On February 20, 2003, the omnibus appropriations resolution for FY2003( H.J.Res. 2 ) was signed into law as P.L. 108-7 . It included funding forInterior and related agencies and 10 other regular appropriations bills not enacted forFY2003. Previously, Interior and related agencies were operating under a series of resolutions, that continued funding at FY2002 levels. The final FY2003appropriation provided $19.08 billion for the Interior and related agencies plus$825.0 million to repay transferred amounts for fire fighting in FY2002 . It alsoincluded a 0.65% across-the-board cut that is not reflected in the numbers in thisreport, as it in unclear how they would be calculated for the Interior and relatedagencies appropriations. The annual Interior and related agencies appropriations bill includes funding foragencies and programs in four separate federal departments, as well as numeroussmaller agencies and bureaus. The bill includes funding for the Interior Department,except for the Bureau of Reclamation (funded by Energy and Water DevelopmentAppropriations laws), and funds for some agencies or programs in three otherdepartments--Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services. Title I of thebill includes agencies within the Department of the Interior which manage land andother natural resource or regulatory programs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, andinsular areas. Title II of the bill includes the Forest Service of the Department ofAgriculture; several activities within the Department of Energy, including researchand development programs, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, and theStrategic Petroleum Reserve; and the Indian Health Service in the Department ofHealth and Human Services. In addition, Title II includes a variety of relatedagencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, John F.Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, theNational Endowment for the Humanities, and the Holocaust Memorial Council. Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and RelatedAgencies Appropriations, FY2003 On February 4th, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget toCongress. The FY2003 request for Interior and related agencies totaled $18.94billion compared to the $19.16 billion enacted for FY2002 ( P.L. 107-63 ), a decreaseof $219.7 million. For agencies within DOI, the Administration requested a total of$9.45 billion, including $2.36 billion for the National Park Service; $2.25 billion forthe Bureau of Indian Affairs; $1.83 billion for the Bureau of Land Management;$1.28 billion for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; $867.3 million for the U.S.Geological Survey; $423.5 million for Departmental Offices (including $159.0million for the Special Trustee for American Indians); $279.4 million for the Officeof Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; and $170.3 million for theMinerals Management Service. For related agencies, the FY2003 budget requested$3.95 billion for the Forest Service; $2.82 billion for the Indian Health Service; and$1.72 billion for Energy programs. For other related agencies, the SmithsonianInstitution would have received $528.0 million; the National Endowment for theHumanities, $125.8 million; and the National Endowment for the Arts, $99.5 million. In this report, the FY2003 budget totals do not include amounts for PresidentBush's proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of federal employee pensions andhealth benefits. (1) The term "appropriations" generallyrepresents total fundsavailable, including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well asrescissions, transfers, and deferrals. Increases and decreases generally are calculatedon comparisons between the funding levels appropriated for FY2002 and requestedby the President or recommended by Congress for FY2003. The FY2003 requestscontained some substantial changes in agencies' budgets from the FY2002 levels. Increases were proposed for some agencies, including the Indian Health Service($+56.5 million), Bureau of Indian Affairs ($+32.9 million), Minerals ManagementService ($+13.6 million), Smithsonian Institution ($+ 9.1 million), and the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service ($+6.9 million). Decreases were proposed for other agencies,such as Forest Service ($-181.7 million), Department of Energy ($-49.2 million),U.S. Geological Survey ($-46.7 million), Bureau of Land Management ($-47.2million), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ($-27.1 million),and National Park Service ($-24.5 million). On February 27th, 2002 the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee began hearings on the FY2003 budget for Interior and related agencies. Interior SecretaryNorton testified on topics including the Cooperative Conservation Initiative,landowner partnerships and other conservation tools, Indian trust funds, Indianeducation, the maintenance backlog of the National Park Service, Evergladesrestoration, funds for the National Wildlife Refuge System, the CooperativeEndangered Species Conservation Fund, energy programs and activities, land useplanning, wildland fire management, homeland security, and assistance to territoriesand freely associated states. Members also questioned the Secretary regardingproposed cuts to the U.S. Geological Survey and the proposed transfer of its toxicsubstances program to the National Science Foundation, and the Administration'sexamination of workforce restructuring and privatizing jobs. Also addressed duringquestioning were the strategic petroleum reserve; oil and gas exploration, includingthe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; the Klamath Basin; and the proposedelimination of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program. Subcommitteehearings continued from February through April, 2002. On June 25, 2002, the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee marked up and ordered reported to the full Committee on Appropriations its FY2003 fundingrecommendations. On July 9, 2002, the Committee marked up theserecommendations, and on July 11, 2002, H.R. 5093 was reported( H.Rept. 107-564 ). The measure was debated in the House on July 16 and 17, andpassed, amended, on July 17, 2002 (377-46). The House bill was sent to the Senateand placed on the Senate calendar on July 18, 2002. The Senate development of its Interior appropriations bill began when the Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee held a hearing on June 13, 2002. Interior Secretary Norton testified, voicing similar concerns as in her Housetestimony. The Secretary also emphasized that the Administration requested funds for enhanced security measures, including $23.7 million for the National ParkService to begin construction of enhanced security systems at the WashingtonMonument and the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. Bypassing subcommitteemarkup, on June 27, 2002, the Senate Committee on Appropriations marked up andordered reported its FY2003 funding recommendations. On June 28, 2002, the billwas reported ( S. 2708 , S.Rept. 107-201 ) and placed on the Senatecalendar. On September 4, 2002, the Senate began consideration of H.R. 5093 , the House funding bill, with the Senate version as a substitute amendment. The Senate debated the bill for 10 days, agreeing to a number of amendments, butdiscontinued debate on September 25, 2002. The Senate did not pass an Interiorfunding bill in the 107th Congress. Controversies involving funding for, andmanagement of, wildfires were largely responsible for the protracted debate and lackof a vote on final passage. There were unsuccessful attempts to invoke cloture on awildland fire amendment offered by Sen. Byrd (No. 4480) to provide $825 millionin FY2002 emergency funds for firefighting costs. An amendment by Sen. Craig(No. 4518) on forest thinning was a major focus of the floor debate, with noresolution. Both fire amendments remained pending when the Senate discontinueddebate on the bill. (For more information, see "U.S. Forest Service" below.) The Senate debated other contentious issues. On September 10, 2002, the Senate adopted a second degree amendment (No. 4481) to provide an estimated $6billion in farm disaster/drought relief assistance. Another controversy involved anamendment by Sen. Dodd (No. 4522) on federal recognition of Indian tribes, whichwas tabled. Issues in addition to fire and drought that generated significant discussion during House and/or Senate consideration included: stewardship contracting and wildernessin the Tongass National Forest (see FS); development in the Arctic National WildlifeRefuge and renewal of grazing permits and leases (see BLM); Missouri River flows(see FWS); Everglades restoration; (see NPS and cross-cutting issues); funding forland acquisition and conservation (see cross-cutting issues); development of oil andgas leases off the California coast (see MMS); and management of the Indian tribes'trust funds and assets (see BIA and OST). Several issues that have been the focus ofattention in previous years, including funding for the National Endowment for theArts and energy conservation and weatherization programs, were not as controversialin this appropriation cycle. On January 23rd, 2003, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 2 , the Omnibus Appropriations bill for FY2003 that included funding for Interior and relatedagencies and the 10 other FY2003 appropriations bills that have not been enacted. For Interior and related agencies, the Senate bill contained $18.97 billion forFY2003, and $825 million for FY2002 to replace monies spent on wildfire fighting,for a bill total of $19.80 billion. These figures do not reflect across-the-board cutscontained in the omnibus measure, as it is unclear how they would be calculated forthe Interior and related agencies bill overall and for particular departments, agencies,and programs in the bill. Specifically, the omnibus bill contained an across-the-boardrescission of 1.6%. Another section of the bill requires an increase to that rescissionby the amount necessary to offset $5 billion in additional education spending. According to CBO, this amount could generate an additional 1.252% reduction, fora total reduction in the Senate-passed bill currently estimated at 2.852%. The Senate omnibus bill, like the House-passed bill of last year, contained more money for DOI and related agencies for FY2003 than the Administration. TheHouse-passed bill has the highest total amount--$19.71 billion for FY2003, plus a $700 million fire supplemental for FY2002, for a bill total of $20.41 billion. Although the Senate-passed bill did not specifically fund the Conservation SpendingCategory (Table 18) , the House bill provides $1.44 billion for FY2003, higher thanthe Administration ($1.32 billion). The House-passed bill provides higher fundingfor wildland fire fighting in FY2003 than the Senate or the Administration. Both theHouse and Senate proposed increases over FY2002 for the U.S. Geological Survey,while the Administration proposed a sizeable decrease for that agency. TheHouse-passed bill also contained increases over the Administration's and Senate'slevels for the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and WildlifeService, Forest Service, Energy Department programs, and Indian Health Service. Conferees on H.J.Res. 2 were appointed by the Senate on January23, 2003, and by the House on January 29, 2003. The House-passed version of theInterior bill was contained in H.R. 5093 (107th Congress). The House and Senate agreed to the conference report ( H.Rept. 108-10 ) on H.J.Res. 2 , the Consolidated Appropriations resolution for FY2003, onFebruary 13, 2003, providing appropriations for the Interior and Related Agenciesand 10 other regular appropriations measures. On February 20, 2003, PresidentGeorge Bush signed the measure into law as P.L. 108-7 . Previously, Interior andrelated agencies were operating under a series of resolutions that continued fundingat FY2002 levels. The final appropriation for FY2003 provided $19.08 billion forthe Interior and related agencies plus $825.0 million for fire fighting to repaytransferred amounts for fire fighting in FY2002. It provided that a 0.65% cut beapplied on a proportionate basis to each account, and to each program, project, andactivity within an account. The figures in this report do not reflect across-the-boardcuts, as it is unclear how they would be calculated for the Interior and relatedagencies. Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1999 to FY2003 (budget authority inbillions of current dollars) Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeepingadjustments. However, they reflect rescissions. During the ten year period from FY1994 to FY2003, Interior and related agencies appropriations increased by 42% in current dollars, from $13.4 billion to$19.1 billion. Most of the growth occurred during the latter years. For instance,during the five year period from FY1994 to FY1998, appropriations increased by 3%in current dollars, from $13.4 billion to $13.8 billion. By contrast, during the mostrecent five years, from FY1999 to FY2003, funding increased by 33% in currentdollars, from $14.3 billion to $19.1 billion. The single biggest increase during thedecade occurred from FY2000 to FY2001, when the total appropriation rose 27% incurrent dollars, from $14.9 billion to $18.9 billion. Much of the increase wasprovided to land management agencies for land conservation and wildland firemanagement. See Table 17 for a comparison of FY2002-FY2003 InteriorAppropriations, and Table 19 for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau, andprogram from FY1998 to FY2003. FY2001 and FY2002 Regular Appropriations to Combat Terrorism. It is not clear what level of funding foranti-terrorism came from the regular FY2001 and FY2002 Interior appropriationslaws. The annual appropriations laws, as well as agency budgets, typically includemoney for combating terrorism as part of larger line items or program requests. Oneexample is the $3.0 million provided to the Bureau of Land Management in FY2002to identify and evaluate oil and gas resources and reserves on public lands in light ofterrorist attacks on the United States. The Administration asserted that such attackshave potential for disruptions to America's energy supply. FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations. On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted a $40billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for FY2001, P.L.107-38 , (2) in responseto the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. The $40 billionpackage was distributed in three phases. First, $10 billion was to be immediatelyavailable and dispersed by the President in consultation with the House and SenateAppropriations Committee leaders. Second, an additional $10 billion was availableto be obligated following a 15-day notification to the Congress. Third, a final $20billion could be obligated only after money was allocated in another emergencyappropriations act ( P.L. 107-117 ). For more information on the FY2001supplemental, see CRS Report RL31173, Combating Terrorism: First EmergencySupplemental Appropriations-Distribution of Funds to Departments and Agencies . Of the $20 billion provided by P.L. 107-38 that did not need additional legislation, programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior and Relatedagencies appropriations received $3.1 million. Specifically, there was $1.7 millionfor the National Park Service, Operations of the National Park System, and $1.4million for the U.S. Park Police (National Park Service) for emergency responsecosts in New York City and Washington, D.C. (3) P.L. 107-38 also required OMB to submit to Congress a proposal for the allocation of the $20 billion that needed to be specified in another appropriations act. The OMB submitted its $20 billion proposal on October 17, 2001. On January 10,2002, Congress enacted P.L. 107-117 , providing emergency supplemental funds forFY2002. (4) The law contained $88.1 million in totalappropriations for anti-terrorismactivities for the programs in the Department of the Interior (5) and related agenciesappropriations bills. Further FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Funding (P.L. 107-206). On August 2, 2002, President Bushsigned into law ( P.L. 107-206 ) the FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act forFurther Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Thelaw contained $30 billion for anti-terrorism, defense, homeland security, andeconomic revitalization, and $5.1 billion for contingent emergency spending. Included in the "contingent" amount were funds for several agencies funded throughthe DOI and related agencies bills, but those funds were not obligated. Under ï¿½1404of P.L. 107-206 , the President had 30 days within enactment to decide whether todesignate all or none of the $5.1 billion as emergency spending in accordance withthe Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The money wasnot to be obligated unless the President designated it as emergency funding. OnAugust 13th, 2002, President Bush announced his rejection of the $5.1 billion incontingent emergency spending, remarking that some of the money has "nothing todo with a national emergency." The President indicated he would seek, in a separatesupplemental request, $1 billion of the $5.1 billion for selected programs. On September 3, 2002, President Bush submitted a supplemental FY2003 request for $1.0 billion that would fund some of the activities left unfunded when herejected the $5.1 billion contingent emergency appropriations for FY2002. Therequest did not include funds for DOI and related agencies. (For more informationon supplemental funding, see CRS Report RL31406 , Supplemental Appropriationsfor FY2002: Combating Terrorism and Other Issues . The FY2003 Budget to Combat Terrorism. For FY2003, the Administration sought $37.7 billion forhomeland security of which $25.2 billion was discretionary budget authority fornon-Department of Defense operations. (6) Among the categories for homelandsecurity funding were: supporting first responders, defending against bio-terrorism,securing our borders, sharing information and using technology, aviation security and"other homeland security." However, the FY2003 budget did not specify thehomeland security responsibilities that would be carried out by agencies funded inthe Interior and related agencies bill. According to DOI, "additional" funding in the FY2003 budget for combating terrorism totaled $88.8 million. The additional funding was divided among theNational Park Service, Office of the Secretary of the Interior, and Bureau ofReclamation. Specifically, of the $88.8 million, $56.5 million was for the NationalPark Service for heightened security and terrorist prevention in the operation ofparks, to protect "the symbols and icons of American Freedom that are contained inthe National Park System." Part of the NPS funding was to be used by the U.S. ParkPolice for counter-terrorism activities and to augment security in urban areas. Another $5.6 million of the $88.8 million was for law enforcement and physicalsecurity for the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. The remaining $26.7 millionwas for the Bureau of Reclamation, which is funded in Energy and WaterAppropriations laws. Department of Homeland Security. On November 25, 2002, a measure ( H.R. 5005 ) to create the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) became law ( P.L.107-296 ). The Department was created to coordinate federal activities related tocombating terrorism, combining and supplying transfer authority for approximately30activities currently conducted in various departments and agencies. There is nospecific mention in the law of the transfer to the new department of any programsfunded in the Interior and related agencies bill. There was only one reference in theHouse report language (accompanying H.R. 5005 ) to the Secretary ofthe Interior's identification of Indian tribes that perform law enforcement functions. See CRS Report RL31493 , Homeland Security: Department Organization andManagement . The Secretary of Homeland Security received certain authority totransfer appropriations to aid in the establishment of the department ( P.L. 107-294 ). For information on transfer authority as related to the Homeland SecurityDepartment, see CRS Report RL31514, Department of Homeland Security:Appropriations Transfer Authority . For further information on the Department of the Interior , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.doi.gov . Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 264 million acresof public land for diverse, and at times conflicting uses, such as mineralsdevelopment, energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also is responsible for about 700 million acres of federal subsurfacemineral resources throughout the nation, and supervises the mineral operations on anestimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another key BLM function iswildland fire management on about 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, andcertain non-federal land. For FY2003, Congress enacted $1.88 billion for the BLM, excluding $189.0 million enacted to repay transfers from other appropriations for fire fighting inFY2002. This level is more than the FY2003 amount that was requested by theAdministration ($1.83 billion) and originally passed by the Senate ($1.86 billion) butless than the amount that had been approved by the House ($1.91 billion, excludinga $200.0 million supplemental for FY2002 for fire fighting expenses). It is slightlyhigher than FY2002 ($1.87 billion). See Table 3 . Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and Resources, Congress enacted $825.7 million forFY2003. This is a $50.1 million increase (6%) over FY2002 ($775.6 million). Thisline item funds an array of BLM land programs, including protection, recreationaluse, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM administration. Energy and Minerals. For the energy and minerals program, including Alaska minerals, for FY2003 Congress enacted $109.1 million, a $9.6million increase (10%) over FY2002 ($99.5 million). Congress supported, whilegoing beyond, the President's request for additional funds ($107.1 million) overFY2002. The Administration had sought the additional funds to increase theavailability of oil and gas on federal lands--a goal of the President's National EnergyPlan--including Alaska North Slope oil and gas development. In particular, theAdministration requested additional monies to expedite the permitting and rights ofway processes, increase oil and gas lease sales, evaluate and eliminate barriers toenergy production, and increase environmental inspections. The conferees on theInterior appropriations bill added funds beyond the request, for purposes includingpermitting and rights of way in Nevada and applications for permits to drill. The FY2003 law retains Senate language related to the renewal of the right of way for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, a controversial right of way across federal lands. The language deems the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for therenewal of the right of way to be sufficient to meet the requirements of ï¿½102(2)(C)of the National Environmental Policy Act, to preclude legal challenges to thedocument's sufficiency for that purpose. However, the FY2003 law droppedlanguage regarding another controversial right of way. The Senate-passed bill wouldhave prohibited appropriations for DOI from being used to issue a right of way fora pipeline related to the Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-Year Supply Program. The Cadiz project was developed to store Colorado River water, for later use, in thegroundwater basin underlying parts of San Bernardino County in California. The FY2003 law bars funds in the bill from being used for energy leasing activities within the boundaries of national monuments, as they were on January 20,2001, except where allowed by the presidential proclamations that created themonuments. Supporters of this language feared that the Administration could adjustthe boundaries of national monuments in order to allow energy leasing, whileopponents asserted that the language would preclude development of needed energyresources. An identical provision was enacted in FY2002. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In earlier action, the House Committee on Appropriations had agreed to report language on the energy andminerals program in general, and also stating that no funds were included in theFY2003 funding bill "for activity related to potential energy development within theArctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR]" ( H.Rept. 107-564 , H.R. 5093 ). Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act(ANILCA, P.L. 96-487 ) currently prohibits leasing "or other development leading toproduction of oil and gas" on ANWR lands (which were then known as the ArcticNational Wildlife Range), unless authorized by Congress. Thus, the Committee'sreport language generally was viewed as barring the use of funds for preleasingstudies and other preliminary work related to oil and gas drilling in ANWR. Thereport of the Senate Committee on Appropriations did not contain this prohibition. Conferees on the FY2003 Interior appropriations bill included language in the joint explanatory statement stating that they "do not concur with the House proposalconcerning funding for the energy and minerals program." This change from theHouse report language has been interpreted by some as potentially making availablefunds for preliminary work related to development in ANWR. However, as noted,the prohibition contained in ANILCA remains in effect, so the ability to use moneyin the bill may not be clear with respect to particular pre-leasing activities. Grazing. The FY2003 Interior appropriations law provides for the automatic renewal of grazing permits and leases that expire, are transferred,or waived during FY2003 and that were issued by the Secretary of the Interior or theSecretary of Agriculture. The automatic renewal continues until the permit renewalprocess is completed under applicable laws and regulations, including any necessaryenvironmental analyses. The terms and conditions in expiring permits or leaseswould continue under the new permit or lease until the renewal process is completed(except for certain Agriculture permits under the Senate bill). A provision inprevious appropriations laws contained similar language for the Secretary of theInterior but not for the Secretary of Agriculture. This controversial provision wasadvocated as necessary to address heavy agency workloads in processing the grazingpermits and leases that are up for renewal. Opponents fear that permits with possiblydetrimental terms or conditions could continue. Land Use Planning. For FY2003, Congress enacted $47.6 million for land use planning, a substantial increase (44%) over the $33.0 millionappropriated for FY2002. All BLM lands (except some in Alaska) are covered bya land use plan, and plans are to be amended or revised as new issues arise andconditions change. The Senate, House, and Administration had sought increasedfunds over FY2002. The additional funds are to be used to initiate new land useplans and to accelerate the development or amendment of land use plans that areunderway to reflect current conditions, requirements, and issues. TheAdministration's priority is to address issues including increased energydevelopment, enhanced protection from wildfire, and resolution of resource conflicts. The additional funds are part of a multi-year effort to update land use plans, abouthalf of which are out of date, according to the BLM. Wildland Fire Management. For wildland fire management for FY2003, Congress enacted $654.4 million, a reductionfrom the FY2002 level ($678.4 million). The wildland fire funds appropriated toBLM are used for fire fighting on all Interior Department lands. Interiorappropriations laws also provide funds for wildland fire management to the ForestService (Department of Agriculture) for fire programs primarily on its lands. A focusof both departments is the National Fire Plan, developed after the 2000 fire season,which emphasizes reducing hazardous fuels, among other provisions. The confereesdid not concur with Senate report language requiring 70% of hazardous fuels fundsto be used in the wildland urban interface, on the grounds that existing collaborationwith communities and criteria for project selection are adequate for determining howto spend these funds. The FY2003 law also contains $189.0 million for DOI'swildland fire management to repay amounts transferred from other accounts for firefighting during FY2002. (For more information, see "U.S. Forest Service" below.) Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For PILT, Congress enacted $220.0 million, anincrease over FY2002 ($210.0 million). The Administration had sought significantlyless-- $165.0 million--for this program that compensates local governments forfederal land within their jurisdictions. The program has been controversial becausein recent years appropriations have been substantially less than authorized amounts. Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition, the FY2003 law contains $33.5 million, divided among 18 projects in8 states. This is a sizeable reduction (33%) from FY2002 ($49.9 million). TheAdministration and House had supported higher amounts ($44.7 million and $47.5million respectively), while the Senate had approved a lower level ($30.2 million). The money would be appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. TheBLM seeks to emphasize alternatives to fee title land purchases, such as landexchanges and purchase of conservation easements and development rights, whichit asserts are less expensive approaches. (For more information, see the "LandAcquisition" section below.) Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2002-FY2003 ($ in millions) a Includes contingent emergency appropriations. b Do not include FY2002 supplemental funds requested bythe Administration and passed by thechambers as part of the FY2003 bills, or $189.0 million enacted for FY2003 to replace moniesborrowed from other accounts in FY2002. c The FY2003 figures of "0" are a result of an appropriationof $7.9 million with $7.9 million inoffsetting fees. For further information on the Bureau of Land Management , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm . CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20902 . National Monument Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL31392 . PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], coordinators. Fish and Wildlife Service. For FY2003, the Administration requested $1.28 billion for the Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS), a slight increase (0.5%) over FY2002. (With the addition of some largeaccounts that are permanently appropriated, and therefore do not require action in anannual appropriation bill, the Administration's proposed total FWS spending wouldremain flat, at $1.94 billion.) The Senate passed $1.21 billion for FWS for FY2003in annual appropriations. The House-passed version was $1.40 billion. The FY2003appropriations law provides $1.25 billion in annual appropriations. By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources Management account. The Senate's bill contained $902.7 million for FY2003, down$0.9 million from the Administration's FY2003 budget request but up $52.1 millionfrom FY2002. The House approved $918.4 million. The FY2003 appropriations lawprovides $917.4 million. Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species program is one of the perennially controversialportions of the FWS budget. For FY2003, the Administration proposed that theprogram remain at the FY2002 level of $125.7 million, although its subprogramswould show significant changes from previous years. The Senate rejected theproposed amount, and raised the program by $5.7 million over FY2002 ($131.5million). The House approved $130.2 million. The FY2003 appropriations lawprovided $132.6 million. (See Table 4 .) A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The CooperativeEndangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and territories) woulddecrease from $96.2 million to $91.0 million under the President's request. TheFY2003 appropriations law provides $81.0 million. The Landowner IncentiveProgram would increase by $10 million to $50 million under the President'sproposal; the FY2003 appropriations law provides a net of $0, by rescinding the $40million appropriated in FY2002 and appropriating $40 million for FY2003. Stewardship Grants would remain at $10 million under the President's proposal andthe new law reallocates the $10 million appropriated for FY2002 to FY2003. Thereport of the Senate Committee on Appropriations was critical of this and thepreceding program as well, and likewise provided only sufficient funds for itsevaluation and the distribution of previously appropriated funds. (7) Overall, FY2003 enacted funding for the Endangered Species program and related programs would decrease from FY2002 by $58.4 million (21.5%). TheSenate had approved a decrease of 21.6% from FY2002. By contrast, the Presidenthad approved an increase of 1.7% while the House had passed a largerincrease--10.9%. Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2002-FY2003 ($ in thousands) Missouri River. The FY2003 lawexpresses the sense of Congress that various parties in a dispute over managementof the Missouri River (and the resulting effects on chicks and nests of two listedspecies -- least tern and piping plover) should reach agreement on a flow schedulefor the river as soon as possible in 2003. The language does not address thesurrounding controversy about two proposals by the Corps of Engineers. Bothproposals would modify the flow regime of the river, to the benefit of the bargeindustry, but both, according to FWS, would harm the two listed species. One of theproposals would require moving the chicks and nests off Missouri River sandbars andinto a captive rearing facility; the other proposal would not risk flooding of nests, butwould avoid that by simply flooding much suitable habitat continuously during thenesting season. The provision does not insulate Corps activities from citizen suitsunder the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and some environmental groups, allegingharm to listed species from past transfers of nests, already have indicated theirintention to sue the Corps under ESA for its management of Missouri River flows. The language originally was adopted as an amendment to the Senate-passed bill. They House bill contained no similar language. National Wildlife Refuge System. On March 14, 2003, the nation will observe the centennial of the creation by PresidentTheodore Roosevelt of the first National Wildlife Refuge on Pelican Island inFlorida. Accordingly, various renovations, improvements, and activities are plannedto celebrate this event. For FY2003, the Administration, House, and Senate proposedoverall increases for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) at 17.7%, 17.7%,and 13.1% respectively. The FY2003 law provides for a 15.9% increase. See Table5 . (8) With respect to the operations andmaintenance component of the System, thePresident proposed an increase of 7.6%; the bill as enacted provided a 25.8%increase. For NWRS infrastructure improvements, the Administration recommended$52.0 million, more than double the previous year; the proposal was supported by theHouse. The FY2003 appropriations law contained no specific funding for thisprogram. The law continued an existing prohibition on expenditures to establish anew unit of the NWRS unless the purchase is approved in advance by the House andSenate Appropriations Committees. This prohibition would not apply to creation ofnew refuges approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, since itsacquisition funds are permanently appropriated. Interest in energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska is intense, and the House Committee on Appropriations proposed that theallocation for management of ANWR increase from $2.19 million to $2.38 million,even though funds for the general management of specific refuges are not usuallyearmarked in appropriations bills. As is usually the case, no specific earmark isprovided for ANWR management, nor for any other specific refuge, in the SenateCommittee report. The conference committee did not change the House allocation. However, the conference agreement did remove a restriction within the BLM budgetregarding potential development in ANWR. (See discussion under Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge under BLM, above.) Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System, FY2002-2003 ($ in millions) The FY2003 Budget Justification also addresses the impact on FWS law enforcement of recent terrorist attacks in the United States. It states: The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks continue to have rippling effects on law enforcement programs throughout thecountry, including the [NWRS], which has increased security at refuge facilities. Therefuge system has responsibilities to provide protection for the resources, visitors,and facilities along coastal areas, the Mexico and Canada borders, and urban areas. In addition, many refuge officers are being sent on temporary assignments throughoutthe U.S. to support the Department of the Interior's national security efforts to protectemployees and visitors, and other facilities. [p.119.] There are several refuges along U.S. coasts. One Refuge--Cabeza Prieta--is bounded by the Mexican border, and several are near the Canadian border. It is notclear what portion of the NWRS request is to be spent on increased security in theseborder areas or in general. The President proposed $49.9 million for LawEnforcement (up $1.5 million over FY2002), plus $2.0 million for infrastructureimprovement. The FY2003 appropriations law provides $51.9 million, with noset-aside for infrastructure. Wildlife Refuge Fund. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensatescounties for the presence of the non-taxable federal lands of the NWRS. A portionof the Fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of receipts from variousactivities carried out on the NWRS. However, these receipts are not sufficient forfull funding of authorized amounts. Congress generally makes up some of thedifference in annual appropriations. The Administration requested $14.4 million forFY2003, identical to the FY2002 level; this amount also was approved in theFY2003 appropriations law. When combined with the receipts, the appropriationwill cover 55% of the authorized full payment. Land Acquisition. For FY2003, theAdministration proposed $70.4 million, a 29.0% decrease from the FY2002 level of$99.1 million. The FY2003 appropriations law provided $73.4 million. For FY2003,76.1% of the total is allocated to specified refuges. The remainder is for acquisitionmanagement, land exchanges, emergency acquisitions, etc. (For more information,see the "Land Acquisition" section below.) Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has generated considerable constituentinterest despite the small size of the program. It benefits Asian and Africanelephants, tigers, the six species of rhinoceroses, and great apes. The President'sbudget proposed to move the funding for the Neotropical Migratory BirdConservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. For FY2003, the President proposed$5.0 million for the MSCF. Older portions of the MSCF would receive level fundingwhile the NMBCF portion would be reduced 67%--from $3.0 million in FY2002 to$1.0 million in FY2003. See Table 6 . Congress rejected the proposed transfer forFY2003, and appropriated $3.0 million for the Migratory Bird program. It alsoincreased funding over the President's request for all four subprograms as well as forthe Neotropical Migratory Bird program. Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2002-2003 ($ in thousands) a This program was first authorized in FY2002, and is not part of the MSCF, though the transferwasproposed in the President's budget for FY2003. For this reason, the FY2003 request of $1 million isincluded in the FY2003 column total only for the Request column. For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ . CRS Report RL31278 . Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues . [author name scrubbed], coordinator. CRS Issue Brief IB10111. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Controversies for the 108th Congress , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 90-192(pdf) . Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local Governments , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21157 . Multinational Species Conservation Fund , by [author name scrubbed]. National Park Service. TheNational Park Service (NPS) has stewardship responsibilities for a park systemcurrently comprising 388 separate and diverse units covering 84 million acres. Inaddition to the national park designation, the park system has more than 20 othertypes of designations used to classify park sites. The NPS protects, interprets, andadministers the park system's diversity of natural and historic areas representing thecultural identity of the American people. The NPS also provides limited, temporaryfunding support and technical assistance to 23 national heritage areas outside of thepark system. An estimated 276 million people visited park units in 2002. The FY2003 appropriations law provides $2.25 billion for the NPS, a decrease of $134.8 million (5.7%) from FY2002. The Administration had requested a totalof $2.36 billion for the NPS for FY2003, a $24.5 million decrease from the FY2002level ($2.38 billion). See Table 7. The President pledged to eliminate the NPSmulti-billion dollar maintenance backlog over the next few years, improve securityat NPS sites in response to terrorist attacks on the United States, and get morenon-government, partnership groups involved in park support. The Senate approved$2.29 billion for the National Park Service, while the House approved $2.40 billion. Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line item accounts for roughlytwo-thirds of the total NPS budget. It covers resource protection, visitors' services,facility operations, facility maintenance, and park support programs. The FY2003appropriations law provides $1.57 billion, or $78.5 million above the FY2002 levelof $1.49 billion. The Administration had requested $1.58 billion. An environmental coalition comprised of some 27 Members of Congress and park support and environmental groups--Americans for National Parks-- sought a$280 million increase in the NPS operating budget to fund science, resourceprotection, and education programs, in addition to repair and enhancement of parkinfrastructure, an Administration priority. (9) OnOctober 16, 2002, the Senate agreedto a Sense of the Senate amendment to the Interior appropriations bill( H.R. 5093 ) that Congress should continue efforts to increase fundingfor operations of the National Park Service and seek to eliminate the deferredmaintenance backlog by FY2007. However, that bill was not enacted into law. The President's request included funds for a proposed Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) which would provide matching funds for park projects, and someother DOI agency projects, undertaken by nonprofit and private entities. The Senate rejected the idea of the proposed CCI; the Senate Committee on Appropriations asserted that the establishment of another grant program could not be justified whenmany existing needs are not being met. The House did not specify funding for theCCI as proposed, but supported the concept of conservation partnerships. Congressdid not fund this Initiative. However, the FY2003 appropriations law retained $5million for the NPS Challenge Cost Share Program in support of the CCI. Table 7. Appropriations for NPS, FY2002-FY2003 ($ in millions) a Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority. Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds the construction, rehabilitation, and replacement of parkfacilities. For this line item, for FY2003 the Administration requested $322.4million, a decrease of $65.3 million from the FY2002 level ($387.7 million). Fundsfor the construction line item historically have tended to be substantially increasedduring the appropriations process. The FY2003 appropriations law provides $327.8million, $5.4 million above the President's request, but $59.8 million below theFY2002 appropriation. The Administration requested an additional $529.4 millionfor facility operation and maintenance, an activity funded within the Operation of theNational Park System Line Item. The FY2003 law provides $522.8 million forfacility operation and maintenance. Combined, the Administration requested $851.8million for construction and facility operation and maintenance, a decrease of $15.1million from FY2002 ($866.9). Excluding the request for facility operation, theAdministration sought some $663 million for FY2003 for construction and facilitymaintenance, including annual and deferred maintenance. (10) Combined, the FY2003law provided $850.7 million, $16.2 million below FY2002 appropriations. The estimated range of deferred maintenance for the NPS is $4.1 billion to $6.8 billion according to the DOI Budget Office. In his FY2002 budget, President Bushproposed to fulfill his campaign promise to eliminate NPS deferred maintenancewithin five years through a combination of new appropriations, transportation fundmoney, and revenues from recreation fees. While the FY2003 budget contained astatement renewing this commitment, park and environmental groups have criticizedas low the amount of new money committed to eliminating the backlog. United States Park Police (USPP). This line item supports the programs of the U.S. Park Police who operate primarilyin urban park areas. The USPP also provides investigative, forensic, and otherservices to support law enforcement trained rangers working in park unitssystem-wide. The FY2003 appropriations law provided $78.4 million, the fullamount of the Administration's request. This is an increase of $13.1 million over theinitial FY2002 appropriation ($65.3 million) but a decrease of $12.1 million from thetotal FY2002 appropriation ($90.6 million). After the regular FY2002 appropriation,the NPS received $25.3 million in emergency appropriations for increased securityfollowing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Administration's FY2003budget had emphasized anti-terrorism protection at national icon sites in Washington,D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and other locations. National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds park recreation and resource protection programs, as well asprograms connected with local community efforts to preserve natural and culturalresources. The FY2003 request of $46.8 million was $19.3 million less than FY2002funding ($66.2 million). The primary decreases were a $5.5 million reduction for theheritage partnerships program and a $12.9 reduction to the statutory and contractualaid program. The FY2003 appropriations law provided $61.7 million, 4.5 millionless than FY2002 but $14.9 million above the budget request, that mostly restoresfunding for the heritage partnership program and statutory and contractual aid. Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). Citing the need to support "higher priorities," inFY2003 the Administration did not request funds for the UPARR program except for$300,000 for the administration of previously awarded grants. This locally popularmatching grant program was designed to help low income inner city neighborhoodsrehabilitate recreational facilities. Although the President did not request funds forUPARR in FY2002, last year Congress restored funding at $30.0 million, the sameas provided in FY2001. In the FY2003 law, Congress provided $300,000 forprogram administrative expenses but did not provide funding for new grants. Land Acquisition and State Assistance. The FY2003 appropriations law provided $172.5 million for NPS Land Acquisitionand State Assistance, consisting of $74.5 million for NPS federal land acquisitionand $98.0 million for state land acquisition assistance. This constitutes a substantialreduction from the President's FY2003 request--$286.1 million--and the FY2002appropriation--$274.1 million. The federal program provides funds to acquire lands,or interests in lands, for inclusion within the National Park System, while the stateassistance program is a park land acquisition program for states. The Administration had sought $86.1 million for the NPS federal land acquisition program, a decrease of $44.1 million from the FY2002 appropriation($130.1 million). The Administration's request for Land and Water ConservationFund (LWCF) state assistance was $200 million, including $50 million for grantsunder it's proposed Cooperative Conservation Initiative and $150 million for thetraditional LWCF state grants program (compared with $144 million for FY2002). State-side funds were to continue to be awarded through a formula allocation. Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Under this program, the four major federal landmanagement agencies retain and spend receipts from entrance and user fees. Thereceipts are available without further appropriation for projects at the collecting sites,with a portion distributed to other agency sites. The NPS estimates Fee Demoreceipts of $149.0 million for FY2003, and the FY2003 budget states that at least halfof the receipts will be used for deferred maintenance. Fee Demo was begun inFY1996 and extended in appropriations laws, most recently through FY2004. TheAdministration's FY2003 budget stated an intent to propose legislation to make theprogram permanent and remove it from the appropriations process, and the agencieshave collaborated on developing a permanent program. Several 107th Congress billsproposed differing forms of fee program permanence but none were enacted. Whilethere have been few objections to new and higher fees for the National Park System,many citizens have objected to paying fees for previously free or low cost recreationin national forests. Everglades Restoration. Restoring theEverglades, an initiative with multiple components, is in its early stages. One of thecomponents, the Modified Water Delivery Project, has been controversial and drawncongressional attention. The Modified Water Delivery Project seeks to improvewater deliveries to Everglades National Park (ENP) and, to the extent possible,restore the natural hydrological conditions within ENP. To complete this project asplanned, a portion of land within the 8.5 SMA would have to be acquired to be usedfor flood protection for the rest of the area. (11) Herein lies the controversy. Some ofthe owners are unwilling to sell their land and have pursued legal action to preventthe acquisition of their land. (12) The Corps assertsthat if necessary, it has the authorityto acquire land from unwilling sellers through its condemnation authority. (13) The FY2003 law appropriating funds for the Department of the Interior contains a provision authorizing the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement aflood protection plan (Alternative 6D) for the "8.5 Square Mile Area"(8.5 SMA) aspart of the Modified Waters Delivery Project (Division F, Title I, ï¿½157 of P.L.108-7 ). (14) The authorization to implementAlternative 6D, including the acquisitionof necessary lands by the Corps, has three conditions. First, the Corps may acquireresidential property needed to carry out Alternative 6D only if the owners are firstoffered comparable property in the 8.5 SMA that will be provided with floodprotection. Second, the Corps is authorized to acquire land from willing sellers inthe flood protected portion of the 8.5 SMA to carry out the first condition and toprovide financial assistance to carry out the acquisitions. Third, the Corps and thenon-federal sponsor (generally the South Florida Water Management District) maycarry out these provisions with funds provided under the Everglades National ParkProtection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8) and funds provided by theDOI for land acquisition for restoring the Everglades. (15) As stated, if this land is not acquired by the Corps, the Modified Water Delivery Project, as well as portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan(CERP), cannot be implemented as planned. Legislation authorizing CERP providesthat the Modified Water Delivery Project must be completed before several CERPprojects involving water flows on the east side of ENP can receive appropriations(ï¿½601(b)(2)(D)(iv) of Title IV, P.L. 106-541 ). Authorization to implement the Alternative 6D Plan has been controversial in Congress. A provision authorizing the implementation of Alternative 6D wasstricken from the House version of the FY2003 Interior appropriations bill( H.R. 5093 ) when points of order were raised against it on July 16,2002. In contrast to the House, on January 23, 2003, the Senate passed an omnibusappropriations bill that included an amendment authorizing the Corps to implementits flood protection plan, under Alternative 6D, for the 8.5 SMA. For more information on the Modified Water Delivery Project, see CRS Report RS21331(pdf) , Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Delivery Project . For information on funding for Everglades restoration, see "Everglades Restoration" under cross-cutting issues. For further information on the National Park Service , see its World Wide Website at http://www.nps.gov/ . CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation , by [author name scrubbed] and David Whiteman, coordinators. Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation fund (HPF), administered by the NPS, provides grants-in-aidto states (primarily through State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), certifiedlocal governments, and territories and the Federated States of Micronesia foractivities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act. These activities includeprotection of cultural resources and restoration of historic districts, sites, buildings,and objects significant in American history and culture. Preservation grants arenormally funded on a 60% federal- 40% state matching share basis. In addition, theHistoric Preservation Fund provides funding for cultural heritage projects for Indiantribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Programs of the Historic PreservationFund were reauthorized through FY2005 by The National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) Amendments of 2000, P.L. 106-208 . The FY2003 Bush Administration's budget would have provided $67.0 million in funding for the Historic Preservation Fund, the same as the Senate-passed level.It recommended funding the grants-in-aid to states and territories at $34.0 million. The final FY2003 enacted appropriation ($69.0 million) is an increase of $2.0 millionfrom the FY2003 Administration budget and the Senate-passed figure. However, itis a decrease of $5.5 million from the FY2002 appropriation ($74.5 million), and$7.5 million from the House-passed level ($76.5 million), including a decrease of $6million in the grants-in-aid program to states and territories. See Table 8 . Now funded in tandem with the Historic Preservation Fund is former President Clinton's Millennium initiative, Save America's Treasures. Save America'sTreasures grants are given to preserve "nationally significant intellectual and culturalartifacts and historic structures" including monuments, historic sites, artifacts,collections, artwork, documents, manuscripts, photographs, maps, journals, film andsound recordings. The appropriation for Save America's Treasures has been used,for example, for restoration of the Star Spangled Banner; properties throughout theU.S., including the Rosa Parks Museum in Alabama and the Mark Twain House inConnecticut; repair and restoration of the Sewall-Belmont House; the NationalWomen's Party headquarters; and the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.Constitution located in the National Archives. Although the program was funded inFY2001 ($34.9 million) and FY2002 ($30.0 million), it was criticized for notreflecting geographic diversity. As a result, the FY2001 Interior appropriations law( P.L. 106-291 ) required that any project recommendations would be subject to formalapproval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior todistribution of funds. Projects require a 50% cost share, and no single project canreceive more than one grant from this program. The FY2003 enacted appropriationslevel for Save America's Treasures is $30.0 million. In the past, the HPF has included the preservation and restoration of historic buildings and structures on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU)campuses. Funds in Section 507 of P.L. 104-333 (the Omnibus Parks and PublicLands Management Act of 1996) were earmarked for preservation projects forspecific colleges and universities. Grants were awarded to complete repairs onHBCU buildings, particularly those listed in the National Register of Historic Placesthat required immediate repairs. An appropriation in FY2001 of $7.2 millionrepresented the unused authorization remaining from P.L. 104-333 . There was nofunding for HBCU's under HPF for FY2002, and it was eliminated from the FY2003Bush Administration budget because technically the authorized funding has beenexpended. There is no longer permanent federal funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, previously funded as part of the Historic Preservation Fund Account. The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 to "protect and preserve"historic American sites significant to our cultural heritage. It is a private non-profitcorporation. The National Trust has generally not received any direct federal fundingon a regular basis since FY1998, in keeping with Congress' plan to replace federalfunds with private funding and to make the Trust self-supporting. However, aone-time appropriation in FY2002 was provided to the National Trust for theendangered properties endowment. The National Trust still maintains severalfinancial assistance programs including the Preservation Services Fund, a programof matching grants to initiate preservation projects, and the National PreservationLoan Fund, providing below-market-rate loans to nonprofit organizations and publicagencies to preserve properties listed in the National Register of Historic places,particularly those on the "Most Endangered Historic Places" list. In FY2002, $2.5million was appropriated to the endowment for the National Trust Historic SitesFund, to be matched dollar for dollar with non-federal funds, for the care andmaintenance of the most endangered historic places. The FY2003 budgetrecommended eliminating that one-time grant for the National Trust. TheHouse-passed appropriation for FY2003 included $2.5 million for the Historic SitesFund endowment and the FY2003 final appropriation provides funding for theendowment at $2.0 million. Table 8. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund (FY2002-FY2003) ($ in thousands) a The term "grants in aid to States and Territories" is used in conjunction with thebudget and refers to the same program as Grants in aid to State Historic PreservationOffices. For further information on Historic Preservation , see its World Wide Web site at http://www2.cr.nps.gov/ . CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by [author name scrubbed]. U.S. Geological Survey. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation's primary science agency in providing earthand biological science information related to natural hazards; certain aspects of theenvironment; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In addition it isthe federal government's principal civilian mapping agency and a primary source ofdata on the quality of the nation's water resources. The traditional presentation of the budget for the USGS is in the line item Surveys, Investigations, and Research , with six activities falling under that heading: National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; WaterResources and Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities. For FY2003, the USGS will receive $925.3 million, which is $11.3 million over theFY2002 enacted level, and $58.0 million over the FY2003 request from theAdministration. The FY2003 enacted level was 3.1 million below the level passedby the House ($928.4 million) and $10.7 million above the Senate approved level of$914.6 million. No funds were provided in the conservation spending category,whereas $25 million was attributed to conservation spending in FY2002. National Mapping Program. The FY2003 appropriations law provided $134.1 million for the National MappingProgram and related activities. This is $4.8 million above the request by theAdministration ($129.3 million) and $0.8 million above FY2002. The FY2003appropriation included $81.6 million for Cooperative Topographic Mapping, $35.9million for land remote sensing activities, and $16.5 million for geographic analysisand monitoring. The committee expressed interest in the continuing efforts todevelop and implement the National Map for urban areas in this country. TheNational Map is expected to be a compilation of digital and topographic maps thatcover the entire country. This map is expected to provide up to date information thatwill assist private, local, state and federal responses to emergencies. The House had approved $135.1 million for the National Mapping Program in FY2003--$5.8 million above the request and $1.8 million above FY2002. In reportlanguage, the House Appropriations Committee also emphasized the importance ofcompleting and implementing the National Map. The Senate passed $131.1 millionfor this program, $1.8 million above the request but $2.2 million below FY2002. Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For the Geologic Hazards, Resources, andProcesses activity, FY2003 enacted funding is $234.7 million, $10.0 million abovethe Administration's request and $1.9 million above FY2002 funding levels. TheAdministration had proposed decreases totaling $13.7 million, which covered nofewer than twelve line item programs across the three budget subactivities: HazardAssessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments. Contrary to the Administration's request, funding for FY2003 was increased slightlyfor each of these programs (compared to FY2002 levels). Hazards Assessments,Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments received $75.4million, $79.2 million, and $80.0 million, respectively for FY2003. Funding forsome programs were maintained and others received increases in funding forFY2003. For example, funding for volcanic equipment in Shemya, Alaska wasrestored to FY2002 levels, as well as funding for a coastal erosion study in NorthCarolina. There was an increase of funding ($1.5 million above FY2002) for thecoastal program, including over $4 million dedicated to research efforts in the Gulfof Mexico. A recommendation for a transfer of $4.0 million from the NPS to theUSGS to support a Critical Ecosystems Initiative in the Everglades, made by theSenate Committee on Appropriations, was not enacted. For FY2003 appropriations, the House had approved $234.7 million--$10.1 million over the request and $1.9 million more than FY2002. Increases aboveFY2002 funding were given to the National Coastal Program, research examining theimpact of global dust events affecting the continental United States, oil and gasresource assessments, and geothermal resource assessments. The Senate hadapproved $234.9 million for this program, $10.2 million above the request and $2.1million over FY2002. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had not agreed withmany of the program reductions assumed in the budget request and restored a numberof them. (For details, see Congressional Record, January 15, 2003, S574). Water Resources and Investigations. The FY2003 enacted level for the Water Resources and Investigations activity was$208.5 million, $30.7 million above the Administration's request ($177.8 million)and $2.7 million above FY2002 ($205.8 million). The Administration had soughtto discontinue USGS financial support for the Toxic Substances Hydrology Programand to reduce funding for the National Water Quality Assessment Program(NAWQA). Funding for these programs, however, were increased above thePresident's request, including $63.6 million for NAWQA and $13.5 million for theToxic Substances Hydrology Program. As with the FY2002 budget request, theFY2003 request sought to discontinue USGS support for Water Resources ResearchInstitutes based on the finding that most institutes have been very successful inleveraging funding for program activities from non-USGS sources. For FY2003,funding for Water Resources Research Institutes was kept at the FY2002 level of$6.0 million. The National Stream Flow Information program retained its FY2002funding level of $14.3 million, and funding for Hydrologic Research andDevelopment increased to $15.5 million for FY2003. Included in FY2003Appropriations are $1 million for the Long-term Estuary Assistance Program and anincrease of $0.5 million for the Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basinto conduct basin-wide groundwater assessment. The conferees did not include funds for the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley aquifer study as proposed by the Senate. In the joint explanatory statement, theconferees explained that it was supportive of the project, yet believed that requiredagreements and funds were not secured. Further, the conferees stated a willingnessto consider the project next year. The House had approved $209.7 million for FY2003 for Water Resources and Investigations--an increase of $31.8 million over the request and $3.8 million morethan FY2002. The Senate had passed $206.6 million for water resourcesinvestigations--$28.8 million over the request and $0.8 million above FY2002. TheSenate Committee on Appropriations had not concurred with the Administration'sproposed reductions and restored funding for the National Water Quality AssessmentProgram, Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, National Streamflow InformationProgram, and Water Resources Research Institutes. Biological Research. For FY2003, Biological Research activities received $170.9 million, $10.4 million above the Administration's request of $160.5 million and $4.5 million above FY2002 ($166.4million). For Biological Research and Monitoring, $133.0 million was provided forFY2003, including $2.7 million for chronic wasting disease research. For biologicalinformation management and delivery, $22.9 million was appropriated for FY2003. The conference managers expressed their concerns about the National BiologicalInformation Infrastructure program (NBII), specifically for "an apparent lack ofdirection and budget accountability" (Congressional Record, February 12, 2003,H1061). The NBII is a program designed to provide increased access to data andinformation on the nation's biological resources. The conference managers directedthe USGS to create a plan that would prioritize a vision for the NBII, addressingnational and international activities of NBII, and how the program relates to theUSGS's programmatic and strategic goals for data sharing. Further, the managersrequested a list of accomplishments for each "node" of the NBII and an explanationof how these accomplishments support USGS Science Centers and DOI landmanagement agencies. The conference managers expect pertinent committees toreceive this plan by April 30, 2003. For FY2003, the House had approved $170.4 million for Biological Research--$9.9 million more than the request and $4.0 million over FY2002. TheSenate had approved $166.9 million, $6.4 million above the request and $0.5 millionover FY2002. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had not agreed with manyof the proposed reductions, restoring funding for several activities. Science Support Funding. Science Support focuses on those costs associated with modernizing the infrastructure formanagement and dissemination of scientific information. For FY2003, $85.7 millionwas appropriated for Science Support, $0.4 million below the Administration'srequest and $0.5 million below the FY2002 level. A decrease of $1.6 million fromthe House enacted level for accessible data transfer was enacted. The House hadapproved $87.4 million for Science Support--$1.3 million above the request and$1.1 million more than FY2002. The Senate had agreed to $85.7 million, $0.4million below the request and $0.5 million less than FY2002. Facilities Funding. Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. The FY2003 appropriation forFacilities is $91.4 million, $2.4 million above the Administration's request of $89.0million and $1.9 million above FY2002 levels ($89.4 million). This includes adecrease of $1.3 million for the Leetown Research Center expansion from FY2002and an increase of $0.8 million for the Tunison Laboratory. The House had approved$91.2 million for Facilities-- $2.2 million over the request and $1.7 million aboveFY2002. The Senate had passed $89.4 million for facilities. The conferencemanagers expressed their strong support for USGS partnerships with institutions thatemphasize collaboration, federal-state partnerships, and public-private partnerships. Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2002-FY2003 ($ in millions) For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey , see its World Wide Website at http://www.usgs.gov/ . Minerals Management Service. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the OffshoreMinerals Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue Management(MRM) Program, formerly known as the Royalty Management Program. OMMadministers competitive leasing on outer continental shelf lands and overseesproduction of offshore oil, gas and other minerals. MRM collects and disbursesbonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal onshore and Outer Continental Shelf(OCS) leases and Indian mineral leases. MMS anticipates collecting about $4.2billion in revenues in FY2003 from offshore and onshore federal leases. Revenuesfrom onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were collected, the GeneralFund of the U.S. Treasury, and various designated programs. Revenues from theoffshore leases are allocated among the coastal states, Land and Water ConservationFund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury. The FY2003 appropriations law provided $271.7 million for MMS, less $100.2 million in receipts, for a total appropriation of $171.4 million. The FY2003 totalincluded $6.1 million for oil spill research. It also included $265.5 million forRoyalty and Offshore Minerals Management, comprised of $165.3 million fromappropriations and $100.2 from offsetting collections. The Administration's proposed budget for MMS for FY2003 was $270.6 million. This proposal included $6.1 million for oil spill research, and $264.4million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management (including $137.5 millionfor OMM activities and $83.3 million for MRM programs). Of the total budget,$170.3 million would derive from appropriations, and $100.2 million from offsettingcollections which MMS has been retaining from OCS receipts since 1994. TheFY2003 total is about 4% higher than the $259.5 million total budget for FY2002(which includes $102.7 million in receipts). Offsetting collections would decline by$2.5 million from FY2002 to FY2003. The Senate supported a total of $270.7million for MMS, including $137.6 million for OMM and $83.3 million for MRMprograms (with $100.2 million from offsetting collections). The House approved$271.1 million for MMS, including $138.0 million for OMM and $83.3 million forMRM, and would spend $100.2 million from offsetting collections. The MMS revised its mineral leasing revenue estimates downward by 40% in FY2003 from the FY2002 estimates. For instance, in the FY2002 budget request,mineral leasing revenues were estimated to be $7.9 billion in FY2002 and $7.3billion in FY2003. Current revenue estimates for these years are $5.1 billion and $4.2billion respectively. Price fluctuation is the most significant factor in the revenueswings. Oil prices that were in the $26-$30 per barrel range came down dramaticallyto the $20-$22 per barrel range in 2001. Also, natural gas prices fell significantlyduring the past year in part because of the relatively mild winter. Over the pastdecade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for between 40%-45%of MMS receipts, while oil accounts for not more than 25%. Below is a discussionof related issues of interest to Congress that have been considered within the contextof the appropriations process. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1331) requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a 5-year leasing program that specifiesthe time, location and size of lease sales to be held during that period. The new5-year leasing program (2002 -2007) went into effect July 1, 2002. MMS willconduct 20 oil and natural gas lease sales during the five year period. Half of thosesales will be in the Western or Central Gulf of Mexico (GOM), two in the EasternGOM and the remainder around Alaska. Sales in the Eastern GOM are especiallycontroversial. Industry groups contend that the sales are too limited given what theysay is an enormous resource potential while environmental groups and some stateofficials argue that the risks to the ecology and the economy are too great. TheFY2003 appropriations law continues the moratorium in the Eastern Gulf of Mexicooutside Lease Sale 181. A controversial oil and gas development issue in offshore California involving MMS drew congressional interest. A breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed by nineoil companies seeking $1.2 billion in compensation for their undeveloped leases. The companies claim that MMS failed to conduct consistency determinationsrequired by the court. A federal statute, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972(16 U.S.C. 1451) was amended in 1990 to allow for consistency determinations.Using this Act, the state of California could determine whether development of oiland gas leases are consistent with the state's coastal zone management plan. In 1999,the MMS extended 36 out of the 40 leases at issue by granting lease suspensions. However, in June 2001 the Ninth Circuit Court struck down the MMS suspensionsarguing that MMS failed to show consistency with the state's coastal zonemanagement plan. The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 11,2002, in the Ninth Circuit and proposed a more limited lease development plan thatinvolves 20 leases using existing platforms. The Court however upheld its decisionfavoring California. The Administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court ofAppeals in San Francisco. On December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel upheld theearlier decision. The Department of the Interior has 90 days (early March 2003) toappeal this decision to the Supreme Court. The leases are in effect, pending theappeal. The FY2003 appropriations law includes a (non-binding) Sense of the Congress provision barring Interior bill funding for any exploration and development of the 36leases that were extended by the MMS. In earlier action, the House had approvedlegislative language to the Interior appropriations bill to prohibit funding in the billfrom being used to develop these leases. The language sought a permanentprohibition on new drilling in the contested area. On September 10, 2002, theSenate agreed to a Sense of the Senate amendment to bar Interior bill funding for anyexploration and development of the above mentioned 36 leases, but the bill was notpassed by the Senate. A similar sense of the Senate amendment was approved by theSenate on January 23, 2003, and included in the Senate-passed omnibusappropriations bill. Also, 107th Congress legislation ( S. 1952 ) by Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Landrieu (D-LA) sought to compensate the companies for surrenderingall undeveloped leases off California's coast with financial credits to acquire oil andgas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The credits could be as much as $3 billion. In May 2002, the Administration announced its plans to buy back oil and gas leases from Chevron, Conoco and Murphy oil companies off Pensacola, Florida for$115 million in an area known as Destin Dome. Included in the announcement wereoil and gas lease buybacks in the Everglades National Park, Big Cypress NationalPreserve and the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge that would requireapproval by Congress. For further information on the Minerals Management Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.mms.gov/ . Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 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'sintention was that individual states and Indian tribes would develop their ownregulatory programs incorporating minimum standards established by law andregulations. OSM is required to maintain oversight of state regulatory programs. Insome instances states have no approved program, and in these instances OSM directsreclamation in the state. The Administration, Senate, and House all recommended a decrease in funds for OSM from the FY2002 level. The Administration's request for the Office ofSurface Mining for FY2003--at $279.4 million--reflected a drop of $27.1 millionfrom the FY2002 level of $306.5 million. The House approved $290.1 million, andthe Senate passed $297.1 million. The Senate-passed total was enacted in theFY2003 appropriations law. The OSM budget has two components: Regulation and Technology programs and Abandoned Mine Lands (AML, or Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund). ForRegulation and Technology, the Administration sought $105.4 million, an increaseof roughly $2.3 million from the FY2002 level ($103.1 million). Included in theFY2003 request was $10 million in funding for the Appalachian Clean StreamsInitiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002, and $1.5 million for the SmallOperators Assistance Program (SOAP). For the AML Fund, the Administrationsought $174.0 million for FY2003, a reduction of $29.4 million from the $203.4enacted for FY2002. Major components of this reduction included a decrease of $17million for State and Tribal conventional AML grants, and a reduction of nearly $11million described as a "one time reduction to Federal emergency projects." For FY2003, Congress enacted $105.4 million for Regulation and Technology. The House, Senate, and Administration had supported this level. For the AML,Congress enacted $191.7 million for FY2003. In earlier action, the House hadapproved $184.7 million for AML, $10.7 million more than the Administrationrequest, but a reduction still of $18.7 million from the FY2002 enacted level forAML. The House Committee on Appropriations specifically rejected theAdministration's proposal to make any cuts in spending for Federal high priorityprojects. However, the Senate Committee recommended $191.7 million for AML,more than restoring the $17 million cut by the Administration for State and Tribalconventional AML grants. Specifically, the Senate Committee included $17.5million for these grants and $210,000 for federal high priority reclamation projects. The Committee also agreed to the request of $10 million for ACSI and $1.5 millionfor SOAP. The omnibus appropriations legislation approved by the Senate onJanuary 23, 2003, adopted the Committee's recommendation, and these were thelevels enacted in the FY2003 appropriations law. Grants to the states from annual AML appropriations are based on states' current and historic coal production. "Minimum program states" are states withsignificant AML problems, but with insufficient levels of current coal production togenerate significant fees to the AML fund. The minimum funding level for each ofthese states was increased to $2 million in 1992. However, over the objection ofthese states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program statessince FY1996. The FY2003 law also appropriates $1.5 million to minimum programstates. In general, several states have been pressing in recent years for increases in the AML appropriations. The unappropriated balance of AML collections in the fundis expected to be roughly $1.65 billion by the end of FY2003. For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm . Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally recognizedAmerican Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and historically hasbeen the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs provided or fundedthrough the BIA include government operations, courts, law enforcement, fireprotection, social programs, education, roads, economic development, employmentassistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection, implementation of land andwater settlements, management of trust assets (real estate and natural resources), andpartial gaming oversight. BIA's FY2002 direct appropriations were $2.22 billion (including supplemental appropriations but excluding a $10.0 million rescission). For FY2003, theAdministration proposed $2.25 billion, an increase of 1% over FY2002. The Senateand House passed, and Congress enacted, approximately $2.27 billion. The enactedamount is 1.2% over the FY2003 request and 2.7% over the FY2002 appropriation. Table 10 below presents figures for FY2002 enacted and FY2003 Administration,Senate, House, and enacted appropriations for the BIA and its major budgetcomponents; selected BIA programs are shown in italics. For trust management improvement (see discussions below), the Administration requested a total BIA-wide increase of $34.8 million, spread across such programsas tribal courts, probate, real estate services and appraisals, social services, security,forestry, and executive oversight. The Senate approved the full requested amount,but the FY2003 appropriations law reduced the BIA-wide increase to $31.9 million. For the BIA office handling petitions for federal recognition of tribes (the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, or BAR), an activity criticized for lackof resources, the Administration proposed an additional $0.05 million (5%) overFY2002. The Senate agreed with the Administration's request, while the Houseapproved an additional $0.55 million over FY2002, a 52% increase. Congressenacted the House level of $1.6 million. See Table 10 . Related to tribal recognition(and Indian gaming), a provision for a study commission on Native American policy,added by the House Appropriations Committee to the FY2003 Interior bill, wasdropped by the full House. A proposed Senate floor amendment to the bill, to placea moratorium on BAR tribal recognition approvals or denials pending certainprocedural changes, was tabled. The Senate, in 108th Congress floor consideration of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill, added a new title that would enact a settlement of an Indian landclaim by Sandia Pueblo of New Mexico involving Cibola National Forest. This titleremained in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003 as enacted. Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2002-FY2003 ($ in thousands) Key issues for the BIA include the proposed reorganization of the Bureau's trust asset management functions, the movement toward greater tribal influence on BIAprograms and expenditures (especially the role of contract support costs), andproblems in the BIA school system. BIA Reorganization. Current BIA reorganization proposals arise from issues and events related to trust funds and assetsmanagement. Historically, the BIA has been responsible for managing Indian tribes'and individuals' trust funds and trust assets. Trust assets include trust lands and thelands' surface and subsurface economic resources (e.g., timber, grazing lands, orminerals); trust asset management includes real estate services, processing oftransactions (sales, leases, etc.), surveys, appraisals, probate functions, land titlerecords activities, and other functions. The BIA had, however, historicallymismanaged Indian trust funds and trust assets, especially in the areas ofrecord-keeping and accounting. This led to a legislative reform act in 1994 and anextensive court case in 1996. The 1994 act created the Office of Special Trustee forAmerican Indians (OST) (see below), assigning it responsibility for oversight of trustmanagement reform. Trust fund management was transferred to the OST in 1996,but the BIA still manages trust assets. BIA and OST, together with several offices created by the Secretary of the Interior Norton (Office of Historical Trust Accounting and Office of Indian TrustTransition), are implementing the Secretary's current trust management improvementproject. The project includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, andprocedures, historical accounting for trust accounts, reduction of backlogs, andmaintenance of the improved system. The current project replaces an earlier HighLevel Implementation Plan (HLIP) created under the Clinton Administration. Whilea computerized trust fund accounting system, operated by OST, had been installedsuccessfully under the HLIP in 2000, a new computerized trust asset managementsystem drew much tribal, congressional, and court criticism. That criticism led thecurrent Secretary to have a consultant, Electronic Data Systems, Inc. (EDS), reviewthe trust asset system and the entire trust reform effort. EDS's 2001 reports included a recommendation for a single executive controlling trust reform. In late 2001, citing this recommendation, the Secretaryproposed to split off BIA's trust asset management responsibilities into a new Bureauof Indian Trust Asset Management (BITAM), and requested approval from bothAppropriations Committees for a reprogramming of FY2002 funds to carry out theBITAM reorganization. The Committees did not approve the reprogrammingrequest, instead directing the Secretary to consult with Indian tribes. Theconsultation process took place during much of 2002 through a joint tribal-DOI TrustReform Task Force. The great majority of commenting tribes opposed the BITAMproposal and many tribes and tribal organizations offered alternative plans. TheBIA's proposed FY2003 budget did not include the BITAM reorganization proposal(or a reprogramming request). The Senate Appropriations Committee's June 2002report ( S.Rept. 107-201 ) forbade the Secretary to implement the BITAM proposal orto use FY2003 funds for any action that would alter the BIA's tribal or individualtrust authority. In the fall of 2002, the tribal members of the Trust Reform TaskForce decided that they could not agree with the Department on trust standards andoversight. In December 2002 the head of the BIA announced a new proposedreorganization of BIA and OST trust management structures. Under the plan, theBIA's trust operations at regional and agency levels will be split off from other BIAservices, and the OST will have trust officers at BIA regional and agency officesoverseeing trust management and providing information to the Indian trustbeneficiaries. Tribes and tribal organizations were critical of the new proposal. Inrecent court filings, the Secretary states that the Interior AppropriationsSubcommittees did not object to the necessary reprogramming and that thereorganization will proceed. Tribal Control. Greater tribal control over federal Indian programs has been the goal of Indian policy since the 1970s. Inthe BIA this policy has taken three forms: tribal contracting to run individual BIAprograms under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education AssistanceAct ( P.L. 93-638 , as amended); tribal compacting with the BIA to manage all or mostof a tribe's BIA programs, under the Self-Governance program (Title IV of P.L.93-638 , as added by P.L. 103-413 ); and shifting programs into a portion of the BIAbudget called Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), in which tribes have more influencein BIA budget planning and within which each tribe has authority to reprogram allits TPA funds. In FY2002, TPA accounted for 42% of the BIA's operation of Indianprograms (including most of the BIA funding for tribal governments' operations,human services, courts, natural resources, and community development) and for 34%of total BIA direct appropriations. Table 10 shows the Administration, Senate,House, and enacted TPA figures for FY2003 Contract support costs, authorized under the Indian Self-determination Act, fund the non-operational and overhead costs incurred by tribes in administering programsunder self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts, and are calculatedusing a negotiated tribal cost rate (a percentage of the funding base covered by atribe's contracts or compact). Issues raised by contract support costs include theconsistent shortfall in contract support cost appropriations, tribes' claim ofentitlement to full support cost funding, identity of programs included in tribes'funding base, and rate-setting methods. The BIA estimates that appropriations forcontract support costs met 88% of reported tribal need in FY2001 and 91% inFY2002 and will meet 92% of the need in FY2003. Table 10 shows FY2003contract support costs. BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000structures, educating about 48,000 students in 23 states. Tribes and tribalorganizations, under self-determination contracts and other grants, operate 121 ofthese institutions; the BIA operates the remainder. BIA schools' key problems arelow student achievement and a high level of inadequate school facilities. BIA students' academic achievement, as measured by standardized tests, is on average far below that of public school students. To improve BIA schools' academicperformance, the Administration proposes a "School Privatization Initiative" underwhich BIA-operated schools will all either become tribally operated or be privatizedby the end of FY2007. Some Indian tribes and organizations expressed doubt overthis proposal, arguing that funding for tribally-operated schools is presently belowneed and that under the initiative tribes would be forced to choose between operatingschools with inadequate resources or allowing them to be privatized. Both the Senateand House Committees opposed the proposed privatization initiative and removedits funding. No funding for the initiative was included in the FY2003 appropriationslaw. Many BIA school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. BIA education construction covers both construction of new schoolfacilities to replace facilities that cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair ofexisting facilities. Schools are replaced or repaired according to priority lists. TheBIA in 2001 estimated the backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million. Table 10 shows FY2002 education construction appropriations, as well as theFY2003 proposed amount and the Senate, House, and enacted amounts. For further information on the Bureau of Indian Affairs , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html . CRS Report 97-851(pdf) . Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. Report of the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior and the AppropriationsCommittees of the United States Congress. [Washington: The Task Force]. August 1994. 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 consisted chiefly of annual fees assessed on tribes' Class IIoperations. As Indian gaming expanded rapidly in the 1990s, Congress decided theNIGC needed a larger budget. The FY1998 Interior Appropriations Act, amendingthe Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, increased the ceiling for total NIGC fees to $8million, made Class III as well as Class II operations subject to fees, and increasedNIGC's appropriations authorization from $1 million to $2 million. However, theNIGC says it has recently experienced a new increase in demand for its oversightresources, especially audits and field investigations, primarily because of the rapidexpansion of California Indian gaming (following the March 2000 state referendumauthorizing California to negotiate more liberal Class III gaming compacts withtribes). During FY1999-FY2002, all NIGC activities were funded from fees, with no direct appropriations. For FY2003, however, the Administration proposedappropriations of $2 million for the NIGC, in addition to the Commission's feereceipts of $8 million. The House agreed to the proposed amount, but the Senatemade no FY2003 appropriations. Congress did not enact NIGC appropriations inFY2003, but the appropriations law included a provision that increases the NIGC'sfee ceiling to $12 million for FY2004. Also, the conference report directs the NIGCto consult with tribes about a new fee schedule. 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) generally oversees the reform of Interior Departmentmanagement of Indian trust assets, the direct management of Indian trust funds,establishment of an adequate trust fund management system, and support ofdepartment claims settlement activities related to the trust funds. Indian trust fundsformerly were managed by the BIA, but numerous federal, tribal, and congressionalreports had shown severely inadequate management, with probable losses to Indiantribal and individual beneficiaries. In 1996, at Congress' direction and as authorizedby P.L. 103-412 , the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust fund management fromthe BIA to the OST. (See "Bureau of Indian Affairs," above.) FY2002 funding for the Office of Special Trustee was $110.2 million, which included $99.2 million for federal trust programs--trust systems improvements,settlement and litigation support, and trust funds management--and $11.0 millionfor the Indian land consolidation pilot project. The purpose of the land consolidationproject is to purchase and consolidate fractionated ownerships of allotted Indian trustlands, thereby reducing the costs of managing millions of acres broken up into tinyfractional interests. The Administration proposed a FY2003 budget of $159.0 million for the OST, an increase of 44% over FY2002. Included in the FY2003 request were $151.0million for federal trust programs (up $51.8 million, or 52%) and $8.0 million for theIndian land consolidation pilot project (down $3 million, or 27%). The Senateapproved an increase for the OST to $162.0 million, 47% over FY2002. It includedthe same amount as the Administration for federal trust programs and an additional$3 million for the Indian land consolidation project. The House approved $149.3million for FY2003, an increase of 35% over FY2002 and a decrease of 6% from theAdministration's request. The House approved the requested amount for landconsolidation ($8.0 million) but cut the requested amount for trust programs by $9.8million, to $141.3 million. For FY2003, Congress enacted the House figures. Indian trust funds comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by about 290 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset value of about $3.1billion; and (2) individual Indians' funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM)accounts, in over 252,000 accounts with a total asset value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2003 budget justifications.) The funds include moniesreceived both from claims awards, land or water rights settlements, and otherone-time payments, and from income from non-monetary trust assets (e.g., land,timber, minerals), as well as investment income. The trust funds controversy also involves a class action lawsuit filed in 1996, in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the federalgovernment by IIM account holders. The latest stage of the IIM lawsuit relates to anhistorical accounting for IIM funds, to determine the amount of money owed to theplaintiffs. The FY2001 Interior appropriations conference report, and the FY2002House and conference reports, had directed DOI to develop a sampling methodologyfor IIM accounting, as DOI had intended to do, but required submission of the plan,with a cost-benefit analysis, to Congress prior to implementation. Both repeated theprohibition on allocating funds for an historical accounting before submission of theplan and report. The requested report was transmitted to the Committees in earlyJuly 2002 by the DOI's Office of Historical Trust Accounting. The plaintiffs in thelawsuit object to an historical accounting methodology and, using a differentmethodology based on federal and state leasing returns, have estimated that they areowed about $137 billion. Recently the district court held the Secretary of the Interiorand the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs in contempt for continuing problems intrust management reform (following a trial on the contempt issues). While the courtdid not grant the plaintiffs' request that it appoint a receiver to take over reform ofIIM accounts management, it did direct both defendants and plaintiffs to submit plansfor future trust management and historical accounting by January 6, 2003. Bothparties submitted plans on that date. The House Appropriations Committee expressed its concern that the IIM lawsuit was jeopardizing DOI trust reform implementation, and added a number ofprovisions to the FY2003 Interior appropriations act. The provisions would limit thetime period to be covered by the historical accounting, require a summary of a fullhistorical accounting of 5 of the plaintiffs, cap the compensation of twocourt-appointed officials monitoring trust reform, direct that a new OST advisoryboard be appointed in accordance with the 1994 act, and authorize the InteriorSecretary to help employees pay for legal costs related to the IIM suit. The fullHouse agreed to all these provisions except the limit on the time period for historicalaccounting. The Senate agreed to none of these provisions, but the FY2003appropriations law included all the provisions approved by the full House. For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians ,see its World Wide Web site at http://www.ost.doi.gov/ . Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial assistance to the territories and three former insularareas, manages relations between these jurisdictions and the federal government, andattempts to build the capacity of units of local government. Funding for the OIAconsists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite appropriations that do not requireaction by the 108th Congress or the Administration, and (2) discretionary and currentmandatory funding subject to the appropriations process. The combined funding ofboth parts for FY2002 was $353.0 million; the President's request for the FY2003budget was $343.5 million, a reduction of $9.5 million, or 2.7%. The Senateapproved a total of $348.5 million. The House approved $346.7 million. ForFY2003 the approved funding level is $349.6 million. Permanent and indefinite appropriations historically constitute roughly 70% to 80% of the OIA budget and comprise two elements. For FY2002 theseappropriations totaled $250.6 million; for FY2003 they total $252.4 million, asfollows: $146.4 million total to three freely associated states formerly included in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. This payment is set forth in theCompacts of Free Association negotiated with representatives of the Republic of theMarshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic ofPalau. (16) $106.0 million in fiscal assistance to the U.S. Virgin Islands for estimated rum excise and income tax collections, and to Guam for income taxcollections. Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations constitute the remaining balance (roughly 20% to 30%) of the OIA budget. TheFY2003 request of the Bush Administration sought to reduce the discretionaryportion of the OIA budget to $91.0 million, a reduction of $11.2 million (11%) fromFY2002. The FY2003 appropriations law includes discretionary funding slightlyhigher than the request--$97.2 million. Discretionary funding is comprised of twoparts. Funding for the Assistance to Territories account has been set at $76.2 million;for the Compact of Free Association (CFA) assistance account, $21.0 million. Little debate has occurred in recent years on funding for the territories and the OIA. In general, Congress continues to monitor economic development and fiscalmanagement by government officials in the insular areas. For further information on Insular Affairs, see its World Wide Web site at http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html . For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its World Wide Web siteat http://www.usda.gov/ . Department of Agriculture: ForestService. For information on the Department of Agriculture, see itsWorld Wide Web site at http://www.usda.gov/ . U.S. Forest Service. The ForestService (FS) budget enacted for FY2003 is $3.98 billion of discretionaryappropriations, $153.7 million (4%) less than was appropriated for FY2002 ($4.13billion), excluding $636 million appropriated in FY2003 to repay transfers to wildfiresuppression from other FY2002 appropriations. The FY2003 appropriations are$28.0 million (1%) more than the request, and $26.9 million (1%) more than theSenate provided, but $168.6 million (4%) less than the House passed (excluding a$500 million fire supplemental for FY2002). Forest Fires and Forest Health. Fire funding and fire protection programs were perhaps the most controversial issue confronted during consideration of theFY2003 Interior appropriations bill. In fact, during the 107th Congress, the Senatedid not pass an Interior appropriations bill largely due to disputes about fire fundingand a new program for wildfire protection. The discussion includes questions aboutfunding levels and locations for various fire protection treatments, such as thinningand prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and clearing around structures to protectthem during fires. Another focus is whether logging and access roads help in firecontrol or exacerbate conflagrations. Still another issue is whether, and to whatextent, environmental analysis, public involvement, and challenges to decisionshinder fuel reduction activities. National Fire Plan. The FY2003 funding debate continued the increased attention in recent years to wildfires and the damage they cause. The severe fire seasons in thesummers of 2000 and 2002 prompted substantial debates and proposals related to firecontrol and fire protection. The severe 2000 fire season led the ClintonAdministration to propose a new program, called the National Fire Plan, whichapplied to BLM lands as well as to Forest Service lands, with $1.8 billion tosupplement the $1.1 billion requested before the fire season began. The National FirePlan comprises the Forest Service wildland fire program and fire fighting on DOIlands; the DOI wildland fire monies are appropriated to the BLM. Congress largelyenacted the proposal for FY2001, adding money to the FY2001 request for wildfireoperations, fuel reduction, and burned area restoration, fire preparedness, andprograms to assist local communities. Total appropriations for the FY2001 NationalFire Plan, covering BLM and FS fire funds, were $2.89 billion. Many of theincreases were continued in FY2002, although the less severe 2001 fire season ledto decreases in fire suppression operations, restoration and rehabilitation, emergencycontingency funds, and private land fire assistance. The FY2002 National Fire Planwas funded at $2.24 billion. FY2003 Appropriations. For FY2003, the Bush Administration had proposed to fund the National Fire Plan at $2.02 billion, $216 million (10%) less than theFY2002 level. The FY2003 enacted appropriation was $2.03 billion, $11 million(1%) more than requested, but $204 million less than the FY2002 level. (See Table11 .) The appropriation is less than the House passed ($2.17 billion), but more thanthe Senate passed ($2.01 billion). Table 11. Federal Wildland Fire Management Funding, FY2002-FY2003 ($ in millions) The FS and BLM wildland fire line items include funds for fire suppression (fighting fires), preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention,and detection), and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel treatment, research, and stateand private assistance). The FY2003 enacted appropriation for suppression matchedthe decrease proposed in the President's FY2003 request by eliminating theemergency contingent funds for FY2002. (See Table 11 ). Specifically, theappropriation includes $160.4 million for the BLM for fire suppression, and $420.7million for FS fire suppression. This is a small decrease from BLM FY2002suppression funding (-$1.0 million), and a substantial decrease (nearly -$101million) from FS FY2002 suppression funding For BLM fire preparedness, the appropriation matched the President's request of $277.2 million, a slight reduction from the FY2002 level of $280.8 million. ForFS fire preparedness, the appropriation was $616.0 million, down from the FY2002level of $622.6 million. This roughly split the difference between the House-passedincrease (to $640.0 million), and the President's proposed and Senate-passedreduction (to $600.7 million). For other BLM fire operations, the appropriation roughly matched the request and the House and Senate enactments of about $216 million, a reduction of about $20million from the FY2002 regular and emergency contingent appropriation. For otherFS fire operations, the appropriation was $343.2 million, down $4.5 million from therequest, and down $109.5 from the House, but up $12.9 million from the Senate. This is a decrease of $73.2 million from the $416.4 million appropriated for FY2002. FY2002 Supplemental Funds. The 2002 fire season also was severe, with conflagrations threatening towns in Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, and elsewhere. Asof November 15, 2002, wildfires had burned 7,112,733 acres, nearly as much as in2000, the most severe fire season since the 1950s. (17) The FS and BLM used theirFY2002 suppression funding, and borrowed from other accounts (such as landacquisition) as authorized. As a result, Congress and the Administration debatedwhether to include, in the FY2003 appropriation, supplemental funds for FY2002 torepay funds borrowed to pay for firefighting. In the FY2003 appropriations law,Congress ultimately enacted $825 million ($636 million for FS and $189 million forBLM) to repay the funds borrowed for FY2002 firefighting (Title III of Division N). Whether to appropriate supplemental funds for FY2002, and at what level, had been a subject of much debate during consideration of the FY2003 appropriationsbill. The House had added $700 million in FY2002 funds to the FY2003 InteriorAppropriations bill for fire suppression ($500 million for FS and $200 million forBLM). In late August, the Administration requested $825 million ($636 million forFS and $189 million for BLM) to supplement the FY2002 firefighting efforts. During Senate floor consideration of H.R. 5093 , Sen. Byrd offered anamendment (No. 4480) to add the Administration's request to the Interior bill. Adraft substitute, widely attributed to Sen. Domenici, sought $1.25 billion ($1.0 billionfor FS and $250 million for BLM), but this amendment was not offered in the Senate. Instead, Sen. Craig offered an amendment (on behalf of himself and Sen. Domenici)to the Byrd amendment to allow hazardous wildfire fuel reduction projects with lessenvironmental and public review. The introduced amendment and various substituteswere debated sporadically from September 5 through September 25, with noresolution. The Senate twice tried to end debate on the fire issue by invoking clotureon the Byrd amendment, but neither attempt was successful. Largely due to the lack of agreement on wildland fire funding and related issues, the Senate discontinued debate on the Interior appropriations bill in the 107thCongress. The Byrd and Craig/Domenici amendments remained pending when theSenate halted debate. The House Resources Committee persisted in consideringrelated authorizing legislation, but none was enacted in the 107th Congress. (SeeCRS Report RL31679.) Stewardship Contracting. The FY2003 appropriations law included a provision extending the authorization for stewardship through 2013 to the BLM and to anunlimited number of FS contracts (ï¿½323 of Division F). This authority allows theagencies to require fuel reduction or other stewardship activities as part of timber salecontracts--essentially trading goods (timber) for services (e.g., fuel reduction). Supporters assert that this is an efficient way to achieve non-commercial benefitsusing commercial contracts. Opponents counter that this creates incentives to allowmore trees to be cut, so as to gain more non-commercial benefits, and grants theagencies too much discretion over the use of timber receipts. Other Agency Programs. While funding for wildfires was the center of debate, Congress examined other Forest Service programs to determineFY2003 funding levels. The Administration had proposed terminating the EconomicAction Program (EAP), which includes rural community assistance and woodrecycling, and the Pacific Northwest economic assistance program. The FY2003appropriations law contained $26.4 million for EAP, with $5.0 million more for EAPin the Wildfire Management account -- a total of $31.4 million. The law did notinclude language from both House and Senate versions of the bill directing anallocation for the Pacific Northwest. The FY2003 total is $26.2 million (45%) belowthe FY2002 appropriations of $57.6 million. The Administration proposed a $19.2 million (13%) cut in land acquisition, for a total of $130.5 million. The House and Senate both had passed small cuts from theFY2002 land acquisition appropriation of $149.7 million, but the FY2003 enactedlevel was $133.8 million, $15.9 million (11%) less than the FY2002 appropriation. The request also proposed reducing Infrastructure Improvement (which is used toaddress the nearly $7 billion deferred maintenance backlog) by $10.1 million (17%),to $50.9 million. The FY2003 appropriations law reduced this further, to $45.9million, while shifting $4.9 million to other capital improvements. The FY2003 budget request included a new Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund, to rapidly control invasive species problems since early aggressive efforts can reduceor eliminate a problem while it is still small. The request was for $12.0 million, andthe Senate included $14.0 million, but the House included no money for this Fundand no FY2003 funds were enacted. The other new proposed program was $15.0million for Expedited Consultations, where the FS can pay another federal agency toconsult on projects that might jeopardize an endangered or threatened species; thiswould assure that the other agencies' budgets do not limit the FS's ability to proceedon its projects. The FY2003 appropriations law did not include funding forExpedited Consultations. The Administration proposed $49.5 million, a $16.4 million (49%) increase over FY2002 in the Forest Stewardship Program, which provides technical assistance formanaging private forests. The FY2003 appropriations law, however, contained appropriations of $32.2 million, a $1.0 million (3%) decrease from FY2002. TheAdministration also proposed $69.8 million, a $4.8 million (7%) increase, in theForest Legacy Program, under which the Forest Service purchases title or easementsfor lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, e.g. , residences. The Househad reduced this to $60.0 million, while the Senate had increased it to $74.0 million. The FY2003 appropriations law provides $68.8 million, $1.0 million (1%) less thanrequested, but $3.8 million (6%) more than FY2002 appropriations. Tongass National Forest . The FY20003 appropriations law contained legislative language on the Tongass National Forest. The language prohibits administrativeappeals and judicial review of "The Record of Decision for the 2003 SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement for the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan" (ï¿½335 of Division F). With this provision, Congress has essentially approved theagency's decision to recommend no additional wilderness in the Tongass NationalForest in Alaska. Some groups had been advocating additional wildernessdesignations and further restrictions on road building and timber harvesting in theTongass. For further information on the U.S. Forest Service , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/ . For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the U.S. Forest Service, see the USDA Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm . CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], coordinators. CRS Report RL31679. Wildfire Protection: Legislation in the 107th Congress and Issues in the 108th Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20822(pdf) . Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30755 . Forest Fire Protection , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30647 . The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20985 . Stewardship Contracting for the National Forests , by [author name scrubbed]. Department of Energy. Forfurther information on the Department of Energy (DOE), see its World Wide Website at http://www.energy.gov/ . For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the DOE or any of its bureaus, see DOE's Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm . Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The FY2003 appropriations law contained$624.9 million for Fossil Energy R&D. This represents a 7% increase over FY2002($582.8 million), and a 28% increase over the President's FY2003 request ($489.3million). (18) Much of the difference in fundingbetween the enacted level and theAdministration's request is in fuel cells, transportation fuels, natural gas andpetroleum production technologies. In earlier action, the Senate approved fundingfossil energy programs at $625.7 million, while the House approved funding levelwas even higher--$664.2 million. The FY2003 appropriations law provided $150.0 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) and approves Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP)deferrals of $87 million for FY2003. The joint explanatory statement of theconference report states that up to $15.0 million in prior year funds may be used toadminister the CCTP in FY2003. The program is a cooperative cost-sharedindustry/government program for "funding advanced research and development anda limited number of joint government-industry-funded demonstrations of newtechnologies that can enhance the reliability and environmental performance ofcoal-fired power generators." The CCPI is along the lines of the Clean CoalTechnology Program, which has completed most of its projects and has been subjectto rescissions and deferrals since the mid-1990s. The Administration had requested $150.0 million for CCPI for FY2003 as part of a $2 billion ten-year commitment, but had not recommended a deferral frompreviously appropriated Clean Coal Technology Program funds. The CCTP has beenfunded separately from the other fossil R&D programs. The Administration hadsought to consolidate it with coal R&D programs under Fossil Energy Research andDevelopment. Under the proposal, the CCTP would have received no additionalappropriations, but would have received $40.0 million in FY2003 from previouslydeferred budget authority to continue with several projects that are still active. However, the CCTP was retained as a separate program in the FY2003appropriations law. The CCTP eventually will be phased out. The Senate had supported the President's request of $150.0 million for its CCPI but recommended a deferral of $60 million for the CCTP. The House also agreed to$150.0 million for CCPI, while deferring $50 million in CCTP funding until FY2004and using up to $14 million in prior year balances to administer the CCTP inFY2003. The Senate did not support using $14 million in prior year balancestowards the FY2003 Fossil Energy program. Under the Administration's request, research and development (R&D) on natural gas would have been be cut by nearly half, to $22.6 million, and R&D onpetroleum by about a third, to $35.4 million. The Senate however, supported theseprograms at $46.3 for natural gas and 44.3 million for petroleum programs. TheHouse approved $48.2 million for natural gas and $54.9 million for petroleumtechnology programs. The FY2003 law contained $47.3 million for natural gasprograms and $42.3 for petroleum technology. The Administration's request wouldhave phased out funding for the Fuels program, including R&D on ultra-clean fuelstechnology, reducing the request to $5.0 million for FY2003 from $32.2 million inFY2002. The Senate approved $27.3 million for the Fuels program, while the Housesupported spending $31.6 million. The FY2003 law retained the fuels program,providing $31.4 million. The FY2003 appropriations law contains $68.9 million forthe Energy Technology Center (ETC), as compared with the Administration's requestof $64.9 million. The Senate had supported $69.9 million, while the House approved$67.9 million for ETC programs. The FY2003 law also provided $40.2 million forsequestration R&D, which would test new and advanced methods for greenhouse gascapture, separation, and reuse. This is an increase from the FY2002 level of $32.2million, but a decrease from the Administration's request of $54.0 million. TheSenate and the House both had approved $42.0 million. The Administration also proposed to transfer the Fossil Energy (FE) Infrastructure program that funds natural gas research activities ($10.0 million inFY2002) to the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety, in orderto reduce any duplication of effort. The Senate and House supported maintaining theinfrastructure program within Fossil Energy, and the FY2003 law retained theInfrastructure program within Fossil Energy with an appropriation of $9.1 million. For further information on Fossil Energy , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fe.doe.gov/ . CRS Report RS20877. The Clean Coal Technology Program: Current Prospects , by [author name scrubbed]. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The SPR, authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act ( P.L. 94-163 ) in late1975, consists of caverns formed out of naturally-occurring salt domes in Louisianaand Texas in which more than 570 million barrels of crude oil are stored. Thepurpose of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil which may betapped in the event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or aninterruption threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from theReserve. Sharp increases in the price of oil beginning in the spring of 1999 spurred calls for drawdowns from the Reserve. The Clinton Administration authorized someexchanges and swaps of oil from the SPR, and also instituted a program to acceptroughly 28 million barrels as royalty-in-kind (RIK) payments for production fromfederal leases. Acquiring oil for the SPR by RIK avoids the necessity for Congressto make outlays to finance direct purchase of oil; however, it also means a loss ofrevenues to the Treasury in so far as the royalties are paid in wet barrels rather thanin cash. In mid-November 2001, President Bush ordered that the SPR be filled tocapacity (700 million barrels) using RIK oil. Deliveries of RIK oil began in thespring of 2002. The fill rate has varied and should average about 55,000 barrels aday (b/d) between December 2002 and the end of FY2003. The FY2003 appropriation law provided a total of $180.9 million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This consists of $172.9 million for facilities, operationand management; $2 million in new money for the SPR Petroleum Account,reflecting a level of $7 million for transportation of RIK oil, less a $5 millionrescission of unobligated prior-year funds; and $6 million for the NHOR, reflectinglower costs for leasing of the storage facilities. The FY2003 law reauthorized theSPR through FY2008. The FY2003 budget request for the SPR was $187.7 million, an increase of $8.7 million from the appropriation for FY2002 ($179.0 million). The request had threecomponents. First, it included $154.9 million for storage facilities development andoperations management, and $14.0 million for management of the SPR sites. Second, $11.0 million was included in the SPR Petroleum Account to support thecosts of transporting RIK oil to SPR sites. Third, the request included $8.0 millionfor the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR), established by the ClintonAdministration, which houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-groundfacilities in Connecticut and New Jersey. In the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations had recommended a total of $189.9 million, including $158.9 for facilities development and operations, $16.0million for management, $7.0 million for transporting RIK oil to the SPR, and $8million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Committee reduced theSPR Petroleum Account by $4.0 million, transferring that money to development andoperations for the express purpose of helping to pay for injection of oil into theReserve. The House approved $190.9 million, essentially following the Senatemodel with an additional $1 million for management. The omnibus appropriations legislation approved by the Senate on January 23, 2003, included $172.9 million for the SPR, $7 million for the SPR PetroleumAccount, and $6 million for the NHOR - a total of $185.9 million. The Senate alsoincluded language giving permanent authorization to the SPR, and affirmingPresident Bush's previous expression that the SPR should be filled to capacity assoon as practicable. Similar language had been agreed to by the conferees on theomnibus energy legislation ( H.R. 4 ) that was not enacted before the107th Congress adjourned. For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr . CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve , by [author name scrubbed]. Naval Petroleum Reserves. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1996 ( P.L. 104-106 ) authorized sale ofthe federal interest in the oil field at Elk Hills, CA (NPR-1). On February 5, 1998,Occidental Petroleum Corporation took title to the site and wired $3.65 billion to theU.S. Treasury. P.L. 104-106 also transferred most of two Naval Oil Shale Reserves(NOSR) to DOI; the balance of the second was transferred to DOI in the spring of1999. On January 14, 2000, DOE returned the undeveloped NOSR-2 to the UteIndian Tribe; the FY2001 National Defense Authorization ( P.L. 106-398 ) providedfor the transfer. The U.S. retains a 9% royalty interest in NOSR-2, those proceedsto be applied to the costs of remediation for a uranium mill tailings site near Moab,Utah. This leaves in the Naval Petroleum Reserves program two small oil fields in California and Wyoming, which will generate estimated revenue to the governmentof roughly $7.2 million during FY2003. The request to maintain the NavalPetroleum Reserves (NPR) for FY2003 was $20.8 million, a decrease of $1.5 millionfrom FY2002 ($22.4 million, including $17.4 million in new appropriations and $5.0million in prior year funds). The conference report on the FY2003 appropriations billprovided $17.8 million, making a "general reduction" of $3 million from the House-and Senate-approved levels. This level was enacted into law for FY2003.. In settlement of a long-standing dispute between California and the federal government over the state's claim to Elk Hills as "school lands," the CaliforniaTeachers' Retirement Fund is to receive 9% of the sale proceeds after the costs ofsale have been deducted. The agreement between DOE and California provided forfive annual payments of $36.0 million beginning in FY1999, with the balance due tobe paid in equal installments in FY2004 and FY2005. The FY2003 budget requestincluded an advance appropriation of $36.0 million for the Elk Hills School LandsFund, to be paid at the start of FY2004. This was enacted in the FY2003appropriations law. For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/npr. Energy Conservation. The FY2003 request for DOE's Energy Efficiency Program notes that "energy efficiencyprograms produce substantial benefits for the Nation," according to the BudgetAppendix to the U.S. Government's FY2003 Budget (Budget Appendix, p. 403). However, the Administration also stresses that the FY2003 budget proposes changesthat reflect findings of the National Energy Policy Report and the President'sManagement Agenda . Specifically, the request states that the "Energy Efficiency[Office] will terminate projects that provide insufficient public benefit, redirectactivities to better provide public benefits, place certain activities on a watch list toensure they advance effectively, and expand several programs that could achievesignificantly increased benefits with additional funding." (DOE Budget Highlights,p. 103). Thus, DOE proposed to decrease conservation funding under DOE's Officeof Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) from $912.8 million in FY2002to $901.6 million in FY2003. See Table 12 . Table 12. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2002-FY2003 ($ in millions) a Includes funds for a study by the National Academy of Sciences. b Includes $3.0 million for cooperative programs with states and $5.0 million forenergy efficiency science initiatives. In the 107th Congress, the House-approved level of $984.7 million for the DOE Energy Conservation Program would have increased funding over FY2002 by $71.9million, or 8%, not accounting for inflation. Compared to the Administration'srequest, the House level would have increased funding by $83.0 million, or 9%. TheHouse level included $250.0 million for weatherization grants, $50.0 million for stateenergy grants, $687.6 million for R&D, and a $3.0 million general reduction. In the 108th Congress, the Senate-passed bill contained $884.3 million for the FY2003 DOE Energy Conservation Program. This was $37.4 million less than the$921.7 million that the Senate Appropriations Committee had recommended in the107th Congress. Compared to the House-passed bill in the 107th Congress, the Senatelevel was $100.4 million, or 10%, lower. This difference includes $73.3 million lessfor R&D and $30.0 million less for grants, but did not include a $3.0 millionreduction that was included in the House level. As enacted, the FY2003 bill includes $897.6 million for the DOE Energy Conservation Program. Compared to the Administration's request, the enacted levelwould cut would cut $4.0 million, or 0.4%. Compared to FY2002, the enacted levelcuts $15.2 million, or 2%, not accounting for inflation. This includes cuts of $5.0million for weatherization grants and $18.2 million for R&D. Transportation R&Dfalls by $4.7 million, including decreases of $5.7 million for Fuels Utilization and$4.0 million for Hybrid Vehicles. It also includes FreedomCAR-related increases of$8.1 million for Advanced Combustion Engines and $6.1 million for Fuel Cells. Industry R&D falls by $10.6 million, including cuts of $2.8 million for PetroleumIndustry Vision and $2.8 million for Combustion Systems. Power Technologiesincreases by $6.8 million. Buildings Research and Standards falls by $2.6 million,including a cut of $4.5 million for Technology Road Maps. Energy Star increases by$1.2 million. In the 107th Congress, the report of the House Committee on Appropriations proposed $1.0 million in new funding for DOE to "do a better job of measuringpotential program success" through program reviews by the National Academy ofSciences to help decide whether to expand or scale-back programs. The FY2003 lawallocates $500,000 for this purpose. Also, the House report directs that EERE adopta procurement practice to "allow full and open competition to occur, whenappropriate." The report of the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed EEREto "revise and restructure" the budget request documents for FY2004, noting thatthey often lack a complete explanation of recommended funding changes. Theconference report does not add any further provisions. For further information on the Energy Conservation Budget , see the Web site at http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/ . For further information on EnergyConservation Programs , see the Web site at http://www.eren.doe.gov/ . CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20852(pdf) . The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status and Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service. For further information on the Indian HealthService see the agency's Internet site at http://www.dhhs.gov/ . Indian Health Service. The Indian Health Service (IHS) carries out the federal responsibility of assuring comprehensivemedical and environmental health services for approximately 1.5 million to 1.7million American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) who belong to over 560federally recognized tribes located in 34 states. Health care is provided through asystem of federal, tribal, and urban Indian operated programs and facilities that serveas the major source of health care for AI/AN. IHS provides direct health careservices through 36 hospitals, 58 health centers, 4 school health centers, and 44health stations. Tribes and tribal groups, under IHS contracts, operate another 13hospitals, 161 health centers, 3 school health centers, and 249 health stations,including 170 Alaska Native village clinics. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups alsooperate 11 regional youth substance abuse treatment centers and more than 2,200units of staff quarters. IHS funding is separated into two Indian health budget categories: services and facilities. The Senate-passed bill recommended a total of $2.821 billion inappropriations for FY2003, up $5.7 million or 0.2% above the President's request of$2.816 billion, and $62.2 million or 2.3% over the FY2002 appropriation of $2.759billion. The House-passed bill provided a total of $2.901 billion for FY2003, up$84.2 million or 3% from the President's request, and $141.5 million or 5.1% overthe FY2002 appropriation. The FY2003 appropriations law provides a total of$2.868 billion for FY2003, $52.7 million (1.9%) over the President's request and$109.2 million (4%) over the FY2002 appropriation. Of the total IHS appropriationsenacted for FY2003, approximately 87% would be used for health services, and 13%for the health facilities' program. IHS services are funded not only throughcongressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from private healthinsurance and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children'sHealth Insurance Program. IHS estimates that it will collect another $450 million inreimbursements in FY2003. The IHS's service budget has several subcategories: clinical services, preventive health services, and other services. Clinical services include basic primary care forinpatient and outpatient services at IHS hospitals and clinics. The House provideda total of $1.996 billion for FY2003, $51.2 million or 2.6% over the Administrationrequest of $1.945 billion, and $104.4 million or 5.5% above the FY2002 level of$1.892 billion. The Senate recommended $1.949 billion for FY2003, $47 millionless than the House, but 0.2% over the request and 3% above the FY2002appropriations level. Congress enacted $1.987 billion, 2.1% above the request and5% over FY2002. Within clinical services, the enacted appropriations will supportprograms for hospitals and clinics ($1.22 billion), dental health ($100.3 million), mental health ($50.6 million), and substance abuse treatment ($137.7 million). Alsoin the clinical services budget, the House appropriated $483.1 million for contracthealth care, 4.9% over FY2002 and $15 million more than the Senaterecommendation of $468.1 million. Congress enacted $478.1 million, 3.8% over theFY2002 amount. Contract health services are services purchased from local andcommunity health care providers when IHS cannot provide medical care and specificservices through its own system. For preventive health services, both the House and Senate recommended $103.3 million, the same amount requested by the President, and 3.6% over theFY2002 appropriation of $99.7 million. The FY2003 appropriations law providedthe requested amount. Congress accepted the President's funding request for publichealth nursing ($39.9 million), health education in schools and communities ($11.1million), and immunizations ($1.6 million). The total also will fund the communityhealth representatives' program ($50.8 million), a tribally administered program thatsupports community members who work to prevent illness and disease in theircommunities. For other health related activities, the House recommended a total of $409.2 million and the Senate, $403.3 million. Congress enacted $402.1 million. TheHouse, Senate, and Congress allocated $31.5 million for off-reservation urban healthprojects, and $2.4 million for costs associated with providing tribal managementgrants to tribes. The House and Senate differed, however, in amounts forscholarships to Indian health professionals; the House recommended $35.4 million,while the Senate provided a total of $31.3 million and directed IHS to recruit healthprofessionals from among the general population. Congress enacted the Senateamount. The House also expected IHS to implement a program offering bonuspayments to health professionals, similar to the approach taken in a South Dakotademonstration program where a tribe was able to hire full time personnel at less costthan the cost of paying part time contract health services. For IHS direct operations, including technical management and tribal consultation support, the Senate recommended $57.2 million, and the House slightlyless at $56.1 million. Congress enacted $60.6 million. For self-governance funding,however, there was a large difference as the Senate recommended $10.1 million, andthe House provided only $1.1 million. The House Committee report said that onlythis amount was needed to cover 8 positions in the self governance office, becausethere had been no new self-governance compacts recently, and the committeebelieved that the funds should be used for other underfunded programs. Congressenacted $5.6 million for self-governance. Contract support costs are awarded to tribes for administering programs under contracts or compacts authorized under the Indian Self-Determination Act ( P.L.93-638 , as amended). They include costs for expenses tribes incur for financialmanagement, accounting, training, and program start-up. The Senate and the Houseboth proposed that $270.7 million be used for contract support costs, and that amountwas enacted. The Senate did not agree with the President's proposed reductions in staffing levels, travel, training, and copying costs for direct operations. On another matter, theSenate Committee on Appropriations expressed concern about the Administration'srecent proposal to transfer and consolidate IHS's Office of Legislative Affairs intothe parallel office in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). TheCommittee noted that this IHS office handles a variety of complex Native Americanand Alaskan Indian health service issues, which require more expertise and attentionthan would be possible under a consolidation. As such, the Committee did not agreeto the consolidation, while the House was silent on the issue. The conference reportstated that DHHS consolidations or realignments of any IHS programs must beapproved by both Appropriations Committees through the reprogramming process. The IHS's facilities category includes money for the construction, maintenance, and improvement of health and sanitation facilities. The House recommended a totalof $391.9 million for FY2003, a 6.1% increase over the preceding year'sappropriation of $369.5 million, and a 8.1% increase over the President's FY2003request of $362.6 million. The Senate provided $365.4 million for FY2003, a 1.1%decrease from the FY2002 appropriation, but an increase of 0.8% or $2.8 millionover the President's FY2003 request. Congress enacted $376.2 million, 1.8% abovethe FY2002 amount and 3.8% over the President's request. The House and Senate disagreed with several changes put forward in the President's budget. They both prohibited IHS funds from being used to constructsanitation facilities in new houses funded under the Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD); both bodies assert that HUD should provide thefunding. The FY2003 appropriations law included the prohibition. For further information on the Indian Health Service , see the agency's Web siteat http://www.ihs.gov/ . Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation. The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation(ONHIR) was reauthorized for FY1995-2000 by P.L. 104-301 . The 1974 relocationlegislation ( P.L. 93-531 , as amended) was the end result of a dispute between theHopi and Navajo tribes involving land originally set aside by the federal governmentfor a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, lands were partitioned betweenthe two tribes. Members of one tribe who ended up on the other tribe's land were tobe relocated. ONHIR classifies families as relocated when they occupy theirreplacement home. Most relocatees are Navajo. A large majority of the estimated3,477 Navajo families formerly on the land partitioned to the Hopi already haverelocated under the Act, but the House Appropriations Committee estimates thatabout 233 families (almost all Navajo) have yet to complete relocation, includingabout 24 Navajo families still on Hopi partitioned land (some of whom refuse torelocate). The remaining families are not on Hopi partitioned land but are in variousstages of acquiring replacement housing. ONHIR's chief activities consist of housingacquisition and construction, land acquisition, and certification of families' eligibilityfor relocation benefits. For FY2002, ONHIR received appropriations of $15.1 million. For FY2003, the Administration proposed $14.5 million, a decrease of $657,000, or 4%. TheSenate, House, and Congress approved the proposed amount of $14.5 million. For much of the relocation period, negotiations and litigation have proceeded among the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo families on Hopi partitionedland, and the federal government on a number of issues, especially regarding HopiTribe claims against the United States. In 1995, the United States and the Hopi Tribereached a proposed settlement agreement on Hopi claims. Attached to the settlementagreement was a separate accommodation agreement between the Hopi Tribe and theNavajo families, which provided for 75-year leases for Navajo families on Hopipartitioned land. The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996 ( P.L.104-301 ) approved the settlement agreement between the United States and the HopiTribe. Not all issues have been resolved by these agreements, however, andopposition to the agreements and the leases is strong among some of the Navajofamilies. Navajo families with homesites on Hopi partitioned land faced a March 31,1997, deadline for signing the leases (accommodation agreements). According toONHIR, 70 of the 73 Navajo families then on Hopi-partitioned land had signedaccommodation agreements by the end of September 1999. The Hopi Tribe has called for enforcement of relocation against Navajo families without leases. Like the FY1997-FY2002 Interior appropriations acts, the FY2003appropriations law would forbid ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopipartitioned lands unless a replacement home were provided. This language appearsto prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families during FY2003 since theONHIR has a large backlog of relocatees who are approved for replacement homesbut have not yet received them. These relocatees would have priority in receivingreplacement homes. The settlement agreement approved by P.L. 104-301 , however,allows the Hopi Tribe under certain circumstances to begin actions against the UnitedStates after February 1, 2000, for failure to give the Hopi "quiet possession" of allHopi-partitioned lands if Navajo families on these lands have not either relocated orentered into accommodation agreements with the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi Tribe hasnot yet filed such a quiet possession claim against the United States. The Tribe hasagreed to wait while the U.S. pursues legal actions against Navajo who have neithersigned agreements nor relocated, but has asserted that evictions should have alreadystarted. Smithsonian, National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities. One of the perennialissues addressed by Congress concerning the programs and agencies delineatedbelow is whether federal government support for the arts and culture is an appropriatefederal role, and if it is, what should be the shape of that support. If the continuedfederal role is not appropriate, might the federal commitment be scaled back suchthat greater private support or state support would be encouraged? Each program hasits own unique relationship to this overarching issue. Smithsonian. The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education and research complex of 16 museums andgalleries, the National Zoo, and research facilities throughout the United States andaround the world. Nine of its museums and galleries are located on the Mall betweenthe U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument, and SI counted 42 million visits in2001. The National Zoo had 2.8 million visits, the Museum of Natural History had9.1 million visits, and the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) had 9.8 millionvisits. The Smithsonian is estimated to be 70% federally funded. A federal commitment to fund the Institution was established by legislation in 1846. Today,the Smithsonian receives both federal appropriations and various types of trust funds. SI Budget and Appropriations. The FY2003 appropriations law provides $548.5 million for the Smithsonian, $20.6million above the House-passed bill and the FY2003 request, $17.6 million above theSenate-passed level and $29.7 million above the FY2002 level. For Smithsonian'sSalaries and Expenses, the FY2003 appropriation provides $449.1 million, $12.4million above the House and Senate-passed level ($436.7 million), $14.4 millionabove the budget request for FY2003 ($434.7 million) and $28.1 million above theFY2002 enacted level. See Table 13 . For the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), the FY2003 enactedappropriation provides $16.0 million for completion of construction of the Mallmuseum, the same as the Senate-passed bill. The House-passed bill and thePresident's budget request had included $10.0 million for the NMAI. Initially, theNMAI was controversial. Opponents of constructing a new museum argued that thecurrent Smithsonian museums needed renovation, repair, and maintenance of thecollection with an estimated 142 million items, more than the public needed anothermuseum on the Mall. Proponents argued that there had been too long a delay inproviding a museum in Washington to house the Indian collection. Private donations to the Smithsonian for the NMAI and a fund-raising campaign focusing on individuals, foundations, and corporations totaled $36.7 million,representing one-third of the original estimated cost ($110 million) and the amountrequired to meet the non-appropriated portion of project funding. Of this amount, anestimated $15 million came from the Indian community directly. Based on a newestimate of $219.3 million for the Indian museum, the Smithsonian indicated that $20million in trust funds would cover opening costs and that additional fund raisingwould be required. The groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI took placeSeptember 28, 1999. The projected opening of the Museum is 2004. The FY2003 enacted appropriation provides $83.4 million for "repair, restoration, and alteration of facilities", an increase of $2.1 million above theHouse-passed bill ($81.3 million), and $5.1 million above the Senate measure ($78.3million). This line item includes funds for critical repairs at the National Zoo,renovation of the Patent Office Building and the National Museum of NaturalHistory, and routine repair in all Smithsonian facilities. Work was begun last yearon the National Museum of Natural History and the Patent Office Building (the homeof two Smithsonian Museums--the National Portrait Gallery and the SmithsonianMuseum of American Art--with a projected total cost estimate of $151 million.) The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with approximately 8 million square feetof space. Four of the Smithsonian's buildings plus the National Zoo constituteapproximately one-third of the SI's public space: the National Museum of NaturalHistory (1910), the American Art and Portrait Gallery (1836-1860), the Castlebuilding (1846), and the Arts and Industries building (1849). A study by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), A Study of the Smithsonian Institution's Repair, Restoration and Alteration of FacilitiesProgram, confirms what the Institution had already concluded: that funding forrepair and renewal of SI's facilities has not kept pace with need, resulting inincreased deterioration of the physical plant. The NAPA report contends that theSmithsonian needs to spend more than $1.5 billion over the next decade to fullyrepair, renovate, and improve its facilities. SI Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian receives trust funds to expand its programs. The SItrust fund includes contributions from private sources, and government grants andcontracts from other agencies. General trust funds include investment income andbusiness revenues from what the Smithsonian identifies as "business ventures"(including the Smithsonian magazine, retail shops, restaurants, concessions, catalogs,and entertainment initiatives, i.e. Resident Associates and other entertainmentprograms.) There are also trust funds that are private donor designated funds. Designated trust funds are those that include gifts, grants, and contributions fromindividuals, foundations, and corporations that specify and direct the purpose offunds. In FY2001, contributions from private individuals, foundations, and corporatesources for designated projects totaled $178.8 million, and for FY2002, they wereprojected to total $80 million. One large single contribution to the Smithsonian froma private donor (Steven F. Udvar-Hazy)--$60 million--was pledged for the NationalAir and Space Museum's Dulles Center (FY1999). The Dulles extension isscheduled to open in December of 2003. Finally, government grants and contracts (separate from the regular appropriation) are provided by various government agencies and departments forprojects specific to the Smithsonian because of their expertise in certain fieldsincluding science, history, art, and education. For FY2002, in addition to the regularappropriation, government grants and contracts were projected to be $70 million. Part of this funding is available to the Smithsonian's Astrophysical Observatory. Tracking of the Smithsonian's Trust fund expenditures is of major concern to the Congress. In FY2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommendedinstituting a plan that the Smithsonian has now developed to track trust fund budgetproposals and expenditures. According to the Inspector General of the Smithsonian,there was a discrepancy between what the Board of Regents approved for 1998through 2000 ($699 million) compared to actual expenditures of $1.07 billion. The House Committee on Appropriations, in FY2003 report language, expressed concern about the controversies between the Smithsonian and benefactors'control over SI properties and exhibits. One particular issue is the renaming of theAir and Space Theater, replacing the name of Langley with a corporate sponsorname. The Committee recommended reopening negotiations, and requests a reviewof all benefactor agreements within the last two years. In addition, the Committeewould like further review of the practices for compensation of Smithsonianleadership. Two of the controversies concerning the Smithsonian in previous years were resolved. They involved the proposed closing of the Smithsonian Center forMaterials Research and Education (SCMRE) and the Conservation and ResearchCenter (CRC) in Front Royal, Virginia. On May 6, 2001, in response to objectionsby scientists and others, the Smithsonian reversed its policy with regard to the CRCand SCMRE and continued to maintain both centers. The FY2002 InteriorAppropriations law provided that an independent "blue ribbon" Science Commissionwould be established and meet before any final decision about closing either the CRCor the SCMRE. The direction of SI's research priorities is still of concern toCongress. Table 13. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2002-2003 ($ in thousands) a Includes $21,707,000 contained in the FY2002 Emergency SupplementalAppropriation, P.L. 107-117 , for SI's Anti-Terrorism funding. For further information on the Smithsonian , see its World Wide Web site at http://www.si.edu/ . National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. One of the primary vehicles for federalsupport for the arts and the humanities is the National Foundation on the Arts and theHumanities, composed of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the NationalEndowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Institute of Museum Services (IMS),now constituted as the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) with anOffice of Museum Services (OMS). The authorizing act, the National Foundationon the Arts and the Humanities Act, was last reauthorized in 1990 and expired at theend of FY1993, but NEA and NEH have since been operating on temporary authoritythrough appropriations law. The 104th Congress established the Institute of Museumand Library Services and created the Office of Museum Services ( P.L. 104-208 ). The FY2003 appropriation for NEA provides $116.5 million (which includes $17 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund), the same as the Senate passed billand the FY2003 Administration request. The House had approved a total of $126.5million for NEA ($99.5 million plus $27.0 million for the Challenge America ArtsFund). The House had agreed to a floor amendment (234-192) to increase NEA by$10 million and NEH by $5 million by reducing Interior departmental managementsalaries and expenses. The FY2003 appropriation's law and the Senate-passed billincluded Challenge America Arts fund within NEA's total for Grants andAdministration, a slightly different accounting method than used by the House andthe Administration. See Table 14 . NEA's direct grant program currently supportsapproximately 1,600 grants. State arts agencies are now receiving over 40% of grantfunds, with 1,000 communities participating nationwide, particularly fromunder-represented areas. The NEA now administers the Challenge America ArtsFund, a program of matching grants for arts education, outreach and community artsactivities for rural and undeserved areas. The NEA is required to submit a detailedreport to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees describing the use offunds for the Challenge America program. The FY2003 appropriation for NEH is $125.8 million, the same as the FY2003 budget request and the Senate-passed measure, $1.3 million above the FY2002 level,but $5.3 million below the House-passed FY2003 level. The NEH supportsextensive grants for humanities education, research, preservation and publichumanities programs; grants for the creation of regional humanities centers; andgrants to help develop humanities programs under the jurisdiction of the 56 statehumanities councils. NEH also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate andmatch private donations in support of humanities institutions. Effective with FY2003, the appropriation for the Office of Museum Services moved from the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill to the appropriationsbill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education(ED) and related agencies. The rationale for this transfer was that the Office ofLibrary Services, the larger of the two components of IMLS, is already underLabor-HHS-Ed appropriations, and having one single funding stream under oneappropriation would make bookkeeping simpler and reduce duplicative review forAppropriations subcommittees. The FY2003 appropriation (under Labor-HHS-Edappropriations) for IMLS is $245.5 million for both libraries and museums (includingearmarks for museums and libraries and $10.0 million for educating librarians for the21st century initiative). The OMS portion of the appropriation is approximately $30million, compared to $26.9 million for FY2002. The Office of Museum servicesprovides grants in aid to museums in the form of leadership grants, museumconservation, museum assessment, and General Operating Support (GOS) to helpover 400 museums annually to improve the quality of their services to the public. Among the questions Congress continually considers is whether funding for the arts and humanities is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Some opponentsof arts support argue that NEA and NEH should be abolished altogether, contendingthat the federal government should not be in the business of supporting arts andhumanities. Other opponents argue that culture can and does flourish on its ownthrough private support. Proponents of federal support for arts and humanitiescontend that the federal government has a long tradition of support for culture,beginning as early as 1817 with congressional appropriations for works of art toadorn the U.S. Capitol. Some representatives of the private sector say that they areunable to make up the gap that would be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts.Others argue that abolishing NEA and NEH would curtail or eliminate the programsthat have national significance and purpose (such as national touring theater anddance companies, radio and television shows, traveling museum exhibitions, etc.) Former President Clinton's Committee on the Arts, in Creative America (1997),recommended federal funding for NEA and NEH at $2.00 per person by the year2000. In contrast, total funding for NEA and NEH now represents approximately 84cents per person. Previous NEA Controversies. Although there appears to be an increase in congressional support for the NEA, the debate often recurs on previousquestionable NEA grants when appropriations are considered, in spite of attempts toresolve these problems through previous statutory provisions. The debate involvedwhether or not some of the grants given were for artwork that might be deemedobscene. To date, no NEA projects have been judged obscene by the courts. OnNovember 5, 1996, a federal appeals court upheld an earlier decision, NEA v. Finley ,ruling that applying the "general standards of decency" clause to NEA grants was"unconstitutional." However, in anticipation of congressional reaction to NEA'sindividual grants, NEA eliminated grants to individuals by arts discipline with someexceptions. On June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court reversed the federal appeals courtdecision for NEA v. Finley (CA9,100F.3d 671) by a vote of 8 to 1, stating that theNEA "can consider general standards of decency" when judging grants for artisticmerit, and that the decency provision does not "inherently interfere with Firstamendment rights nor violate constitutional vagueness principles." Congress enacted NEA reform measures in past appropriations laws. Among these reforms were increases in funding allocations from 35% to 40% to states forbasic state arts grants and for grants to under served populations. In addition,language emphasizing arts education was included. A 15% cap was placed on NEAfunds allocated to each state, exempting only those grants with a national impact.Members of the House and Senate were added to the National Council on the Arts. Both NEA and NEH were given specific authority to solicit funding and to investthose funds. In the FY2003 final appropriation, the language is retained that has beenin previous appropriations related to funding priorities and restrictions on grants,including that no grant may be used generally for seasonal support to a group; and nogrants may be for individuals except for literature fellowships, National Heritagefellowships, or American Jazz Master fellowships. Table 14. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2002-FY2003 ($ in thousands) a The total for NEA grants and administration includes the Challenge Americaprogram. b Beginning with FY2003, the Office of Museum Services as part of IMLS isincluded in the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor-HHS-Ed and RelatedAgencies. For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts , see its web site at http://arts.endow.gov/ . For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities , see its web site at http://www.neh.gov/ . For further information on the Institute of Museum Services , see its web site at http://www.imls.gov/ . CRS Report RS20287 . Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding , by [author name scrubbed]. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The four principle land management agencies--Bureauof Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and ForestService--draw primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The presentations abouteach of those agencies earlier in this report identifies funding levels for their landacquisition activities. The LWCF also funds acquisition and recreationaldevelopment by state and local governments through a state grant programadministered by the National Park Service. The LWCF is authorized at $900 millionannually through FY2015. However, each agency's acquisitions, as well as the stategrant program, are funded through annual appropriations. Appropriations for federalacquisitions generally are earmarked to specific management units, while the stategrant program rarely is earmarked. Through FY2002, the total amount that could have been appropriated from the LWCF since its inception was $25.4 billion. Actual appropriations have been $12.5billion. In recent years, until FY2003, appropriators had provided generallyincreasing amounts from the Fund for land acquisition. The total had more thanquadrupled, rising from a low of $138 million in FY1996 to $573 million in FY2002. The FY2003 appropriation is less than the FY2000 level. Table 15 shows LWCFappropriations for the past four years (FY2000-FY2003), the Bush Administrationrequests for FY2002 and FY2003, and congressional action for FY2003. Table 15. LWCF Funding: FY2000 through FY2003 ($ in millions) Source: Data for FY2000 and FY2001compiled by the Department of the InteriorBudget Office; data for FY2002 from Interior Appropriations Conference Report( H.Rept. 107-234 ); and data for FY2003 from budget proposals and appropriationscommittees documents. Note: In some recent years, Congress has appropriated LWCF Funds to federal agencies for purposes other than land acquisition and stateside grants. This startedwhen Congress provided $72 million for other purposes in the FY1998 Interiorappropriations law. Funding in FY1999 was entirely for land acquisition. Sincethen, funding for other purposes has included $15 million in FY2000, $456 millionin FY2001, $135 million in FY2002, and at least $170 million for FY2003. a This figure includes $50 million for a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative, which was not funded by either the House or the Senate, and was not included in thefinal bill. b This total does not include $3.0 million sought by DOI for the Shivaist IndianWater Settlement Act of 1999, which authorizes LWCF funds for the Paiute Tribein Utah. Congress may continue to lower LWCF appropriations, as it did in the early and mid 1990s, as part of efforts to address the federal budget deficit. In addition, otherpriorities have become more pressing in the wake of 9/11. The lower FY2003appropriation request of $532 million from the Bush Administration was in sharpcontrast with it's request for full funding for FY2002, and less than the $573 millionthat Congress provided in FY2002. The decline continued chronologically with eachstep in the FY2003 legislative process; the House passed less funding than theAdministration requested, then the Senate approved less funding then the House. The amount provided by the conference committee and enacted into law--$414million--is more than $100 million less than the House-passed total and is $50million less than the Senate-passed total. The amount enacted for FY2003 also issignificantly less than was appropriated in FY2000, FY2001, and FY2002. It is lessin total than in FY2002 but also less for each of the five accounts that make up theLand and Water Conservation Fund. The FY20003 enacted total also is significantly less than Administration requested. One example of a reduction is that the FY2003 law provides a $15million dollar earmark through the National Park Service to provide grants to Floridato acquire land critical to the South Florida (Everglades) Ecosystem Restoration; boththe House- and Senate-passed bills, and the Bush administration request, hadincluded $20 million. As in recent years, some of the Fund is appropriated for other programs. For instance, the following programs received the specified amounts from the LWCF(some of the programs received additional funding outside the LWCF). Programsand amounts include: the FWS's Landowner Incentive Program ($40 million); theFWS's Stewardship Grants Program ($10 million); the FWS's CooperativeEndangered Species Conservation Fund ($51.5 million); the FWS's State and TribalWildlife Grants ($65 million); and the BIA's Land and Water Claims Settlements ($3million). In FY2003, The Bush Administration requested $200 million for the state grant program portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, of which $50 millionwould have funded a proposed Cooperative Conservation Initiative. This Initiativesought to promote conservation through partnerships that match BLM, NPS, andFWS funds with local contributions. In addition to the $50 million provided fromLWCF, the Administration sought another $50 million for the Initiative from theoperating accounts of the three DOI land management agencies, for a total of $100million. Congress did not fund this proposed Initiative, although the Houseexpressed strong interest in the concept on which it is based, of using programs thatcan leverage federal funds, identifying numerous opportunities. Conservation Spending Category. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees created the ConservationSpending Category (CSC) in the FY2001 Interior appropriations law. The CSCcombines funding for about 2 dozen resource protection programs including theLWCF (it also includes some coastal and marine programs funded throughCommerce appropriations). This action was in response to the ClintonAdministration request for substantial funding increases in these programs under hisLands Legacy Initiative and widespread congressional interest in increasingconservation funding. The FY2001 law appropriated $1.21 billion for FY2001 (and$470 million through the Commerce appropriations law). The amount appropriatedin FY2001 through Interior appropriations was a substantial increase from a total of$557 million for these programs the preceding year. The FY2001 law also authorizedthat total spending under the category would grow each year, from $1.6 billion inFY2001 (of which $1.2 billion would be in Interior Appropriations programs) to $2.4billion in FY2006. All funding each year is subject to the appropriations process. For FY2002, the Bush Administration did not use the framework of the CSC, but requested a total of $1.26 billion for this group of programs. Congress used thecategory and appropriated $1.30 billion. In its FY2003 budget request, again theAdministration did not use the CSC category. However, the House AppropriationsSubcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies estimated that the FY2003 requesttotaled $1.32 billion for programs in this category, a slight increase from FY2002funding. The House-passed bill provided $1.44 billion. The report accompanying theSenate-passed bill states that the CSC is not being used because the Budget Act inwhich it was established has expired and there is no budget resolution. It also statesthat total funding for FY2003 under this bill meets the aggregate total projected forthe CSC in FY2003. Neither the FY2003 appropriations law nor the accompanyingconference report contain calculations of FY2003 funding for the CSC. Rather, thejoint explanatory statement of the conference report states that no funds in the act arederived from the CSC, but that most of the programs previously funded under thatcategory are continued in FY2003. CRS Report RL30444(pdf) . Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M.Lynne Corn. CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural Resource Protection , by Jeffrey Zinn. CRS Report 97-792. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues , by Jeffrey Zinn. CRS Issue Brief IB10015. Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth: Issues in the 107th Congress , by Jeffrey Zinn. Everglades Restoration. Thealterations of the natural flow of water by a series of canals, levees, and pumpingstations, combined with agricultural and urban development, are thought to be theleading causes of environmental deterioration in the South Florida ecosystem. In1996, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to create acomprehensive plan to restore, protect, and preserve the entire South Floridaecosystem, which includes the Everglades (P.L 104-303). A portion of thisplan--The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), completed in1999--provides for federal involvement in the restoration of the ecosystem. Congress authorized the Corps to implement CERP in the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000; Title VI of P.L. 106-541 ). Based on CERPand other previously authorized restoration projects, the federal government, alongwith state, local, and tribal entities, is currently engaged in a collaborative effort torestore the South Florida ecosystem. The principal objective of CERP is to redirect and store "excess" freshwater currently being discharged to the ocean via canals, and use it to restore the naturalhydrological functions of the South Florida ecosystem. CERP seeks to deliversufficient water to the natural system without impinging on the water needs ofagricultural and urban areas. The federal government is responsible for half the costof implementing CERP, and the other half is borne by the State of Florida, and to alesser extent, local tribes and other stakeholders. CERP consists of 68 projects thatare expected to be implemented over approximately 36 years, with an estimated totalcost of $7.8 billion; the total federal share is estimated at $3.9 billion. (19) Restoration activities are conducted by federal agencies in the South Florida ecosystem under CERP and other laws. For example, for FY2003, Congressappropriated $90.0 million to the Corps for restoration work in Central and SouthernFlorida, yet only a portion of this total was appropriated for projects authorized byCERP. The remaining amount is expected to be for projects authorized by otherlaws, namely the Everglades National Park and Protection Act of 1989 ( P.L.101-229 ) and the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 ( P.L. 104-303 ). FromFY1993 to FY2003, federal appropriations for projects and services related to therestoration of the South Florida ecosystem have exceeded $1.9 billion dollars, andstate funding has topped $3.6 billion. (20) Theaverage annual federal cost forrestoration activities in Southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to beapproximately $286 million/year. (21) For FY2003,the administration requestedapproximately $260 million for restoration activities in the South Florida ecosystem,of which approximately $46 million was for the implementation of CERP. (22) Of theprojects and activities specified in the FY2003 appropriations conference report, over$180 million has been appropriated for restoration activities in the Everglades. (23) Appropriations for restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem have been included in several annual appropriations laws. The Department of the Interior (DOI)and Related Agencies Appropriations laws have provided funds to several DOIagencies for restoration projects. Specifically, DOI conducts CERP and non-CERPactivities in Southern Florida through the National Park Service (NPS), Fish andWildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA). For FY2003, the DOI requested $96.1 million for CERP andnon-CERP activities related to restoration in the South Florida ecosystem. Of thistotal, the NPS requested $70.4 million for land acquisition, construction, and researchactivities; the FWS requested $13.2 million for land acquisition, refuges, ecologicalservices, and other activities; the USGS requested $12.1 million for research,planning, and the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative; and the BIA requested $0.4million for water projects on Seminole and Miccosukee Tribal lands. See Table 16 . Appropriations for other restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem have been provided to the Corps (Energy and Water Development Appropriations),National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Departments ofCommerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and other Related AgenciesAppropriations), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (VA, HUD, andRelated Agencies Appropriations), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)(U.S. Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations). Table 16. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget (FY2002-FY2003) ($ in thousands) a Columns with N/A (not available) indicate that funding levels are not specified in bills. b This includes total funding for park operations in Everglades National Park, DryTortugas National Park, Biscayne National Park, and Big Cypress National Preserve. c This category includes appropriations for activities authorized by CERP as well asthe operating expenses for the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force. d Several activities performed by the DOI that are related to Everglades restorationare not specified in appropriations bills. These activities usually are part of a largercategory of funding and in some cases their funding is determined by the agenciesand reported later. For restoration activities in the Everglades in FY2003, the DOI received approximately $30 million less than in FY2002. The primary reductions in fundingwere for the Modified Waters Delivery Project (from $35.2 million to $10.0 million)and land acquisitions conducted by the FWS ($8.5 million to $2.5 million). Appropriations for the Modified Waters Delivery Project were largely provided inprior fiscal years. The FY2003 level was $11.5 million less than theAdministration's request, including decreases of $5.0 million and $3.8 million forland acquisitions in the State of Florida to be conducted by the NPS and FWS,respectively. The FY2003 law provided the Fish and Wildlife Service with $1.8million to purchase land near the Pelican Island National Wildlife Reserve (NWR)and $0.8 million to purchase land near the Key Deer NWS. Other programs relatedto Everglades restoration were appropriated at the FY2003 requested levels. Thisincludes the Critical Ecosystem Initiative for $4.0 million; ecological services for theFish and Wildlife Service for $2.5 million; and surveys, investigations, and researchby the USGS for $8.1 million. The FY2003 appropriations law also authorizes theimplementation of a flood control plan (Alternative 6D) as part of the ModifiedWater Delivery Project. (See the Everglades section under the National Park Servicesection above.) The Interior appropriations bills passed by the House and Senate had provided similar levels of funding for the NPS to conduct restoration activities in SouthernFlorida, with some exceptions. The $4.0 million for the Critical Ecosystem StudiesInitiative allocated to the NPS in the House bill was given to the USGS by theSenate. For the FWS, the Senate passed $3.3 million less for FWS land acquisitionsthan the House. Specifically, the Senate passed $1 million for the acquisition oflands at the J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Reserve and $1.5 million for theNational Key Deer Refuge; the House passed $3 million and $1.5 millionrespectively for the same lands, as well as $1.3 million for lands near the Pelican BayNational Wildlife Reserve. The FWS seeks to acquire these lands on the groundsthat doing so would benefit restoration activities in CERP. For BIA, the Houseprovided $0.3 million for water quality studies on the Seminole Indian Reservation,which was not included in the Senate- passed bill but contained in the FY2003appropriations law. There is little detailed information in either bill or report language about appropriations recommended for the FWS, USGS, and BIA for restoration activitiesin the South Florida ecosystem. Some of these restoration activities are part of largerprograms that are funded in appropriations bills. For example, the USGS proposesto collect data, construct models, and conduct studies in South Florida that areexpected to benefit restoration activities. Some of these restoration activities fallunder the categories of water resources investigations and biological research, whichare broad activities funded by the USGS. Detailed information about these activitiescan be found in agency budget justifications and in a cross-cut budget prepared bythe South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program http://www.sfrestore.org . For further information on Everglades Restoration , see the web site of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program at http://www.sfrestore.org and theweb site of the Corps of Engineers at http://www.evergladesplan.org/ . CRS Report RS20702 . South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL31621(pdf) . Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on Implementation and Early Lessons , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL31278 . Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues . [author name scrubbed], coordinator. CRS Issue Brief IB10094. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Legislative Issues , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30444(pdf) . Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M.Lynne Corn. CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-851(pdf) . Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 90-192(pdf) . Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local Governments , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-792. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues , by Jeffrey Zinn. CRS Report RL31115 . Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS21157 . Multinational Species Conservation Fund , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20902 . National Monument Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation , by [author name scrubbed] and David Whiteman, coordinators. CRS Report RL31392 . PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10015. Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth: Issues in the 107th Congress , by Jeffrey Zinn. 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. CRS Report RS20002(pdf) . Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30867. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resource Management , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], M. LynneCorn, [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], David Whiteman, and PamelaBaldwin. CRS Report RL30335(pdf) . Federal Land Management Agencies' Permanently Appropriated Accounts, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and Carol HardyVincent. CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition andDisposal Authorities , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], coordinators. CRS Report RS20287 . Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20877. The Clean Coal Technology Program: Current Prospects , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20822(pdf) . Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30755 . Forest Fire Protection , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Performance Measures , by [author name scrubbed] (available from author). CRS Report RL30647 . The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RS20852(pdf) . The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status and Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve , by [author name scrubbed]. Information regarding the budget, supporting documents, and relateddepartments, agencies and programs is available at the following web or gopher sites. House Committee on Appropriations . http://www.house.gov/appropriations Senate Committee on Appropriations . http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/ CRS Appropriations Products Guide . http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml Congressional Budget Office . http://www.cbo.gov/ General Accounting Office . http://www.gao.gov House Republican Conference . http://www.gop.gov/committeecentral/docs/pubs/appropriationsroundup/ Office of Management and Budget . http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/ Department of the Interior (DOI) . http://www.doi.gov/ Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) . http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) . http://www.fws.gov/ Historic Preservation . http://www2.cr.nps.gov/ Insular Affairs . http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html Minerals Management Service (MMS) . http://www.mms.gov/ National Park Service (NPS) . http://www.nps.gov/ Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) . http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm Office of Special Trustee for American Indians . http://www.ost.doi.gov/ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) . http://www.usgs.gov/ Departments. Agriculture, Department of (USDA). http://www.usda.gov/ Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service . http://www.fs.fed.us/ USDA Strategic Plan . http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm Energy, Department of (DOE) . http://www.energy.gov/ Energy Conservation Budget http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/ Energy Conservation Programs http://www.eren.doe.gov/ Fossil Energy. http://www.fe.doe.gov/ Strategic Petroleum Reserve . http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr Health and Human Services, Department of (HHS) . http://www.dhhs.gov/ Indian Health Service (IHS) . http://www.ihs.gov/ Agencies. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation . http://www.achp.gov Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development . http://www.iaiancad.org/ Institute of Museum Services . http://www.imls.gov/ John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts . http://Kennedy-Center.org/ National Capital Planning Commission . http://www.ncpc.gov National Endowment for the Arts . http://arts.endow.gov/ National Endowment for the Humanities . http://www.neh.gov/ National Gallery of Art . http://www.nga.gov/ Smithsonian . http://www.si.edu/ U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum . http://www.ushmm.org/ Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars . http://wwics.si.edu/ Table 17. Department of the Interior and Related AgenciesAppropriations (in thousands) Source: House Appropriations Committee and Congressional Record . Notes: Figures in data column one reflect FY2001 appropriations, and in data column tworeflect FY2002 appropriations. Figures in data column threereflect the budget requests by the Bush Administration for FY2003. Figures in data column four and five reflectappropriations passed by the Senate andHouse respectively. a Beginning with FY2003, the Office of Museum Services as part of the IMLS is included in the appropriations bill for the Departments ofLabor-HHS-Education and Related Agencies. b Funding ($17.0 million) for Challenge America Arts Fund is included in the total for the NationalEndowment for the Arts. c Figures do not reflect scorekeeping adjustments. The FY2003 request includes an adjustmentof $506.0 million for retirement accruals. d FY2003 Senate-passed figures do not reflect across-the-board reductions estimated at 2.852%as it is unclear how these reductions would be calculatedfor Interior and related agencies. e Figures in this column do not reflect a supplemental of $700 million sought for FY2002firefighting efforts. f FY2003 enacted figures do not reflect an across-the-board cut of 0.65% in the FY2003 omnibusappropriations law ( P.L. 108-7 ) as it is unclear how thecut would be calculated for Interior and related agencies. The total also does not include $825.0 million for wildlandfire emergencies, consisting of $189.0million for BLM and $636.0 million for the Forest Service. These funds are to repay amounts transferred from otheraccounts for fire fighting in FY2002. Table 18. Conservation Spending Category:Interior Appropriations ($ in millions) a Source: House Appropriations Committee. a The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(c)) as amended established 3 discretionary spending categories: General Purpose,Highway, and Mass Transit. Title VIII of P.L. 106-291 , the Department of theInterior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2001, established a fourthcategory of discretionary spending - for "conservation." That law also identified thespecific activities that would be included within the "conservation spendingcategory." The category essentially includes those activities, identified by Congress,in particular budget accounts (or portions thereof) providing appropriations topreserve and protect lands, habitat, wildlife, and other natural resources; to providerecreational opportunities; and for other purposes. This table presents the current andproposed distribution of these conservation funds. Dashes indicate that the fundingis understood to be zero. Further, several programs in this category have not receivedseparate funding under conservation spending for FY2001-FY2003. They includeCompetitive Grants for Indian Tribes, FWS Neotropical Migratory Birds, FSStewardship Incentives Program, and National Wildlife Refuge fund, FWS. In FY2003, the House, Senate, and appropriations law ( P.L. 108-7 ) did not contain calculations of funding for the CSC. The joint explanatory statement of theconference report on the enacted measure stated that no funds in the law are derivedfrom the CSC, but that most of the programs previously funded under that categoryare continued in FY2003. b The Administration is seeking $3.0 million under the DOI Departmental Management (DM) line item for the Shivaist Indian water settlement Act of 1999,which authorizes LWCF funds for the Paiute Tribe in Utah. c Subtotals and totals may not add due to rounding. d $50 million of this total is part of a new Cooperative Conservation Initiative, andthe remaining $150 million would be distributed to states using an allocation formuladeveloped by the administration for the traditional land acquisition and sitedevelopment activities of states. e For FY2001, an additional $50 million was appropriated for formula grants whichwere authorized in Title IX of the FY2001 Commerce appropriations law. Further,the FY2002 enacted amount reflects a rescission of $25.0 million. f In FY2003, four additional programs are proposed to be funded from LWCF: FWSCooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund; FWS North AmericanWetlands Conservation Fund; FS Forest Legacy; and FS Forest Stewardship. g Funds for FS, Forest Stewardship were not considered part of the CSC in FY2001and FY2002 so funds in those years are not counted in the column totals. Becausethe program is proposed to be included in the CSC in FY2003, the requested levelis included in the column total. This could tend to exaggerate the difference betweenlevels of CSC funding in FY2003 and earlier years. Table 19. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1998 to FY2003 ($ in thousands) a Beginning in FY1996, appropriations for the territories and other insular areas were consolidatedwithin the Departmental Offices account. DepartmentalOffices also includes Insular Affairs and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. b Beginning in FY2003, the Office of Museum Services as part of the IMLS is included in theappropriations bill for the Departments ofLabor-HHS-Education and Related Agencies. c Funding ($17.0 million) for Challenge America ArtsFund is included in the total figure for the NationalEndowment for the Arts. d Figures in this column do not reflect an across-the-board cut of 0.65% in the FY2003 omnibusappropriations law ( P.L. 108-7 ) as it is unclear how thecut would be calculated for Interior and related agencies. The total also does not include $825.0 million for wildlandfire emergencies, consisting of $189.0million for BLM and $636.0 million for the Forest Service. These funds are to repay amounts transferred from otheraccounts for fire fighting in FY2002. 

Summary: The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funds for the Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and funds for some agencies or programswithin three other departments--Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services. It also fundsnumerous smaller related agencies. On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003budget for Interior and related agencies, totaling $18.94 billion compared to $19.17 billion enactedfor FY2002 ( P.L.107-63 ). While the House passed an Interior funding bill in the 107th Congress, theSenate did not. Thus, a series of resolutions were enacted to continue funding at FY2002 levels. On January 23rd, 2003, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 2 , the omnibus appropriations bill for FY2003 that included funding for Interior and related agencies and 10 other regularappropriations bills not enacted for FY2003. For Interior and related agencies, the Senate billcontained $18.97 billion for FY2003, plus an $825 million fire supplemental for FY2002, for a billtotal of $19.80 billion. The Senate bill required an across-the board cut of 2.852% that the numbersin this report do not reflect, as it is unclear how they were to be calculated for the Interior and relatedagencies. The House-passed measure ( H.R. 5093 , 107th Congress) contained $19.71billion for FY2003, plus a $700 million fire supplemental for FY2002, for a bill total of $20.41billion. The conference report on the measure ( H.Rept. 108-10 ) was signed into law on February20, 2003 ( P.L. 108-7 ). The FY2003 law contained $19.08 billion for Interior and related agencies, plus $825.0 million for fire fighting to repay transferred amounts for fire fighting in FY2002. It provides that an acrossthe board 0.65% cut be applied on a proportionate basis to each account, and to each program,project, and activity within an account. Again, the figures in this report do not reflect proportionatecuts, as it is unclear how they too would be calculated for the Interior and related agencies. The lawdoes not specifically fund the Conservation Spending Category, although the House bill hadrecommended $1.44 billion for FY2003, higher than the Administration ($1.32 billion). It providesincreases over the Administration's request for some agencies, including the U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Indian Health Service, and Energy Departmentprograms, while providing decreases from the request for other agencies. Controversial issues addressed during Interior bill consideration included: fire management, stewardship contracting, and wilderness in the Tongass National Forest (see FS); development in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge and renewal of grazing permits and leases (see BLM); MissouriRiver flows (see FWS); Everglades restoration; (see NPS and cross-cutting issues); funding for landacquisition and conservation (see cross-cutting issues); development of oil and gas leases off theCalifornia coast (see MMS); management of the Indian tribes' trust funds and assets (see BIA andOST); and drought assistance. This report will not be updated. Key Policy Staff a Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic SocialPolicy; G&F = Government and Finance; RSI =Resources, Science, and Industry.