On October 19, following a series of temporary continuing resolutions, aconference report ( H.Rept. 105-825 ) was submitted on H.R. 4328 , theOmnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999. The total for Interior and Related Agencies was $14.1 billion, matching FY1998(including the Emergency Supplemental) and higher than passed the House orreported to the Senate. The conference report and the bill passed the House onOctober 20 and the Senate on October 21, and was signed as P.L. 105-277 by thePresident on October 21. The annual Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes fundingfor agencies and programs in five separate federal departments, as well as numeroussmaller agencies and diverse programs. The President's FY1999 budget request forInterior and Related Agencies totals $14.23 billion compared to the $13.79 billionenacted by Congress for FY1998. Title I of the bill includes agencies within theDepartment of the Interior, which manage land and other natural resource programs,the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Insular Affairs. Title II of the bill includes theForest Service of the Department of Agriculture, research and development programsof the Department of Energy, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, and theStrategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Indian Health Services in the Department ofHealth and Human Services. In addition, Title II includes a variety of relatedagencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, John F.Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, theNational Endowment for the Humanities, and the Holocaust Memorial Council. 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related AgenciesAppropriations, FY1999 On February 2, 1998, the President submitted his FY1999 budget to Congress. The FY1999 request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $14.26 billion comparedto the $13.79 billion enacted by Congress for FY1998 ( P.L. 105-83 ), an increase of$470 million. The actual increase for Title I and Title II agencies in the FY1999request is $1.17 billion, offset by a nonrecurring appropriation of $699 million forpriority land acquisitions and exchanges in Title V of the FY1998 Interior andRelated Agencies Appropriations Act. However, the Emergency Supplemental ( P.L.105-174 ) increased the FY1998 enacted level to a total of $14.1 billion. Significant requested increases above the FY1998 enacted level include: the Department of Energy (+ $185.9 million), the Forest Service (+ $91.3 million), theBureau of Indian Affairs (+ $140.9 million), the National Park Service (+ $98million), the Bureau of Land Management (+ $97.7 million), the Fish and WildlifeService (+ $49.6 million), the U.S. Geological Survey (+ $46.5 million), theNational Endowment for the Arts (+ 38 million), the National Endowment for theHumanities (+ $25.3 million), the Smithsonian Institution (+ $17.5 million), and theDepartmental Offices of the Department of the Interior (+ $6.7 million). The onlysignificant decreases include: the Minerals Management Service (- $21.8 million),and the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and ArtsDevelopment (- $1.1 million). On June 18, 1998, the Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee marked up the Interior Appropriations bill and reported the bill to the fullcommittee. The Subcommittee recommended a $13.4 billion funding bill to include: $1.3 billion for operation of the National Park System, $246 million for NationalWildlife Refuges, $940 million for wildland fire management, $80 million forEverglades restoration, $2.2 billion for the Indian Health Service, $772 million forBureau of Indian Affair's (BIA) tribal priority allocations, $10 million increases forboth BIA education and BIA law enforcement, and $398 million for the Smithsonian. Cuts included terminating the $98 million National Endowment for the Arts, $163million less for energy programs, and termination of the $50 million timberpurchasing road credit program in the Forest Service. The Subcommittee also recommended extending the recreational fee demonstration program for 2 years allowing National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, andNational Forests to keep 100% of the fees collected which would result in more than$400 million of added revenue to help reduce backlogs of maintenance andoperational shortfalls. In response to public and congressional criticism of NPSconstruction spending, the Subcommittee also recommended imposing major reformsfor the NPS Construction program, a 50% reduction of staff at the Denver ServiceCenter and to require NPS to contract out 90% of construction projects. On June 23, 1998, the Senate Interior Subcommittee marked up the Interior bill. The Subcommittee recommended $13.4 billion in funding, including: $1.2 billion forthe Bureau of Land Management, $797.3 for the Fish and Wildlife Services, $1.66billion for the National Park Service, $1.7 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,$2.6 billion for the Forest Service, $1.25 billion for the Department of Energy, $2.1billion for the Indian Health Service, $100 million for the National Endowment forthe Arts, and $110.7 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. On June 25, 1998 the House and Senate Appropriations Committees met to mark up their respective versions of the FY1999 Interior Appropriations bill. TheHouse Appropriations Committee approved total mandatory and discretionaryfunding of $13.43 billion and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $13.46billion. Both bills included mandatory funding of $58.5 million. On July 23, 1998, the House passed H.R. 4193 , the FY1999 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill by a vote of 245-181 and increasedfunding by $60 million to $13.49 billion. The House-passed bill is $800 millionbelow the President's request and $700 million below the FY1998 enacted level. Itshould be noted that during the consideration of H.R. 4193 , the Housevoted 253-173 to restore $98 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)following a point of order which had deleted $98 million since NEA had no programauthorization. It should be noted that the House and Senate totals reflect scorekeeping adjustments (see Table 3 ). In the absence of these scorekeeping adjustments, theSenate bill ( S. 2237 ) is $168 million more than the House bill( H.R. 4193 ). Changes from the House bill are included in parenthesis:$1.2 billion for the Bureau of Land Management (+ $20 million), $797.3 million forthe Fish and Wildlife Service (+ $52.5 million), $1.66 billion for the National ParkService (+ $55.5 million), $1.71 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (- $11.5million), $2.62 billion for the Forest Service (+ $99.7 million), $1.25 billion for theDepartment of Energy (+ $18.4 million), and $2.25 billion for the Indian HealthService (+ $94 million). On September 8, 1998, the Senate began debating S. 2237 , but suspended action after September 17 in favor of other legislative business. TheOffice of Management and Budget in a September 8, 1998 Statement ofAdministration Policy suggested the possibility of a Presidential veto if the billremained in its then-current form. On October 19, following a series of temporary continuing resolutions, a conference report ( H.Rept. 105-825 ) was submitted on H.R. 4328 , theOmnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year1999. The total included for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencieswas $14.1 billion, matching FY1998 (including emergency supplementalappropriations) and higher than passed the House or reported to the Senate. Theconference report and the bill passed the House on October 20 and the Senate onOctober 21, and was signed as P.L. 105-277 by the President on October 21. 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998 (budget authority in billions of currentdollars) 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 billionreducing FY1996 budget authority 9% below the FY1995 level. FY1997 fundingincreased to $13.1 billion and FY1998 to $13.8 billion. (See Table 3 for acomparison of FY1998 enacted and the FY1999 budget request for InteriorAppropriations, and see Table 5 for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau, andprogram from FY1993 to FY1998.) 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.ios.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 WorldWide Web site at http://www.doi.gov/fyst.html Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 264 million acresof public land, primarily in the West. The agency manages an additional 300 millionacres of minerals underlying federal and private lands throughout the country, andhandles wildfire management and suppression on 388 million acres. Themanagement of public lands has been controversial in recent years, particularly withrespect to grazing, mining, logging, recreation, access across public lands, and wildhorses and burros. For FY1999, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations law ( P.L. 105-277 ) contained a total of $1.191 billion for the Bureau of Land Management. This figureis $54.7 million higher than the amount appropriated for FY1998, but $43.0 millionlower than the sum requested by the President for FY1999. The total BLMappropriation is divided among ten activities, as described below. About half the total--$619.3 million--is provided for management of lands and resources. The appropriation funds BLM land activities including protection, use,improvement, development, disposal, cadastral survey, classification, acquisition ofeasements and other interests, as well as other activities such as maintenance offacilities, the assessment of the mineral potential of public lands, and the generaladministration of the agency. The figure is $37.2 million higher than the amountappropriated for FY1998, but $41.0 million lower than the amount requested by thePresident for FY1999. Approximately another quarter of the BLM appropriation--$286.9 million--is provided for wildland fire management. This appropriation supports Interior's fireactivities including preparedness, suppression, emergency rehabilitation, andhazardous fuels reduction. The appropriation is $6.8 million higher than theappropriation for FY1998, but $11.5 million lower than the President's FY1999request. The next largest portion of the BLM appropriation, $125.0 million, is for payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). Under the PILT program, local governments arepaid under a complex formula for certain federally owned land because the federalgovernment does not pay taxes on land it owns. The PILT money may be used forany local government purpose including schools, firefighting, and law enforcement. The appropriation is $5.0 million more than both the sum enacted for FY1998 andrequested by the President for FY1999. (For more information on PILTappropriations issues, see CRS Report 98-574, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes):Somewhat Simplified , June 24, 1998.) For the Oregon and California grant lands, the law provides $97.0 million, which is $1.9 million lower than both the FY1998 enacted amount and thePresident's request for FY1999. The appropriation is used for activities on therevested Oregon and California Railroad grant lands and related areas, including forland improvements and the management, protection, and development of resourceson these lands. Smaller portions of the BLM appropriations support other activities. For land acquisition, a total of $14.6 million is provided. The funding is to be derived fromthe Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the principal source of funds foracquiring recreation lands. (For more information on the Fund, see CRS Report 97-792, Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues , March 6,1998.) The sum is $3.4 million higher than that enacted for FY1998, but $0.4 millionlower than the President's FY1999 request. The joint explanatory statementaccompanying the conference report on the omnibus funding measure explains thatmost of the $14.6 million is to be distributed among 12 projects. For construction, the law appropriates $11.0 million, which is more than double both the amount enacted for FY1998 ($5.1 million) and requested for FY1999 ($4.2million). The law also specifies the portion of the BLM appropriation allocated forthe central hazardous materials fund ($10.0 million); range improvements ($10.0million); miscellaneous trust funds ($8.8 million); and service charges, deposits, andforfeitures ($8.1 million). Some of the general provisions in the omnibus law affect BLM activities, with a handful pertaining to mining and mineral claims. For instance, the omnibus lawcontinues the moratorium on patenting mining claims under the General Mining Lawof 1872, with certain exceptions (Section 312). It postpones for one year the revisionof hardrock mining regulations (43 CFR 3809), pending a study by the NationalAcademy of Sciences (Section 120). The law reauthorizes through FY2001 theannual hardrock claim maintenance fee at $100 per claim or site, and provides for a60-day period to correct any defects to small miner waiver applications(administrative provisions to the BLM section). General provisions also affect otherissues. For instance, one provision directs the BLM to reauthorize grazing permitsprior to completion of reviews under applicable laws, such as the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (Section 124). A number of provisions of the omnibus law cut across agency jurisdictions. One such provision prohibits the Interior Secretary from purchasing land in Alaskawithout first attempting to acquire such lands through exchange of unreserved publicland (Section 127). Because it addresses land purchases by the Secretary of theInterior, the provision could affect the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish andWildlife Service (FWS), in addition to BLM, although it is likely that the landsinvolved in the exchange would be BLM lands. Other cross-cutting provisionsaffecting BLM, such as that extending the recreation fee demonstration program(Section 327), are included elsewhere in this report. (For further discussion of therecreation fee demonstration program in particular, see the section on the NationalPark Service.) Site specific provisions, which do not deal with general policy issues,generally are not discussed in this report. Still other cross-cutting provisions were dropped from the omnibus measure before enactment. For example, the law did not include earlier bill language thatwould have terminated the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project(ICBEMP), a joint BLM-Forest Service effort to provide coordinated, long-termmanagement direction for 72 million acres of Forest Service and BLM land. The development of the BLM appropriation for FY1999 began with the Administration's FY1999 request for $1.23 billion, $97.7 million more than enactedfor FY1998 ($1.14 billion). The largest increases were for management of lands andresources ($78.2 million) and wildland fire management ($18.2 million). The House Appropriations Committee recommended $1.16 billion for the BLM for FY1999, $78.1 million less than requested and $19.6 million more than enactedfor FY1998. The House Committee recommended $596.4 million for themanagement of lands and resources; $63.9 million less than requested, but $14.3million more than enacted for FY1998. For wildland fire management, theCommittee recommended $286.9 million, $11.5 million less than requested but $6.8million more than enacted for FY1998. For the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program(PILT), the Committee recommended $120 million; the same amount was requestedfor FY1999 and was appropriated for FY1998. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported an appropriation of $1.20 billion for the BLM in FY1999, approximately $33 million less than requested, and$64.7 million more than enacted for FY1998. The Senate Committee recommended$633.1 million for the management of lands and resources; approximately $36.7million more than the House bill. The Committee recommended approximately $289million for wildland fire management; $9.4 million less than requested, but $8.9million more than enacted for FY1998. The House and Senate committee-reportedversions also addressed BLM policy issues in Title III, the General Provisions Title. For instance, sections in both bills continued the moratorium on patenting newmining claims under the General Mining Law of 1872 (with certain exceptions in theHouse bill), and limited the use of funds for continuation of the ICBEMP in thePacific Northwest. The House-passed bill contained $1.18 billion for BLM functions, $39.6 million more than enacted for FY1998 but $58.1 million less than requested. As passed, themeasure retained the amounts recommended by the House Appropriations Committeeexcept that a floor amendment increased the funding for PILT by $20 million to atotal of $140 million. During House floor consideration, the House also consideredbut rejected several key amendments. These amendments proposed to 1) strikelanguage terminating the ICBEMP, 2) strike language extending the recreational feedemonstration program for another 2 years, and 3) increase funding for the Land andWater Conservation Fund. As noted earlier in this report, the Senate did not pass afree-standing bill appropriating funds for BLM and other Interior agencies. 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 recommended $818.2 million (1) forFWS--an increase of $45.7million (5.9%) over FY1998. Congress appropriated $802.2 million, an increase of3.8%. The increase falls almost entirely within Resource Management (whichincludes the endangered species program, fisheries, and refuge management, amongother things) which would go from $594.6 million to $661.1 million. The Endangered Species program increased overall from $96.2 million to $124.8 million, an amount close to the President's request. As the following table shows, the detailed distribution is quite different. Of the congressional increase, $20million is for salmon and steelhead recovery in Washington state, and smallerincreases were provided for programs to conserve candidate species (therebyobviating the need to list some of them), and for consultation with other federalagencies whose actions might affect listed species. Funding for endangered species programs, FY1998-FY1999 (millions of dollars) *The president proposed, and Congress approved, a $5 million Landowner IncentiveInitiative in Recovery. The Administration proposed continuing language that would cap the money spent on listing. Congress accepted this language and cap. The language limits thediscretion of the agency to transfer funds for additional listings, e.g., if lawsuitsmandate agency action on listing certain species. It exempts steps to de-list ordown-list a species from the cap. Without a cap, funding would either have to betransferred away from ongoing listing activities to meet the additional requirementsof a lawsuit, or from other programs within the agency's Resources Managementfunction. With the cap, a court order to carry forward a listing decision on particularspecies makes listing into a zero sum game, at least at a fiscal level: the listing ofsome species or designation of their critical habitats would preclude the listing ofothers. FWS supported this change to protect the budgets of other programs. In arelated subject, the Administration proposed transferring de-listing and down-listingactivities from the Listing function to the Recovery function. The step did notrequire congressional action, but combined with the above limitation, only newlistings or new designations of critical habitat will be affected by the limitation on thefunds. The Administration proposed $10.0 million (-7.2%) 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. Congressappropriated $10.779 million, the FY1998 level. The payment levels have beencontroversial, since the small additions of land to the National Wildlife RefugeSystem over the last several years mean that reduced dollars must be spread stillfurther. The situation has produced calls for Congress to increase the appropriation,especially since local governments often (incorrectly) view the payments asentitlements, even though they are actually subject to annual appropriations. Land acquisition was proposed to decrease to $60.5 million (-3.4%), relative to FY1998. Congress cut the amount still further, to $48.0 million, a decrease of23.4%. 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 376 units that comprise theNational Park System, including 56 "full or actual" National Parks, the premier unitsof the System. In addition to the National Parks, the diverse Park System includesnational preserves, recreation areas, reserves, monuments, battlefields, seashores anda number of other categories. The System has grown to more than 80 million acres,in 49 states and the District of Columbia. In recent years over 270 million visitorshave visited the parks annually. The NPS has the often contradictory mission offacilitating access and serving Park System visitors while protecting and preservingthe natural and cultural resources entrusted to it. For nearly two decades the Park Service has operated with tight budgets. During this period, Congress restricted appropriations to operate and maintain thePark System while continuing to add new units to the System. Combined withincreased visitation, the essentially static funding had stretched personnel, impairedoperations, and generated a multibillion dollar backlog of deferred maintenance. However, spending for the NPS now appears to have a higher priority. Temporaryclosure of NPS units (part of a federal government-wide shutdown during the budgetdebates of late 1995 and early 1996) helped galvanize public support for increasingNPS operations and maintenance funding in FY1997, FY1998, and FY1999. The Administration's Operations budget request for the NPS for FY1999 totals $1.321 billion. The House recommended $1.333 billion and the Senaterecommended $1.288 billion. The conference agreement provides $1.286 billion foroperation of the National Park System. Deferred Maintenance. The Park System has a formidable maintenance burden, with thousands of permanentstructures, roads, bridges, tunnels, employee housing units, water and waste systems, etc . The NPS has valued these assets at over $35 billion, but they would deterioratewithout adequate care and maintenance. In FY1999, the Administration proposedattacking the deferred maintenance backlog with a $62 million increase in NPSmaintenance from FY1998, with a total request for $446 million. The HouseCommittee recommended a slightly larger increase ($64 million) and the SenateCommittee recommended a smaller increase, but still $18 million (5%) above theFY1998 level. The conference agreement provides $412 million for maintenance. Mounting concerns about the build-up of unmet maintenance needs has prompted Congress to seek new funding sources. Congress and the Administrationhave generally agreed to address problems and adequately fund the operation of thepark system and to aggressively attack the maintenance backlog. In the FY1999budget request, the Administration had a proposal that would add more than $25million annually for NPS management purposes from Park concessioners franchisefees. (A number of large concession contracts are due for renewal and the trend hasbeen for substantial increases.) The proposal is to keep the concession fees for thePark System, rather than having them returned to the General Fund of the Treasury(as is current practice). Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The Administration's proposal for maintenanceparallels the recreation fee demonstration program being tested by the NPS and threeother federal land management agencies. The recreation fee program began inFY1996 to allow higher entrance and recreation user fees, with the added fees beingretained by the unit where the money is collected. It was hoped that the additionalfees would be incentives to agency managers to be more aggressive in pursuing"self-financing" for operating and maintaining their units. The NPS is expecting tocollect $136.5 million under this program in FY1999. The Omnibus Appropriationsbill extended the fee demonstration program for 2 additional years. Urban Park and Recreation Fund. The House had approved an amendment to the bill to fund the Urban Park and RecreationRecovery (UPRR) program at $2 million (the Administration's request). Althoughthe program was last funded in FY1994, previous appropriations were about $5million annually, with communities competing for many more grants than there wasmoney available for. The highly popular matching grant program had helped localgovernments rehabilitate playgrounds, recreation centers, ball courts, and playingfields in urban areas. The conference agreement did not provide the proposed $2million, stating that the Committee determined that this effort could not beaccommodated with the limited resources available this year. Related Legislation. Congress approved a bill ( S. 1693 , the National Parks Omnibus Management Actof 1998) under expedited procedures at the end of 105th. The bill provides for longanticipated park criteria and management reforms and an overhaul of the parkservices concessions policy to allow revenue generated from concession contracts tobe returned to appropriate National Park units without annual appropriations. Otherprovisions calling for new fee authorities and higher fees from film makers weredropped from the final version of this bill. In another "collateral initiative," NationalPark roads, considered an important maintenance priority, will receive a substantialboost ($31 million in FY1998 and $81 million annually for the next 5 fiscal years,nearly double previous funding) under the new 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 and outlying areas for activitiesspecified in the National Historic Preservation Act. These preservation grants arenormally funded on a 60% federal-40% state matching share basis. TheAdministration's FY1999 budget estimate would have provided $100.61 million forthe Historic Preservation Fund, $50.61 million for the Historic Preservation Fundgrants-in-aid program (compared to $40.812 million total for the Fund in FY1998)and $50 million for a new initiative by the Administration, "Save America'sTreasures," part of the proposed Environmental Resources Fund for America. Thisinitiative would make preservation of "America's treasures"a priority including documents, artwork, manuscripts, photographs, sound recordings and historicstructures. Twenty-five million dollars of "America's treasures" funding wouldprovide grants to states and Indian tribes who would receive funds based uponsubmission of proposals for preservation and subject to matching provisions (exceptto Indian tribes who are not required to match funds.) The remaining $25 millionwould be for priority preservation projects in federal agencies. The Administration'sbudget for the Historic preservation fund included $15.4 million in grants targeted to specified Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) for thepreservation and restoration of historic buildings and structures on their campuses.Funding in FY1998 ($4 million) provided preservation funds for the most needyhistorically black colleges including Knoxville College, (TN); Selma University,(AL), Allen University (SC); Tougaloo College (MS) and Fisk University (TN). Chartered by Congress in 1949, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is responsible for encouraging the protection and preservation of historic Americansites significant to the cultural heritage of the U.S. Although a private nonprofitcorporation, the National Trust receives federal funding through the authority of theNational Historic Preservation Act, Historic Preservation Fund. Federal assistancehas enabled the National Trust to support historic preservation work in localcommunities. The Administration's FY1999 budget estimate does not specifyfunding for the National Trust, in keeping with Congress' plan to replace federalfunds with private funding, and to help the Trust become self-supporting by FY1999. The National Trust received $3.5 million in FY1998, in keeping with the efforts toprivatize funding, within a period of transition. There is no specific appropriationmentioned in the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act for the National Trust. On June 25, 1998 the House Appropriations Committee reported the FY1999 Interior Appropriations bill that would provide a total of $40.812 million for the Historic Preservation fund with $0 for the National Trust for Historic Preservationand $0 for the millennium initiative, "Save America's Treasures." A statement wasincluded in House report language that priority would be given to cultural projectsthat are backlogged and that the committee would continue to keep in mind proposedmillennium projects during consideration of the Interior bill. On June 25, 1998 theSenate Appropriations Committee ordered reported the Interior bill ( S. 2237 ), providing $55.612 million for the Historic Preservation Fund; including $0for the National Trust, $45.612 million for grants-in-aid, and $10 million for the"millennium program for historic preservation projects of national importance." OnJuly 23, 1998, the full House approved its Appropriations Committee'srecommendation. The Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277 provides a total of $72,412,000 to the Historic Preservation Fund. Of that amount,$30 million would be provided to the "Save America's Treasures" program forpriority preservation projects, with $3 million reserved for restoration of the StarSpangled Banner, $500,000 for the Sewall-Belmont House, and sufficient funds forrestoration of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. From thetotal for the Historic Preservation Fund for FY1999, $7 million would remainavailable until expended for Section 507 (of P.L. 104-333 ), the Historically BlackColleges and Universities Historic Building Restoration and Preservation program. U.S. Geological Survey. As the nation's natural science organization, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conductsresearch and provides basic scientific information concerning natural hazards,biological, and environmental issues, as well as water, land, and mineral resources. After debate in 1995 about its future, the U.S. Geological Survey had itsresponsibilities increased with consolidation into it of activities formerly conductedby other agencies within DOI (National Biological Service and Bureau of Mines). This consolidation maintains programs for biological research and minerals surveysand information activities. Currently the USGS conducts surveys, investigations, andresearch through four major program activities. These include the National MappingProgram; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water ResourcesInvestigations; and Biological Research. The Administration has requested $806.88 million for FY1999. This is an increase of $47.72 million over the 1998 enacted level, comprised of $30.23 millionin program increases and $17.50 million in uncontrollable and related changes. Program increases include $14.26 million for Water Resources Investigations, $13.58million for the National Mapping Program, and $9.73 for Biological Research. These increases will be partially offset by decreases in the Geologic Hazards,Resources, and Processes Program by $6.23 million and by $1.12 million in GeneralAdministration. No change in FTEs, which number 6,487, is requested. The FY1999 Budget Request for the USGS Water Resources Investigations Program Activity includes two proposed program increases totaling $17.5 millionand four proposed program decreases totaling $3.24 million. The major increasesproposed for the FY1999 budget for the USGS Water Resources Programs are relatedto water quality information. Program increases are proposed of $10.5 million forthe Administration's Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative (with fundsbeing added to four programs) and of $7.0 million for the Water Quality InformationInitiative (with funds being added to three programs). Proposed program decreasesinclude three reductions to the Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Program (totaling$2.71 million) and one reduction of $526,000 to the Toxic Substances HydrologyProgram. The FY1999 Budget Request for the National Mapping Program includes $18.5 million in three proposed program increases and $4.92 million in two proposedprogram decreases. The proposed increases are in the Earth Science InformationManagement and Delivery subactivity ($15 million for the Disaster InformationNetwork and $2.5 million for Satellite Data Archive) and the Geographic Researchand Applications subactivity ($1 million for the Clean Water and WatershedRestoration Initiative). The proposed decreases are in the Mapping Data Collectionand Integration subactivity (a $3 million reduction to eliminate funds appropriatedin FY1998 for high-performance computing and communications; a $1.92 millionreduction to be achieved by planned savings from increased efficiencies). Additionalprogram highlights for the USGS National Mapping Program include changes in howit carries out its efforts and an increased emphasis on the civilian applications ofclassified data. The FY1999 Budget Request for Biological Research includes three proposed increases totaling $12 million and two proposed decreases totaling $2.27 million. The three program increases are proposed within the Biological Research andMonitoring subactivity for the Species and Habitat Initiative ($9 million), the CleanWater and Watershed Restoration Initiative ($2 million), and to replace twoinfectious waste incinerators that are not in compliance with state air qualityregulations ($1 million). The two proposed decreases within the Biological Researchand Monitoring subactivity reflect an across-the-board cut ($1.37 million) in researchand monitoring, and elimination of USGS participation in a federal and statepartnership program involving chemical and drug registration efforts ($899,000). The FY1999 Budget Request for the Geologic Hazards, Resources and Processes Activity includes two program increases totaling $5.0 million and sixprogram reductions totaling $11.23 million. Program increases are proposed for theEarth Surface Dynamics Program related to the Departmental Initiative regardinghabitat restoration and species conservation ($2.0 million) and within the MineralResources Program in support of the Administration's Clean Water and WatershedRestoration Initiative ($3.0 million). Program reductions are proposed for theMinerals Resources Program ($5.0 million), Coastal and Marine Geology Program($3.5 million), National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program ($1.73 million),and Energy Resources Program ($1.0 million). The House Appropriations Committee recommends $774.838 million for the U.S. Geological Survey, a decrease of $32.045 million from the Administration'srequest. This would be a decrease of $12.791 million below the budget request forthe National Mapping Program; an increase of $1.811 million above the budgetrequest for Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; a decrease of $13.480million below the request for Water Resources Investigations; a decrease of $7.441million below the request for Biological Research; a decrease of $119,000 below therequest for General Administration; and a decrease of $25,000 for Facilities. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $772.115 million for the U.S. Geological Survey, a decrease of $34.768 million from the Administration'srequest. For the National Mapping Program, this would be a decrease of $16 millionfrom the budget estimate; for Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes anincrease of $1.976 million; a decrease of $17.013 million in Water ResourcesInvestigations; and a decrease of $3.731 million for Biological Research. The conference agreement provided $797.896 million for the U.S. Geologic Survey, more than the House or Senate proposed. Of this amount, $69.596 millionshall be available for cooperation with states or municipalities for water resourcesinvestigations; $16.4 million shall be expended for conducting inquiries intoeconomic conditions affecting mining and materials processing industries; $161.221million for 2 years for biological research activity; and $6.6 million to the Universityof Alaska for marine research. 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: Royalty andOffshore Minerals Management and Oil Spill Research. The Offshore MineralsManagement Program administers competitive leasing on outer continental shelflands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas and other minerals. The RoyaltyManagement Program (RMP) seeks to ensure timely and accurate collection anddisbursement of revenues from all mineral leases on federal and Indian lands (oil,gas, coal, etc.). MMS anticipates collecting about $5.5 billion in revenues inFY1999. Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they werecollected, the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury and various designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated among the coastal states, Land andWater Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury. The Administration's FY1999 request of $128.5 million would provide $122.4 million for Royalty and Offshore Management program and $6.1 million for oil spillresearch, $15 million less than the FY1998 appropriation, but use of offsettingreceipts would grow from $65 million in FY1998 to $94 million in FY1999. Theoffsets would come from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues. Increasedrevenues from the recent record breaking lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico areexpected to continue for the next several years. Exploration activity in the ultradeepwaters (below 800 meters) has increased significantly. The House approved $122.5million to include: $116.4 million for the Royalty and Offshore Managementprogram and $6.1 million for oil spill research. The Senate AppropriationsCommittee approved $123.4 million to include: $117.3 million for Royalty andOffshore Management and $6.1 million for oil spill research. The conferenceagreement approved by both Houses allocates $117.9 million for royalty and offshoremanagement and $6.1 million for oil spill research. The Administration's request for supplemental funding of $6.7 million to oversee the surge of exploration and development activity in the Gulf of Mexico wasapproved by Congress ( H.Rept. 105-504 ). Increased receipts from OCS activity willoffset the supplemental funding. For further information on the Minerals Management Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.mms.gov/ Royalty Issues. At issue in the 105th Congress is how well MMS carries out its functions, and whether some of itsresponsibilities should be vested with the states. Critics of the agency, pointing toreported discrepancies between posted prices and fair market value prices that are thebasis for royalty valuation, argue that the U.S. Treasury is being underpaid. MMShas proposed a rule change for crude oil valuation that would rely less on postedprices and more on an index price to better reflect fair market value. Oil industryofficials have criticized using index prices as a benchmark and have offered a numberof other options for benchmarks. The MMS extended its comment period on thevaluation rule twice in July (7/9 - 7/24 and 7/24 - 7/31) to allow for additionalindustry and congressional input. Industry representatives believe that the extensionwas necessary to make further improvements to the proposal while critics of theextension argue that enough has been said on the proposed rulemaking and that noextension is necessary. Details on the oil valuation rule were provided to House andSenate Committees on August 31, 1998. Language in the Senate appropriationsreport ( S.Rept. 105-227 ) for FY1999 postpones the rules release until October 1,1999. Further, they would like the MMS to use the royalty in kind (RIK) approachthat would allow MMS to receive royalties in the form of oil produced, then resellthe oil for cash. However, as part of the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriation Act ( P.L.105-277 ), Congress and the Administration reached a compromise which postponesthe new oil valuation rule 8 months (June 1, 1999) instead of one year. House andSenate negotiators believe that the delay will allow for a rule that is fair to industryand the U.S. Government. However, critics argue that the delay will continue to costtaxpayers millions of dollars in underpaid royalties. An RIK Feasibility Study concluded that RIK could be workable and generate positive revenue for the U.S. Treasury. The MMS is preparing to conduct a secondpilot study on a RIK process that includes natural gas production in the Gulf ofMexico, oil production in Wyoming and Texas offshore (8g) natural gas. This pilotwill take several years to complete. Separate legislation enacted in the 104th Congress ( P.L. 104-185 ), authorized interested states that demonstrate competence, to collect royalties from federal oiland gas leases. The MMS functions that could be delegated to the states include:reporting of production and royalties, error correction and automated verification. OCS Moratoria. During FY1996, as the 104th Congress revisited many regulatory programs, the OCS (Outer ContinentalShelf) moratorium on leasing activity was debated in some depth but was extendedin several areas. The extension was continued through FY1998. In previousappropriations since the early 1980s, the moratoria had been approved annually,without extensive discussion. Each year, Congress banned the expenditure ofappropriated funds for any leasing activity in environmentally sensitive areas of theOCS. 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 continues in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, where recent leasesales have been quite robust. During 1996, the spring (Central Gulf) sale resulted in606 tracts leased for total bonuses of $352 million. The fall (Western Gulf) saleresulted in 902 tracts leased for $512 million. And the Central Gulf auction heldMarch 5, 1997 set an all time record, attracting 1790 bids for 1,032 tracts. High bidstotaled $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 1997-2002 period included a Western Gulf auction thattook place in August, 1997. This record breaking August sale ($680 million) was33% larger than the Western Gulf sale held a year earlier. Two additional sales in theGulf of Mexico were also record breakers. The new plan embodies the congressionalmoratoria, but envisions continued annual lease sales in Gulf Coast planning areas,where lease sales have attracted great interest during 1996 and 1997 as the nation'soil imports rose to half of total consumption. In addition to the Central and Western Gulf, sales are planned in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Hope Basin, Cook Inlet/Shelik of Straight, and the Gulf of Alaska.The timing of these lease sales is several years off, and the level of interest and theamount of revenues that might accrue to the government are uncertain since these arerelatively untested tracts. The development of deep water wells is expanding rapidly, as several new deep water discoveries have been made over the past couple of years. MMS is proposingto increase its effort in technological needs and potential environmental issuesassociated with deep water drilling. Currently the Gulf of Mexico accounts for overhalf of the worlds drilling rigs operating in deepwater. 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. As reliance upon the state agencies has increased, the regulatory part ofOSM's budget has decreased and the agency has been downsized. OSM is requiredto maintain oversight of state regulatory programs. The Administration request for FY1999 -- at $276.6 million -- is again essentially level with prior year funding. Of this total, $93.5 million is for Regulationand Technology programs -- a decrease of $1.7 million from adjusted FY1998levels. The Administration's AML request for FY1999 is $183.4 million, an increaseof $2.6 million over adjusted FY1998 levels. A requested increase of $2.0 millionfor acid main drainage remediation and prevention partly accounts for the increase. Senate appropriations reduced the request for the Abandoned Mine Land slightly ($360,000) while the House added $2 million to raise the authority for theAppalachian Clean Streams Initiative to $7 million and the total request for the AMLto $185.4 million, which was the level approved in the omnibus spending package. Both House and Senate appropriations committees modestly reduced the request forRegulation and Technology. The House approved $278.8 million. The SenateAppropriations Committee recommended $276 million for the OSM for FY1999. The final total approved by the 105th Congress was $278.8 million, including $93.4million for Regulation and Technology. 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 appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program states inFY1996-FY1998. The Administration budget proposed to keep minimum programstate funding at this level in FY1999, and the report from Senate Appropriationsexplicitly recommended keeping the current level as well. 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. The key issues for the BIA are reorganization and downsizing, the movement toward greater tribal influence on BIA programs and expenditures, and the equitabledistribution of BIA funding among tribes. Additional significant issues raised byproposed provisions of previous Interior appropriations bills include taxation ofcertain Indian businesses and tribal sovereign immunity from suit. The BIA is under intense pressure to reorganize, from tribes, the Administration, and Congress, but proposals from the three sources have not always been inagreement. Under the Administration's National Performance Review ReinventingGovernment initiative, the BIA had planned to pursue restructuring and downsizingthrough the "tribal shares" process (in which tribes and the BIA determine, first,which BIA functions are inherently federal and which are available for tribalmanagement, and, second, what each tribe's share of funds is for the latter functions),but the BIA states the Interior solicitor has advised against that procedure. Appropriations committee reports for FY1997 and FY1998 directed the BIA todevelop a reorganization plan and consolidate central, area, and agency offices, andthe BIA states it is developing reorganization plans and consolidation options. Greater tribal control over federal Indian programs has been the goal of Indian policy since the 1970s. In the BIA this policy has taken three forms: tribal contracting to run individual BIA programs under the Indian Self-Determination Act( P.L. 93-638 , as amended); tribal compacting with the BIA to manage all or most ofa tribe's BIA programs, under the Self-Governance program ( P.L. 103-413 ); andshifting programs into a portion of the BIA budget called Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), in which tribes have more influence in BIA budget planning and within whicheach tribe has authority to reprogram all its TPA funds. In FY1998 TPA accounts for49.5% of the BIA's operation of Indian programs (including most of the BIA fundingfor tribal governments' operations, human services, courts and law enforcement,natural resources, and community development) and for 44.5% of total BIA directappropriations. The issue of the equitable distribution of BIA funding--often referred to as "means-testing"--has two aspects, one relating to how funds are distributed, theother relating to whether a tribe's other financial resources are taken into account. First, much if not most BIA funding, even while serving tribal needs, is not requiredto be distributed on a national per capita or other formula basis. Second, tribes' ownnon-BIA resources, especially business revenues, are not always required to be takeninto account. Both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House InteriorAppropriations Committee take note of the issues. For both the FY1998 and FY1999Interior appropriations bills, the Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed (1)requiring the BIA to develop several alternate formulas for distributing TPA fundson the basis of need, taking into account tribal business revenues including gaming,and (2) requiring tribes to submit tribal business revenue information to BIA, and inthe FY1999 bill proposed implementing the new distribution formula in FY2000. Inaddition the Senate committee's FY1999 bill proposed reallocating half of TPAfunds from tribes (outside Alaska) in the top 10% of per-capita tribal businessrevenues to tribes in the bottom 20% of per-capita tribal business revenues. TheHouse Committee provided $250,000 in FY1999 to continue the FY1998TPA-allocation work group (see below) to develop needs-measurement methods,directed the BIA to develop TPA allocation criteria that address equity in TPAfunding, and included an administrative provision assuring tribes who return fundsto the BIA that the federal trust responsibility to them, and the federalgovernment-to-government relationship with the tribes, will not be diminished. Supporters of the Senate committee's proposals claim that BIA funding is inequitably distributed, that poorer tribes do not receive adequate funding, that tribalTPA funds received per capita do not correspond with indicators of tribal need, thatonly 30 percent of TPA funding is based on formulas, and that a GAO study showssome rich tribes got more TPA funds in FY1998 than tribes with no outside revenues. Opponents respond that almost all tribes are in poverty, that BIA funding isinsufficient to meet tribal needs, and that means-testing TPA funding would penalizetribes who still have severe needs, would violate the federal trust responsibility totribes, has not been fully analyzed, and would be unfair since it is not required ofstate or local governments receiving federal assistance. In considering similar proposals in the FY1998 appropriations bill, Congress had dropped the requirements for a formula and tribal income data, and instead haddistributed some FY1998 TPA funds so that each tribe might receive the minimumfunding recommended by the 1994 report of the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Task Force onBIA Reorganization ($160,000 per tribe, except $200,000 per tribe in Alaska), withallocation of any remaining TPA funds based on recommendation of a tribal/federaltask force. In addition, several Senators had requested the GAO to report on TPAdistribution issues. The tribal/federal TPA task force made its distributionrecommendations January 29, 1998, and also recommended creating a long-termwork group on TPA funding allocation, a recommendation the BIA supported. TheGAO presented its TPA distribution study in April and July, 1998. Among the GAOfindings were that two-thirds of FY1998 TPA funds were distributed based onhistorical levels and one-third was distributed based on formulas, that TPAdistribution per capita varied widely across BIA areas, and that tribal governments'reporting of revenues were inconsistent in including or excluding non-federalrevenues. The GAO results were used by the Senate Appropriations Committee indeveloping the FY1999 proposals described above. Congress, in the Interior appropriations portion of the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act, dropped the Senate Appropriations Committee's proposedreallocation scheme and dropped the requirement that tribes submit revenue data, butretained the requirement that the BIA develop proposals for alternative TPA fundingmethods. Congress also retained the House provision of $250,000 for the TPA workgroup and the language concerning tribes returning funds to the BIA. During congressional debates over FY1997 and FY1998 Interior appropriations, Congress considered but did not approve several additional controversial provisions. One proposal, considered in the House, would have prohibited the Interior Secretaryfrom using his general authority to take land into trust for a tribe unless the tribe hadagreed with state and local governments on the collection of state and local retailsales taxes from non-members of the tribe. (This proposal has also been put forwardin the 105th Congress in H.R. 1168 , on which hearings were held June24, 1998.) The other provision, proposed by the Senate Appropriations Committee,would have waived tribal governments' sovereign immunity to civil suit in federalcourt if a tribe accepted TPA funding. The tribal immunity waiver provision waswithdrawn on the Senate floor. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee held severalhearings this year on a bill ( S. 1691 , introduced February 27, 1998)restricting tribal sovereign immunity. One of the issues raised at the hearings was thedegree to which tribes are insured against torts and other liability claims. At theCommittee's mark-up of S. 1691 , consideration was postponed on themotion of the bill's sponsor, who later introduced five new, more specific bills. Neither of these proposals was offered during consideration of FY1999 Interiorappropriations. In the Interior portion of the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act,however, Congress required the Interior Secretary to study tribal liability insurancecoverage and make a report with legislative recommendations. In considering the FY1999 bill, both the Senate Appropriations Committees and the House took note of several further issues. Congress addressed most of theseissues in the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act. Both the House and the Senatecommittee supported placing BIA-funded law enforcement under centralized lineauthority and both made BIA law-enforcement funds unavailable for reprogramming;Congress approved these proposals. Concerning support costs for self-determinationcontracts and self-governance compacts, both forbade use of FY1999 funds to payfor unpaid contract support costs from earlier years, in spite of court decisionsconfirming federal responsibility for such costs; Congress again approved. TheHouse recommended a one-year moratorium on self-determination contracts andself-governance compacts, so that BIA and tribes can address the contract supportcosts problem. The Senate committee directed the GAO to conduct a study of theissue. Congress approved both ideas. Both the House and the Senate committee alsonoted environmental penalties against BIA for violations regarding undergroundstorage tanks and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and theHouse provided funds for environmental cleanup; Congress approved $3 million forthis purpose. Only the Senate committee included bill language restricting the"Huron Cemetery" in Kansas to use as a cemetery (an Oklahoma tribe has at timesproposed using it for gaming); Congress retained this provision. The Senatecommittee also prohibited taking lands into trust in Scott County in Minnesota, nearMinneapolis-St. Paul, but Congress dropped the provision because the BIA assertedit would make no decision on such lands in FY1999. The Senate committee alsodirected the Interior Secretary to develop a five-year plan for the repair orreconstruction of all BIA school facilities, and to review Indian post-secondaryinstitutions' current facility needs; Congress did not address this issue. The Senateduring debate on the FY1999 Interior appropriations bill approved an amendmentprohibiting the Interior Secretary from approving class III Indian gaming compactswithout state approval and from promulgating during FY1999 proposed regulationsfor approving gaming compacts in situations where a state invokes its immunity fromsuit over compact negotiations. Congress chose only to prohibit promulgation of theregulations, and that only for the first half of FY1999. Finally, Congress amendedthe Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-413 ) to extend to self-governancecompacts the same requirements for repaying misused funds that already coverself-determination contracts. BIA's FY1998 direct appropriations enacted to date are $1.703 billion. For FY1999 the Administration proposed $1.84 billion--8.4% over FY1998--includingincreases of 4.5% in TPA (to $791.2 million), 5.8% in BIA school operations (to$486.9 million), 18.4% in aid under the Tribally Controlled Community CollegeAssistance Act (to $35.4 million), and 21.6% in total BIA construction (to $152.1million, including $86.6 million in education construction, a 59% increase overFY1998). Among the new proposals in the FY1999 BIA budget were a lawenforcement initiative, to meet the increasing rate of violent crime in Indian country,and an Indian land consolidation pilot program. The former would increase BIA lawenforcement spending by 29% in FY1999, to $103 million, in conjunction withDepartment of Justice (DOJ) spending on Indian-country jail construction and lawenforcement that would total $182 million. The land acquisition pilot program wouldprovide $10 million to consolidate fractionated ownership of allotted Indian trustlands, thereby reducing the costs and problems of managing millions of acres brokenup into tiny fractional interests. The House approved $1.714 billion for the BIA for FY1999, an increase of 0.6%, while the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed $1.702 billion, adecrease of 0.1%. Compared to FY1998, the House recommendation for FY1999included increases of $14.2 million (1.8%) in TPA, $9.6 million (2%) in BIA schooloperations, $0.4 million (1.3%) in aid to tribally-controlled community colleges, $4.2million (7.7%) for BIA school construction (within a decrease of $3.6 million in totalBIA construction), and $10 million for the joint BIA/Justice Department lawenforcement initiative. The Senate committee recommended a decrease of $62.3million (8%) in TPA (mostly from shifting $70.3 million in law enforcement fundsto another part of the BIA budget); increases of $12.4 million (2.7%) in BIA schooloperations, $3 million (10%) in aid to tribal colleges, and $6 million (11%) for BIAschool construction (within a decrease of $1.9 million in total BIA construction); andthe transfer of $70.3 million to another part of the BIA budget for the jointBIA/Justice Department law enforcement initiative. Congress in the Interior appropriations portion of the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act approved a total of $1.746 billion for the BIA, an increase of 2.5%from FY1998. Included is a net increase of $14 million in TPA (to $697.9 million)after transfer of law enforcement to another portion of the BIA budget. Alsoincluded are increases of $13.5 million (2.9%) in BIA school operations (to $473.9million), $1.4 million (4.7%) in aid to tribal colleges (to $31.3 million), and $6million (11%) in BIA school construction, to $60.4 million (within an overalldecrease of $1.9 million in total BIA construction, to $123.4 million). For theproposed BIA/DOJ law enforcement initiative, Congress provided a $20 millionincrease to fund the BIA portion of the initiative, and it transferred BIA lawenforcement out of TPA to another portion of the BIA budget, thereby reducingtribes' ability to reprogram these funds. For the land acquisition pilot project,Congress provided $5 million, half of the administration's request. 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. The Act also prohibited the Commission from amending its definitions of electronicgaming devices but allowed it to gather information on the issue. For FY1998, NIGC appropriations were $1 million. The President proposed no appropriations for FY1999, recommending instead that all the NIGC's activities befunded from fees. The Senate Appropriations Committee and the House InteriorAppropriations Subcommittee agreed with the President's recommendation, as didthe full House. Likewise, the Interior appropriations portion of the FY1999 OmnibusAppropriations Act included no 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 fundswere formerly managed by the BIA, but numerous federal, tribal, and congressionalreports had shown severely inadequate management, with probable losses to Indiantribal and individual beneficiaries. Indian trust funds comprise two sets of funds: (1)tribal funds owned by 338 tribes in approximately 1,500 accounts, with a total assetvalue of about $2.5 billion; and (2) individual Indians' funds, known as IndividualIndian Money (IIM) accounts, in 345,356 accounts with a total asset value of $463.7million. (Figures are from the OST FY1999 budget justifications.) The fundsinclude monies received both from claims awards, land or water rights settlements,and other one-time payments, and from income from physical trust assets (e.g., land,timber, minerals), as well as investment income. In 1996, at Congress' direction,trust fund management was transferred from the BIA to the OST. The SpecialTrustee in 1996 estimated the eventual cost of recommended improvements intrust-fund management at $100 million. While a congressionally-required outside audit has been made of non-investment transactions--deposits and withdrawals--in tribal trust fundaccounts (for the 20-year period 1973-1992), Congress did not require that theoutside auditors examine transactions in the IIM accounts, so their reconciliationstatus has been in doubt. On June 11, 1996, a class-action suit was filed 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, and is scheduled to go to trial on March 15, 1999. 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. FY1998 funding for the Office of Special Trustee was set at $33.9 million, which supplemental appropriations have increased to $38.6 million. The Presidentproposed a FY1999 budget of $42 million, an increase of 8.9% over total FY1998appropriations. Included in the FY1999 request were $17.7 million for trust systemsimprovements (an increase of 33.2% from the original FY1998 appropriation), $5million for settlement and litigation support (up 129%), and $17.6 million for trustfunds management (up 4.9%). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommendedFY1999 appropriations of $38 million, a decrease of $0.557 million from totalFY1998 appropriations. The House Interior Appropriations Subcommitteerecommended $39.5 million, including $16.6 million for trust systems improvementand $4 million for settlement and litigation support. The House of Representativesagreed with its Appropriations Committee's recommendations. Congress, in theFY1999 omnibus appropriations act, approved the House figure of $39.5 million. In the same act, Congress authorized the expenditure of current (or past unobligated) BIA and OST appropriations to meet unfunded costs of trustmanagement improvement activities, and also authorized the OST to make fewerreports for, and allow account-holder withdrawals from, the thousands of trustaccounts with balances of $1 or less and no activity for at least 18 months. For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.ost.doi.gov/ Insular Affairs. The Secretary of the Interior has primary federal responsibility for all U.S. territories except Puerto Rico,as well as certain responsibilities for the three freely associated states. The Secretaryhas delegated these responsibilities to the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA), under thegeneral supervision of the department's Assistant Secretary-Policy, Management andBudget. OIA provides the insular areas with funding for various types of activities,including capital improvements and technical assistance. The President requested $86.7 million in funding for insular affairs for FY1999; the FY1998 appropriation totaled $88.1 million. For FY1999 the President requesteddecreases in funding (compared to the amounts appropriated for FY1998) for severalitems including the general technical assistance program, while requesting anincrease of $1.0 million for brown tree snake control. (The FY1998 appropriation for brown tree snake control was $1.6 million. For more information on this issue,see CRS Report 97-507 ENR, Non-Indigenous Species: Government Responses tothe Brown Tree Snake and Issues for Congress. ) The House Appropriations Committee recommended $86.7 million in FY1999 insular affairs funding, the same amount as requested by the President. Thecommittee allocated the funding differently, however, providing $0.5 million lessthan the President's request for brown tree snake control and $0.4 million more thanthe President's request for technical assistance. The committee also recommendedthat funding for the Enewetak support program, which provides food assistance tothe people of Enewetak (in the Marshall Islands), remain at its FY1998 level (of $1.2million) rather than being reduced to $1.1 million, as requested by the President. TheFY1999 Interior Appropriations bill passed by the House contained $84.7 million ininsular affairs funding, $2.0 million less than the House committee recommendation. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $86.9 million in FY1999 insular affairs funding, $0.2 million more than requested by the President andrecommended by the House committee. The Senate committee provided $0.2 millionless for operations grants to American Samoa than either the President or the Housecommittee. (The President's FY1999 request for these grants was $23.1 million, thesame as the FY1998 appropriation.) The Senate committee also provided $1.5million for the Enewetak support program, $0.4 million more than the President'srequest and $0.3 million more than the House committee's recommendation. Thisproposed $1.5 million in funding for Enewetak support included $0.4 million toimprove food self-sufficiency. The conference report on the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill provides $87.1 million in funding for insular affairs. The conference agreement generallyfollows the House Committee's recommended funding levels. It, however, provides$1.6 million in total funding for Enewetak support, more than the amountrecommended by either the House Committee (and approved by the House) or theSenate Committee. That $1.6 million includes the $0.4 million in special fundingrecommended by the Senate Committee. In its FY1999 budget justifications for OIA, the Interior Department described brown tree snake control as a major priority. The department believes that the browntree snake is "a significant ecological threat" to Guam and "represents an increasingthreat to other areas where it may migrate," including the Northern Mariana Islandsand Hawaii. The department requested a FY1999 budget increase for brown treesnake control in order to more fully implement a plan for "a coordinated operationaland research program involving control and eradication techniques." The HouseAppropriations Committee report noted that the committee provided a substantialincrease for the brown tree snake program, although not as much as requested by thePresident. Another key issue in FY1999 territorial appropriations is the financial condition of the American Samoa government. In recent years, the Interior Department andMembers of Congress have expressed concerns about the failure of the territorialgovernment to implement a financial recovery plan developed by representatives ofthe department and the American Samoa government. Both the House and SenateAppropriations Committees reiterated concerns about American Samoa's fiscalproblems in their FY1999 reports. The Senate report noted, in particular, theterritory's failure to pay for medical care provided to its people in Hawaii and calledfor aggressive action by the American Samoa government to pay these bills. A third issue is the alien labor situation in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The Interior Department and other federal agenciesparticipate in a joint federal-CNMI program established to address labor,immigration, and law enforcement problems in the CNMI. As requested by OIA tomeet the needs identified by the joint program, the bills reported by the House andSenate Appropriations Committees earmarked $5.0 million, of the $11.0 million in Covenant grant funding provided to the CNMI, for a prison facility and $0.5 millionfor a crime laboratory. The House-passed bill also included these earmarks. TheSenate report directed the Interior Department to use some of the funds provided forthe joint federal-CNMI program to establish an ombudsman's office in the CNMI toassist workers. The conference agreement endorsed that proposal. For further information on Insular Affairs , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service. The Administration requested $2.657 billion, $150 million(6%) more than was appropriated in FY1998. Most of the increase is $102 millionin emergency contingency appropriations for wildland fire management, offset by aproposed $30 million decrease in annual appropriations for fire operations. The House appropriated $2.523 billion, $43 million less than the FY1998 appropriation and $134 million less than the request, but with no contingent firefunds. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.623 billion, $57million more than FY1998 but $34 million less than the request; however, thisincluded $102 million emergency contingent fire funds and several other majormodifications. The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations enacted $2.752 billion,including the $102 million contingent emergency fire funds. This is $95 millionmore than the Administration requested, $126 million more than the House passed,and $129 more than recommended by the Senate. Increasing Forest Service fiscal accountability was the focus of much debate. The House shifted maintenance of trails and recreation facilities from the recreationaccount to the infrastructure account; and road maintenance from the infrastructureaccount to the reconstruction/construction account. The Senate Committee concurredwith these changes. The House Committee also recommended restricting "indirect support activities" to 25% of obligations from the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund, but this wasstriken by a floor amendment, 236-182, and replaced with language prohibiting theuse of these funds for indirect support activities. The Senate Committee took adifferent approach, recommending $0 for general administration ($259 million wasrequested), $122 million allocated among the National Forest System accounts and$108 million among other Forest Service accounts for general administration, anddetails in the FY2000 budget request on overhead funding for each account. TheOmnibus Consolidated Appropriations rejected both of these approaches, and insteadrequired further reporting on "indirect expenditures" to the Committees and in theFY2000 budget request and restricting indirect expenditures from six specific trustfunds and special accounts to not more than 20% in FY2000. For further information on the Department of Agriculture: 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 and Forest Health. Timber sales, especially salvage timber, and forest health are likely to continue todominate debates over Forest Service budget and authorizing legislation. TheFY1999 budget request proposed declines both in salvage sales (from 1.251 billionboard feet, or BBF, to 1.083 BBF) and in new green sales (from 2.562 BBF to 2.356BBF); the proposed sale program of 3.4 BBF would be the lowest level sinceFY1950. The House Committee recommended timber sales offered of 3.6 BBF, andthe bill passed with no change in recommended funding; the Senate Committeerecommended sales sold (not just offered) of 3.784 BBF. An amendment by Rep.Furse to transfer $80.5 million from the timber program to recreation and watershedimprovements was offered and then withdrawn. Finally, in Section 334, the Houseexpanded the authorized use of the 10% Roads and Trails Fund "to improve foresthealth conditions and repair or reconstruct roads, bridges and trails ï¿½," emphasizingthe wildland-urban interface and areas with abnormally high risk from potentialwildfires. The Senate bill contains several additional provisions addressing timber sales. Section 338 would require the Forest Service to offer economically viable timbersales of at least 90% of the maximum allowable sale quantity (ASQ) under the 1997Tongass Land Management Plan Revision; this could be enforced through civil suitsby economically-dependent persons. In addition, Section 340 contains complicateddirections on timber sales and western red cedar shipments, to the lower 48 states orfor export, from the Tongass National Forest (continued from the FY1998 InteriorAppropriations Act). Section 332 would prohibit prescribed burning until "everyeffort has been made to remove all economically viable, commercial wood productsfrom the proposed burn area;" the regional foresters could grant waivers on asite-by-site basis, but this could stifle efforts to improve forest health usingprescribed fire to reduce undergrowth. Section 335 would authorize "StewardshipEnd Result Contracting Demonstration Projects" in each national forest in Idaho andMontana and in the Umatilla National Forest (WA and OR) through FY2002;contracts of up to 10 years can be used to "achieve land management goals ï¿½ thatmeet local and rural community needs," with the value of the timber removedoffsetting the costs of other services. The Omnibus Appropriations bill enacted several (but not all) of these provisions. The complicated provision on timber sales and western red cedarshipments from the Tongass were enacted as Section 350, but the Tongass sale targetand the prescribed burning provisions were deleted. The Stewardship End ResultsContracting Demonstration was enacted as Section 347, but was modified toauthorize 28 projects, including 9 in Montana and northern Idaho. Finally, Section332 enacted the expanded use of the 10% Roads and Trails Fund to allow foresthealth improvements activities, as well as road, bridge, and trail repair andreconstruction. 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 lofty goals,the public participatory planning processes have not led to harmonious landmanagement. Bills to improve planning, some emphasizing forest health, have beenintroduced in both Houses, but none have been enacted. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended that thescientific findings of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project beincorporated into the land and resource management plans and the project terminated. A House floor amendment to strike this section was defeated, 202-221. Thisprovision was not enacted in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. The Senate Committee recommended several other provisions addressing planning. Section 321 would prohibit new land management plans for the nationalforests until the planning regulations had been revised, except for forests which hadbegun revisions before October 1997 or which were operating under court orders, andexcept for the White Mountain National Forest. The report language indicates thatplan revisions to incorporate ICBEMP findings (under Section 337) are alsoexcepted, but the language in Section 321 includes no reference to the latter section. Section 329 would direct the agency to continue management under existing plansuntil the plans were revised under the new regulations, despite the provision inNFMA requiring revisions within 15 years. Finally, Section 322 would prohibit theForest Service from spending to complete the RPA Program; the report languageindicates that the RPA Program is to become part of the agency's strategic planningunder GPRA. Two of these provisions were enacted in the Omnibus Appropriations:the prohibition on new plans (with noted exceptions) prior to the revision of theplanning regulations was enacted as Section 321, and the prohibition on completingthe RPA Program was enacted as Section 322. The Omnibus Appropriations bill also contains two titles affecting specific areas. Title IV enacts the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest RecoveryAct. This title directs a 5-year pilot project for managing 3 national forests inCalifornia under the plan devised by a local group of users, environmentalists, andothers (known as the Quincy Library Group). The provision excludes certain areas,and specifies management activities, funding sources, and annual and final reportingrequirements. Title V enacts the Land Between the Lakes Protection Act, to transferthis area from the Tennessee Valley Authority to the Forest Service and manage it asa National Recreation Area; similar provisions had been recommended by the SenateAppropriations Committee and passed (contingent upon certain Energy and WaterDevelopment appropriations) by the House. 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 Administration has again proposed to end the use of purchaser road credits to finance road construction. This system, authorized in Section 4(2) of the 1964National Forest Roads and Trails Act (P.L. 88-657), allows the Forest Service tobuild "forest development" roads through requirements on timber purchasers, and tocompensate those purchasers with credits that can generally be used to pay fortimber. (2) The House approved (in Section 332), andthe Senate AppropriationsCommittee recommended (in Section 339), to end the use of road credits, make thespecified road construction a contract requirement (to be paid like any other cost thepurchaser must incur), and to continue the "Purchaser Elect Program" whereby smallbusinesses may elect to have the Forest Service build the road and then pay theagency more for the timber (to cover the estimated road construction cost). Such aprovision was enacted as Section 329 of the Omnibus Appropriations. In separate action, the Administration has also issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to revise current regulations governing the management of theNational Forest System transportation system (63 Federal Register 9980-9987, Feb.27, 1998). At the same time, the Administration issued a proposed interim rule thatwould temporarily halt road construction into many roadless areas. Environmentalgroups objected to the limitations on areas covered by this road constructionmoratorium, while the timber industry and many Members of Congress decried themoratorium as needless national direction overriding locally agreed-upon plans formanaging the national forests. Department of Energy. For further information on the Department of Energy , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.doe.gov/ Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The Clinton Administration's FY1999budget request for fossil fuel research and development (R&D) continues to reflectits energy and environmental priorities. Fossil fuel R&D efforts will focus onenvironmental issues associated with electric power, particularly global climatechange concerns. Overall, the Administration's FY1999 request for fossil energy is $383.4 million, a 6% increase from the FY1998 appropriation of $362.4 million. Fundingfor coal R&D projects would rise by 21% and account for almost all of the increasefrom current FY1998 levels. Petroleum R&D would increase by 3.3% and natural gasR&D would decrease 1.5%. The Administration is requesting no new funding forthe Clean Coal Technology Program. However, $14.9 million was allocated foradministration of clean coal programs. The House approved $315.6 million and theSenate Appropriations Committee recommended $376.4 million for FY1999. Theconference agreement appropriates $384 million for fossil energy research. Natural gas research would decline by $47.6 million while coal research would increase by $6.4 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee differs significantlyfrom the House on natural gas research by approving $112.2 million. However, theapproved funding level of $117 million for coal research is much closer to the HouseCommittee level. The difference between the House and Senate marks is largely inthe Senate funding of the natural gas advanced turbine system while the House panelrecommended to move and consolidate that program under energy conservation. Theconference agreement keeps the natural gas advanced turbine system under fossilenergy R&D. The Administration's efforts are focused on new technology that would take advantage of natural gas as a clean fuel and would reduce or eliminate manyenvironmental problems associated with coal. Critics question the extent to whichfossil fuel R&D should be based on current trends and a view of natural gas as a"transition fuel" to non-fossil fuels. They question whether the Administration istaking 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. After purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ended in FY1994, the programwas largely funded using previously authorized but unspent balances in the petroleumacquisition account. When this was no longer a practical source for funding, theAdministration and Congress approved sales of SPR oil to finance some programcosts in FY1996, and all of them in FY1997. In its FY1998 budget request, theAdministration asked for a conventional appropriation of $209 million to operate andmaintain the SPR, but Congress again authorized a sale. For FY1999, the Administration requested a conventional appropriation of $160.1 million. The lower level partly reflects completion of work at some storagesites for the SPR's Life Extension Program. Infrastructure is being replaced orupdated to assure the integrity of the SPR system well into the next century. In thecurrent budget climate, congressional authorization of another sale of SPR oil seemedunlikely, and neither the House or Senate appropriations committee proposed one. The House approved the Administration request. Senate appropriations, however,has proposed an appropriation of $155.1 million, a reduction of $5 million from theAdministration request and House recommendation. The omnibus spending billadopted the Administration-proposed and House-approved figure of $160.1 million. For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/ 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), and established a 2 yeartimetable for completion of the sale. On Feb. 5, 1998, Occidental PetroleumCorporation took title to the site and wired $3.65 billion to the U.S. Treasury. Inanticipation of operating Elk Hills for only part of 1998, the Administration hadrequested $117 million for FY1998 and Congress approved $107 million. In settlement of a long-standing dispute between California and the federal government over the state's claim to Elk Hills as "school lands," the CaliforniaTeachers' Retirement Fund will receive 9 % of the sale proceeds after the costs ofsale have been deducted. The FY1999 budget enacted by Congress provides aninitial appropriation of $36 million; the hope is that future payments of thissettlement will be made directly from the proceeds of the sale rather than byappropriation. The Administration requested $22.5 million for the balance of the NPR program for FY1999 for close-out activities at Elk Hills, and for well-plugging andenvironmental restoration activities at NPR-3 (Teapot Dome) that are prerequisite toshutting the field down. Congress has mandated the transfer of the Naval Oil ShaleReserves to the Department of the Interior for possible commercial leasing. Thebudget provides for routine management of these reserves until transfer is completed. Both the House and Senate appropriations committees reduced the recommendedappropriation to $14 million through the use of unobligated balances in the Reserve'srevolving fund. This is the figure that was approved by Congress in the omnibusspending bill. For further information on Naval Petroleum Reserves , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/ Energy Conservation. The FY1999 request for DOE's Energy Efficiency Program seeks $808.5 million (including $35million in oil overcharge funding), a $196.8 million, or 32% increase. R&D wouldincrease by $160.8 million, or 35%, and grants would increase by $36 million, or23%. For FY1998, P.L. 105-83 appropriated $611.7 million (including $20.6 millionfrom oil overcharge funds). The House approved $675.3 million for DOE's FY1999 Energy Efficiency Program (including $43 million for a proposed transfer of the Advanced TurbinesProgram from the Office of Energy Research). This mark includes $45 million addedto the Appropriations Committee's recommendation in a floor amendment (Regula,Fox, Skaggs). The increase from the amendment includes $9 million more forWeatherization grants, $2 million more for State Energy grants, and $34 million thatis not specified for particular programs. Excluding transfer of the AdvancedTurbines Program (which the Administration did not request), the House mark totals$632.3 million, which is $176.2 million, or 22%, less than the AdministrationRequest; and it is $45.4 million, or 7%, less than the Senate mark. The Senate Appropriations Committee's mark for DOE's Energy Efficiency Program seeks $677.7 million. In contrast to the House, it does not propose totransfer the Advanced Turbines Program from the Office of Energy Research. Also,it seeks $130.8 million, or 16%, less than the Administration request. This differencefrom the request includes $31.5 million less for Transportation, $17.4 million less forBuildings R&D, $9.1 million less for FEMP, $23.4 million less for Industry, $25.1million less for Weatherization grants, and $5.8 million less for State Energy grants. In the Omnibus Appropriations bill, the conference mark is $692 million, an $80 million, or 13% increase over the FY1998 level. This includes $526 million forR&D, a $69 million increase; and $166 million for grant programs, an $11 millionincrease. Further, the mark for R&D includes $202 million for Transportation, a $9million increase; $96 million for Buildings, a $17 million increase; $24 million forFEMP, a $4 million increase; and $166 million for Industry, a $30 million increase. (For more details, see CRS Issue Brief 97027, Energy Efficiency: Key to Sustainable Energy Use .) For further information on Energy Efficiency , 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 1.3 million American Indiansand Alaska Natives who belong to more than 545 federally recognized tribes in 35states. Care is provided through a system of federal, tribal, and urban operatedprograms and facilities that serves as the major source of health care for AmericanIndians and Alaska natives. IHS funding is separated into two accounts: IndianHealth Services and Indian Health Facilities. Included in Indian Health Services aresuch services as hospital and health clinic programs, dental health, and mental health,alcohol, and substance abuse programs, preventive health services, urban healthprojects, and funding for Indian health professions. The Indian Health Facilitiesaccount includes funds for maintenance and improvement, construction of facilities,sanitation facilities, and environmental health support. The IHS program is fundedthrough a combination of federal appropriations and through collections ofreimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance for services toeligible patients who have such insurance coverage. The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill provides for $2.239 billion budget for the Indian Health Service ($1.950 billion for the Indian Health Servicesand $289 million for Indian Health Facilities). The Administration requested $2.118 billion for FY1999 budget appropriations to the IHS ($1.844 billion for Services and $274 million for Health Facilities). TheSenate Committee on Appropriations recommended FY1999 funding of $2.152billion to the IHS ($1.889 billion for Services and $264 million for Health Facilities).The House proposal recommended $2.246 billion for FY1999 for the IHS ($1.933billion for Services and $313 million for Health Facilities). The conference agreement does not include statutory language mandating a pro-rata distribution of contract support costs across all IHS self-determinationcontracts and self-governance compacts. Contract support costs are the costsawarded a tribe for the administration and management of a program -- operationcosts are awarded separately. This language was included in both the House andSenate bills but was dropped due to objections raised by tribal organizations andindividual tribes. The Committees have added more than $35 million to the Administration's budget request to address the inequity in the distribution of contract support costfunding in FY1999. Additionally, the Committees have instituted a one-yearmoratorium on new contracts and compacts. The population served by the IHS bears 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. American Indians and Alaska Natives also have less access tohealth care than does the general U.S. population, with the number of physicians andnurses per Indian beneficiary, already below that of the general population, droppingsince the 1980's. In FY1996, the IHS per capita health expenditure was $1,578,compared to the U.S. civilian per capita expenditure of $3,920. The populationeligible for IHS services is increasing at an approximate rate of 2.1% per year.According to the IHS, the increases in program funding over the past decade havefailed to keep pace with inflation. Many IHS health care providing facilities are reportedly in need of repair or replacement. Funding for the construction of new facilities has decreased in recentyears while funding for the provision of health services has increased; a priority listhas been established for new construction. The Omnibus FY1999 budget for IHSfacilities allocates $289 million for facility construction, repair, maintenance,improvement and equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, such asdomestic and community sanitation facilities for Indians. For further information on Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.ihs.gov/ Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation. The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation(ONHIR) was reauthorized for FY1995-1997 by P.L. 104-15 . 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 and members of one tribe who ended up on the other tribe's land wereto be relocated. Most relocatees are Navajo. A large majority of the estimated 3,455Navajo families formerly on the land partitioned to the Hopi have already relocatedunder the Act, but the House Appropriations Committee in 1998 estimates that 510families (almost all Navajo) have yet to be relocated, including about 71 Navajofamilies still on Hopi partitioned land (many of whom refuse to relocate). 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 December 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 leases. An initial Hopi report said 60 of the 80 homesitesaffected had signed the leases. The Hopi Tribe has called for enforcement of relocation against Navajo families without leases. Like the FY1997 and FY1998 Interior appropriations acts, theFY1999 Interior appropriations bill proposed by the President, and the bills reportedby the Senate Appropriations Committee or approved by the full House, as well asthe version enacted into law in the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act, all containeda proviso forbidding ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi partitionedlands unless a replacement home is provided. This language appears to preventONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families, since ONHIR has a large backlogof other families 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 in the year 2000 if Navajo familieson Hopi partitioned land have not entered into leases with the Hopi Tribe. Congress has for a long time been concerned by the slow pace of relocation and by relocatees' apparent low level of interest in moving to the "new lands" acquiredfor the Navajo reservation for relocatee use. Appropriations committee reports in1995, 1996, and 1997 called on ONHIR to explore termination of the relocationprogram, and the Senate in the 104th Congress considered a bill phasing out ONHIR. The House FY1998 Appropriations Committee report directed ONHIR to stop furtherdevelopment work on the new lands beyond that required to meet relocatee demand. For FY1998, ONHIR received appropriations of $15 million. For FY1999 the Administration proposed the same amount. The Senate Appropriations Committeeagreed with the Administration figure, while the House of Representatives approved$13 million, a 13% reduction from FY1998. In the Interior appropriations portionof the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act, Congress approved $13 million for theONHIR. 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 counted over 30million visitors in FY1997. The Smithsonian is estimated to be 70+ percent federallyfunded. A federal commitment was established by initial legislation in 1846. Inaddition to receiving federal appropriations, the Smithsonian has private trust funds,which include endowments, donations, and other revenues from its sales stores andmagazine. The FY1999 Clinton Administration budget would have provided $419.8 million to the Smithsonian, and $357.3 million of that amount would be for salariesand expenses. Of the total for the Smithsonian, $16 million (and a request for anadvance appropriation of $19 million for FY 2000) would be provided to completeconstruction of the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) on the Mall.The NMAI was controversial; opponents of the new museum argued that the currentSmithsonian museums need renovation and repair, and maintenance of the collectionwith over 140 million items, more than the public needs another museum on theMall. Proponents felt that there had been too long a delay in providing a museum "inWashington" to house the Indian collection. Private donations to the Smithsonianand a fund-raising campaign totaled $37 million, required to meet thenon-appropriated portion of project funding. Of this amount, $15 million came fromthe Indian community directly. However, the total cost of the American Indian museum was estimated at $110 million; Congress asked that there be an attempt to"scale down" the plans and cost. The final FY1998 Interior appropriations provided$29 million for the construction of the American Indian Museum. The FY1999 budget would have included $40 million for repair and renovationof the Smithsonian. Four of the Smithsonian's buildings account for approximately30% of the SI's public space: the National Museum of Natural History (built in1910), the American Art and Portrait Gallery (built between 1836 and 1860), theCastle building (built 1846), and the Arts and Industries building (1849). The costto renew these four buildings is approximately $200 million. The Smithsoniancontends that funding for repair and renewal of SI's facilities has not kept pace withneed, resulting in accelerated deterioration of the physical plant. The Smithsonian has indicated that it has completed a 5 year strategic plan andan associated performance plan for FY1999 under the Government Performance andResults Act of 1993 and in keeping with the Smithsonian's mission. On anothermatter, the final report of the Latino Oversight committee, Toward a Shared Vision:U.S. Latinos and the Smithsonian Institution , was released in October 1997. Itindicates that although there is a significant change in commitment at the top (SImanagement) toward including Latinos in all aspects of the Smithsonian, some of theimplementation of the plan has lagged. Latinos accounted for only 2% of seniorSmithsonian personnel and 4% as members of Smithsonian boards andcommissions. Those critical of the Smithsonian urge that Latino representation beaddressed in this budget cycle. The Smithsonian marked its 150th anniversary in FY1997 and generated public programs associated with it including "America's Smithsonian," a traveling exhibit.The Smithsonian indicated that the traveling exhibit (free to the public) was toocostly, and to offset the cost, SI might institute admission charges for special exhibitsin the Smithsonian buildings on the Mall. In view of the trend toward diminishedfederal support, the Smithsonian has also begun to use bond issues for someconstruction projects including the renovation of the National Museum of NaturalHistory and the Dulles National Air and Space Museum extension. On June 18, 1998, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY1999 Interior appropriations bill, allowing $397.5 million for the Smithsonian.On June 25, the House Appropriations Committee concurred with the earlier estimatethat would provide $397.449 million, (allowing $346.449 million for salaries andexpenses). Also, on June 25, the Senate Appropriations Committee ordered reportedthe Interior bill providing $404.554 million for the Smithsonian (allowing $352.154million for salaries and expenses, and providing $16 million for construction of theNational Museum of the American Indian.) The full House approved itsAppropriations Committee's recommendation. The FY1999 Omnibus AppropriationsAct provides $347.154 million for salaries and expenses of the Smithsonian; with$16 million for construction, primarily for the National Museum of the AmericanIndian; and $40 million for repair and restoration of Smithsonian buildings. 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 Services. One ofthe primary vehicles for federal support for arts, humanities and museums is theNational Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, composed of the NationalEndowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH),and the Institute of Museum Services (IMS, now a newly constituted Institute ofMuseum and Library Services (IMLS) with an Office of Museum Services (OMS)). The authorizing act, the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, hasexpired but has been operating on temporary authority through appropriations law.The last reauthorization for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanitiesoccurred in 1990 and expired in FY1993. Authority has been carried throughappropriations language since that time. The 104th Congress established the Instituteof Museum and Library Services (IMLS) under P.L. 104-208 . Among the questions Congress is considering is whether funding for the arts, humanities, and museums is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Thecurrent climate of budget constraints raises questions about the need for such support.Some argue that NEA and NEH should be abolished altogether, contending that thefederal government should not be in the business of supporting arts and humanities. They also argue that culture can and does flourish on its own through private support.Proponents of federal support for arts and humanities argue that the federalgovernment has a long tradition of such support, beginning with congressionalappropriation of funds for works of art to adorn the U.S. Capitol in 1817. Spokesmen for the private sector say that they are unable to make up the gap thatwould be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts. Some argue that abolishing orany significant reduction to NEA, NEH and IMLS will curtail or eliminate theprograms that have national purposes (such as touring theater and dance companies,radio and television shows, etc.) The Administration's FY1999 budget would provide $136 million for NEA and NEH and $26 million for OMS within the Institute of Museum and Library Services. For the NEA this would include a $15 million increase in state Partnership funds toallow NEA to work with state arts agencies by investing in arts education activities.For the NEH, $5 million in start-up funds would support regional humanities centersas part of a new special initiative Rediscovering America: the Humanities and theMillennium . For the IMLS, OMS would receive $17 million for General Operatingsupport to help museums improve the quality of their services to the public--they arealready popular, serving over 600 million visitors annually. In the 105th Congress, elimination of the NEA was once again on a list of priorities for some House members. Among the House Republican leadership, asmall group was formed called the "values action team," to coordinate legislativeaction with conservative groups (e.g., Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family andthe Family Research Council). In contrast, the Congressional Member Organizationfor the Arts (CMO) testified in favor of full support for the arts at the FY1999Administration budget request level. The President's Committee on the Arts releaseda publication, Creative America that recommends that federal funding be restored forNEA, NEH and IMLS to levels "adequate to fulfill their national roles." The goalexpressed was for appropriations to equal $2.00 per person by the year 2000 for allthree agencies. The controversy involving charges of obscenity concerning a small number of NEA individual grants remains an issue despite attempts to resolve these problemsthrough statutory provisions. To date, no NEA projects have been judged obscene bythe courts. In addition, a federal appeals court (Nov. 5, 1996) upheld an earlierdecision, ruling that applying the "general standards of decency" clause to NEAgrants was "unconstitutional." Prior to the federal appeals court decision, Congresseliminated funding for most grants to individual artists; and in anticipation of theCongress's action, NEA had already eliminated grants to individuals by artsdiscipline except to maintain Literature fellowships, Jazz masters and NationalHeritage fellowships in the Folk and Traditional Arts. On June 25, 1998, theSupreme Court reversed the federal appeals court decision for NEA v.Finley by avote of 8 to 1, stating that the NEA can consider "general standards of decency"when judging grants for artistic merit, and that the decency provision does not"inherently interfere with First amendment rights nor violate constitutional vaguenessprinciples." On November 14, 1997, the FY1998 Interior Appropriations bill was enacted as P.L. 105-83 . In spite of attempts by the House to eliminate funding for NEA, theCongress approved $98 million for NEA, $110.7 million for NEH, and $23.280million for the OMS, IMLS, with reform language included for NEA. The NEAreform measures included an increase in the percentage of funding to states for basicstate arts grants and for grants to underserved populations from 35% to 40%. Inaddition, language emphasizing arts education was included. There would be a 15%cap on funds allocated to each state, exempting only those grants with a nationalimpact. It was recommended that three members of the House and three membersof the Senate serve on the National Council on the Arts, and that the size of theNational Council be reduced to 20 from 26. Both NEA and NEH were given specificauthority to solicit funding and to invest those funds. On June 18, 1998, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY1999 Interior Appropriations bill, allowing $23 million for the IMLS-OMS,$110 million for NEH, and recommending "termination of $98 million for theNational Endowment for the Arts." On June 25, the House AppropriationsCommittee restored $98 million for NEA (an amendment to restore funding wasadopted by a vote of 31-27) under the FY1999 Interior appropriations bill. Also, onJune 25, the Senate Appropriations Committee ordered reported the FY1999 Interiorappropriations, providing $100.060 million for NEA, and $110.7 million for NEH,and $23.280 million for the OMS, IMLS. On July 21, 1998, during consideration of the FY1999 Interior Appropriations bill, the House voted (253-173) to approve an amendment to restore $98 million forthe NEA in FY1999. Prior to this vote the House, on a point of order, had removed$98 million for NEA, stating that there was no program authorization. On July 23, the full House approved H.R. 4193 , which included the above notedHouse figures. The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act provided $98 million forthe NEA, $110.7 million for NEH, and $23.405 million for the OMS. ( Notes on reauthorization: The authorization has expired for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act. The 104th Congress considered butdid not enact legislation to reauthorize the National Foundation on the Arts and theHumanities. However, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) wasauthorized through the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, mergingthe previous Institute of Museum Services with library resources programs. On July23, 1997, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee ordered reported S. 1020 , a bill to reauthorize for 5 years the National Foundation on theArts and the Humanities Act of 1965. There was no further action on the artsreauthorization; although some of the reforms placed in the Interior appropriationsbill for FY1998 ( P.L. 105-83 ) were similar to provisions in S. 1020 .) For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts , see its site at http://arts.endow.gov/ For further information on the Institute of Museum Services , see its site at http://www.imls.fed.us/ CRS Report 97-206(pdf) ENR. Appropriations for FY1998: Interior and Related Agencies , by [author name scrubbed], 45 p. CRS Report 97-904 GOV. Fiscal Year 1998 Continuing Resolution , by [author name scrubbed], 6 p. Title I: Department of the Interior. CRS Report 98-479 ENR. Department of the Interior Budget Request for FY1999: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed], 53 p. CRS Report 97-332 ENR. Department of the Interior Budget Request for FY1998 , by [author name scrubbed], 34 p. CRS Report 96-514 ENR. Department of the Interior Budget Request for FY1997 , by [author name scrubbed], 31 p. CRS Issue Brief 95003. Endangered Species: Continuing Controversy , by [author name scrubbed]. (Updated regularly) CRS Report 97-851(pdf) A. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed], 29 p. CRS Report 98-36 ENR. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention , by [author name scrubbed] and PamelaBaldwin, 12 p. CRS Report 90-192(pdf) ENR. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local Governments , by [author name scrubbed], 37 p. CRS Report 96-450 ENR. Grazing Fees: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed], 6 p. CRS Issue Brief 96006. Grazing Fees and Rangeland Management , by [author name scrubbed]. (Updated Regularly) CRS Report 96-123 EPW. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding , by [author name scrubbed], 5 p. (Updated regularly) 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 95-599 ENR. The Major Federal Land Management Agencies: Management of Our Nation's Lands and Resources , Coordinated by Betsy A.Cody, 45 p. CRS Report 94-438 ENR. Mining Law Reform: the Impact of a Royalty , by [author name scrubbed], 14 p. CRS report 95-259 ENR. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified , by [author name scrubbed], 10 p. CRS Report 95-145 SPR. U.S. Geological Survey: Its Mission and Its Future , by James E. Mielke, 6 p. Title II: Related Agencies. 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 96020. The Department of Energy's FY1997 Budget , Coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. (Updated regularly) CRS Report 90-275 SPR. Energy Conservation and Electric Utilities: Developments and Issues in Regulating Program Profitability , by [author name scrubbed], 25 p. CRS Issue Brief 95085. Energy Efficiency: A New National Outlook? , by [author name scrubbed]. (Updated regularly) CRS Report 98-233(pdf) ENR. Federal Timber Harvests: Implications for U.S. Timber Supply , by [author name scrubbed], 6 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 97-14 ENR. The Forest Service Budget: Trust Funds and Special Accounts , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], 43 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 95-364 ENR. Salvage Sales and Forest Health , by [author name scrubbed], 5 p. CRS Report 96-569 ENR. The Salvage Timber Sale Rider: Overview and Policy Issues , by [author name scrubbed], 6 p. CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve , by [author name scrubbed]. (Updated regularly) 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/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html 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/ 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/ Fossil Energy . http://www.fe.doe.gov/ Strategic Petroleum Reserve/Naval Petroleum Reserve . http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves 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/ National Endowment for the Arts . http://arts.endow.gov/ Institute of Museum Services . http://www.imls.fed.us/ 3. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations (in thousands of dollars) Source: House Appropriations Committee. a No longer funded in the Interior Appropriations bill. Beginning in FY1998, Indian Education wasfunded in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations. b Includes Emergency Supplemental ( P.L. 105-174 ) nettedinto accounts. c As passed by the House on 7/23/98. d As reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on6/25/98. 4. Congressional Budget Recap (in thousands of dollars) Source: House Appropriations Committee. a Includes Emergency Supplemental ( P.L. 105-174 ) netted into accounts. 5. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1993 to FY1998 (in thousands of dollars) a Incorporates reductions included in the FY1995 Rescissions Bill, H.R. 1944 ( P.L. 104-19 ). b Beginning in FY1998, Indian Education will be funded in the Labor, Health and HumanServices,and Education Appropriations. c The FY1997 enacted amount totals $13,514,435 with funding of $386,592 included in theEmergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, ( P.L. 105-18 ).

Summary: The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funding for agencies and programs in five separate federal departments as well as numerous smaller agencies and diverseprograms. On February 2, 1998, the President submitted his FY1999 budget to Congress. The request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $14.26 billion compared to the $13.79 billion enacted forFY1998 ( P.L. 105-83 ), an increase of $470 million. The actual increase for Title I and Title IIagencies in the FY1999 request is $1.17 billion, offset by a nonrecurring appropriation of $699million for priority land acquisitions and exchanges in Title V of the FY1998 Interior AppropriationsAct. However, the Emergency Supplemental ( P.L. 105-174 ) increased the FY1998 enacted level toa total of $14.1 billion. On June 25, 1998, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported versions of the FY1999 Interior Appropriations bill. On July 23, the House passed H.R. 4193 by a voteof 245-181, and increased funding by $60 million to $13.49 billion. The House-passed bill is $800million below the President's request and $700 million below FY1998. During the debate on H.R. 4193 , the House voted 253-173 to restore $98 million for the National Endowmentfor the Arts (NEA) following a point of order deleting the funds since NEA had no programauthorization. The House and Senate totals reflect scorekeeping adjustments (see Table 3 ). Before these adjustments, the Senate bill ( S. 2237 ) is $168 million more than the House bill. Changes from the House bill include: $1.2 billion for the Bureau of Land Management (+ $20million), $797.3 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service (+ $52.5 million), $1.66 billion for theNational Park Service (+ $55.5 million), $1.71 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (- $11.5million), $2.62 billion for the Forest Service (+ $99.7 million), $1.25 billion for the Department ofEnergy (+ $18.4 million), and $2.25 billion for the Indian Health Service (- $94 million). On September 8, the Senate began debate on S. 2237 . On September 17, further action on the bill was suspended in favor of other legislative business. The Office of Managementand Budget, in a Statement of Administration Policy, suggested the President might veto the bill inits then-current form. On October 19, following a series of temporary continuing resolutions, a conference report ( H.Rept. 105-825 ) was submitted on H.R. 4328 , the Omnibus Consolidated andEmergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999. The total for Interior and Related Agencieswas $14.1 billion, matching FY1998 (including the Emergency Supplemental) and higher thanpassed the House or reported to the Senate. The conference report and the bill passed the House onOctober 20 and the Senate on October 21, and was signed as P.L. 105-277 by the President onOctober 21. Key Policy Staff Division abbreviations: ENR = Environment and Natural Resources; EPW = Education and PublicWelfare; GOV = Government; STM = Science, Technology, and Medicine.