be used for planning and management of the landsgenerally and as national monuments, or 2) only with respect to planning andmanagement generally, but not as national monuments. The Senate-passed bill did not contain language on national monuments generally. The Senate narrowly defeated an amendment (49-50) designed to prohibitthe President from using his authority to create or expand national monuments afterJuly 17, 2000, notwithstanding other provisions of law. The amendment would haveallowed monuments to be created or expanded only by an act of Congress. Proponents of the amendment decried presidential creation of monuments withoutcongressional and public input. Opponents countered that Presidents since 1906 haveenjoyed the authority to create monuments and that adoption of the amendmentwould provoke a veto of the bill. (For more on national monuments generally, see CRS Report RL30528(pdf) , National Monuments and the Antiquities Act .) Section 332 of the conference agreement limits funds in the bill from being used to issue a record of decision implementing the Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Project (ICBEMP) until the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretaryof the Interior submit a particular report to Congress. ICBEMP would amend severaldozen BLM and Forest Service land use plans in the Northwest. The required reportis to evaluate the effect on the area of the wildfires in 2000 and the President'sinitiative for managing the impact of wildfires on communities and the environment. This conference language is a modification of controversial House-passed provisionswhich were not entirely clear. Taken together, they appear to have limited the use offunds in the bill for issuing a record of decision or policy implementing ICBEMPunless evaluations of the effects on small businesses were completed. (For moreinformation on the national monument and ICBEMP provisions, see CRS Report RS20625, Provisions on National Monuments and the Interior Columbia BasinEcosystem Management Project in the FY2001 Department of the InteriorAppropriations Bill .) Section 116 of the conference agreement contains the Senate-passed version of a provision on grazing permits and leases that expire or are transferred. The languagewould automatically renew grazing permits and leases issued under 43 U.S.C. 1752(and certain provisions of the California Desert Protection Act) that expire or aretransferred during FY2001, until the permit renewal process is completed underapplicable laws and regulations (including any necessary environmental analyses). The terms and conditions in the expiring permit or lease would continue in effectunder the new permit or lease until the Secretary of the Interior completes therenewal process. A Senate floor amendment to strike this section was defeated(38-62). The initial House-passed bill contained a similar provision which wouldhave permitted the renewal of such permits and leases, but did not automatically extend them. Also, the measure stated that terms and conditions in expiring permitsand leases may continue in effect until the renewal process is completed. Theprovision could be interpreted as allowing the Secretary to change the terms andconditions of permits and leases that are renewed, pending the completion of therenewal process. These renewal provisions were advocated as necessary to address heavy agency workload in processing the grazing permits and leases that were up for renewal. Some Members argued that delays in processing renewals threatened ranchers' bankloans. Opponents, including the Administration, argued that there was no longer abacklog of permits and leases needing renewal, and feared that BLM could continuepermits with possibly detrimental terms or conditions. In a July 10, 2000, Statementof Administration Policy on the Senate-passed bill, the Administration cited thegrazing language as among the "damaging" and "objectionable" provisions whichwould lead the President's advisers to recommend that the President veto the bill. Section 311 of the conference agreement would retain the moratorium (contained in previous appropriation laws) on accepting and processing applicationsfor patents for mining and mill site claims on federal lands. However, applicationsmeeting certain requirements that were filed on or before September 30, 1994, wouldbe allowed to proceed, and third party contractors would be authorized to process themineral examinations on those applications. The House- and Senate-passed billscontained identical language on this subject. Section 156 of the conference agreement prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from using funds to promulgate final rules to revise 43 C.F.R., subpart 3809, thesurface management part of hardrock mining regulations, except to make changesthat are consistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council(NRC) and with law. The provision, added in conference, is intended to clarifycongressional intent regarding ï¿½357 of the FY2000 Interior appropriations law ( P.L.106-113 ), pertaining to hardrock mining regulations. The Solicitor of theDepartment of the Interior had interpreted the FY2000 language as allowing the BLMregulations to address subjects other than those included in the specificrecommendations of the NRC, provided the NRC recommendations were not directlycontradicted. The joint explanatory statement states that the committee does notagree with the Solicitor's opinion, implying that the Secretary is limited to publishingfinal regulations only on subjects included in the recommendations of the NRC. For further information on the Bureau of Land Management , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.blm.gov/ . Fish and Wildlife Service. The Administration requested $1.13 billion for FWS--an increase of $251.5 million(28.7%) over FY2000. (1) The House approved a levelof $861.9 million, the Senateapproved $921.1 million, and the Conference agreed to $964.1 million. The largestline item is Resource Management (which includes the endangered species program,fisheries, law enforcement, and refuge management, among other items) whichwould go from $714.5 million to $776.6 million, an increase of $62.1 million (8.7%). Funding for the Endangered Species Program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. For FY2001, the Administrationrequested that endangered species funding (including the Cooperative EndangeredSpecies Fund) increase from $131.3 million to $180.3 million. (See Table 3 .) TheConference agreement included $149.9 million (+14.2% over FY2000). Congress continued a strict limit (set in law, not report language) on funding for the listing function, which is $6.4 million in the FY2001 Conference agreement. Thelanguage limits the discretion of the agency to transfer funds for additional listings, e.g ., if lawsuits mandate agency action on listing certain species. De-listing anddown-listing are not covered by the cap. Inclusion of this language in the law meansthat a court order to carry forward a listing decision on particular species makeslisting a zero sum game, at least at a fiscal level. It causes the listing of some speciesor designation of their critical habitats to preclude the listing of others. FWSsupported this change as a protection of the budgets of other programs. The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund was proposed to increase from $23 million to $65 million. The Conference agreement insteadincreased funding to $26.9 million (+17.1%). Table 3. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY1999-FY2001 (x $1,000) * The decrease shown for recovery is more apparent than real: in FY2000, recovery included certain earmarks, which the Administration does not propose to continue. The Administration proposed $10.0 million (-6.9%) for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, which provides payments to local governments in recognition ofreduction of the local tax base due to the presence of federal land. The FY2000 lawprovided $10.74 million. The Conference agreement approved $11.4 million. Thepayment levels have been controversial, since the small additions of land to theNational Wildlife Refuge System over the last several years mean that dollars(already reduced by inflation) must be spread still further. The situation hasproduced calls for Congress to increase the appropriation, especially since localgovernments often (incorrectly) view the payments as entitlements, even though theyare actually subject to annual appropriations. Payments under PILT (see BLM,above) benefit some counties with land in the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, those lands that are acquired rather than reserved from the public domainare not eligible for PILT payments. (Western refuge lands are primarily reservedfrom the public domain; eastern refuges are primarily acquired lands.) Land acquisition for the National Wildlife Refuge System would have increased from $50.5 million (2) to $111.6 million (+116%) underthe President's proposal. (Foradditional information on other land acquisitions, see "Lands Legacy Initiative,"below.) The Administration's proposals include areas in Arizona, the lowerMississippi Delta, southern Florida, Hawaii, Maine, parts of the Lewis and ClarkTrail, Oklahoma, and Texas. In contrast, the Conference approved areas in Alabama,Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, NewHampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina,South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, andWisconsin. Total funding was set at $62.8 million, or 24.4% over the previous year. (3) A Statement of Administration Policy from the Office of Management and Budget had cited objections to the House bill's prohibitions on spending to createtwo new wildlife refuges, one in California and the other in regarding the proposedKankakee refuge in Illinois and Indiana. The provision on California lands is not inthe conference report. The Conference report retained the House prohibition on theuse of funds to establish a new National Wildlife Refuge in the Kankakee Riverwatershed. The Multinational Species Conservation Fund, which benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, and the six species of rhinoceroses, was proposed toincrease from $2.4 million to $3.0 million (+25%) under the President's request. Theconference set funding at $2.5 million. Further Funding in Title VIII. In addition to the funds in Title I, certain funds in Title VIII will be directed towardexisting or newly created FWS programs. Together, these provisions add substantialamounts to FWS programs in land acquisition ($130 million shared with other DOIagencies), the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ($78 million), theNorth American Wetlands Conservation Fund ($20 million), competitive statewildlife grants (a new program at $50 million), and infrastructure improvement ($25million). Thus, depending on the FWS share of land acquisition funds, Title VIIIcontains between $173 million and $303 million for FWS, bringing the total of TitleI and Title VIII funding to between $1.0349 and $1.1649 billion. (See furtherdiscussion on Title VIII on p. 51.) For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ . National Park Service. The National Park Service (NPS) currently manages the 379 separate and very diverseunits that comprise the National Park System, including 56 "full or actual" NationalParks, widely considered the premier units of the System. In addition to the NationalParks, the Park System includes other unit designations such as national preserves,recreation areas, reserves, monuments, battlefields, historic sites, seashores and anumber of other categories. The System has grown to more than 83 million acres,in 49 states and the District of Columbia and several U.S. territories. In recent yearspark recreation visits annually have totaled nearly 290 million. The Service's mission, adopted with its establishment in 1916, provides for the continued protection and preservation of the National Parks for the benefit of, andenjoyment by, the public in perpetuity. The NPS mission, of facilitating use andserving Park System visitors while protecting and preserving the natural and culturalresources entrusted to it, is inherently contradictory (protecting the parks for and fromthe people) and constantly challenging to its professional staff. According to the Administration and park advocacy groups, the Park Service has operated with tight budgets over recent decades. During this period, Congressrestricted appropriations to operate and maintain the Park System while expandingmanagement responsibilities and continuing to add new units to the System. It wasasserted that restricted funding, combined with increased visitation, stretchedpersonnel, impaired operations, and generated a multibillion dollar backlog ofdeferred maintenance. However, spending for the NPS now enjoys a significantlyhigher priority. Temporary closure of NPS units (part of a federal government-wideshutdown during the budget debates of late 1995 and early 1996) helped galvanizepublic support for expanding NPS funding. Congress heeded the expressed desireof the public to more adequately care for the National Parks System and funding hasincreased annually since FY1996. Once again the Administration requestedsubstantial increases in spending for Park Service - managed programs in its FY2001budget request. The Administration's FY2001 request for the NPS was $2.04 billion, to operate and protect parks and preserve their natural and cultural (historic) resources. Therequest was $238.4 million above the $1.8 billion FY2000 enacted level. TheHouse-passed bill proposed a total FY2001 appropriation for the NPS of $1.81billion, $234 million less than the Administration's request, or $4.6 million morethan FY2000 enacted. The Senate-passed bill also proposed $1.81 billion, up $8.7million from FY2000 enacted and $230 million below the budget request. The finalconference agreement provided $1.94 billion in total NPS spending or $134 millionabove FY2000 enacted. The conference agreement states that ... "through a combination of appropriated funds, recreational fee demonstration project revenues, partnerships, and othersources, the National Park System has unprecedented levels of funding available toit to address critical resource protection and visitor service requirements." And,congressional overseers have pointedly advised the NPS of the importance ofapplying prudent and sound financial management practices in the care and operationof Park Systems. LCPII. The conferees provided the Park Service with substantial additional money through a large new conservationprogram (Title VIII) added to H.R. 4578 , the FY2001 InteriorAppropriations bill. The new Title known as the Land Conservation, Preservationand Infrastructure Improvement program (LCPII), among other things provided anextra $50 million for NPS maintenance, $20 million additional for UPARR (seebelow) as well as a still-to-be-determined portion of $229 million in federal landacquisition money. Park Operations are, by far, the largest component of the FY2001 budget request; at $1.38 billion accounting for nearly three-fourth of the total NPS request. It covers resource protection, visitor services and major park programs. The $25.4million proposed increase emphasized park operating needs and resourcemanagement. This increase included $24 million to address specific needs at 77 parksystem units. These funds would be directed to parks experiencing severe threats tonatural and cultural resources, with new responsibilities, and with high priorityfacility operation and maintenance needs. The House agreed with theAdministration's request with respect to specific needs; however, the Senate-passedbill proposed an increase above base operations of $25.5 million, or $1.5 millionmore than the budget request. Both the House and Senate-passed bills proposed $2million for high priority projects, within the NPS operations budget, to be carried outby the Youth Conservation Corps. The House-passed bill proposed $1.43 billion for NPS operations, $138 million more than for FY2000 enacted or $48 million more than the Administration'srequest. The Senate-passed bill proposed a total of $1.37 billion for NPS operations,$80 million more than FY2000 enacted and $10.3 million below the budget request.The conference agreement provided $1.39 billion for NPS operations or $25.4million above FY2000 enacted. Under the NPS operations line item, the conferenceagreement provided $469.7 million for maintenance instead of $446.6 million asproposed by the House and $449.2 million as proposed by the Senate. An FY2001 request of $48.6 million proposed for National Recreation and Preservation , one of the Service's major appropriation line items, would fundexpanded support of parks and greater partnership opportunities through addedRegional Office support and added assistance to partner organizations. Because theAdministration request would have added $18 million additional for Urban Park andRecreation Recovery grants, (see below) the total for this line was distorted, showinga $15.2 million increase. In FY2000, UPARR got $2 million. The House-passed bill proposed $48 million for National Recreation and Preservation. The Senate-passed bill proposed $61.2 million for this line item. Theconference agreement provided $58.4 million for this line or $6.96 million aboveFY2000 enacted and breaks out UPARR as a separate account (see below). The NPS Land Acquisition and State Assistance appropriation request was $297.5 million, a $176.7 million major increase in the Interior Department's LandLegacy Initiative which is now in its second year. The FY2000 appropriation for thisline item was $121 million. Acquisition funds are slated for protection of landscapesand resources at the Mojave National Preserve, the Florida Everglades, landsassociated with the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and six Civil War Battlefield parks. The House-passed bill proposed $104 million for Land Acquisition and State Assistance, $16.7 million less than in FY2000 enacted and $193 million less than theAdministration's request. The Senate-passed bill proposed $87.1 million which is$210 million below the budget request, and $33.6 million below the FY2000 enactedlevel. The conference agreement provides $110.5 million for land acquisition andstate assistance or $10.1 million less than FY2000 enacted. However, the NPS willreceive a portion of the new $229 million LCPII money to be divided among Interioragencies. The budget request seeks $18 million for the Natural Resources Challenge , an NPS program that emphasizes protection of natural resources, often in competitionwith visitation rights. The $18 million would constitute the second year of afive-year program to provide $100 million to identify and contain environmentalhazards. The program is also designed to give the Park Service a better fix onoff-highway vehicle use, overflights and personal watercraft, so as to argue morepersuasively for a reduction in those activities. In FY2000 the administrationrequested $19.76 million for the program and Congress approved $14.74 million. Anamendment to the Senate Committee-approved bill to block the National ParkService decision to enforce existing regulations that would substantially limitsnowmobile use in national parks was withdrawn from floor consideration. Duringconference, language was also offered to delay NPS enforcement of snowmobilelimits. This item was immediately withdrawn because of veto probability. Maintenance Backlog. The Park System has a formidable maintenance burden, with an infrastructure that includesthousands of miles of roads and thousands of permanent structures (many of thesehistoric), bridges, tunnels, employee housing units, water and waste systems, etc . Itis argued that park assets should all be maintained at an operational level that ensurescontinued serviceability and use by the public. The NPS has valued its assets at over$35 billion, but without adequate care and maintenance they are subject todeterioration. Mounting concerns about the build-up of a multibillion dollar backlogof unmet maintenance needs in the first half of the last decade prompted Congressto seek new funding sources and to attack the maintenance backlog. In response tocongressional appropriation leaders, the FY2000 budget proposal highlighted anInterior Department-wide campaign to prioritize maintenance over a five year period. Proposed funding for Construction and Major Maintenance programs for FY2001was $180 million, with an emphasis on projects that address the most critical healthand safety needs of parks, a key goal of the Interior Department's Safe Visits toPublic Lands program. The proposed funding represents a $46.2 million decreasecompared to FY2000. This decrease is in a area that has received special priority inrecent years, however, there was more than $450 million for maintenance in theOperations component of the NPS request, and the anticipation of revenues ofapproximately $148 million in FY2001 from the Congressionally authorizedRecreational Fee Demonstration Program (see below) which is to be used to reducethe Agency's backlog of health and safety deficiencies as well as resource protectionand programs in existing park facilities. In addition, the Congress has historicallyincreased construction appropriations as member projects have been added near theend of the appropriations process. In hearings before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies (March 29, 2000) members warned theNational Park Service Director not to "lowball" maintenance needs requests with theexpectation that "Fee-Demo" revenues will make up the shortfall. The membersreiterated their desire that Fee-Demo monies be used to supplement, not replace,appropriated maintenance monies so that major reductions in the backlog could beaccomplished. Also at issue is the size of the current NPS maintenance backlog. ParkService officials agreed to provide the Subcommittee with an updated estimate withintwo weeks of the Hearing. The Park Service subsequently provided theSubcommittee with a current NPS maintenance backlog figure of $4.3 billion. Theconference agreement requires the NPS to report (by April 2001) on how and whenit will provide a park-by-park comprehensive listing, with cost estimates, of deferredmaintenance affecting all facilities in the NPS. The House-passed bill proposed $141 million for Construction and major maintenance, $39 million less than the Administration's $180 million request, or $80million less than FY2000 enacted. The Senate-passed bills' construction proposalwas $204.5 million, an increase of $24.5 million above the Administration's requestand $16.7 million below FY2000 enacted. As expected, the conference agreementgreatly expanded the NPS Construction account as member "earmarks" were added. The agreement provided $242.2 million or $20.9 million above FY2000 enacted. Of local interest, $2.2 million to rehabilitate Glen Echo (MD) park facilities wasprovided. Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee-Demo). The NPS coordinated Fee-Demo program,being tested by the NPS and three other federal land management agencies, began inFY1996 to allow higher entrance and recreation user fees, with most of the addedfees being retained by the unit where the money is collected, e.g. 80% of Fee-Demogoes back to the collecting unit and 20% goes to the agency. Previously all Park feerevenue went to the Treasury Department general fund. Under the existing programeach agency is allowed to test up to 100 fee projects each year. It was hoped that theadditional fees would be incentives to agency managers to be more aggressive inpursuing "self-financing" for operating and maintaining their units. The programparticipants, in addition to the Park Service, include: BLM, FWS, and the ForestService. Supporters of a federal system of recreation lakes would also like the Corpsof Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation included. The Interior Departmentagencies and the Forest Service combined, collected $88 million in fees in FY1996,which are projected to increase to $185.65 million in FY2001. In FY2001 the ParkService is projected to bring in the most fee money by far, $148.4 million. TheAdministration again (the same request was made the last two years) asked Congressto make the Fee-Demo program permanent for the four federal land managementagencies. The program is authorized through FY2002 and the Administration wantedto lock it in place this year. However, the conference managers once again decidedto defer action on "fee-demo" until perceived problems in the program could befixed, but did extend the program for one additional year. In a related development"interest groups" are reportedly circulating draft legislation that would extend FeeDemo through September 30, 2004, while substantially altering and expanding theprogram. Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This cost-sharing Park Service managed programreceived a FY2000 appropriation of $2 million, the first new funding in five years. Prior to FY1994, appropriations were about $5 million annually. Communitiescompeted for more grants than there was money available to fund them. This locallypopular matching grant program (70% federal/30% local) helps economicallydistressed urban governments rehabilitate playgrounds, recreation centers, ball courts,playing fields and swimming pools in urban areas. For FY2000, the Administration requested a $4 million appropriation for UPARR. Neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations Committee billscontained funding for the program. H.Rept. 106-222 recommended that all NPSfunding increases be focused upon reducing operational shortfalls and seriousmaintenance backlogs. An amendment to restore the requested $4 million for theUPARR program was agreed to by voice vote during House floor action and theSenate voted $1.5 million. These funds were included as a part of a major line item,National Recreation and Preservation, instead of as previously as a free-standingprogram. The conference agreed to $2 million for UPARR as part of this larger ParkService appropriation line item and this amount was included in the final conferencepackage. The FY2001 request of $20 million, for UPARR, also under the National Recreation and Preservation line item, represented a significant $18 million increase. The House-passed bill provided $2 million for UPARR or $18 million below therequested amount. The Senate-passed bill also provided $2 million, the same as wasappropriated in FY2000. The conference agreement provided $10 million forUPARR broken out in a separate account, instead of the $2 million proposed by theHouse and Senate as part of the National Recreation and Preservation account. And,the addition of $20 million from Title VIII (LCPII) brings the UPARR total to $30million, a $28 million increase over the previous fiscal year. In related UPARR developments, as approved by the House, May 11, H.R. 701 , known popularly as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act(CARA), would guarantee without appropriation review or approval, $125 millionper year for the UPARR program. The Senate passed version of CARA wouldallocate $75 million annually for UPARR. Related Legislation. Congress approved legislation ( P.L. 105-391 , the National Parks Omnibus Management Actof 1998) under expedited procedures at the end of 105th Congress. The Act providesfor long anticipated park criteria and management reforms and an overhaul of thePark Service's concessions policy, a provision of which would allow revenuegenerated from concession contracts to be returned to appropriate National Park unitswithout annual appropriations. In another "collateral initiative," National Park roads,considered an important maintenance priority, received a substantial boost ($31million in FY1998 and $81 million annually for the next 5 fiscal years, nearly doubleprevious funding) under the surface transportation law (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178 ). For further information on the National Park Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.nps.gov/ . Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation fund, established within the U.S. Treasury and administered by theNational Park Service, provides grants-in-aid to states (primarily through StateHistoric Preservation Offices(SHPOs), certified local governments, and outlyingareas (territories and the Federated States of Micronesia) for activities specified inthe National Historic Preservation Act. Preservation grants are normally funded ona 60% federal- 40% state matching share basis. Preservation grants-in-aid also areprovided to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and to IndianTribes. The Administration's FY2001 budget request would have provided $72.07 million for the Historic preservation fund total. Of this amount, $42.07 million wasfor the Fund's grants-in-aid program, and $30 million was to continue theAdministration's "Save America's Treasures" initiative, to provide assistance forcommemorating the Millennium by addressing the Nation's most urgent preservationpriorities. 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, still and moving images, and sound recordings. TheFY1999 appropriation was used for restoration of the Star Spangled Banner,restoration of the Sewall-Belmont House, the National Women's Party headquarters,and for restoration of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitutionlocated in the National Archives. Although the appropriation was continued for SaveAmerica's Treasures for FY2000 ($30 million), the program was criticized as lackinggeographic diversity in the FY1999 grants program. The Administration's budget for FY2001 for the Historic Preservation Fund included $7.9 million for HBCUs, for the preservation and restoration of historicbuildings and structures on their campuses. Funds in Section 507 of P.L.104-333 (theOmnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996) were earmarked forpreservation projects for the following universities: Fisk University and KnoxvilleCollege in Tennessee; Miles College, Talladega College, Selma University, StillmanCollege, Concordia College in Alabama; Allen University, Claflin College, VoorheesCollege in South Carolina; and Rust College and Tougaloo University in Mississippi.Grants were awarded to complete repairs on HBCU buildings listed in the NationalRegister of Historic Places that required immediate repairs. An appropriation of $7.9million for FY2001 represents the unused authorization remaining from P. L.104-333, and, according to the Administration, would fulfill that obligation. The House-reported and House-passed FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill would have provided $41.3 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, $30.7 millionbelow the enacted level for FY2000. It included $31.6 million for state historicpreservation offices, $2.6 million for tribal grants and $7.2 million for historicallyblack colleges and universities. According to the House report, the bill directed $.75million of the amount authorized for Selma University to be used for repair ofhistoric buildings on SU's campus. The House-reported and House-passed InteriorAppropriations bill for FY2001 did not include funding for Save America'sTreasures. The Senate-reported and Senate-passed FY2001 Interior Appropriations billwould have provided $44.3 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, a decrease of$30.4 million below the FY2000 enacted level. The Senate bill would have increasedby $3 million the Grants- in-Aid to States program. and provided $7.2 million forrestoration of Historically Black Colleges, $.7 million less than the President'srequest. The Senate-passed bill did not provide funding for Save America'sTreasures. P.L. 106-291 , the Department of Interior and Related Agencies AppropriationsAct for FY2001 ( H.R. 4578 , H.Rept. 106-914 ) provides $94.3 millionfor the Historic Preservation Fund total, including $15 million from a new Title VIII,Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement program. Theadditional $15 million will be distributed as follows: $12 million for SHPOs and $3million for tribal grants. The FY2001 Interior appropriation also restores funding($35 million) for the Save America's Treasures program; and allows$7.2 millionfor Historically Black colleges, $5.6 million for Tribal grants, and $46.6 million forfunds for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). As enacted, P.L. 106-291 specifies $20 million in projects to receive funding (leaving $15 millionundistributed) for Save America's Treasures, including projects such as the RosaParks Museum in Alabama and the Mark Twain House in Connecticut. Additionalproject recommendations would be subject to formal approval by the House andSenate Committees on Appropriations prior to distribution of funds. These projectsrequire a 50% cost share, and no single project may receive more than one grant fromthis program. Last year, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 provided $74.8 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, including $10.6 million for HistoricallyBlack Colleges restoration, $2.6 million for tribal grants, $31.6 million for statehistoric preservation offices, and $30 million for Save America's Treasures. There is no longer federal funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation as part of the Historic Preservation Fund account. The National Trustwas chartered by Congress in 1949 to "protect and preserve" historic American sitessignificant to the cultural heritage of the U.S. It is a private non-profit corporationand has not received federal funding since FY1998, in keeping with Congress' planto replace federal funds with private funding and to make the Trust self-supporting.The National Trust still maintains several financial assistance programs including the Preservation Services Fund , a program of matching grants to initiate preservationprojects, and the National Preservation Loan Fund , providing below-market-rateloans to nonprofit organizations and public agencies to help preserve properties listedin the National Register of Historic Places, particularly those on the "MostEndangered Historic Places" list. U.S. Geological Survey. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the Nation's primary science agency in providing earthand biological science information related to natural hazards; certain aspects of theenvironment; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In addition it isthe federal government's principal civilian mapping agency and a primary source ofdata on the quality of the nation's water resources. In further defining its role, theUSGS offered an alternative crosscut of its budget for FY2001 that emphasizedproviding the scientific information and tools to assist managers and policymakersin support of the policy process in the Department of the Interior. Core science andsupporting research to back up those applications were highlighted along withscience support for the Department's land management bureaus and regional scienceprograms that focus on specific place-based studies. Research priorities for thiscrosscut were determined, in part, through a consultative effort with the land andwildlife management bureaus, addressing their most pressing needs. The fouroverarching initiatives that comprise this crosscut presentation are: Safer Communities, Livable Communities, Sustainable Resources for the Future, andAmerica's Natural Heritage. The Administration requested $895.38 million for the U.S. Geological Survey for FY2001, a net increase of $82 million over the FY2000 enacted level of $813.38million and the largest increase in USGS history. This budget request was intendedto expand USGS core programs to promote understanding of the balance amongEarth's living communities and to provide information to decisionmakers responsiblefor managing those communities and associated lands. Included in this amount wasan increase of $18 million to cover such uncontrollable costs as salary increases. Additionally, the budget contained decreases of $22.2 million representing projectsthat were nearing completion or lower priority projects being ended in FY2001. Notwithstanding the overarching initiatives mentioned above, the traditionalpresentation of the budget for the USGS is in the appropriation category of Surveys,Investigations, and Research , with six activities falling under that category: NationalMapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water Resourcesand Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities. Each ofthese activities showed a net increase in the FY2001 request. In H.R. 4578 , the House Committee on Appropriations recommended, and the full Houseapproved, $816.68 million for Surveys, Investigations, and Research - a decreaseof $78.70 million from the budget request and an increase of $3.3 million above theFY2000 enacted level. In its action on H.R. 4578 , the SenateCommittee on Appropriations recommended, and the full Senate approved, $847.60million for Surveys, Investigations, and Research - a decrease of $47.78 millionbelow the budget request but an increase of $34.22 million above the FY2000enacted level. The Committee of Conference in its report on H.R. 4578 recommended, and Congress approved, $862.05 million for Surveys, Investigations,and Research - a decrease of $33.33 million below the FY2001 budget request butan increase of $48.67 million above the FY2000 enacted level. In the National Mapping Program activity, the Administration requested $155.28 million - $28.57 million over the FY2000 enacted level of $126.72 million. This notable increase was sought to fund partnership arrangements with State andlocal governments to collect and increase access to spatial data and maps and forUSGS assumption of management responsibility for the LANDSAT-7 mission ascited in a 1999 agreement signed by NASA, NOAA, and Interior. Under thisactivity, increases were proposed to fund integrated studies of historical trends inland use change and development for use in assessing consequences of alternativegrowth scenarios. The House approved $122.82 million for the National MappingProgram, a decrease of $32.47 million from the budget request and $3.9 millionbelow the FY2000 enacted level, including $3.4 million from the Hazard SupportSystem and $500,000 resulting from a transfer to the Geologic Hazards, Resource,and Processes activity. The Senate approved $126.71 million for this program, anamount $28.57 million below the budget request and $4,000 below the FY2000enacted level. That Senate-approved level included increases of $500,000 for furtherwork on the National Atlas and a restoration of $2.63 million for geospatial dataproduction. In bill report language, the Senate Committee chided Mapping Programstaff for redirecting substantial sums of money, without the Committee's knowledgeor consent, to activities that were unauthorized and for which dollars were notappropriated. The Committee of Conference recommended and Congress approved$128.71 million for the National Mapping Program, an amount $26.57 million underthe budget request but $2.0 million above the FY2000 enacted level. Changes to theHouse funding level for the national mapping program included increases of$2,096,000 for uncontrollable costs, $500,000 for the national atlas, and $3.4 million for Landsat operations, and a decrease of $100,000 for hyperspectral remote sensing. In the Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activity, the Administration requested $224.81 million - an increase of $13.59 million above the FY2000 enactedlevel of $211.22 million. Proposed increases for this activity were to fund themodernization of the seismograph and strong motion detector networks for SanFrancisco, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Anchorage, Reno, and Memphis. A largeproposed increase was slated to expand the development of the Internet-basedNational Geological Map Database and the production of digital geologic map datathat are both compliant with the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and that meetcommunity needs to address hazards, resources, and environmental managementissues. The House approved $211.27 million for Geologic Hazards, Resources, andProcesses - a decrease of $13.54 million from the budget request and an increase of$50,000 above the FY2000 enacted level. The House Committee on Appropriationsemphasized in bill report language that the Survey's highest hazards-related priorityshould be to continue upgrading its various hazards monitoring networks, to acquirequality hazards information, and to engage in quality hazards-related research. TheSenate approved $218.52 million for this program, an amount $6.29 million belowthe budget request but $7.30 million above the FY2000 enacted level. ThatSenate-approved level included increases of $2.0 million for seismographicequipment, $500,000 for volcano hazards work, and $500,000 for the NationalCooperative Geologic Mapping program to conduct projects that will complementthe groundwater studies to be undertaken by the Water Resources Investigationsprogram. Restorations amounting to $5.96 million were entered for the EnergyResources program, the Minerals Resources program, and the Volcano Hazardsprogram. The Committee of Conference recommended, and Congress approved,$220.82 million for Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes - a decrease of$3.99 million from the budget request but an increase of $9.60 million above theFY2000 enacted level. Increases above the House funding level included $4.30million for uncontrollable costs, $1.0 million for earthquake hazards, $250,000 forthe Hawaiian volcano program, $1.53 million for minerals at risk, $475,000 forYukon Flats geology surveys, $1.20 million for the Nevada gold study, $500,000 forgeologic mapping, and $300,000 for Lake Mead/Mojave research. In the Water Resources Investigations activity, the Administration requested $197.58 million - an increase of $11.76 million over the FY2000 enacted level of$185.82. In this activity, major increases were proposed for hydrologic networksand for analysis of real-time hazards and of Interior science priorities. Thoseincreases were sought to enhance USGS ability to provide streamflow data for floodforecasting and information for flood hazard mitigation by adding streamgages,upgrading instruments, and adding telemetry. Scientific support for each of theInterior bureaus also would have been augmented. Modest increases were requestedto facilitate data sharing in support of water information delivery for decision supportand resources management. The House approved $187.95 million for WaterResources Investigations, a decrease of $9.63 million from the budget request and anincrease of $2.13 million above the FY2000 enacted level. That House-approvedlevel included increases above the FY2000 level of $1.73 million for the Real TimeHazards Initiative, and $400,000 for water resources research institutes. The Senate approved $196.66 million for this program - $915,000 below the budget request but$10.84 million above the FY2000 enacted level. That Senate-approved amountincluded increases of $3.10 million for new or upgraded stream gauging stations,$2.0 million to accelerate the groundwater studies program, $300,000 for newinvestigations related to toxic materials in the Lake Champlain basin, $450,000 tomonitor and protect water resources in the State of Hawaii, and $300,000 for theLake Mead/Mojave Environmental Research Institute to conduct research onenvironmental matters involving the ecosystems and watersheds of Lake Mead. Restorations totaling $6.39 million were entered for the Toxic Substances Hydrologyprogram, for Hydrologic Research and Development, and for Hydrologic Networksand Analysis. The Committee of Conference recommended, and Congress approved,$197.16 million for Water Resources Investigations, an amount $415,000 below thebudget request but $11.34 million above FY2000 enacted level. Changes to theHouse level for water resources included increases of $5.29 million foruncontrollable costs, $1.37 million for real time hazards, $300,000 for the LakeChamplain toxic study, $450,000 for Hawaiian water monitoring, $2.0 million for theground water program, and $300,000 for the Southern Maryland aquifer study, anda decrease of $500,000 from the Molokai well project. In the Biological Research activity, the Administration requested $158.78 million - an increase of $21.89 million above the FY2000 enacted level of $136.90million. A sizable portion of that increase would have been applied to biologicalresearch and monitoring for Interior science priorities in support of each of theDepartment's bureaus. An increase for fish and wildlife disease was sought toexpand research on the West Nile encephalitis virus. A large increase was intendedto fund matching grants and other cooperative activities for States, localcommunities, academic institutions, and other user groups to integrate and overlay more easily spatial and biological data sets (e.g., invasive species distributions) withdata from the holdings of the USGS and other agencies. The House approved $140.42 million for Biological Research - a decrease of $18.37 million from thebudget request and an increase of $3.52 million above the FY2000 enacted level. According to bill report language, that House-approved level specifically providedan additional $3.40 million to conduct mission-critical science support for the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service in such needed areas as species at risk, invasive species,inventory and monitoring protocols, and fisheries and aquatic resources. The Senate approved $147.77 million for Biological Research, an amount $11.01 million belowthe budget request but $10.88 million above the FY2000 enacted level. ThatSenate-approved amount included increases of $8.0 million for Science Centers and$700,000 for the Cooperative Research Units. The increase for the Science Centerswas proposed in response to concerns expressed that insufficient base funding haderoded the centers' core capabilities and reduced their ability to address importantlong-term strategic research. With the additional amount provided for core sciencesupport, those centers would begin to stabilize their bases of operations. Confereesrecommended, and Congress approved, $157.92 million for the Biological Researchactivity, an amount $858,000 under the budget request but $21.03 million above theFY2000 enacted level. Increases above the House for biological research included$3.18 million for uncontrollable costs, $400,000 for the cooperative research units,$180,000 for a Yukon River chum salmon study, $8.0 million for science centerfunding, $500,000 for ballast water research, $500,000 for sea otter research for theFish and Wildlife Service, $4.0 million for the National Biological InformationInfrastructure, and $750,000 for the continuation of the Mark Twain National Forestmining study to be accomplished in cooperation with the water resources divisionand the U.S. Forest Service. Again this year, the USGS budget presentation retained two additional activity categories in the FY2001 request: Science Support, at $70.90 million, and Facilities,at $88.04 million. Separating out the costs associated with modernizing theinfrastructure for management and dissemination of scientific information and thecosts for maintenance and repair of facilities allows for a clearer view of the moneyallocated directly for science. Both of these activities showed small increases overthe FY2000 enacted levels, $3.79 million and $2.42 million, respectively, mostlyassociated with uncontrollable costs and technical adjustments. The House approved $67.10 million for Science Support - a decrease of $3.79 million from the budgetrequest and the same as the FY2000 enacted level. The Senate approved $69.90million for Science Support, an amount $1.0 million below the budget request but$2.79 million above the FY2000 enacted level. Those Senate-approved increases included $1.0 million to invest in infrastructure that would allow the USGS toincrease data transfer capacity. Conferees recommended, and Congress approved,$68.90 million for Science Support, an amount $2.0 million under the budget requestbut $1.79 million above the FY2000 enacted level. Increases above the House markfor science support included $1.79 million for uncontrollable costs. The Houseapproved $87.12 million for Facilities - a decrease of $918,000 from the budgetrequest and $1.5 million above the FY2000 enacted level. The Senate approved$88.04 million for Facilities, an amount that met the budget request and was $2.42million above the FY2000 enacted level. Within funds provided by the Senate, $920,000 was designated for engineering and design work associated with a proposedexpansion of the Leetown, West Virginia, Science Center. Conferees recommended,and Congress approved, $88.54 million for Facilities, an amount $500,000 above thebudget request and $2.92 million above the FY2000 enacted level. Increases abovethe House level for facilities included $1,418,000 for uncontrollable costs. In a new title to H.R. 4578 added by the Committee of Conference - Title VIII, Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement -conferees recommended, and Congress approved in Title VIII, Part A, that the USGSreceive an additional $20.0 million in FY2001 for science programs, including $7.0million for national mapping, of which $5.0 million is for national cooperativegeologic mapping and $2.0 million is for earth science information management anddelivery; $5.0 million for water resources/stream gauges; $3.0 million for biologicalresearch, of which $2.0 million is to initiate aquatic GAP analysis and $1.0 millionis to accelerate GAP analysis in the contiguous 48 States; and $5.0 million forscience support/accessible data transfer. The $20.0 million falls under a programcategory designated as "State and Other Conservation programs" in the new TitleVIII. The Land Conservation, Preservation, and Infrastructure Improvement Programbudget mechanism in Title VIII, Part B, provides a six-year (FY2001-2006) fundingpriority within the federal budget for land conservation activities by setting asidefunds each year over and above the amounts available under congressional budgetresolutions for all other discretionary activities of the government. USGS programseligible for this funding include the Survey's State Planning Partnership programs,Community/Federal Information Partnership, Urban Dynamics, and Decision Supportfor Resource Management. For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.usgs.gov/ . Minerals Management Service. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: 1) Royalty,and 2) Offshore Minerals Management and Oil Spill Research. The OffshoreMinerals Management Program administers competitive leasing on outer continentalshelf lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas and other minerals. TheRoyalty Management Program (RMP) seeks to ensure timely and accurate collectionand disbursement of revenues from all mineral leases on federal and Indian lands (oil,gas, coal, etc.). MMS anticipates collecting about $6.0 billion in revenues in FY2001from offshore and onshore federal leases. Revenues from onshore leases aredistributed to states in which they were collected, the General Fund of the U.S.Treasury, and various designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases areallocated among the coastal states, Land and Water Conservation Fund, The HistoricPreservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury. The Administration's FY2001 request of $247.7 million would provide $241.6 million for the Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management Program and $6.1million for oil spill research. This request is $7.4 million more than the FY2000appropriation ($240.3 million) excluding offsetting receipts. Total appropriations,however, would increase by $23.9 million while the offsets would decrease by $17million. An additional $10 million in user fees is also requested. The offsets ($107.4million) would come from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues. The net amountof the administration's request is $140.2 million for FY2001 (excluding the requestfor $10 million in new user fees). Leasing activity in the Gulf of Mexico hassignificantly declined from its FY1997 peak and is expected to remain flat inFY2001. According to MMS, the decline in the offsets are needed to reflect thedecline of new lease activity in the region. The House Appropriations Committeemark and the House approved funding level was about 5% less than theAdministration's request, supporting a net amount of $133.3 million for MMS. TheSenate approved $140.1 million for MMS which is much closer to theAdministration's request. The conference bill funded MMS at $139.5 million. For further information on the Minerals Management Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.mms.gov/ . Royalty Issues. Reported discrepancies between posted prices and fair market value prices, that are the basisfor royalty valuation, continue to be an issue in the 106th Congress. TheAdministration argued that the U.S. Treasury was being underpaid at least $60million annually. MMS's final rule change for crude oil valuation that relies less onposted prices and more on an index price to better reflect fair market value went intoeffect March 15, 2000, as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act forFY2000 ( P.L. 106-113 ). Oil industry officials have criticized using index prices asa benchmark and had offered a number of other options for benchmarks. The MMShad an extensive comment period on the valuation rule throughout the 105th and106th Congresses to allow for additional industry and congressional input. Industryrepresentatives still believe further improvements are necessary, particularly aroundthe duty to market requirement. Further, they would like the MMS to use the royaltyin kind (RIK) approach that would allow MMS to receive royalties in the form of oilproduced, then resell the oil for cash. In the Senate FY2000 Interior appropriations bill ( S. 1292 ), a contentious debate ensued over when to implement the new oil valuation rule. TheSenate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment by Senator Domenici(R-NM) to further postpone the release of the oil valuation rule until June 30, 2001. Senator Hutchison (R-TX) offered a floor amendment to extend the moratorium onthe rules release through FY2000. A filibuster by Senator Boxer (D-CA) to preventthe moratorium amendment on the rules release stalled the Interior appropriation billuntil a second cloture vote (60-39) limited debate on the amendment. The Senatevoted (51-47) to extend the moratorium. Conference negotiators sustained themoratorium but only for not more than six months, pending a General AccountingOffice review and report to Congress on the proposed oil valuation rule. ThePresident threatened to veto the Interior bill because of the rules moratorium, amongother issues. However, negotiators settled on implementing the new oil valuationrule on March 15, 2000, and this provision was enacted into law in P.L. 106-113 . An MMS RIK Feasibility Study concluded that RIK could be workable and generate positive revenue for the U.S. Treasury. The MMS has begun to conduct asecond pilot study on a RIK process that includes natural gas production in the Gulfof Mexico, oil production in Wyoming, and Texas offshore natural gas. This pilotbegan in 1998 with oil lease bids offered in Wyoming and is expected to take severalyears to complete. The House supported the Committee amendment that wouldallow the MMS to use a portion of its revenues to administer the RIK pilot programnow underway. However, a floor amendment limited the use of MMS revenues topay for transportation to wholesale market centers and for processing rather than theCommittee recommendation to pay for gathering and any contractor costs as well.This would allow MMS to receive greater value for its RIK product at the marketcenter. On a separate issue, legislation was enacted ( P.L. 104-185 ) in the 104th Congress to authorize interested states that demonstrate competence to collectroyalties from federal oil and gas leases. The MMS functions that could be delegatedto the states include: reporting of production and royalties, error correction, andautomated verification. OCS Moratoria. During FY1996, as the 104th Congress revisited many regulatory programs, the OCS moratorium onleasing activity was debated in some depth but was extended in several areas. Theextension was continued through FY1999. It was supported by the House and theSenate for FY2000, and was continued in the FY2000 appropriations law. In theFY2001 spending bill, the moratoria is supported by the House and the Senate. Inprevious appropriations since the early 1980s, the moratoria had been approvedannually, without extensive discussion. Each year, Congress banned the expenditureof appropriated funds for any leasing activity in environmentally sensitive areas ofthe OCS. In 1990, President Bush issued a directive which parallels the moratoria,essentially banning OCS leasing activity in places other than the Texas, Louisiana,and Alabama offshore. The executive branch ban remains in effect. The moratoriaapply only to environmentally sensitive areas. With the exception of the CaliforniaOCS, little hydrocarbon production has occurred in these regions. Lease Sales in the Gulf of Mexico. Leasing in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico recently has declined, whereaslease sales were quite robust in FY1996 and FY1997. During 1996, the spring(Central Gulf) sale resulted in 606 tracts leased for total bonuses of $352 million. Thefall (Western Gulf) sale resulted in 902 tracts leased for $512 million. And theCentral Gulf auction held March 5, 1997, set an all time record, attracting 1,790 bidsfor 1,032 tracts. High bids totaled $824 million. This was the last sale under the 1992-1997 leasing plan. FY1996 and FY1997 included four record breaking sales which produced over $2.4 billion in bonuses. TheOCS Leasing Plan for the FY1997 to FY2002 period included a Western Gulfauction that took place in August, 1997. This record breaking August sale ($680million) was 33 percent larger than the Western Gulf sale held a year earlier.However, the 333 tracts leased in 1999 were 81% lower than its peak of 1,778 tractsleased in 1997. Production of deep water oil and gas has more than doubledbetween 1996 and 1999 because of new technology and public policy. Currently,the Gulf of Mexico accounts for over half of the world's drilling rigs operating indeepwater. The MMS proposes to increase its effort in environmental issuesassociated with deep water drilling. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87 ) established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamationand Enforcement (OSM) to ensure that land mined for coal would be returned to acondition capable of supporting its pre-mining land use. SMCRA also establishedan Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, toreclaim abandoned sites that pose serious health or safety hazards. Congress'intention was that individual states and Indian tribes would develop their ownregulatory programs to enforce uniform minimum standards established by law andregulations. OSM is required to maintain oversight of state regulatory programs. The Administration's request for the Office of Surface Mining for FY2001 -- at $309.2 million -- is about $17.5 million above the FY2000 appropriation of$291.7 million. Most of the increase is targeted to accelerating the pace of abandonedmine land reclamation by boosting the appropriation from the AML fund in 2001.The total request included $98.0 million in funding for Regulation and Technologyprograms and $211.2 million in appropriations from the AML fund. The request forRegulation and Technology programs represents an increase of roughly $2.2 millionfrom the FY2000 level ($95.9 million). The Administration's AML request reflects,an increase of $15.3 million over adjusted FY2000 levels ($195.9 million). Includedin this figure is funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI), whichwas $8 million in FY2000, and proposed for a further boost to $10 million inFY2001. The House Committee on Appropriations reported $97.5 million forRegulation and Technology and recommended $197.9 for AML, including $8 forACSI. This level of funding, approved by the House on June 15, 2000, is on a parwith last year's enacted level, with an additional $2 million added to accelerateremediation of problems associated with anthracite mines in Pennsylvania. Appropriations for AML activities are based on states' current and historic coal production. "Minimum program states" are states with lower coal production thatnevertheless have sites needing reclamation. The minimum funding level for eachof these states was increased to $2 million in 1992. However, over the objection ofthese states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program statessince FY1996. The Administration budget once again proposed to restore theminimum funding level to $2 million in FY2001, but the House Committee hasretained the $1.5 million level in its recommendation. These were the levels alsoadopted by the House, for a total of $295.6 million for OSM. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $101 million for Regulation and Technology, including an additional $3 million for State regulatorygrants. However, Committee recommendations of $201.4 million for the AML fund"for additional environmental restoration work," and a $1.6 million level forminimum program States were adopted. The total for OSM approved by the Senatewas $302.5 million. The conferees adopted the Senate numbers of $101 million for Regulation and Technology, but boosted the appropriation from the AML fund to $202.4 million. The total recommended by the conferees for OSM was $303.5 million, $1 millionmore than the Senate, and nearly $8 million more than the House. For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm . Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a wide variety of services to federallyrecognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and hashistorically been the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs providedor funded through the BIA include government operations, courts, law enforcement,fire protection, social programs, education, roads, natural resource and real estatemanagement, economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams,Indian rights protection, implementation of land and water settlements, and partialgaming oversight, among others. BIA's FY2000 direct appropriations enacted to date are $1.869 billion. For FY2001, the Administration proposed $2.2 billion, an increase of 17.8% overFY2000. Included in the proposal were increases of 8.6% in Tribal PriorityAllocations (TPA) (to $761.2 million, including $128.7 million forself-determination contract support costs, a 2.8% increase), 8.5% in BIA schooloperations (to $506.6 million), 8.2% in aid under the Tribally Controlled College orUniversity Assistance Act (to $38.2 million), and 85.4% in total BIA construction (to$365.9 million, including $300.5 million in education construction, a 125.6%increase over FY2000). The administration also proposed an increase of $18.8million (to a total of $156.6 million) for the BIA for the third year of the Indiancountry law enforcement initiative, jointly funded in BIA and Department of Justice(DOJ) appropriations, to reduce the high rate of violent crime in Indian country. Proposed FY2001 DOJ spending on the initiative, including Indian-country jailconstruction, totaled $173.3 million. The House approved $1.881 billion for FY2001 BIA direct appropriations, an increase of 0.6% over FY2000. Included are increases of 3.2% in TPA (to $702.2million, including $125.2 million for self-determination contract support costs, thesame as FY2000), 1% in BIA school operations (to $471.7 million), 2.8% in aidunder the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act (to $36.3million), and less than 1% for the Indian country law enforcement initiative (to$137.9 million). The House approved a decrease of 6.6% in total BIA construction(to $184.4 million, including $120.2 million in education construction, a 9.8%decrease below FY2000). The Senate approved $2.086 billion for FY2001 BIA direct appropriations, an increase of 11.6% over FY2000. The Senate included increases of 0.2% in TPA (to$722.8 million, including $125.5 million for self-determination contract supportcosts, a slight increase over FY2000), 2.6% in BIA school operations (to $479million), 8.2% in aid under the Tribally Controlled College or University AssistanceAct (to $38.2 million), 5.8% for the Indian country law enforcement initiative (to$145.8 million), and 72.7% in total BIA construction (to $341 million, including$276.6 million in education construction, a 108% increase over FY2000). The conference committee approved $2.141 billion for FY2001 BIA direct appropriations, an increase of 14.6% over FY2000. The conference committeeincluded increases of 4.8% in TPA (to $734.6 million, including $125.5 million forself-determination contract support costs, a slight increase over FY2000), 4.8% inBIA school operations (to $489.5 million), 8.2% in aid under the Tribally ControlledCollege or University Assistance Act (to $38.2 million), 8.6% for the Indian countrylaw enforcement initiative (to $149.6 million), and 81% in total BIA construction (to$357.4 million, including $293 million in education construction, a 120% increaseover FY2000). The key issues for the BIA are the movement toward greater tribal influence on BIA programs and expenditures (especially the role of contract support costs), BIAreorganization and downsizing, the equitable distribution of BIA funding amongtribes, management of trust assets, law enforcement in Indian country, and repair andreplacement of BIA school buildings. Additional significant issues raised byproposed provisions of previous Interior appropriations bills have included taxationof certain Indian businesses, Indian gaming regulations, and tribal sovereignimmunity from suit. Tribal Control. Greater tribal control over federal Indian programs has been the goal of Indian policy since the 1970s. Inthe BIA this policy has taken three forms: tribal contracting to run individual BIAprograms under the Indian Self-Determination Act ( P.L. 93-638 , as amended); tribal compacting with the BIA to manage all or most of a tribe's BIA programs, under theSelf-Governance program ( P.L. 103-413 ); and shifting programs into a portion of theBIA budget called Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), in which tribes have moreinfluence in BIA budget planning and within which each tribe has authority toreprogram all its TPA funds. In FY2000 TPA accounts for 42.7% of the BIA'soperation of Indian programs (including most of the BIA funding for tribalgovernments' operations, human services, courts, natural resources, and communitydevelopment) and for 37.5% of total BIA direct appropriations. Contract support costs, authorized under the Indian Self-determination Act, fund the non-operational and overhead costs incurred by tribes in administering programsunder self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts, and are calculatedusing a negotiated tribal cost rate (a percentage of the funding base covered by atribe's contracts or compact). Issues raised by contract support costs include theconsistent shortfall in contract support cost appropriations, tribes' claim ofentitlement to full support cost funding, identity of programs included in tribes'funding base, and rate-setting methods. A 1997 court decision ( Ramah NavajoChapter v. Lujan ) confirmed federal responsibility for certain unpaid contract supportcosts from FY1989-1993 for primarily non-BIA and non-IHS programs, and a partialsettlement awarded the plaintiffs $82 million. Congress forbade use ofFY1994-FY2000 BIA funds to pay these costs, so the $82 million was paid from thefederal Judgment Fund, but the BIA and IHS may be required to reimburse the Fund. In the FY2001 Interior appropriations bill, the Senate added (and the conferencecommittee retained) a sense-of-the-Senate provision urging the Secretary of theInterior to work with the Office of Management and Budget to secure repayment tothe fund from agencies other than the BIA and IHS. To allow the BIA and tribes to address the contract support costs problem and to allow GAO to study the issue, Congress imposed a one-year moratorium onself-determination contracts and self-governance compacts for FY1999. The GAO'sreport offered four alternative methods for funding contract support costs andrecommended that BIA and the Indian Health Service develop a standard policy onfunding contract support costs ( Indian Self-Determination Act: Shortfalls in IndianContract Support Costs Need to be Addressed , June 1999, GAO/RCED-99-150). Congress dropped the moratorium on contracts and compacts for FY2000. TheHouse restored the moratorium for FY2001, but the Senate and the conferencecommittee again dropped the moratorium. Reorganization. The BIA has been under pressure from tribes, the administration, and Congress to reorganize, butproposals from the three sources have not always been in agreement. Under theClinton Administration's National Performance Review Reinventing Governmentinitiative, the BIA had planned to pursue restructuring and downsizing through the"tribal shares" process (in which tribes and the BIA determine, first, which BIAfunctions are inherently federal and which are available for tribal management, and,second, what each tribe's share of funds is for the latter functions), but the BIA hasindicated that the Interior solicitor has advised against such a procedure. Congress,through appropriations committee reports, pressed the BIA to develop reorganizationand consolidation plans. In response the BIA has reduced the number of both itsagencies and employees. Congress also approved the BIA's commissioning of a1999 study of BIA administration and management by the National Academy ofPublic Administration (NAPA), entitled A Study of Management and Administration:The Bureau of Indian Affairs . The study concluded that the AssistantSecretary--Indian Affairs lacked necessary staff support and that the BIA neededimprovements in planning, budgeting, human resources management, andinformation resource management. For FY2000, Congress directed the Secretary ofthe Interior to reorganize the BIA based on the NAPA recommendations andprovided $5.2 million for this purpose. For FY2001, the Administration requested$9.2 million for continued implementation of the NAPA recommendations; theHouse agreed to this sum, as did the Senate and the conference committee. Funding Distribution. The issue of the equitable distribution of BIA funding--often referred to as "means-testing"--has twoaspects, one relating to how funds are distributed, the other relating to whether atribe's other financial resources are taken into account. First, much if not most BIAfunding, even while serving tribal needs, is not required to be distributed on anational per capita or other formula basis. Second, tribes' own non-BIA resources,especially business revenues, are not always required to be taken into account. A1998 GAO study of TPA distribution found that two-thirds of FY1998 TPA fundswere distributed based on historical levels and one-third was distributed based onformulas, that TPA distribution per capita varied widely across BIA areas, and thattribal governments' reporting of their revenues were inconsistent in including orexcluding non-federal revenues. Supporters of TPA funding redistribution based on "means-testing" of tribes claim that BIA funding is inequitably distributed, that poorer tribes do not receiveadequate funding, that tribal TPA funds received per capita do not correspond withindicators of tribal need, that only 30 percent of TPA funding is based on formulas,and that some rich tribes got more TPA funds in FY1998 than tribes with no outsiderevenues. Opponents respond that almost all tribes are in poverty, that BIA fundingis insufficient to meet tribal needs, and that means-testing TPA funding wouldpenalize tribes who still have severe needs, would violate the federal trustresponsibility to tribes, and would be unfair since it is not required of state or localgovernments receiving federal assistance. Congress debated several proposals for reallocating TPA funding during its consideration of the FY1998-FY2001 appropriation bills. For FY1998-FY1999,Congress authorized a tribal-federal workgroup on TPA allocations and tribal needsassessment, required that each tribe receive a certain minimum amount of funding,and directed the BIA to develop TPA reallocation proposals. The BIA/tribalworkgroup's report, in July 1999, concluded that variation in tribes' circumstancesmade formula distribution problematic; that TPA funding resulted from history,geography, and policies; that current funding did not meet identified needs; and thatmeasures of tribal need and revenue were not fully available. The workgrouprecommended that base TPA funding should not be redistributed. For FY2000,Congress authorized (but did not direct) the Secretary of the Interior to redistributeTPA funds to alleviate tribal funding inequities-without reducing any tribe's TPAshare more than 10%, except in certain situations-and directed the BIA to distributefunds to its two post-secondary institutions based on a formula. The House retainedthese provisions for FY2001, while the Senate kept only the post-secondaryeducation provision. The conference committee retained both of these provisions. In addition, the Senate approved a new provision prohibiting Alaska Native tribeswith fewer than 25 members from receiving TPA funds in FY2001; the funds wouldbe transferred to each tribe's regional Native non-profit corporation. The conferencecommittee also approved this provision. Trust Asset Management. The BIA has, historically, mismanaged Indian trust funds and trust assets. Reform of trustfund management is now the responsibility of the Office of the Special Trustee forAmerican Indians (see below). The BIA and the Office of Special Trustee aretogether implementing the Secretary of the Interior's High Level ImplementationPlan for the Trust Management Improvement Project. The project includesimprovements in trust asset systems, policies, and procedures, reduction of backlogs,and maintenance of the improved system. Trust asset management includes realestate services, processing of transaction (sales, leases, etc.), surveys, appraisals,probate functions, land title records, and other functions. The BIA has contractedwith a private developer for a new trust asset and accounting management system(TAAMS). In the FY2000 Interior appropriations bill, Congress prohibited theSecretary from deploying TAAMS, except at a test site, until the Secretary certifiesthat the system meets contract requirements and users' needs. The test site is theBIA's Billings region. Neither the House, the Senate, nor the conference committeeincluded the TAAMS prohibition in the FY2001 Interior appropriations bill. Law Enforcement. Because of reports of greatly increased crime rates and inadequate law enforcement in Indian country,the Administration proposed for FY1999 an initiative on law enforcement in Indiancountry. Under the initiative, funds for Indian country would flow through both theBIA and the Department of Justice. The funds would provide additional law officers,police facilities and equipment, and jails and detention centers. BIA funding goeschiefly to ongoing operation and improvement of reservation law enforcementfunctions, while the Justice funds go to one-time improvement grants under its COPSprogram and to construction of detention facilities. School Construction. The BIA funds or operates 185 elementary and secondary schools with over 2,000 educationfacilities. Many school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safetydeficiencies. The BIA estimates the backlog in education facility repairs is $802million. Education construction funding was historically low and Congress had notaccepted various proposals for alternate funding mechanisms. For FY2000, theAdministration proposed, and Congress funded, a 74% increase in education facilityconstruction (before internal transfers). For FY2001, the Administration alsoproposes another large increase in education construction funding. Within theFY2001 BIA education construction budget is a proposed school construction bondinitiative, where $30 million of the proposed appropriations would help tribesparticipate in the president's school construction modernization initiative. Under thisinitiative, tribal bonds can be issued to help meet the large backlog in schoolconstruction. The House Appropriations Committee recommended no funding forthe school bonding initiative until enactment of tax credit provisions needed to givetribes the authority to issue such bonds. The Senate Appropriations Committee didnot discuss the tribal bonding initiative, but the Senate more than doubled BIAeducation construction funding, and the conference committee recommended aneven higher figure. The conference committee also recommended funding of $7million for a new tribal school construction demonstration project, under which atribe and the BIA would pay 50% of the cost of replacing the tribe'stribally-controlled school. Other Issues. A number of additional Indian issues have arisen in congressional consideration of recent Interiorappropriations bills and may be proposed this year. Among the major issues havebeen state taxation of retail sales in Indian country to non-members, tribal sovereignimmunity from suit, and regulations regarding state-tribal gaming compacts. Congress has in past years defeated proposals to restrict the taking of land into trustfor Indian tribes unless the tribe agreed to state taxes, and to waive tribal sovereignimmunity if the tribe accepted TPA funds. Controversial Indian gaming regulations- proposed by the Secretary in 1998, for considering and approving gaming compactswhere states had invoked immunity from tribal suit over compact negotiations - weredelayed by Congress until the second half of FY1999. When the regulations werethen promulgated, in April 1999, they were immediately challenged in court byseveral states. Congress considered prohibiting FY2000 funds to implement theregulations, but dropped the provision when the Interior Secretary assured Congressthat he would not implement the regulations until federal courts ruled on theirlegality. For FY2001,the House defeated a proposed amendment that would haveprohibited implementation of the regulations until final adjudication of their legality,but the Senate approved a prohibition on funding for publication of proceduresnecessary to implement the regulations. The conference committee dropped theSenate provision. For further information on the Bureau of Indian Affairs , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html . Departmental Offices. National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) was established by the IndianGaming Regulatory Act of 1988 ( P.L. 100-497 ) to oversee Indian tribal regulationof tribal bingo and other "Class II" operations, as well as aspects of "Class III"gaming (casinos, racing, etc.). The NIGC may receive federal appropriations but itsbudget authority has consisted chiefly of fee assessments on tribes' Class IIoperations. The FY1998 Interior Appropriations Act amended the Indian GamingRegulatory Act to increase the amount of assessment fees the NIGC may collect (to$8 million), to make Class III as well as Class II operations subject to fees, and toincrease the authorization of NIGC appropriations from $1 million to $2 million. Beginning in FY1999, all NIGC activities have been funded from fees. No direct appropriations were made for the NIGC in FY2000. Neither theAdministration, the House, the Senate, nor the conference committee proposedFY2001 appropriations for the NIGC. Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,in the Secretary of the Interior's office, was authorized by Title III of the AmericanIndian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-412 ). The Office ofSpecial Trustee (OST) is responsible for general oversight of Interior Departmentmanagement of Indian trust assets, the direct management of Indian trust funds,establishment of an adequate trust fund management system, and support ofdepartment claims settlement activities related to the trust funds. Indian trust fundsformerly were managed by the BIA, but numerous federal, tribal, and congressionalreports had shown severely inadequate management, with probable losses to Indiantribal and individual beneficiaries. In 1996, at Congress' direction and as authorizedby P.L. 103-412 , the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust fund management fromthe BIA to the OST. FY2000 funding for the Office of Special Trustee was $95.03 million. The President proposed a FY2001 budget of $95.13 million, an increase of 5.7% fromFY2000. Included in the FY2001 request were $82.63 million for federal trustprograms -- trust systems improvements, settlement and litigation support, and trustfunds management -- and $12.5 million for the Indian land consolidation pilotproject. The purpose of the land consolidation project, funded at $5 million forFY2000, is to purchase and consolidate fractionated ownerships of allotted Indiantrust lands, thereby reducing the costs of managing millions of acres broken up intotiny fractional interests. The House approved $87.43 million for FY2001, including$82.43 million for federal trust programs and $5 million for land consolidation. TheSenate approved $92.63 million for FY2001, including $82.63 million for federaltrust programs and $10 million for land consolidation. The conference committeerecommended $91.63 million, including $82.63 million for federal trust programsand $9 million for land consolidation. The conference committee bill also included,in Title V, emergency supplemental appropriations of $27.6 million for the OST, fortrust fund reform shortfalls, litigation costs, and court-identified breaches of trust. Indian trust funds comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by about 315 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset value of about $2.6billion; and (2) individual Indians' funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM)accounts, in about 287,000 accounts with a total asset value of about $480 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2001 budget justifications.) The funds include moniesreceived both from claims awards, land or water rights settlements, and otherone-time payments, and from income from physical trust assets (e.g., land, timber,minerals), as well as investment income. While a congressionally-required outside audit was made of non-investment transactions--deposits and withdrawals--in tribal trust fund accounts (for the20-year period 1973-1992), Congress did not require that the outside auditorsexamine transactions in the IIM accounts, so their reconciliation status has been indoubt. On June 11, 1996, a class-action suit was filed in federal court against thefederal government on behalf of all IIM account owners. The suit sought anaccounting of the IIM funds, establishment of adequate management systems, andfull restitution of any money lost from the IIM accounts. The case was certified asa class action in February 1997. Because the BIA and the departments of the Interiorand Treasury were unable to produce the trust records for five named plaintiffs in thecase, as had been ordered by the federal court as part of trial preparation, thesecretaries of the Interior and Treasury and the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairswere held in contempt of court on Feb. 22, 1999. The federal departmentsapologized and promised to meet the judge's concerns. The part of the IIM suitdealing with the failures of the trust-fund system went to trial in June 1999 in theU.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the judge on December 21,1999, found that the government mismanaged the IIM accounts and ordered that thesystem be fixed and that the government provide quarterly reports on systemimprovements. The Department of Justice appealed this ruling in January 2000. Trial on the amount of money owed to the plaintiffs, previously expected to begin in2000, is not currently scheduled. The conference committee provided $16.9 millionin emergency supplemental appropriations to address breaches of trust identified inthe 1999 decision, to do further trial preparation, and to begin IIM accounting for thetrial; the conference report directs DOI to develop a sampling methodology for IIMaccounting but requires submission of the plan to Congress prior to implementation. In April 1997 the OST submitted its Strategic Plan for improving the management of Indian trust funds and trust assets. The plan recommended creationof a new federally chartered agency, to which trust funds and assets would betransferred, and management and investment of the funds and assets to assist Indianeconomic growth. While considering FY1998 Interior appropriations, Congressnoted departmental and some tribal opposition to the Strategic Plan, especially to theproposed new agency. Congress directed the OST not to implement the proposednew agency but to pursue trust funds systems improvements and OST responsibilitiesrelating to the settlement of financial claims made by tribal and individualbeneficiaries, before Congress and in court, because of BIA trust-fundsmismanagement. In August 1997 the Secretary of the Interior agreed to implementaspects of the Strategic Plan dealing with trust management systems, data cleanup,and trust asset processing backlogs, and in July 1998 he issued a "High-LevelImplementation Plan" for this Trust Management Improvement Project. On Jan. 5,1999, the Secretary ordered a reorganization of the OST, creating a principal deputyspecial trustee who would carry out policy and budget execution, budget formulation,and day-to-day operations, and to whom would report the trust funds managementoffice and the new office for trust litigation support and trust records managementcreated by the same order. The Special Trustee, Paul Homan, resigned in protesteffective Jan. 7, 1999. The FY1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee ( S. 544 , 106th Cong.) contained a provisionprohibiting the implementation of the Secretary's reorganization of the OST; the billenacted into law ( P.L. 106-31 ) did not include that provision, but the conferencecommittee report ( H.Rept. 106-143 ) expressed concern about the Secretary's orderand the department's implementation of the trust fund reform act and the High LevelImplementation Plan. For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.ost.doi.gov/ . Insular Affairs. Funding for the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) consists of two portions--(1) permanent and indefiniteappropriations that do not require action by the 106th Congress or the Administration;and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the appropriationsprocess. The current fiscal year (FY2000) budget for the OIA totals roughly $300million; the FY2001 budget request would increase OIA funding 8% to $324.6million. Permanent and indefinite appropriations constitute the larger of the two portions. For FY2000, they total $201 million, approximately 70% of the OIAbudget. For FY2001, the total will be $230.2 million, an increase of 14.5% overFY2000 and 71% of the OIA budget. The FY2001 permanent and indefinite appropriations that total $230.2 million consist of the following divisions: $65 million to the Virgin Islands for estimated rum excise and income tax collections; $41 million to Guam for income tax collections; and $124.2 million (total) to three freely associated states--Republic of Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated Statesof Micronesia (FSM)--as set forth in the Compact of Free Association for eachentity. Two territories, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and American Samoa, do not receive permanent and indefinite appropriations. The smaller of the two portions allocated to the OIA--discretionary and current mandatory funds--comprises roughly one-third of the federal assistance provided toinsular areas. The amount appropriated for FY2000 ($90.5 million) exceeded theamount provided in recent years (roughly $88 million each year), and the $88.6million requested by the Administration. The discretionary and current mandatoryfunding request for FY2001 is $94.4 million, an increase of $3.9 million, or 4.4%. The House approved an amount ($90.2 million) slightly below the FY2000appropriation and 4.5% below the request. The Senate approved a total of $89million. Conferees agreed to the House funding levels, but added funds for technicalassistance, resulting in total discretionary funding of $96.2 million for FY2001. Thisrepresents an increase of $5.7 million, a 6.3% increase over FY2000 funding. Selected Issues. Perhaps the most significant issue of debate concerns the amount to be allocated to mitigate the effects of immigrationfrom the three freely associated states, referred to as "Compact impact." The term"Compact impact" has been used to describe the burdens incurred by Guam and otherislands, including Hawaii, as non-citizens (notably from the FSM) relocate in searchof job opportunities due to the lack of basic industry and substantial economicdevelopment. Advocates contend that Guam and other islands need assistance toprovide social services associated with the population influx. Legislation enacted in 1996 (see 48 U.S.C. 1804(c)(1)) reallocates $4.6 million each year (FY1996-FY2001) from the CNMI to Guam for Compact impact needssuch as hospital construction, education, and social services. The FY2001 requestincludes an additional $5.4 million in Compact impact money for Guam. ForFY2000, Congress appropriated an additional $3 million in technical assistancegrants for Guam for this purpose. A DOI news release on the FY2001 budget requestnotes that the $5.4 million increase "is a major priority of the ClintonAdministration." The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee have rejectedthe $5.4 million increase, contending that funding levels for Compact impact aidshould be decided in the ongoing Compact renegotiations. Instead of targetingimpact aid to Guam, the House approved an appropriation of $7.6 million fortechnical assistance grants that will implement financial and government reforms inthe territories, the same amount requested by the Administration and an increase of$1 million over the FY1999 funding level. The Senate committee recommended $6.6million for technical assistance grants. The "deteriorating financial condition of the insular governments" has been identified as a matter of great concern in the FY2001 budget request. All theseentities remain dependent on federal assistance, despite past economic developmentinitiatives. For example, the Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands signed amemorandum of understanding with the Secretary of the Interior in October 1999,that established financial controls and performance standards to be achieved. TheFY2001 budget request includes an advance appropriation of $10 million for theVirgin Islands, which would become available in FY2002 should the standards bemet in FY2001. The Virgin Islands would be expected to provide a 50% match. Also of note, pursuant to the FY2000 appropriations legislation, American Samoa isto receive a loan of $19 million for economic development and financial stability. The loan is to be repaid from the territory's expected share of the tobacco settlementagreement. Conferees on the FY2001 appropriation expressed satisfaction that dueto progress made by American Samoa in FY2000 on unpaid medical bills,construction funds withheld in FY1999 could be release. Another issue concerns the proliferation of brown tree snakes on the Pacific islands. The Administration seeks to continue funding in FY2001 for brown treesnake control at the $2.35 million level approved for FY2000. For more informationon this issue, see CRS Report 97-507, Non-Indigenous Species: GovernmentResponses to the Brown Tree Snake and Issues for Congress. In addition to these funding issues, some Members of Congress have expressed concern with labor conditions and immigration laws in the CNMI as well as supportfor the extension of federal minimum wage laws to the territory. On February 7,2000, the Senate approved legislation ( S. 1052 ) that would restructureUnited States immigration policy as it applies to the CNMI. (For references tocongressional activity on the minimum wage issue see CRS Report RL30235 , Minimum Wage in the Territories and Possessions of the United States: Applicationof the Fair Labor Standards Act ). For further information on Insular Affairs , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html . Department of Agriculture. For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its World Wide Web site at http://www.usda.gov/ . U.S. Forest Service. The conference agreed to Forest Service appropriations for FY2001 of $3.612 billion (includingemergency contingency funds of $12.5 million for pest management and $150million for Wildland Fire Management). This is $873 million more (+32%) thanpassed by the House ($2.739 billion) and $627 million more (+21%) than passed bythe Senate ($2.985 billion); it is also $792 million more (+28%) than FY2000 (asadjusted, see below), and $502 million more (+16%) than the Administrationrequested. The biggest change was in funding for wildland fire management. The conference agreed to $1,265 million, $647 million more (+105%) than the House and$497 million more (+65%) than the Senate. This is also $557 million more (79%)more than FY2000 and $495 million more (+64%) than requested. This includesincreases of more than $200 million for fire preparedness, more than $10 million forfire operations, and more than $275 million for contingent emergency appropriations. In addition, Title IV of the conference agreement (Wildland Fire EmergencyAppropriations) provided another $619 million for Forest Service wildfire programs,including $179 million for fire suppression, $120 million for reducing hazardousfuels, $142 million for emergency rehabilitation efforts, $59 million for nonfederalfire assistance, and $48 million for assistance to nonfederal entities affected by fire. ( P.L. 106-246 also contained $150 million in emergency supplemental appropriationsfor Forest Service wildfire management, as well as $200 million for BLM wildfiremanagement and $661 million in emergency funding for disaster relief for the CerroGrande fire in New Mexico.) State and Private Forestry (S&PF) was funded at $251 million, $54 million more (+27%) than the House and $25 million more (+11%) than the Senate; this is$48 million more (+24%) than FY2000, but $10 million less (-4%) than requested. On most S&PF programs, the conference agreed to the higher amount from theHouse or the Senate, except on the economic action programs ($16 million higherthan the House and $7 million higher than the Senate) and for the new $12.5 millionemergency contingency for pest management. For the National Forest System, the conference agreed to $1.281 billion, $73 million more (+6%) than the House ($1.208 billion) and $47 million more (+4%)than the Senate; this is also $133 million more (+12%) than FY2000, but $6 millionless (less than -1%) than the Administration requested. All accounts are increasedfrom FY2000, and either match the higher of the House or the Senate, or exceedboth. Forest Service capital improvement and maintenance was set at $469 million,$34 million more (+8%) than the House ($434 million) and $20 million more (+5%)than the Senate ($448 million). Land acquisition from the Land and WaterConservation Fund (discussed later in this report) was passed at $102 million, $50million more (+97%) than the House and $26 million more (+34%) than the Senate;this is $54 million less (-34%) than FY2000 (including the $76 million of landacquisition in Title VI of the FY2000 Interior Appropriations Act), and $28 millionless (-22%) than the Administration requested. In addition, the Administration proposed a new budget structure for the Forest Service. First, the agency proposed to shift from "benefitting function" allocations(where project funds can be allocated to several line items) to "primary purpose"allocations (where funds are allocated to the one primary purpose of the project). Also, general administration would be eliminated, with the costs allocated across allother budget line items. The House, Senate, and conference agreed to these proposedchanges. Finally, the agency proposed collapsing the 20 budget line items for theNational Forest System into 3 lines -- Ecosystem Assessment and Planning,Ecosystem Conservation, and Public Services and Uses -- and the 6 budget lineitems for Reconstruction and Maintenance into 3 lines (eliminating the distinctionbetween maintenance and construction/reconstruction). The House and SenateCommittees and the conference agreed to modify the budget structure by reducingthe National Forest System to 10 line items, by combining rangeland and forestvegetation management with watershed management and water, soil, and airoperations under 'vegetation and watershed management,' and by renaming'reconstruction and construction' as 'capital improvements and maintenance.' Theagency's budget request also included many performance measures, to attempt toinform Congress on what is being purchased with the appropriations. The House andSenate committee reports note concerns that the agency still lacks "strong andeffective performance measurement and evaluation." For further information on the U.S. Forest Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/ . For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the U.S. Forest Service, see the USDA Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm . Timber Sales. Timber sales, especially salvage timber related to forest health, have been debated repeatedly in Forest Servicebudget and authorizing legislation. The FY2001 budget request proposes declinesin salvage sales with dead and dying trees (from 1.025 billion board feet, or BBF, to0.857 BBF), in new green (live tree) sales (from 2.549 BBF to 2.258 BBF), and insales under the Timber Sales Pipeline Restoration Fund (from 0.090 BBF to 0.063BBF). However, the proposed FY2001 sale levels (3.178 BBF in total) are above theFY1999 results (2.300 BBF in total). The House and Senate reports direct continuingthe FY2000 sales level, and the both committee reports note that the Committees are"discouraged" by the agency's failure to meet congressional timber sale targets. Onthe House floor, the Wu amendment to transfer $14.7 million from forest productsto fish and wildlife management was defeated. In the Senate, the Bryan-Fitzgeraldamendment, to reduce timber sale funds by $30 million and increase wildland firemanagement by $15 million, was similarly defeated. The Senate and conferenceincluded $5 million "in addition to its normal allocation" for preparing timber salesin the national forests in Alaska. Forest Health and Forest Fires. One forest-health related provision has been included in recent appropriations acts,including the FY2001 Act: the 10% Roads and Trails Fund has been altered annuallyto allow its use "to improve forest health conditions and repair or reconstruct roads,bridges and trails ï¿½," emphasizing the wildland-urban interface and areas withabnormally high risk from potential wildfires. On the Senate floor, Members debatedwhether increasing timber sales could improve forest health or would lead to furtherdeterioration; however, no actions on timber sales ensued from the debate. Following from the Cerro Grande fire -- an escaped prescribed fire that destroyed more than 200 homes in Los Alamos, NM -- the House adopted aprovision prohibiting further use of prescribed burning until the agencies implementall provisions of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy. The Senate took a differentapproach. Senator Domenici offered a substitute for Senator Craig's amendmentrequiring a review of the Administration's proposed roadless area conservation rule(see below); the Domenici substitute was passed by voice vote as Title IV, providing$120 million to the Forest Service and $120.3 million to the BLM to reducehazardous fuels in the "urban wildland interface area" and requiring (1) the agenciesto report on urban wildland interface communities and projects and (2) the ForestService to publish its Cohesive Strategy for Protecting People and SustainingResources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems and explain how various existing plans andinitiatives are consistent with or differ from this strategy. On September 8, 2000, following Senate passage of Title IV, the Administration proposed a new program in Managing the Impact of Wildfires onCommunities and the Environment: A Report to the President in Response to theWildfires . The proposal was to add $1.6 billion to the FY2001 request for wildfireoperations ($770 million), for fuels treatment and burned area restoration ($390million), for fire preparedness($340 million), and for programs to assist localcommunities ($88 million). (The proposal applied to BLM lands as well as to ForestService lands.) As noted above, the conference increased the funding under TitlesII and IV, and added a provision to Title IV directing expedited NEPA reviewprocedures and Endangered Species Act consultations for hazardous fuel reductionand burned area treatments. Land Management Planning. Management of the federal lands has been controversial for decades. Increasingconflicts among users in the 1960s and early 1970s led Congress to enact theNational Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976 (FLPMA) to establish and guide land and resourcemanagement planning for the national forests and BLM lands. Despite the goals ofthese laws, the public participatory planning processes have not led to harmoniousland management. Bills to improve planning, some emphasizing forest health, havebeen introduced in both Houses in several Congresses, but none have been enacted. The House and Senate bills directed the Forest Service to continue managementunder existing plans (with numerous exceptions), and not revise those plans, untilnew final or interim final rules are issued, but the provision was deleted by theconference. In addition, the bill as reported in the House would have prevented theForest Service and BLM from completing the Interior Columbia Basin EcosystemManagement Plan (ICBEMP); an amendment to provide funding was initiallyaccepted, but later overturned. (For more, see the above discussion under the BLM.) The Senate bill did not contain comparable ICBEMP language, but would require aregulatory flexibility analysis for the White River (CO) National Forest draft plan. The conference modified this provision to require an analysis of the impacts of thefires and of the President's proposed response to the fires on the Interior Columbiaarea before issuing a Record of Decision to implement ICBEMP. On October 5, 1999, the Forest Service proposed new planning regulations with a greater emphasis on ecosystem management and protection of biological diversity. The budget request describes this as part of the agency's program for SustainableForest Ecosystem Management. The public comment period on these regulations isclosed, and the draft regulations are being revised. Forest Roads. Road construction in the national forests continues to be controversial. Some interests oppose new roadsbecause roads increase access to areas they believe should be preserved in a pristinecondition; because roads are a major source of erosion, stream sedimentation, andother environmental degradation; and because road funding is asserted to be acorporate subsidy for the timber industry. Supporters argue that access roads areneeded for forest protection ( e.g. , from wildfire) and for timber harvesting and otheron-site uses, and maintain that roads can be built without causing significantenvironmental problems. The change in the budget structure includes combiningconstruction funds with maintenance funds, so distinguishing money for roadconstruction is no longer feasible. The Administration proposed a decrease of $2million (-1%) for road funding. The House increased this $449,000, and the Senateincreased the House amount by nearly $10 million (+5%). The conference agreed toroad funding of $236 million, $17 million more (+8%) than the House, and $7million more (+3%) than the Senate. In a separate initiative, the Administration announced on October 13, 1999, a new approach to managing roadless areas that may prohibit new roads in inventoriedroadless areas, and extend some protections to non-inventoried areas. The draftenvironmental impact statement was released in May 2000, and the comment periodended on July 17. The agency anticipates completing the rulemaking process inDecember. (See CRS Report RL30647 , The National Forest Roadless AreaInitiative .) The Senate bill included a section to prohibit funding to develop orimplement the final rule for roadless areas in the White Mountain (NH) NationalForest. Senator Craig announced at the Committee mark-up that he would offer anamendment related to this initiative on the Senate floor; his amendment was offeredand debated, but it was replaced by a substitute enacting additional funds forhazardous fuel treatment. Fiscal Management. The FY2001 Forest Service budget request identifies several legislative proposals to changeexisting trust funds. For the third consecutive year, the budget proposed "stable andpermanent funding" for the agency's payments to states; legislation to alter thisprogram has passed the House and is pending in the Senate. (See CRS ReportIB10057, Forest Service Revenue-Sharing Payments .) In addition, the budget announces the intent to develop legislation to create a new trust fund, Healthy Investments in Rural Environments (HIRE), from existingtrust funds. The new fund would emphasize reducing the backlog of maintenance(identified at nearly $9 billion), reconstruction, and forest health projects, whilecontinuing to perform some of the tasks of the existing trust funds. The proposaldoes not identify which trust funds would be affected. The request also announcesthe intent to develop legislation for a Land Acquisition Reinvestment Trust Fund, forland acquisition to be funded from expanded authority to sell national forest lands,and for a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund, for constructing newimprovements and acquiring environmentally sensitive land to be funded from newauthority to sell unneeded facilities, buildings, constructed features, and land. Legislative proposals to enact these ideas have, to date, not been made available. In addition, the conference report ( H.Rept. 106-914 ) included a new Title VI to the bill: the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000. This replaces narrow, specificprovisions enacted in previous Interior Appropriations Acts. The conferencelanguage (ï¿½607) would keep the fee at 5% of "the market value of the lot," butdiscounted for restrictions imposed on the permit. In addition, instead of adjustingfees annually for inflation at the national level, ï¿½608 directs annual adjustments basedon "changes in rural or similar land values in the State, county, or market area inwhich the lot is located." The Act would also require: (1) specific standards forappraisals, including reappraisal at least every 10 years (ï¿½606); (2) phasing in anyhigher fees over 3 years (ï¿½609); and (3) a right for cabin owners to a second appraisal(ï¿½610). Department of Energy. For further information on the Department of Energy , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.doe.gov/ . For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the DOE or any of its bureaus, see DOE's Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm. Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The Clinton Administration's FY2001budget request for fossil fuel research and development (R&D) continued to reflectits energy and environmental priorities. Fossil fuel R&D efforts will focus onenvironmental issues associated with electric power, particularly global climatechange concerns. Under the House bill, this account would be combined with theEnergy Conservation account and renamed the Energy Resource, Supply andEfficiency account. The Senate retains the account as Fossil Energy R&D. The Administration requested a deferral of $221 million in funding for the Clean Coal Technology Program because of scheduling delays. An additional $105 millionwould be rescinded in FY2001 because of project savings, for a total of -$326 millionfor Clean Coal Technology. At the end of FY2001, DOE anticipates that 32 out ofits 40 active projects will be completed. The House Committee however would defer$67 million and would consider further rescissions unnecessary at this time. The fullHouse added $22 million for deferral, supporting a total of $89 million. The Senateapproved a deferral of $67 million for FY2001, and that figure survived in theconference bill. Overall, the Administration's FY2001 request for fossil energy was $375.6 million, a 5% decline from the FY2000 appropriation of $393.4 million. Funding forcoal and power R&D projects would decrease by 8.8% but account for about one-halfof the fossil fuel R&D budget. Petroleum R&D would decrease by 8.2% and naturalgas R&D would increase by 22.6%. The House Committee supported funding at$410.5 million for FY2001, a more modest decline of less than 2% from the FY2000appropriation, for fossil fuel R&D programs (now a sub-category labeled PowerGeneration and Large Scale Technologies). The House approved an amendment toreduce fossil energy R&D funding by $45 million to $365.4 million. Increases forgas and petroleum programs and a small decrease for the coal and power systemsprogram are supported. The Senate approved $401.3 million includes a $12 milliontransfer of unobligated balances from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account. Theconference bill funded fossil energy R&D at $433.7 million. For FY2001, the Administration's request is focused on new technology that would take advantage of natural gas as a clean fuel and would reduce or eliminatemany environmental problems associated with coal. Critics question the extent towhich fossil fuel R&D should be based on current trends and a view of natural gasas a "transition fuel" to non-fossil fuels. They question whether the Administrationis taking too narrow a view of coal's potential for electric generation and technologyexports and whether these changes will have a negative impact on jobs and theeconomy or will develop new markets and opportunities. For further information on Fossil Energy , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fe.doe.gov/ . Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Sharp increases in the price of energy during the winter of 1999-2000 have renewedattention on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR, authorized by theEnergy Policy and Conservation Act ( P.L. 94-163 ) in late 1975, consists of cavernsformed out of naturally-occurring salt domes in Louisiana and Texas in which morethan 570 million barrels of crude oil is stored. The purpose of the SPR is to providean emergency source of crude oil which may be tapped in the event of a presidentialfinding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption threatening adverseeconomic effects, warrants a drawdown from the Reserve. Purchases of oil for theReserve were suspended in 1994 as part of a broader effort to reduce federalspending. Maintenance of the SPR and upgrade of some of its facilities was fundedfrom sales of SPR oil in FY1997 and FY1998. The 105th Congress approved anappropriation of $160.1 million for the program in FY1999 and $158.4 million forFY2000. The Administration has requested $158 million for FY2001. The HouseCommittee on Appropriations recommended, and the House approved $157 million,a decrease of nearly $1.4 million below the FY2000 enactment, and $1 million belowthe Administration request. The Senate Committee on Appropriations alsorecommended $157 million, to which the full Senate added $4 million as startingcosts for establishment of a home heating oil reserve in the northeast to a level of$161 million. The Senate also agreed to a committee recommendation that $12million be transferred from unobligated funds in the SPR petroleum account andspent instead on oil technology research and development. The conferees recommended $165 million, adding $8 million above the Administration request for funding the regional heating oil reserve. The conferencetotal includes a transfer of $4 million from the unexpended monies in the PetroleumAcquisition Account. For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fe.doe.gov/spr/spr.html. Naval Petroleum Reserves. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1996 ( P.L. 104-106 ) authorized sale ofthe federal interest in the oil field at Elk Hills, CA (NPR-1). On Feb. 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 Reservesto the Department of the Interior (DOI); the balance of one of these was transferredto DOI in the spring of 1999. This leaves in the program two small oil fields inCalifornia and Wyoming, which will generate revenue to the government of roughly$6.4 million during FY2000, and one oil shale reserve (NOSR-2) which isundeveloped. On January 14, 2000, DOE proposed returning 84,000 acres includingNOSR-2 to the Ute tribe, a transfer that will require congressional approval. Congress appropriated no new funds for FY2000 and requests none for FY2001; anyexpenses of the program are being funded from a carryover balance created when ElkHills was sold. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended a $7 millionrecission in carryover balances. 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 sale proceeds after the costs ofsale have been deducted. The agreement between DOE and California provided forfive annual payments of $36 million beginning in FY1999, with the balance due tobe paid in equal installments in FY2004 and FY2005. However, for FY2000, theSenate Appropriations Committee, citing "fiscal constraints," recommended noappropriations to the school lands fund and none was restored by the Senate-passedversion of the Interior appropriations bill. The House Appropriations Committee,however, provided for the second $36 million installment. The conferees did notrestore the money cut by the Senate. However, the conferees authorized the nextpayment to be made on October 1, 2000, effectively postponing it into FY2001. Thislanguage was enacted into law, and an additional $36 million payment, to be paid onOctober 1, 2001, was requested by the Administration and approved by the House.The Senate was in accord and the conferees agreed to this language as well. For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fe.doe.gov/nposr/index.html. Energy Conservation. The Clinton Administration sees energy efficiency (and renewable energy) as a key technologyfor curbing air pollution and global climate change, while contributing to the nation'seconomic strength and technology competitiveness. The President's State of theUnion address reaffirmed these themes and stressed "New technologies make itpossible to cut harmful emissions and provide even more [economic] growth." Thisstrategy is reflected in the Administration's FY2001 budget request for theDepartment of Energy (DOE), which states, " ... The Administration's energyefficiency programs produce substantial benefits for the nation ... in terms ofeconomic growth, increased national security and a cleaner environment ...Furthermore, the technologies developed in these programs create jobs and globalmarket opportunities for U.S. firms. These programs are a major component of theAdministration's climate change response ... " (Budget Appendix, p. 408). The Administration's FY2001 request for DOE's Energy Efficiency Program proposes to boost funding to $848.5 million (excluding a $2 million prior yearbiomass transfer) -- an increase of $152.3 million, or 22%, over the FY2000 level. This includes $659.5 million for research and development (R&D) programs, anincrease of $82.8 million, or 14%. The R&D increase includes $24.7 million morefor Buildings Research and Standards programs, $5.6 million more for FederalEnergy Management Programs (FEMP), $22.3 million more for Industry Programs,$18.1 million more for Transportation Programs, and $3.5 million more for Policyand Management. Also, the request includes $191.0 million for grants programs, anincrease of $22.5 million, or 13%. Most of this increase, $19 million, is for theWeatherization Program. The House approved $588.1 million (excluding a $2 million prior year biomass transfer), including the Sununu floor amendment which cut $126.5 million from thePartnership for a New Generation of Vehicles under the Transportation Program. Inthe Senate, passage of the Reed amendment added $2 million for Weatherizationgrants and brought the Senate-approved total to $761.9 million (excluding a $2million prior year biomass transfer and a $15 million use of prior year balances). The Conference Committee approved $814.9 million (excluding a $2 million prior year biomass transfer) for FY2001. Relative to FY2000, this represents anincrease of $94.7 million, or 13%. Under Buildings, it includes an increase of $9.7million for Equipment and an increase of $4.5 million for State Energy ConservationGrants. Under Industry, this includes a cut of $9 million for Distributed Generation,but an increase of $15 million for Enabling Technologies and an increase of $3million for the Agriculture Industry. Under Transportation, it includes an increaseof $7 million for Hybrid Systems. However, relative to the request, the Conference appropriation represents a decrease of $33.6 million, or 4%. Under Buildings, this includes reductions of $9.3million for Community Partnerships and $4.3 million for Energy Star Programs. Under Industry, this includes a cut of $6 million for the Agriculture Industry and adecrease of $5.9 million for Technical Assistance. For FY2000, P.L. 106-113 appropriated $720.2 million (excluding $25.0 million from a prior year biomass transfer and excluding $13.5 million for an industrial blackliquor gasification program transfer from Fossil Energy) for DOE's Energy EfficiencyProgram. For further information on Energy Conservation , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.eren.doe.gov/ . Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service. The Indian Health Service (IHS) carries out thefederal responsibility of assuring comprehensive preventive, curative, rehabilitative,and environmental health services for approximately 1.49 million American Indiansand Alaska Natives who belong to about 560 federally recognized tribes in 34 states. Care is provided through a system of federal, tribal, and urban Indian operatedprograms and facilities that serves as the major source of health care for AmericanIndians and Alaska Natives. IHS provides direct health care services in 37 hospitals,58 health centers, 4 school health centers, and 44 health stations. Tribes and tribalgroups through contracts with IHS, operate another 12 hospitals, 160 health centers,3 school health centers and 236 health stations (including 160 Alaska village clinics). IHS, tribes and tribal groups operate 7 regional youth substance abuse treatmentcenters and more than 2,200 units of staff quarters. IHS funding is separated into two budget categories: Indian Health Services and Indian Health Facilities. Included in Indian Health Services are such services ashospital and health clinic programs, dental health, mental health, alcohol andsubstance abuse programs, preventive health services, urban health projects, andfunding for Indian health professions. The Indian Health Facilities category includesfunds for maintenance and improvement, construction of health facilities, sanitationfacilities, and environmental health support. The IHS program is funded through acombination of federal appropriations and collections of reimbursements fromMedicare, Medicaid, and private insurance for services provided to eligible patientswho have such insurance coverage. For FY2001, the conference agreement estimatesthat IHS will collect $404.6 million in reimbursements. The Conference agreement approved a FY 2001 appropriation level of $2.605 billion that is $214 million or 9% over the FY 2000 appropriation of $2.391 billion,and 99% of the President's request of $2.620 billion. Of the total appropriation,$2.241 billion, or 86%, is for the health services program budget category, and $364million, or 14%, is for the health facilities program. The population served by the IHS has a higher incidence of illness and premature mortality than other U.S. populations, although the differences in mortalityrates have diminished in recent years in such areas as infant and maternal mortality,as well as mortality associated with alcoholism, injuries, tuberculosis, gastroenteritis,and other conditions. Per capita health spending for IHS was $1,397 in FY1997,compared to the U.S. per capita expenditure of about $3,900. However, Indians havea 249% greater chance of dying from diabetes and a 204% greater chance of dyingfrom accidents than the general population. Moreover, the population eligible for IHSservices has increased by 27% since 1990. According to the IHS, the increases inprogram funding over the past decade have failed to keep pace with increases in theeligible population and with inflation. Again according to the IHS, American Indiansand Alaskan Natives also have less access to health care than does the general U.S.population, with the number of IHS physicians and nurses per Indian beneficiarydropping. This number was already below that of the general population in the1980's. For FY2001, the Conference agreement approved a funding level for the health services program of $2.241 billion, an 8% increase over the FY 2000 appropriationof $2.074 billion. This recommendation includes $1.770 billion for clinical services,$96 million for preventive health programs, and $375 million for other healthservices. Clinical services include basic primary care inpatient and outpatient services in IHS hospitals and clinics, dental services, mental health services, and alcohol andsubstance abuse treatment. When IHS cannot provide medical care and specificservices within their system, they contract to purchase these services from local andcommunity health care providers. For these contract health services, the Conferencecommittee approved $446.8 million, a 10% increase from the FY 2000 appropriationof $407 million. Preventive health services include public health nursing ($36 million), health education in schools and communities ($10 million), and immunizations ($1.5million). In addition, these appropriations would fund a community healthrepresentatives program ($48 million), a tribally administered program which,through various community initiatives, supports community members who work toprevent illness and disease within their communities. Total funding for preventivehealth services is $96 million for FY 2001, $4 million over the FY 2000 level of $92million. Other health services are funded at a level of $375 million in the Conference agreement. The category includes contract support costs ($249 million); IHS's directoperation (management and administration) costs ($53 million); scholarships tohealth care professionals ($31 million); support for health related activities inoff-reservation urban centers ($30 million); for costs associated with providing tribalmanagement grants to tribes ($2.4 million); and support for IHS's administration andmanagement of the Self-Governance Demonstration Project which gives tribalgovernments the responsibility for health care programs ($9.8 million). The conferees want IHS to accept an offer from the American Podiatric Medical Association to assist in the recruitment and screening of candidates to fill podiatrypositions in IHS. The conference report also asks for a report on the plan of actionto augment and strengthen IHS's podiatric care program, as requested last year. The distribution of contract support costs across all IHS self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts is a contentious issue because funding hasbeen insufficient to cover all tribal costs. Contract support costs are the costs awardedto a tribe for the administration of a program under a contract or compact authorizedby the Indian Self-Determination Act ( P.L. 93-638 , as amended). They are intendedto cover the expenses tribes incur for financial management, accounting, training, andprogram start-up costs. Congress has tried in the past to ensure that the contractsupport funds are distributed fairly. This year the conferees require that IHS reportto both appropriations committees prior to finalizing any policy on the distributionof these funds for they want to ensure that the most underfunded tribes are funded atmore equitable levels. As mentioned above, the agreement provided $249 million,a $20 million increase from the funding level for FY 2000, for contract supportservices. The conference report requires that $10 million of the increase be used fornew and expanded self-determination contracts and self-governing compacts. Theconference agreement report noted that, unlike the fixed scale of the Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA), IHS has a varying scale for payments of services. The conferees urgethe Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to work with the BIA and IHS toaddress the discrepancies between agencies. Many IHS health care facilities are reportedly in need of repair or replacement. The Conference agreement approved a total of $364 million for health care facilities,an increase of $47 million over FY 2000, and $15 million over the President'srequest of $349 million. For facilities and environmental health support, theconferees approved $122 million. This funding will support personnel costs for mostof the management, operations, and technical support for all IHS facilities includingplanning and design of new facilities. The Conference agreement approved $94million to pay for increases in the cost of personnel and for the construction ofsanitation systems for housing provided by BIA. The agreement also approved $86million to be used for other major construction projects. This funding is to be usedto complete the construction of hospitals at various locations, a health clinic inParker, Arizona, and for a hospital in Pawnee, Oklahoma. The conferees want fundsused to begin construction of staff quarters in Bethel, Alaska, to initiate a jointventure construction program on a small scale, and to fund the building of staffquarters at Hopi, Arizona. For maintenance and improvements, the agreementapproved $46 million, and for the purchase and replacement of medical equipment,the conference agreement approved $16 million. For further information on Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.ihs.gov/ . For information on the GAO report on Contract Support Costs, see its World Wide Web site at http://www.gao.gov/ . Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation. The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation(ONHIR) was reauthorized for FY1995-2000 by P.L. 104-301 . The 1974 relocationlegislation ( P.L. 93-531 , as amended) was the end result of a dispute between theHopi and Navajo tribes involving land originally set aside by the federal governmentfor a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, lands were partitioned betweenthe two tribes. Members of one tribe who ended up on the other tribe's land were tobe relocated. ONHIR classifies families as relocated when they occupy theirreplacement home. Most relocatees are Navajo. A large majority of the estimated3,477 Navajo families formerly on the land partitioned to the Hopi have alreadyrelocated under the Act, but the House Appropriations Committee estimates that 410families (almost all Navajo) have yet to complete relocation, including about 71Navajo families still on Hopi partitioned land (some of whom refuse to relocate). The remaining 339 families are not on Hopi partitioned land but are in various stagesof acquiring replacement housing. Negotiations had gone forward among the two tribes, the Navajo families on Hopi partitioned land, and the federal government, especially regarding Hopi Tribeclaims against the United States. The United States and the Hopi Tribe reached aproposed settlement agreement on Dec. 14, 1995. Attached to the settlementagreement was a separate accommodation agreement between the Hopi Tribe and theNavajo families, which provided for 75-year leases for Navajo families on Hopipartitioned land. The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996 ( P.L.104-301 ) approved the settlement agreement between the United States and the HopiTribe. Not all issues have been resolved by these agreements, however, andopposition to the agreements and the leases is strong among some of the Navajofamilies. Navajo families with homesites on Hopi partitioned land faced a March 31,1997, deadline for signing the leases (accommodation agreements). According toONHIR, 70 of the 73 families on Hopi-partitioned land had signed accommodationagreements by the end of September 1999. The Hopi Tribe has called for enforcement of relocation against Navajo families without leases. Like the FY1997-FY2000 Interior appropriations acts, the FY2001Interior appropriations bill proposed by the President contained a proviso forbiddingONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi partitioned lands unless areplacement home is provided. This language appears to prevent ONHIR fromforcibly relocating Navajo families, since ONHIR has a large backlog of otherfamilies that need homes. The settlement agreement approved by P.L. 104-301 ,however, allows the Hopi Tribe under certain circumstances to beginquiet-possession actions against the United States after Feb. 1, 2000, if Navajofamilies on Hopi partitioned land have not either relocated or entered into leases withthe Hopi Tribe. Congress has in the past been concerned by the slow pace of relocation, and by relocatees' apparent low level of interest in moving to the "new lands" acquired forthe Navajo reservation for relocatee use. Appropriations committees have from timeto time considered termination of the relocation program, but committee reports havenot discussed this option since FY1999. For FY2000, ONHIR received appropriations of $8 million. For FY2001, the administration proposed $15 million, an increase of 87.5%. The House approved $8million, the same as FY2000. The Senate and the conference committee approved$15 million, the same as the Administration's proposal. Other Related Agencies. One of the pervasive issues for the programs and agencies delineated below is whetherfederal government support for the arts and culture is an appropriate federal role, andif it is, what should be the shape of that support. If the continued federal role is notappropriate, might the federal commitment be scaled back such that greater privatesupport or state support would be encouraged? Each program has its own uniquerelationship to this overarching issue. Smithsonian. The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education and research complex of 16 museums andgalleries and the National Zoo. Nine of its museums and galleries are located on theMall between the U.S. Capitol and the Washington monument, and SI counted 28.5million visits/visitors in 1999 (The National Zoo had 3 million "visits" in 1999, theMuseum of Natural History had 7.1 million "visits", and the Air and Space Museumhad over 9 million "visits.") The Smithsonian is estimated to be 71% federallyfunded. A federal commitment was established by initial legislation in 1846. Inaddition to receiving federal appropriations, the Smithsonian has private trust funds,which include both contributions from private sources and revenues from what theSmithsonian identifies as "Business Ventures" operations (including the Smithsonianmagazine, retail shops and concessions, catalogs and entertainment initiatives; i.e.Resident Associates and other entertainment programs.) In FY1999, contributionsfrom private sources totaled $61 million and sales from "Business Ventures" totaled$144 million. The largest single contribution to the Smithsonian from a privatedonor--$60 million--was pledged to NASM's Dulles Center in October, 1999. Inaddition, a cash gift of $20 million was given by another donor for the renovation ofthe Natural History Museum. The FY2001 Clinton Administration budget would have provided $463 million to the Smithsonian, an increase of $24.9 million above the final FY2000appropriation of $438.1 million. Of the FY2001 request, $396.8 million is forSalaries and Expenses. Of the total for the Smithsonian, no funds were requested thisfiscal year for construction of the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI)on the Mall ($8.695 million was requested for the Cultural Resources Center and foroperations, research and exhibition planning for the NMAI museum on the Mall.) Initially, the NMAI was controversial; opponents of the new museum argued that thecurrent Smithsonian museums needed renovation, repair, and maintenance of thecollection with an estimated 141 million items, more than the public needed anothermuseum on the Mall. Proponents argued, however, that there had been too long adelay in providing a museum "in Washington" to house the Indian collection. Privatedonations to the Smithsonian and a fund-raising campaign focusing on individuals,foundations, and corporations totaled $36.7 million, representing one-third of thetotal cost, and the amount required to meet the non-appropriated portion of projectfunding. Of this amount, an estimated $15 million came from the Indian communitydirectly. The final FY2000 Interior appropriations provided $19 million for theconstruction of the American Indian Museum. The groundbreaking ceremony for theNMAI took place September 28, 1999. The FY2001 budget request included $62.2 million for repair, restoration andalteration for Smithsonian buildings. The SI is responsible for over 400 buildingswith 6.6 million square feet of space. Four of the Smithsonian's buildings plus theNational Zoo constitute approximately one-third of the SI's public space: theNational Museum of Natural History (built in 1910), the American Art and PortraitGallery (built between 1836 and 1860), the Castle building (built 1846), and the Artsand Industries building (1849). The Smithsonian contends that funding for repair andrenewal of SI's facilities has not kept pace with need, resulting in increaseddeterioration of the physical plant. In fact, the report of the Commission on theFuture of the Smithsonian concluded that a total of $50 million each year for the nextdecade would be necessary to "assure that present facilities are restored to the pointof being safe for people and collections;" and considering the National Zooseparately, it would need $10 million a year for the next 5 years. The FY2001 budgetrequest of $62.2 million for repair, restoration, and alteration of facilities included$52.2 million for major repair and renovation for all Smithsonian buildings excludingthe Zoo, and $10 million for the National Zoo repair. In addition, there was a requestfor an advance appropriation of $17 million to become available October 1, 2001,and a request for an advance appropriation for $18 million to become availableOctober 1, 2002 to complete the renovation of the American Art and Portrait Gallery(the Patent Office Building). The FY2001 SI construction account would have been reduced to $4 million (from $19 million). However, it included construction of a base facility for theSmithsonian's Astrophysical Observatory in Hilo, Hawaii, and for the National Zoo's"wonder of water" exhibit. The House-reported and House-passed FY2001 Interior appropriations bill would have provided a total of $423.1 million for the Smithsonian, including $375.2million for Salaries and Expenses, a $4 million increase for the Salaries andExpenses account above the enacted level for FY2000. It included $2 million for theNational Museum of the American Indian collections move and $2 million for theAir and Space Museum's collections move from the Garber facility to the new DullesMuseum. The House-reported and House-passed bill provided $47.9 million forrepair, restoration and alteration of facilities (the same funding as in the FY2000appropriation). There was no recommendation for construction funding in theHouse-reported or House-passed FY2001 Interior appropriations bill. The Senate-reported and Senate-passed FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill would have provided a total of $ 449.9 million for the Smithsonian, including $387.8million for Salaries and Expenses, an increase of $16.5 million above the FY2000enacted level for Salaries and Expenses. As part of the Salaries and Expensesaccount, $47.1 million was for collections acquisition, the Museum Support Centerequipment and move, exhibition reinstallation, the National Museum of theAmerican Indian, the repatriation of skeletal remains program, Latino programming,and funding for the Council of American Overseas Research. The Senate-passed bill provided $57.6 million for repair, restoration and alteration of facilities including$7.6 million for necessary repairs to the National Zoo. Finally, the Senate-passed bill allowed $4.5 million for the Smithsonian's Construction account. According to the P.L. 106-291 , Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2001 ( H.R. 4578 , H.Rept. 106-914 ), theSmithsonian will receive $454.9 million to include $387.4 million for salaries andexpenses, the same as the Senate-passed amount; $57.6 million for repair, restorationand alteration of facilities, the same as the Senate-passed amount; and $9.5 millionfor construction, an increase of $5 million over the Senate-passed amount( nofunding was proposed by the House for this construction account.) Last year, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 ( P.L. 106-113 ) provided $438.1 million for the Smithsonian, including $371.2 million for salariesand expenses, $47.9 million for repair and restoration, and $19 million forconstruction of the National Museum of the American Indian. The Smithsonian indicated that it has a 5-year strategic plan in accordance withprovisions of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and in keepingwith the Smithsonian's mission. One of the goals is to increase and diversify thevisitor audience and to increase by 20% the number of rural communities hostingexhibitions particularly through SITES, the Smithsonian Institution's TravelingExhibition Service program. For further information on the Smithsonian , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.si.edu/. National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and Institute of Museum and LibraryServices. One of the primary vehicles for federal support forarts, humanities and museums is the National Foundation on the Arts and theHumanities, composed of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the NationalEndowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Institute of Museum Services (IMS,now constituted as the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) with anOffice of Museum Services (OMS)). The authorizing act, the National Foundationon the Arts and the Humanities Act, was last reauthorized in 1990 and expired at theend of FY 1993, but has been operating on temporary authority throughappropriations law since that time. The 104th Congress established the Institute ofMuseum and Library Services (IMLS) under P.L. 104-208 . Among the questions Congress has considered is whether funding for the arts, humanities, and museums is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Someopponents to arts support argue that NEA and NEH should be abolished altogether,contending that the federal government should not be in the business of supportingarts and humanities. Other opponents argue that culture can and does flourish on itsown through private support. Proponents of federal support for arts and humanitiesargue that the federal government has a long tradition of such support, beginning asearly as 1817, with congressional appropriations for works of art to adorn the U.S.Capitol. Some spokesmen for the private sector say that they are unable to make upthe gap that would be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts. Some argue thatabolishing NEA and NEH would curtail or eliminate the programs that have nationalsignificance and purpose (such as touring theater and dance companies, radio andtelevision shows, traveling museum exhibitions, etc.) The President's Committee onthe Arts released a publication, Creative America that recommends that federalfunding be restored for NEA, NEH and IMLS to levels "adequate to fulfill theirnational roles." The goal expressed was that appropriations should have equaled$2.00 per person by the year 2000 for all three agencies. The Administration's FY2001 budget proposed $150 million for the NEA. This included $49 million for a Challenge America program providing "access to the arts,arts education, positive alternatives for Youth (youth-at-risk), cultural heritagepreservation, and community arts development." State arts agencies would havereceived 40% of the funds, with over 1,000 communities participating nationwide,particularly those from under-represented areas. For the NEH, the FY2001 budget proposed $150 million. Of that amount, $107.8 million would have sustained NEH's grant programs for humanitieseducation, research, preservation and public programming for programs of the 56state humanities councils, $12.5 million for the NEH Challenge Grants program tostimulate private nonfederal donations in support of humanities institutions, andspecial grants ($4 million) to support establishment of regional humanities centers. For the IMLS, OMS the budget proposed a total of $33.4 million for FY2001. Of that amount $15.5 million would provide for General Operating Support (GOS)to help over 400 museums annually to improve the quality of their services to thepublic-- they are already popular, serving over 600 million visitors annually. OMSis helping to develop Museums Online , a package that will update Internet accessthrough the development of regional electronic networks of museums. The goal is tobring the educational and cultural significance of museums to communities andschools, with the potential to reach over 20 million people. OMS support ofMuseum/school partnerships has helped over 200 schools, 80 museums, and 80,000students. The House-reported FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill provided $98 millionfor the NEA (the FY2000 funding level prior to the rescission in discretionaryfunding), $115.26 million for the NEH (the same as the FY2000 funding level), and$24.3 million for the OMS (the same as the FY2000 funding level.) Two Committeeamendments by Representative Dicks were introduced to increase funding for NEAand NEH with an offset through the Clean Coal deferral. These amendments failed. On June 15, 2000, as part of House passage of the FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill ( H.R. 4578 ), Rep. Dicks made a motion torecommit the bill with instruction to increase funding by $15 million for NEA, $5million for NEH and $2 million for OMS. His motion failed (188 noes to 184 ayes--roll no 290). An amendment by Rep. Stearns failed that would have reduced NEAfunding by 2 percent ($1.96 million) and would have transferred that money to thewildland fire management account (Rejected by256 noes-152 ayes, roll no. 282). Anamendment by Rep. Slaughter that defers an additional $22 million of prior yearclean coal technology funding was agreed to (by 207 ayes to 204 noes, roll no. 283)with the implication from Rep. Slaughter's statements in the Congressional Record that the proposed use for the deferred funding would be to increase NEA, NEH andOMS. However, subsequent to passage of Rep. Slaughter's amendment, Rep.Nethercutt 's amendment passed that would use the clean coal deferred funding of$22 million for the Indian Health Service, instead of NEA, NEH and OMS.Therefore, the House-passed appropriations did not reflect any change from theHouse-reported version-$98 million for NEA, $115.3 million NEH and $24.3million for OMS. The Senate-reported and Senate-passed Interior Appropriations bill for FY2001 included specific increases for NEA (increased to $105 million, an increaseof $7.372 million from the FY2000 funding level); for NEH (increased to $120.26million, an increase of $5 million from the FY2000 funding level); and for OMS ,(increased to $24.9 million, an increase of $.6 million from the FY2000 level.) P.L.106-291 , Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2001, provides $98 million for NEA; $120.3 million for NEH, the same as theSenate-passed measure; and $24.9 million for the Institute of Museum and LibraryServices, the same as the Senate-passed amount. In addition, there is a separateappropriation of $7 million for Challenge America Arts Fund , a programofmatching grants to be administered by the NEA for arts education, outreach andcommunity arts activities for rural and underserved areas. A detailed report would berequired to be submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees,describing the use of funds for Challenge America Arts Fund . Previous Controversies. Some controversy over previous questionable NEA grants seems to reappear when congressional appropriations areconsidered, in spite of attempts to resolve these problems through statutoryprovisions. To date, no NEA projects have been judged obscene by the courts. OnNovember 5, 1996, a federal appeals court upheld an earlier decision, NEA v. Finley ,ruling that applying the "general standards of decency" clause to NEA grants was"unconstitutional." However, in anticipation of congressional reaction to NEA'sindividual grants, NEA eliminated grants to individuals by arts discipline, except tomaintain Literature fellowships, Jazz masters and National Heritage fellowships inthe Folk and Traditional Arts. On June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court reversed thefederal appeals court decision for NEA v. Finley (CA9,100F.3d 671) by a vote of 8to 1, stating that the NEA "can consider general standards of decency" when judginggrants for artistic merit, and that the decency provision does not "inherently interferewith First amendment rights nor violate constitutional vagueness principles." Congress enacted NEA reform measures in the FY1998 Interior Appropriations Act ( P.L. 105-83 ). Among them were increases in funding allocations from 35% to40% to states for basic state arts grants and for grants to under served populations. In addition, language emphasizing arts education was included. The legislationplaced a 15% cap on NEA funds allocated to each state, exempting only those grantswith a national impact. Three members of the House and three members of theSenate were added to the National Council on the Arts, but the size of the NationalCouncil was reduced from 26 to 20. Both NEA and NEH were given specificauthority to solicit funding and to invest those funds. FY2000 appropriations. In the 106th Congress, the FY2000 Interior appropriations funding became part of the FY2000 ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, P.L. 106-113 . A House amendment (to H.R. 2466 )by Representative Slaughter to increase funding for NEA and NEH by $10 millioneach and to decrease Strategic Petroleum Reserve funding by $20 million wasrejected (207-217). An amendment by Representative Stearns to reduce funding forNEA by $2 million was rejected (300-124). An additional amendment byRepresentative Stearns, that was withdrawn, would have placed in a block grant tostates 95% of NEA funds, with allocations based on population. On September 14th,1999, during consideration of H.R. 2466 , the Senate adoptedamendments (1493, 1597) to increase the NEA appropriation to $103 million and theNEH to $115.7 million. A Senate amendment (1569) to H.R. 2466 toeliminate funding for NEA was defeated (80-16). The final FY2000 appropriationfor NEA was reduced to $98 million in conference. As enacted, the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act for FY2000, provided $97.6 million for the NEA, $115.3 millionfor NEH, and $24.3 million for OMS, which reflected an across the board rescissionof .38% in discretionary spending. For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts , see its site at http://arts.endow.gov/ . For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities , see its site at http://www.neh.gov/ . For further information on the Institute of Museum Services , see its site at http://www.imls.gov/ . The Lands Legacy Initiative. The Clinton Administration reintroduced its Lands Legacy as a part of the FY2001 budgetproposal. This initiative would provide funding totaling $1.4 billion to 21 resourceprotection programs, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), inthe Departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture. FY2000 funding forthese programs was $727 million. A majority of the FY2001 request would befunded through Interior Appropriations legislation, including the Department of theInterior portion ($735 million) and the Department of Agriculture portion, all ofwhich would support U.S. Forest Service activities that are funded under Title II ofthe Interior Appropriations ($236 million). This initiative was initially announced on January 12, 1999, and proposed in theFY2000 budget submission. The Administration had sought just over $1 billion forthe component programs, an increase of $571 million from the preceding year, butCongress provided $727 million. For both FY2000 and FY2001, the Administrationdid not suggest any legislative language to authorize new programs, redirect existingprograms, or increase authorization ceilings for existing programs. The FY2001proposal adds 3 programs and deletes 3 programs, when compared with the initialproposal. Numerous related bills to increase and provide more certain funding for a wide range of resource protection activities have been introduced in both chambers. In theHouse, H.R. 701 , often referred to as CARA, passed after two days ofdebate, by a vote of 315-102. In the Senate, the Committee on Energy and NaturalResources completed action on a substitute to H.R. 701 , whichcombines parts of House-passed H.R. 701 with provisions in S. 2181 , introduced by Senator Bingaman, on July 25, and reported thebill on September 14, 2000 ( S.Rept. 106-413 ). Further action on these bills is widelyreported to be highly unlikely during the 106th Congress. One component of this legislation, addressed entirely in Interior Appropriations, is to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million. TheLWCF is the principal source of federal land acquisition funding and provides grantsto states. In its FY2001 budget request, the Administration had sought a total of$600 million for LWCF The House and the Senate both approved smaller amountsfor land acquisition for each of the four agencies than the President had requested. The House and Senate responses, the Administration requests, and the levelsprovided by the conference committee were as follows: $19 million and $11 million for BLM instead of $61 million, the conference committee provided $31 million; $30 million and $46 million for FWS instead of $112 million, the conference committee provided $63 million; $104 million and $87 million for NPS (including state grants) instead of $297 million, the conference committee provided $111 million,and; $52 million and $76 million for FS instead of $130 million, the conference committee provided $102 million. Other components of the Lands Legacy Initiative, which would fall under the jurisdiction of Interior Appropriations, include: (1) providing grants to states andlocalities to acquire land and plan for open space; (2) expanding funding for otherresource protection efforts on forest land and range land, and in urban areas; (3)funding land and resource restoration; and (4) funding smart growth partnerships. Funding for federal land acquisition is shown as the first four lines in Table 4 andother components are combined in the next three lines. Table 4. Land Acquisition and Overall Lands Legacy Funding (in millions of dollars) a Does not include state-side grant programs; the request forFY2001 is $150 million. b Includes $20 million for land acquisition which was notallocated to a specificagency. c May not add up exactly due to rounding. The conference committee added a new Title VIII, titled Land Conservation, Preservation, and Infrastructure Improvement, to fund the Lands Legacy proposal. The new title would appropriate $1.6 billion for various programs in FY2001. Itwould also provide increasing funding, growing to $2.4 billion in FY2006. Of theFY2001 total, $1.2 billion would be funded through the Interior Appropriations andthe remainder would be funded through Commerce appropriations. All fundingwould be subject to the appropriations process each year; none of the funding ismandatory. The Interior funding categories and totals would be: $540 million for federal and state LWCF; $300 million for state and other conservationprograms; $160 million for urban and historic preservationprograms; $150 million for public land maintenance; and $50 million for the payment in lieu of taxesprogram. Three of these categories are also funded in other titles of the bill. For example, the LWCF would receive $311 million in Title I (for BLM, FWS, and NPS) and TitleII (for FS) and $229 million under this title. The final two categories - maintenancefunding and payment in lieu of taxes - would be funded only under this title. Unlikethe CARA proposals, none of the funding for this initiative is linked directly tofederal revenues from offshore oil and gas development. The legislation uses whatits proponents characterize as a "fencing structure" to limit any efforts to shift fundsamong categories at the level of the first year, $1.6 billion, and also to set these fundsapart from all other funds allocated for Interior appropriations. Any appropriatedamounts above this level in future years would not be subject to the fences. Also, anyfunds not appropriated in one year, could be appropriated in a subsequent year. Prior to the conference committee, the FY2001 Lands Legacy Initiative proposal received little recognition or support from Congress. The House AppropriationsCommittee did not comment on it directly, and provided less or no funding forprograms in it. No amendments referenced to any of the Lands Legacy proposalswere adopted on the House floor. The Senate Appropriations Committee reportincluded a lengthy discussion of the initiative. As in the House, no amendmentsreferenced to any of the Lands Legacy proposals were adopted on the Senate floor. This process is similar to how Congress responded to the initiative in FY2000, when both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee generally opposed theseproposals. But when the Interior Appropriations bill became part of the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act for FY2000, a new Title VI was added to Interior Appropriationsto provide additional funding of $197.5 million for Lands Legacy programs. Most,but not all, of these funds were dedicated for land acquisitions. For additional information on the funding request for the Lands Legacy Initiative in FY2000 and FY2001, see CRS Report RS20471, The Administration'sLands Legacy Initiative in the FY2001 Budget Proposal - A Fact Sheet ; for trackingthe Lands Legacy Initiative and related legislative proposals, see CRS Issue Brief IB10015, Conserving Land Resources: Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress ;and for more detail on the provisions in the pending legislative proposals, see theJune 2000 version of CRS Report RL30444(pdf) , Resource Protection: A Comparison of H.R. 701 / S. 2567 and Three Other Senate Bills( S. 25 , S. 2123 , and S. 2181 ) with CurrentLaw . CRS Report RL30206 . Appropriations for FY2000: Interior and Related Agencies, by [author name scrubbed], 59 p. CRS Report 97-684 GOV. The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction , by [author name scrubbed], 34 p. CRS Report RL30343 . Continuing Appropriations Acts: Brief Overview of Recent Practices , by [author name scrubbed], 10 p. CRS Report RS20403. FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide , by [author name scrubbed], 3 p. Title I: Department of the Interior. CRS Report RS20471. The Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative in the FY2001 Budget Proposal - A Fact Sheet , by Jeffrey Zinn, 2 p. CRS Issue Brief IB10015. Conserving Land Resources: Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress , by [author name scrubbed], 12 p. CRS Report RL30171. Department of the Interior Budget Request for FY2000: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed], 51 p. CRS Issue Brief IB10009. Endangered Species: Continuing Controversy , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-851(pdf) A. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed], 29 p. CRS Report RS20002(pdf) . Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer , by [author name scrubbed], 6 p. CRS Report 98-991 ENR. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], Ross W.Gorte, [author name scrubbed], Carol Hardy-Vincent, David Whiteman, and PamelaBaldwin, 66 p. CRS Report RL30335(pdf) . Federal Land Management Agencies' Permanently Appropriated Accounts, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and CarolHardyVincent, 25 p. 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], 19 p. CRS Report 90-192(pdf) ENR. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local Governments , by [author name scrubbed], 37 p. CRS Report 96-123 EPW. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding , by [author name scrubbed], 5 p. CRS Report 93-793 A. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Judicial and Administrative Interpretations , by [author name scrubbed], 28 p. CRS General Distribution Memorandum. Indian Issues in the 105th Congress , by [author name scrubbed], 5 p. CRS Report 97-792 ENR. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues , by Jeffrey Zinn, 6 p. CRS Report RL30310(pdf) . The Mining Law Millsite Debate, by [author name scrubbed], 7 p. CRS Report 94-438 ENR. Mining Law Reform: the Impact of a Royalty , by [author name scrubbed], 14 p. CRS Report RL30069. Natural Resource Issues in the 106th Congress , by the Natural Resources and Earth Sciences Section, 41 p. CRS Report 98-574 ENR. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified , by [author name scrubbed], 10 p. CRS Report RL30444(pdf) . Resource Protection and Recreation: A Comparison of H.R. 701 (Amended) and S. 25 with Current Law, byJeffrey Zinn and [author name scrubbed], 32 p. CRS Report 98-293 STM. U.S. Geological Survey: Its Mission, Funding, and Future under GPRA, by James E. Mielke, 6 p. Title II: Related Agencies. CRS Report RS20287 . Arts and Humanities: Fact Sheet on Funding , by [author name scrubbed] 2 pages. CRS Report 97-539 EPW. Arts and Humanities: Funding and Reauthorization in the 105th Congress , by [author name scrubbed], 15 p. CRS Report 95-15 ENR. Below-Cost Timber Sales: Overview , by [author name scrubbed], 20 p. CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Climate Change, and Electricity Restructuring Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 95-511 ENR. Forest Fires and Forest Health , by [author name scrubbed], 5 p. CRS Report 95-548 ENR. Forest Health: Overview , by [author name scrubbed], 5 p. CRS Report 97-706 ENR. Forest Roads: Construction and Financing , by [author name scrubbed], 6 p. CRS Report RS20486(pdf) . Forest Service Accountability in Administering Its Trust Funds, by [author name scrubbed] 6 p. CRS General Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Budget Allocation Formula , by [author name scrubbed], 25 p. CRS Report RS20496. Forest Service FY2001 Budget Issues, Including Proposals for Land Sales and Trust Funds , by [author name scrubbed], 6 p. CRS General Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Performance Measures , by [author name scrubbed], 25 p. CRS Report IB10057. Forest Service Revenue-Sharing Payments , by [author name scrubbed], 11 p. CRS Report RL30480. Forest Service Revenue-Sharing Payments: Legislative Issues , by [author name scrubbed], 24 p. CRS Report 94-866 EPW. Health Care Fact Sheet: Indian Health Service , by Jennifer A. Neisner, 2 p. CRS Report 96-191 SPR. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) , by [author name scrubbed], 24 p. CRS Report RL30647 . The National Forest Roadless Area Initiative, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20150. Roadless Area Entry: The Administration's Moratorium , by [author name scrubbed], 6 p. CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve , by [author name scrubbed]. Report of the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior and the AppropriationsCommittees of the United States Congress. [Washington: The Task Force]. August 1994. Information regarding the budget, supporting documents, and related departments, agencies and programs is available at the following web or gopher sites. House Committee on Appropriations . http://www.house.gov/appropriations Senate Committee on Appropriations . http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/ CRS Appropriations Products Guide . http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html Congressional Budget Office . http://www.cbo.gov/ General Accounting Office . http://www.gao.gov Office of Management and Budget . http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/ Title I: Department of the Interior. Department of the Interior (DOI) . http://www.doi.gov/ Department of the Interior's Office of the Budget . http://www.doi.gov/budget/ Department of the Interior's Strategic Plan Overview FY1998-FY2002. http://www.doi.gov/fyst.html Department of the Interior's FY1999 Annual Performance Report/FY2001 Annual Performance Plan . http://www.doi.gov/gpra/99apr01app.html Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . http://www.blm.gov/ Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) . http://www.fws.gov/ National Park Service (NPS) . http://www.nps.gov/parks.html U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) . http://www.usgs.gov/ Minerals Management Service (MMS) . http://www.mms.gov/ Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) . http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) . http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html Office of Special Trustee for American Indians . http://www.ost.doi.gov/ Insular Affairs . http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html Title II: Related Agencies and Programs. Department of Agriculture (USDA) . http://www.usda.gov/ Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service . http://www.fs.fed.us/ USDA Strategic Plan . http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm Department of Energy (DOE) . http://www.doe.gov/ DOE Strategic Plan. http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm Fossil Energy . http://www.fe.doe.gov/ Strategic Petroleum Reserve . http://www.fe.doe.gov/spr/spr.html Naval Petroleum Reserves . http://www.fe.doe.gov/nposr/index.html Energy Efficiency . http://www.eren.doe.gov/ Department of Health and Human Services . http://www.dhhs.gov Indian Health Service (IHS) . http://www.ihs.gov/ Smithsonian . http://www.si.edu/newstart.htm National Endowment for the Arts . http://arts.endow.gov/ National Endowment for the Humanities . http://www.neh.fed.us/ Institute of Museum Services . http://www.imls.gov/ Table 5. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations (in thousands of dollars) Source: House Appropriations Committee. Table 6. Congressional Budget Recap (in thousands of dollars) Source: House Appropriations Committee. Table 7. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1995 to FY2000 (in thousands of dollars) a Incorporates reductions included in the FY1995 Rescissions Bill, H.R. 1944 ( P.L. 104-19 ). b Beginning in FY1996, appropriations for the territories and other insular areas wereconsolidated within theDepartmental Offices account. c Beginning in FY1998, Indian Education was funded in the Labor, Health and HumanServices, and EducationAppropriations. d The FY1997 enacted amount totals $13,514,435 with funding of $386,592 included in theEmergencySupplemental Appropriations bill ( P.L. 105-18 ).

Summary: The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funding for agencies and programs in four separate federal departments as well as numerous smaller agencies and diverseprograms. The bill includes funding for the Interior Department except the Bureau of Reclamation,but only segments of the funding of the other three departments, Agriculture, Energy, and Health andHuman Services. On February 7, 2000, President Clinton submitted his FY2001 budget to Congress. The FY2001 request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $16.32 billion compared to the $14.91billion enacted for FY2000 ( P.L. 106-113 ), an increase of $1.41 billion. (With scorekeepingadjustments, including an across-the-board cut of 0.38% for FY2000, the figures are $16.49 billionrequested for FY2001 compared with $14.90 billion enacted for FY2000.) The Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and the full House Appropriations Committee marked up the FY2001 Interior Appropriations bill on May 17, 2000 andMay 25, 2000, respectively. On June 16, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4578 ( H.Rept.106-646 ) by a vote of 204-172. The FY2001 recommended level of $14.6 billion is $1.7 billionbelow the President's request and $302 million below the FY2000 enacted level. The Interior Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the Interior bill on June 20, 2000 and June 22, 2000,respectively. On July 18, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4578 ( S.Rept. 106-312 ) by avote of 97-2. The FY2001 recommended level of $15.8 billion in total budget authority is some$1.16 billion above the House-passed mark. A House-Senate conference met on September 20 and September 21 and after further discussions between the conferees and the Administration agreed to a funding level of $18.8 billion,some $3.8 billion above the FY2000 enacted level. The conference agreement included $1.8 billionin emergency and supplemental funding ($300 million above the President's request) forexpenditures already incurred in firefighting and to restore areas damaged by Western wildfires. Theconference also included a new Title VIII that would implement a modified version of thePresident's Lands Legacy Initiative over 6 years. Funding would start at a total of $1.6 billion inFY2001 ($1.2 billion for Interior Appropriations programs) and rise to $2.4 billion in FY2006. Inaddition, the conference provided significant increases for the Indian Health Service (+ $214million), Bureau of Indian Affairs programs (+ $272 million), Energy Conservation programs (+$94.7 million), and Bureau of Land Management Operations (+ $66 million). (See Table 5 fortheHouse, Senate, and Conference approved funding levels.) The conference report ( H.Rept. 106-914 ) was passed by the House on October 3, 2000 by a vote of 348-69 and was passed by the Senate on October 5, 2000, by a vote of 83-13. President Clintonsigned H.R. 4578 into law ( P.L. 106-291 ) on October 11, 2000. Key Policy Staff Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance; RSI =Resources, Science, and Industry.