Appropriations for FY2003: Interior and Related Agencies
Congressional research reportMar 15, 2003
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL31306
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated March 15, 2003
-name redacted-, Co-Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
-name redacted-, Co-Coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, consolidated, and continuing) bills,
rescissions, and budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget
request and is bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and
current program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Interior Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current legislative status of the
bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists
the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].
Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
Summary
The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funds for the
Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and funds
for some agencies or programs within three other departments—Agriculture, Energy,
and Health and Human Services. It also funds numerous smaller related agencies.
On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget for Interior and
related agencies, totaling $18.94 billion compared to $19.17 billion enacted for
FY2002 (P.L.107-63). While the House passed an Interior funding bill in the 107th
Congress, the Senate 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
regular appropriations bills not enacted for FY2003. For Interior and related
agencies, the Senate bill contained $18.97 billion for FY2003, plus an $825 million
fire supplemental for FY2002, for a bill total of $19.80 billion. The Senate bill
required an across-the board cut of 2.852% that the numbers in this report do not
reflect, as it is unclear how they were to be calculated for the Interior and related
agencies. The House-passed measure (H.R. 5093, 107th Congress) contained $19.71
billion for FY2003, plus a $700 million fire supplemental for FY2002, for a bill total
of $20.41 billion. The conference report on the measure (H.Rept. 108-10) was signed
into law on February 20, 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 across the 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 proportionate cuts, as it is unclear how
they too would be calculated for the Interior and related agencies. The law does not
specifically fund the Conservation Spending Category, although the House bill had
recommended $1.44 billion for FY2003, higher than the Administration ($1.32
billion). It provides increases over the Administration’s request for some agencies,
including the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service,
Indian Health Service, and Energy Department programs, 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 the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and renewal of grazing
permits and leases (see BLM); Missouri River flows (see FWS); Everglades
restoration; (see NPS and cross-cutting issues); funding for land acquisition and
conservation (see cross-cutting issues); development of oil and gas leases off the
California coast (see MMS); management of the Indian tribes’ trust funds and assets
(see BIA and OST); and drought assistance. This report will not be updated.
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS
Divisiona
Telephone
Interior Budget
Data/Coordinators
(name redacted)
and (name redacted)
RSI
DSP
7-....
[redac
Art, Humanities,
Cultural Affairs and
Historic Preservation
(name redacted)
Bureau of Land
Management
(name redacted)
Energy Conservation
(name redacted)
Everglades Restoration
Pervaze Sheikh
RSI
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Fish and Wildlife
Service
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Forest Service
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Fossil Energy
(name redacted)
Indian Affairs
(name redacted)
Indian Health Service
Donna Vogt
Insular Affairs
(name redacted)
Land Acquisition
Jeffrey Zinn
RSI
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Minerals Management
Service
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
National Park Service
David Whiteman
RSI
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Naval/Strategic
Petroleum Reserve
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Surface Mining and
Reclamation
(name redacted)
RSI
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
U.S. Geological Survey
Pervaze Sheikh
a
DSP
RSI
ted]@crs.loc.[re
dacted]@crs.loc.gov
7-....
7-....
RSI
7-....
7-....
DSP
DSP
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
RSI
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
7-....
G&F
RSI
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
7-....
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance; RSI =
Resources, Science, and Industry.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Funding to Combat Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FY2001 and FY2002 Regular Appropriations to Combat Terrorism . . 5
FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Further FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Funding (P.L. 107-206) . . . 7
The FY2003 Budget to Combat Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bureau of Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . 30
Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Departmental Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service . . 50
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Smithsonian, National Endowment for the Arts, and National
Endowment for the Humanities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Cross-Cutting Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Conservation Spending Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Everglades Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Land Management Agencies Generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Title I: Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Title II: Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1999 to FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2002-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2002-FY2003 . . . . . . . 13
Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System, FY2002-2003 . . . . . . . 15
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
Migratory Bird Fund, FY2002-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 7. Appropriations for NPS, FY2002-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 8. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund
(FY2002-FY2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2002-FY2003 . . . 27
Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2002-FY2003 . . 33
Table 11. Federal Wildland Fire Management Funding, FY2002-FY2003 . . . . 42
Table 12. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2002-FY2003 . . . 49
Table 13. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2002-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 14. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2002-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 15. LWCF Funding: FY2000 through FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 16. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget
(FY2002-FY2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 17. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations . . . 72
Table 18. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations . . . . . . . . 75
Table 19. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1998 to FY2003 . . . . . . . . . 78
Appropriations for FY2003:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
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 for Interior and
related agencies and 10 other regular appropriations bills not enacted for FY2003.
Previously, Interior and related agencies were operating under a series of resolutions,
that continued funding at FY2002 levels. The final FY2003 appropriation provided
$19.08 billion for the Interior and related agencies plus $825.0 million to repay
transferred amounts for fire fighting in FY2002 . It also included a 0.65% across-theboard cut that is not reflected in the numbers in this report, as it in unclear how they
would be calculated for the Interior and related agencies appropriations.
Introduction
The annual Interior and related agencies appropriations bill includes funding for
agencies and programs in four separate federal departments, as well as numerous
smaller agencies and bureaus. The bill includes funding for the Interior Department,
except for the Bureau of Reclamation (funded by Energy and Water Development
Appropriations laws), and funds for some agencies or programs in three other
departments—Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services. Title I of the
bill includes agencies within the Department of the Interior which manage land and
other natural resource or regulatory programs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
insular areas. Title II of the bill includes the Forest Service of the Department of
Agriculture; several activities within the Department of Energy, including research
and development programs, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, and the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and the Indian Health Service in the Department of
Health and Human Services. In addition, Title II includes a variety of related
agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, the
National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Holocaust Memorial Council.
CRS-2
Status
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2003
Subcommittee
Markup
House Senate
6/25/02
—
House
Report
House Senate
Passage Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
7/11/02
6/28/02 1/23/03 2/13/03
(H.Rept. 7/17/02 S.Rept. H.J.Res.2 (H.Rept.
107-564) (377-46) 107-201 (69-29) 108-10)
Conference Report
Approval
House
Senate
Public
Law
2/13/03
(338-83)
2/13/03
(76-20)
2/20/03
P.L. 108-7
On February 4th, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget to
Congress. The FY2003 request for Interior and related agencies totaled $18.94
billion compared to the $19.16 billion enacted for FY2002 (P.L. 107-63), a decrease
of $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 for
the 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 $159.0
million for the Special Trustee for American Indians); $279.4 million for the Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; and $170.3 million for the
Minerals 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 Smithsonian
Institution would have received $528.0 million; the National Endowment for the
Humanities, $125.8 million; and the National Endowment for the Arts, $99.5 million.
In this report, the FY2003 budget totals do not include amounts for President
Bush’s proposal to shift to agencies the full cost of federal employee pensions and
health benefits.1 The term “appropriations” generally represents total funds
available, including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as
rescissions, transfers, and deferrals. Increases and decreases generally are calculated
on comparisons between the funding levels appropriated for FY2002 and requested
by the President or recommended by Congress for FY2003. The FY2003 requests
contained some substantial changes in agencies’ budgets from the FY2002 levels.
Increases were proposed for some agencies, including the Indian Health Service
($+56.5 million), Bureau of Indian Affairs ($+32.9 million), Minerals Management
Service ($+13.6 million), Smithsonian Institution ($+ 9.1 million), and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service ($+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 ($-46.7 million), Bureau of Land Management ($-47.2
1
The FY2003 Administration proposal to shift the full cost of the Civil Service Retirement
System and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program to salaries and expenses
accounts of agencies would likely have added $246 million to DOI’s budget request for
FY2003 (excluding the Bureau of Reclamation). For an explanation of this proposal, see
CRS Report RL30023, Federal Employee Retirement Programs: Budget and Trust Fund
Issues.
CRS-3
million), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ($-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 Secretary
Norton testified on topics including the Cooperative Conservation Initiative,
landowner partnerships and other conservation tools, Indian trust funds, Indian
education, the maintenance backlog of the National Park Service, Everglades
restoration, funds for the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund, energy programs and activities, land use
planning, wildland fire management, homeland security, and assistance to territories
and freely associated states. Members also questioned the Secretary regarding
proposed cuts to the U.S. Geological Survey and the proposed transfer of its toxic
substances program to the National Science Foundation, and the Administration’s
examination of workforce restructuring and privatizing jobs. Also addressed during
questioning were the strategic petroleum reserve; oil and gas exploration, including
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; the Klamath Basin; and the proposed
elimination of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program. Subcommittee
hearings 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 funding
recommendations. On July 9, 2002, the Committee marked up these
recommendations, 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, and passed, amended, on
July 17, 2002 (377-46). The House bill was sent to the Senate and 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 House
testimony. The Secretary also emphasized that the Administration requested funds
for enhanced security measures, including $23.7 million for the National Park
Service to begin construction of enhanced security systems at the Washington
Monument and the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials. Bypassing subcommittee
markup, on June 27, 2002, the Senate Committee on Appropriations marked up and
ordered reported its FY2003 funding recommendations. On June 28, 2002, the bill
was reported (S. 2708, S.Rept. 107-201) and placed on the Senate calendar.
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, but discontinued debate
on September 25, 2002. The Senate did not pass an Interior funding bill in the 107th
Congress. Controversies involving funding for, and management of, wildfires were
largely responsible for the protracted debate and lack of a vote on final passage.
There were unsuccessful attempts to invoke cloture on a wildland fire amendment
offered by Sen. Byrd (No. 4480) to provide $825 million in 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 no resolution. Both fire
CRS-4
amendments remained pending when the Senate discontinued debate 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 $6
billion in farm disaster/drought relief assistance. Another controversy involved an
amendment by Sen. Dodd (No. 4522) on federal recognition of Indian tribes, which
was tabled.
Issues in addition to fire and drought that generated significant discussion during
House and/or Senate consideration included: stewardship contracting and wilderness
in the Tongass National Forest (see FS); development in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge and renewal of grazing permits and leases (see BLM); Missouri River flows
(see FWS); Everglades restoration; (see NPS and cross-cutting issues); funding for
land acquisition and conservation (see cross-cutting issues); development of oil and
gas 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 of
attention in previous years, including funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts and energy conservation and weatherization programs, were not as controversial
in 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 related
agencies and the 10 other FY2003 appropriations bills that have not been enacted.
For Interior and related agencies, the Senate bill contained $18.97 billion for
FY2003, 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 cuts
contained in the omnibus measure, as it is unclear how they would be calculated for
the Interior and related agencies bill overall and for particular departments, agencies,
and programs in the bill. Specifically, the omnibus bill contained an across-the-board
rescission of 1.6%. Another section of the bill requires an increase to that rescission
by the amount necessary to offset $5 billion in additional education spending.
According to CBO, this amount could generate an additional 1.252% reduction, for
a 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. The
House-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 Spending
Category (Table 18), the House bill provides $1.44 billion for FY2003, higher than
the Administration ($1.32 billion). The House-passed bill provides higher funding
for wildland fire fighting in FY2003 than the Senate or the Administration. Both the
House and Senate proposed increases over FY2002 for the U.S. Geological Survey,
while the Administration proposed a sizeable decrease for that agency. The Housepassed bill also contained increases over the Administration’s and Senate’s levels
for the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Forest Service, Energy Department programs, and Indian Health Service.
CRS-5
Conferees on H.J.Res. 2 were appointed by the Senate on January 23, 2003, and
by the House on January 29, 2003. The House-passed version of the Interior 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, on February 13,
2003, providing appropriations for the Interior and Related Agencies and 10 other
regular appropriations measures. On February 20, 2003, President George Bush
signed the measure into law as P.L. 108-7. Previously, Interior and related agencies
were operating under a series of resolutions that continued funding at FY2002 levels.
The final appropriation for FY2003 provided $19.08 billion for the Interior and
related agencies plus $825.0 million for fire fighting to repay transferred amounts for
fire fighting in FY2002. It provided that a 0.65% cut be applied on a proportionate
basis to each account, and to each program, project, and activity within an account.
The figures in this report do not reflect across-the-board cuts, as it is unclear how
they would be calculated for the Interior and related agencies.
Major Funding Trends
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1999 to FY2003
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY1999
$14.3
FY2000
$14.9
FY2001
$18.9
FY2002
$19.2
FY2003
$19.1
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. 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 most
recent five years, from FY1999 to FY2003, funding increased by 33% in current
dollars, from $14.3 billion to $19.1 billion. The single biggest increase during the
decade occurred from FY2000 to FY2001, when the total appropriation rose 27% in
current dollars, from $14.9 billion to $18.9 billion. Much of the increase was
provided to land management agencies for land conservation and wildland fire
management. See Table 17 for a comparison of FY2002-FY2003 Interior
Appropriations, and Table 19 for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau, and
program from FY1998 to FY2003.
Funding to Combat Terrorism
FY2001 and FY2002 Regular Appropriations to Combat Terrorism.
It is not clear what level of funding for anti-terrorism came from the regular FY2001
and FY2002 Interior appropriations laws. The annual appropriations laws, as well
as agency budgets, typically include money for combating terrorism as part of larger
line items or program requests. One example is the $3.0 million provided to the
CRS-6
Bureau of Land Management in FY2002 to identify and evaluate oil and gas
resources and reserves on public lands in light of terrorist attacks on the United
States. The Administration asserted that such attacks have potential for disruptions
to America’s energy supply.
FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations. On September 18,
2001, Congress enacted a $40 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for
FY2001, P.L.107-38,2 in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on
September 11th, 2001. The $40 billion package was distributed in three phases. First,
$10 billion was to be immediately available and dispersed by the President in
consultation with the House and Senate Appropriations Committee leaders. Second,
an additional $10 billion was available to be obligated following a 15-day
notification to the Congress. Third, a final $20 billion could be obligated only after
money was allocated in another emergency appropriations act (P.L. 107-117). For
more information on the FY2001 supplemental, see CRS Report RL31173,
Combating Terrorism: First Emergency Supplemental 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 Related
agencies appropriations received $3.1 million. Specifically, there was $1.7 million
for the National Park Service, Operations of the National Park System, and $1.4
million for the U.S. Park Police (National Park Service) for emergency response
costs 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 for
FY2002.4 The law contained $88.1 million in total appropriations for anti-terrorism
activities for the programs in the Department of the Interior5 and related agencies
appropriations bills.
2
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States.
3
The U.S. Park Police are authorized to prevent acts of terrorism at monuments and
buildings owned and managed by the NPS, including monuments, memorials, and associated
facilities in Washington D.C., New York City, and San Francisco. Among the protected
entities are the White House, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Washington
Monument, Statue of Liberty, Presidio, and areas around the U.S. Capitol.
4
Department of Defense (Division A) and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
(Division B) for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the U.S. Act.
5
The Bureau of Reclamation (receiving $30.2 million in the FY2002 supplemental) is not
discussed in this report because although it is part of the Department of the Interior, it is not
funded by Interior and related agencies appropriations bills. For a discussion of funding for
the Bureau of Reclamation, see CRS Report RL31307, Appropriations for FY2003: Energy
and Water Development.
CRS-7
Further FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Funding (P.L. 107-206).
On August 2, 2002, President Bush signed into law (P.L. 107-206) the FY2002
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States. The law contained $30 billion for antiterrorism, defense, homeland security, and economic revitalization, and $5.1 billion
for contingent emergency spending. Included in the “contingent” amount were funds
for several agencies funded through the DOI and related agencies bills, but those
funds were not obligated. Under §1404 of P.L. 107-206, the President had 30 days
within enactment to decide whether to designate all or none of the $5.1 billion as
emergency spending in accordance with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985. The money was not to be obligated unless the President
designated it as emergency funding. On August 13th, 2002, President Bush
announced his rejection of the $5.1 billion in contingent emergency spending,
remarking that some of the money has “nothing to do with a national emergency.”
The President indicated he would seek, in a separate supplemental 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 he
rejected the $5.1 billion contingent emergency appropriations for FY2002. The
request did not include funds for DOI and related agencies. (For more information
on supplemental funding, see CRS Report RL31406, Supplemental Appropriations
for FY2002: Combating Terrorism and Other Issues.
The FY2003 Budget to Combat Terrorism. For FY2003, the
Administration sought $37.7 billion for homeland security of which $25.2 billion was
discretionary budget authority for non-Department of Defense operations.6 Among
the categories for homeland security 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 the homeland security responsibilities that would be carried
out by agencies funded in the 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 the
National Park Service, Office of the Secretary of the Interior, and Bureau of
Reclamation. Specifically, of the $88.8 million, $56.5 million was for the National
Park Service for heightened security and terrorist prevention in the operation of
parks, to protect “the symbols and icons of American Freedom that are contained in
the National Park System.” Part of the NPS funding was to be used by the U.S. Park
Police 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 physical
security for the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. The remaining $26.7 million
was for the Bureau of Reclamation, which is funded in Energy and Water
Appropriations laws.
6
See The Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2003, table S-5, p. 399.
CRS-8
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 to
combating terrorism, combining and supplying transfer authority for approximately30
activities currently conducted in various departments and agencies. There is no
specific mention in the law of the transfer to the new department of any programs
funded in the Interior and related agencies bill. There was only one reference in the
House report language (accompanying H.R. 5005) to the Secretary of the Interior’s
identification of Indian tribes that perform law enforcement functions. See CRS
Report RL31493, Homeland Security: Department Organization and Management.
The Secretary of Homeland Security received certain authority to transfer
appropriations to aid in the establishment of the department (P.L. 107-294). For
information on transfer authority as related to the Homeland Security Department,
see CRS Report RL31514, Department of Homeland Security: Appropriations
Transfer Authority.
Key Policy Issues
Title I: Department of the Interior
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 acres of public land for diverse, and at times
conflicting uses, such as minerals development, energy development, livestock
grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also is responsible for about 700
million acres of federal subsurface mineral resources throughout the nation, and
supervises the mineral operations on an estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust
lands. Another key BLM function is wildland fire management on about 370 million
acres of DOI, other federal, and certain non-federal land.
For FY2003, Congress enacted $1.88 billion for the BLM, excluding $189.0
million enacted to repay transfers from other appropriations for fire fighting in
FY2002. This level is more than the FY2003 amount that was requested by the
Administration ($1.83 billion) and originally passed by the Senate ($1.86 billion) but
less than the amount that had been approved by the House ($1.91 billion, excluding
a $200.0 million supplemental for FY2002 for fire fighting expenses). It is slightly
higher than FY2002 ($1.87 billion). See Table 3.
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, Congress enacted $825.7 million for FY2003. This is a $50.1 million
increase (6%) over FY2002 ($775.6 million). This line item funds an array of BLM
land programs, including protection, recreational use, 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 $9.6 million increase
CRS-9
(10%) over FY2002 ($99.5 million). Congress supported, while going beyond, the
President’s request for additional funds ($107.1 million) over FY2002. The
Administration had sought the additional funds to increase the availability of oil and
gas on federal lands—a goal of the President’s National Energy Plan—including
Alaska North Slope oil and gas development. In particular, the Administration
requested additional monies to expedite the permitting and rights of way processes,
increase oil and gas lease sales, evaluate and eliminate barriers to energy production,
and increase environmental inspections. The conferees on the Interior appropriations
bill added funds beyond the request, for purposes including permitting 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 the
renewal of the right of way to be sufficient to meet the requirements of §102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act, to preclude legal challenges to the
document’s sufficiency for that purpose. However, the FY2003 law dropped
language regarding another controversial right of way. The Senate-passed bill would
have prohibited appropriations for DOI from being used to issue a right of way for
a 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 the
groundwater 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 the
monuments. Supporters of this language feared that the Administration could adjust
the boundaries of national monuments in order to allow energy leasing, while
opponents asserted that the language would preclude development of needed energy
resources. 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 and minerals program
in general, and also stating that no funds were included in the FY2003 funding bill
“for activity related to potential energy development within the Arctic 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 to production of oil and gas” on
ANWR lands (which were then known as the Arctic National Wildlife Range), unless
authorized by Congress. Thus, the Committee’s report language generally was
viewed as barring the use of funds for preleasing studies and other preliminary work
related to oil and gas drilling in ANWR. The report 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 proposal
concerning funding for the energy and minerals program.” This change from the
House report language has been interpreted by some as potentially making available
funds for preliminary work related to development in ANWR. However, as noted,
CRS-10
the prohibition contained in ANILCA remains in effect, so the ability to use money
in 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 the Secretary of
Agriculture. The automatic renewal continues until the permit renewal process is
completed under applicable laws and regulations, including any necessary
environmental analyses. The terms and conditions in expiring permits or leases
would continue under the new permit or lease until the renewal process is completed
(except for certain Agriculture permits under the Senate bill). A provision in
previous appropriations laws contained similar language for the Secretary of the
Interior but not for the Secretary of Agriculture. This controversial provision was
advocated as necessary to address heavy agency workloads in processing the grazing
permits and leases that are up for renewal. Opponents fear that permits with possibly
detrimental 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 million appropriated for
FY2002. All BLM lands (except some in Alaska) are covered by a land use plan, and
plans are to be amended or revised as new issues arise and conditions change. The
Senate, House, and Administration had sought increased funds over FY2002. The
additional funds are to be used to initiate new land use plans and to accelerate the
development or amendment of land use plans that are underway to reflect current
conditions, requirements, and issues. The Administration’s priority is to address
issues including increased energy development, enhanced protection from wildfire,
and resolution of resource conflicts. The additional funds are part of a multi-year
effort to update land use plans, about half 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 reduction from the FY2002 level ($678.4
million). The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on
all Interior Department lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for
wildland fire management to the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire
programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments is the National Fire
Plan, developed after the 2000 fire season, which emphasizes reducing hazardous
fuels, among other provisions. The conferees did not concur with Senate report
language requiring 70% of hazardous fuels funds to be used in the wildland urban
interface, on the grounds that existing collaboration with communities and criteria
for project selection are adequate for determining how to spend these funds. The
FY2003 law also contains $189.0 million for DOI’s wildland fire management to
repay amounts transferred from other accounts for fire fighting 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, an increase over FY2002 ($210.0 million). The Administration had
sought significantly less— $165.0 million—for this program that compensates local
governments for federal land within their jurisdictions. The program has been
CRS-11
controversial because in 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 in 8 states. This is a sizeable reduction (33%)
from FY2002 ($49.9 million). The Administration and House had supported higher
amounts ($44.7 million and $47.5 million respectively), while the Senate had
approved a lower level ($30.2 million). The money would be appropriated from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The BLM seeks to emphasize alternatives to
fee title land purchases, such as land exchanges and purchase of conservation
easements and development rights, which it asserts are less expensive approaches.
(For more information, see the “Land Acquisition” section below.)
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2002-FY2003
($ in millions)
Bureau of Land
Management
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003
Senate
Passed
FY2003
House
Passed
FY2003
Approp.
Management of Lands and
Resources
$775.6
$813.0
$816.1
$826.9
$825.7
Wildland Fire Management
678.4
653.8 b
654.3 b
655.3 b
654.4 b
Central Hazardous
Materials Fund
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Construction
13.1
11.0
13.0
11.0
12.0
Payments in Lieu of Taxes
210.0
165.0
210.0
230.0
220.0
Land Acquisition
49.9
44.7
30.2
47.5
33.5
Oregon and California
Grant Lands
105.2
105.6
105.6
105.6
105.6
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits,
and Forfeitures c
8.0
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
1,873 a
$1,825
1,861
1,909
1,884
Total Appropriations
a
Includes contingent emergency appropriations.
Do not include FY2002 supplemental funds requested by the Administration and passed by the
chambers as part of the FY2003 bills, or $189.0 million enacted for FY2003 to replace monies
borrowed from other accounts in FY2002.
c
The FY2003 figures of “0" are a result of an appropriation of $7.9 million with $7.9 million in
offsetting fees.
b
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 (name redacted).
CRS-12
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
(name redacted).
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by (name r
edacted) and (name redacted), 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 large accounts that are permanently
appropriated, and therefore do not require action in an annual appropriation bill, the
Administration’s proposed total FWS spending would remain flat, at $1.94 billion.)
The Senate passed $1.21 billion for FWS for FY2003 in annual appropriations. The
House-passed version was $1.40 billion. The FY2003 appropriations 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 million
from FY2002. The House approved $918.4 million. The FY2003 appropriations law
provides $917.4 million.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. For
FY2003, the Administration proposed that the program remain at the FY2002 level
of $125.7 million, although its subprograms would show significant changes from
previous years. The Senate rejected the proposed amount, and raised the program by
$5.7 million over FY2002 ($131.5 million). The House approved $130.2 million.
The FY2003 appropriations law provided $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 Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to states and territories) would
decrease from $96.2 million to $91.0 million under the President’s request. The
FY2003 appropriations law provides $81.0 million. The Landowner Incentive
Program would increase by $10 million to $50 million under the President’s
proposal; the FY2003 appropriations law provides a net of $0, by rescinding the $40
million appropriated in FY2002 and appropriating $40 million for FY2003.
Stewardship Grants would remain at $10 million under the President’s proposal and
the new law reallocates the $10 million appropriated for FY2002 to FY2003. The
report of the Senate Committee on Appropriations was critical of this and the
preceding program as well, and likewise provided only sufficient funds for its
evaluation and the distribution of previously appropriated funds.7
7
The primary criticism of this and the Landowner Incentive Program was the amount of
time it took to issue regulations for these new programs. The extent to which this interval
is substantially longer than that for other new programs is unclear, however. There was also
(continued...)
CRS-13
Overall, FY2003 enacted funding for the Endangered Species program and
related programs would decrease from FY2002 by $58.4 million (21.5%). The
Senate had approved a decrease of 21.6% from FY2002. By contrast, the President
had approved an increase of 1.7% while the House had passed a larger
increase—10.9%.
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2002FY2003
($ in thousands)
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003
Senate
Passed
FY2003
House
Passed
FY2003
Approp.
Candidate Conservation
$7,620
$8,682
$9,982
$8,682
9,932
Listing
9,000
9,077
9,077
9,077
9,077
Consultation
45,501
47,770
47,970
47,770
47,770
Recovery
63,617
60,215
64,427
64,715
65,840
125,738
125,744
131,456
130,244
132,619
Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund
96,235
91,000
81,000
121,400
81,000
Landowner Incentive
Program
40,000
50,000
600
40,000
0
Stewardship Grants
10,000
10,000
200
10,000
0
Total
271,973
276,744
213,256
301,644
213,619
Endangered Species Program
Subtotal
Related Programs
Missouri River. The FY2003 law expresses the sense of Congress that
various parties in a dispute over management of the Missouri River (and the resulting
effects on chicks and nests of two listed species — least tern and piping plover)
should reach agreement on a flow schedule for the river as soon as possible in 2003.
The language does not address the surrounding controversy about two proposals by
the Corps of Engineers. Both proposals would modify the flow regime of the river,
to the benefit of the barge industry, but both, according to FWS, would harm the two
listed species. One of the proposals would require moving the chicks and nests off
Missouri River sandbars and into a captive rearing facility; the other proposal would
not risk flooding of nests, but would avoid that by simply flooding much suitable
habitat continuously during the nesting season. The provision does not insulate
Corps activities from citizen suits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and
some environmental groups, alleging harm to listed species from past transfers of
nests, already have indicated their intention to sue the Corps under ESA for its
7
(...continued)
a concern that the two programs may overlap existing programs.
CRS-14
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 President Theodore Roosevelt of the first
National Wildlife Refuge on Pelican Island in Florida. Accordingly, various
renovations, improvements, and activities are planned to celebrate this event. For
FY2003, the Administration, House, and Senate proposed overall 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 Table 5.8 With respect to the
operations and maintenance component of the System, the President 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 the House. The
FY2003 appropriations law contained no specific funding for this program. The law
continued an existing prohibition on expenditures to establish a new unit of the
NWRS unless the purchase is approved in advance by the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. This prohibition would not apply to creation of new
refuges approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, since its
acquisition 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 the
allocation for management of ANWR increase from $2.19 million to $2.38 million,
even though funds for the general management of specific refuges are not usually
earmarked in appropriations bills. As is usually the case, no specific earmark is
provided for ANWR management, nor for any other specific refuge, in the Senate
Committee report. The conference committee did not change the House allocation.
However, the conference agreement did remove a restriction within the BLM budget
regarding potential development in ANWR. (See discussion under Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge under BLM, above.)
8
Spending for the NWRS is under the “Refuges and Wildlife” budget activity, which
includes programs which are not directly tied to the NWRS: recovery of the Salton Sea (in
California), management of migratory birds throughout the country and in cooperation with
other nations, and law enforcement operations around the country. These programs are not
included here, but are contained in tables in Appropriations Committee reports.
CRS-15
Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System, FY20022003
($ in millions)
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003
Senate
Passed
FY2003
House
Passed
Enacted
294.0
316.5
360.9
316.5
369.8
Cooperative
Conservation Initiative
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Infrastructure
Improvement
23.0
52.0
0.0
52.0
0.0
Youth Conservation
Corps
2.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
Challenge Cost-sharing
and Invasive Species
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
319.0
375.5
360.9
375.5
369.8
Refuge Program
Operations and
Maintenance
Total
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 the country, including the [NWRS], which has
increased security at refuge facilities. The refuge 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 throughout the U.S. to support
the Department of the Interior’s national security efforts to protect employees
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 not
clear what portion of the NWRS request is to be spent on increased security in these
border areas or in general. The President proposed $49.9 million for Law
Enforcement (up $1.5 million over FY2002), plus $2.0 million for infrastructure
improvement. The FY2003 appropriations law provides $51.9 million, with no setaside for infrastructure.
Wildlife Refuge Fund. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates counties for the presence of the nontaxable federal lands of the NWRS. A portion of the Fund is supported by the
permanent appropriation of receipts from various activities carried out on the NWRS.
However, these receipts are not sufficient for full funding of authorized amounts.
Congress generally makes up some of the difference in annual appropriations. The
Administration requested $14.4 million for FY2003, identical to the FY2002 level;
this amount also was approved in the FY2003 appropriations law. When combined
CRS-16
with the receipts, the appropriation will cover 55% of the authorized full payment.
Land Acquisition. For FY2003, the Administration 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 acquisition management, land
exchanges, emergency acquisitions, etc. (For more information, see the “Land
Acquisition” section below.)
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has
generated considerable constituent interest despite the small size of the program. It
benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, the six species of rhinoceroses, and great
apes. The President’s budget proposed to move the funding for the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. For FY2003, the
President proposed $5.0 million for the MSCF. Older portions of the MSCF would
receive level funding while 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 for FY2003, and appropriated $3.0 million for the Migratory Bird
program. It also increased funding over the President’s request for all four
subprograms as well as for the Neotropical Migratory Bird program.
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2002-2003
($ in thousands)
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003
Senate
Passed
FY2003
House
Passed
FY2003
Approp.
African elephant
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,200
1,200
Tiger and Rhinos
1,000
1,000
1,200
1,200
1,200
Asian elephant
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,200
1,200
Great Apes
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,200
1,200
Neotropical Migratory
Birdsa
[3,000]
1,000
[2,000]
[5,000]
[3000]
Total
4,000
5,000
4,200
4,800
4,800
Multinational Species
Conservation Fund
a
This program was first authorized in FY2002, and is not part of the MSCF, though the transfer was
proposed in the President’s budget for FY2003. For this reason, the FY2003 request of $1 million is
included 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. (n
ame redacted), coordinator.
CRS Issue Brief IB10111. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Controversies for the
108th Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
CRS-17
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by (name red
acted) and (name redacted).
CRS Report 90-192. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Governments, by (name redacted).
Compensation to Local
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by (name re
dacted).
National Park Service. The National Park Service (NPS) has stewardship
responsibilities for a park system currently comprising 388 separate and diverse units
covering 84 million acres. In addition to the national park designation, the park
system has more than 20 other types of designations used to classify park sites. The
NPS protects, interprets, and administers the park system’s diversity of natural and
historic areas representing the cultural identity of the American people. The NPS
also provides limited, temporary funding support and technical assistance to 23
national heritage areas outside of the park 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 total
of $2.36 billion for the NPS for FY2003, a $24.5 million decrease from the FY2002
level ($2.38 billion). See Table 7. The President pledged to eliminate the NPS
multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog over the next few years, improve security
at NPS sites in response to terrorist attacks on the United States, and get more nongovernment, 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 roughly two-thirds of the total NPS budget. It covers resource
protection, visitors’ services, facility operations, facility maintenance, and park
support programs. The FY2003 appropriations law provides $1.57 billion, or $78.5
million above the FY2002 level of $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, resource
protection, and education programs, in addition to repair and enhancement of park
infrastructure, an Administration priority.9 On October 16, 2002, the Senate agreed
to a Sense of the Senate amendment to the Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 5093)
that Congress should continue efforts to increase funding for operations of the
National Park Service and seek to eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog by
FY2007. However, that bill was not enacted into law.
9
Ron Tipton, Interior’s Parks Budget Inches Forward, Falls Short of Need, National Parks
Conservation Association, Press Release, Feb. 4, 2002,
[http://www.eparks.org/media_center/PressReleaseDetail.asp?id=83].
CRS-18
The President’s request included funds for a proposed Cooperative Conservation
Initiative (CCI) which would provide matching funds for park projects, and some
other 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 when
many existing needs are not being met. The House did not specify funding for the
CCI as proposed, but supported the concept of conservation partnerships. Congress
did not fund this Initiative. However, the FY2003 appropriations law retained $5
million for the NPS Challenge Cost Share Program in support of the CCI.
Table 7. Appropriations for NPS, FY2002-FY2003
($ in millions)
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003
Senate
Passed
FY2003
House
Passed
FY2003
Approp.
$1,487.1
$1,584.6
$1,571.0
$1,605.6
$1565.6
U.S. Park Police
90.6
78.4
78.4
78.4
78.4
National Recreation and
Preservation
66.2
46.8
63.0
56.3
61.7
Urban Park and Recreation Fund
30.0
0.3
10.0
30.0
0.3
Historic Preservation Fund
74.5
67.0
67.0
76.5
69.0
Construction
387.7
322.4
322.8
325.2
327.8
Land and Water Conservation
Fund a
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Assistance to States
144.0
200.0
115.0
154.0
98.0
NPS Acquisition
130.1
86.1
89.0
99.1
74.5
274.1
286.1
204.0
253.1
172.5
2,380
2,356
2,286
2,395
2,245
National Park Service
Operation of the National Park
System
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
Total
Total Appropriations
a
Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds the
construction, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. For this line item, for
FY2003 the Administration requested $322.4 million, a decrease of $65.3 million
from the FY2002 level ($387.7 million). Funds for the construction line item
historically have tended to be substantially increased during the appropriations
process. The FY2003 appropriations law provides $327.8 million, $5.4 million
above the President’s request, but $59.8 million below the FY2002 appropriation.
The Administration requested an additional $529.4 million for facility operation and
maintenance, an activity funded within the Operation of the National Park System
Line Item. The FY2003 law provides $522.8 million for facility operation and
maintenance. Combined, the Administration requested $851.8 million for
construction and facility operation and maintenance, a decrease of $15.1 million from
CRS-19
FY2002 ($866.9). Excluding the request for facility operation, the Administration
sought some $663 million for FY2003 for construction and facility maintenance,
including annual and deferred maintenance.10 Combined, the FY2003 law 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 Bush
proposed to fulfill his campaign promise to eliminate NPS deferred maintenance
within five years through a combination of new appropriations, transportation fund
money, and revenues from recreation fees. While the FY2003 budget contained a
statement renewing this commitment, park and environmental groups have criticized
as 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 primarily in urban park areas. The USPP also
provides investigative, forensic, and other services to support law enforcement
trained rangers working in park units system-wide. The FY2003 appropriations law
provided $78.4 million, the full amount of the Administration’s request. This is an
increase of $13.1 million over the initial FY2002 appropriation ($65.3 million) but
a decrease of $12.1 million from the total FY2002 appropriation ($90.6 million).
After the regular FY2002 appropriation, the NPS received $25.3 million in
emergency appropriations for increased security following the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks. The Administration’s FY2003 budget had emphasized antiterrorism 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 as programs connected with
local community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources. The FY2003
request of $46.8 million was $19.3 million less than FY2002 funding ($66.2 million).
The primary decreases were a $5.5 million reduction for the heritage partnerships
program and a $12.9 reduction to the statutory and contractual aid program. The
FY2003 appropriations law provided $61.7 million, 4.5 million less than FY2002 but
$14.9 million above the budget request, that mostly restores funding for the heritage
partnership program and statutory and contractual aid.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). Citing the need to
support “higher priorities,” in FY2003 the Administration did not request funds for
the UPARR program except for $300,000 for the administration of previously
awarded grants. This locally popular matching grant program was designed to help
low income inner city neighborhoods rehabilitate recreational facilities. Although
the President did not request funds for UPARR in FY2002, last year Congress
restored funding at $30.0 million, the same as provided in FY2001. In the FY2003
10
This figure is derived by summing the entire FY2003 construction request ($322.4
million), and the facility maintenance portion only of the facility operation and maintenance
activity ($340.7 million). The FY2003 appropriations law did not breakout facility
operation and maintenance separately.
CRS-20
law, Congress provided $300,000 for program 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 Acquisition and State Assistance, consisting
of $74.5 million for NPS federal land acquisition and $98.0 million for state land
acquisition assistance. This constitutes a substantial reduction from the President’s
FY2003 request—$286.1 million—and the FY2002 appropriation—$274.1 million.
The federal program provides funds to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for
inclusion within the National Park System, while the state assistance 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 Conservation
Fund (LWCF) state assistance was $200 million, including $50 million for grants
under it’s proposed Cooperative Conservation Initiative and $150 million for the
traditional 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 land management agencies retain and spend receipts
from entrance and user fees. The receipts are available without further appropriation
for projects at the collecting sites, with a portion distributed to other agency sites.
The NPS estimates Fee Demo receipts of $149.0 million for FY2003, and the
FY2003 budget states that at least half of the receipts will be used for deferred
maintenance. Fee Demo was begun in FY1996 and extended in appropriations laws,
most recently through FY2004. The Administration’s FY2003 budget stated an
intent to propose legislation to make the program permanent and remove it from the
appropriations process, and the agencies have collaborated on developing a
permanent program. Several 107th Congress bills proposed differing forms of fee
program permanence but none were enacted. While there 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 recreation in national forests.
Everglades Restoration. Restoring the Everglades, an initiative with
multiple components, is in its early stages. One of the components, the Modified
Water Delivery Project, has been controversial and drawn congressional attention.
The Modified Water Delivery Project seeks to improve water deliveries to
Everglades National Park (ENP) and, to the extent possible, restore the natural
hydrological conditions within ENP. To complete this project as planned, a portion
of land within the 8.5 SMA would have to be acquired to be used for flood protection
for the rest of the area.11 Herein lies the controversy. Some of the owners are
unwilling to sell their land and have pursued legal action to prevent the acquisition
11
The Corps was authorized to pay the full cost of acquiring land or an interest in land.
CRS-21
of their land.12 The Corps asserts that if necessary, it has the authority to 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 a
flood protection plan (Alternative 6D) for the “8.5 Square Mile Area”(8.5 SMA) as
part of the Modified Waters Delivery Project (Division F, Title I, §157 of P.L. 1087).14 The authorization to implement Alternative 6D, including the acquisition of
necessary lands by the Corps, has three conditions. First, the Corps may acquire
residential property needed to carry out Alternative 6D only if the owners are first
offered comparable property in the 8.5 SMA that will be provided with flood
protection. Second, the Corps is authorized to acquire land from willing sellers in
the flood protected portion of the 8.5 SMA to carry out the first condition and to
provide financial assistance to carry out the acquisitions. Third, the Corps and the
non-federal sponsor (generally the South Florida Water Management District) may
carry out these provisions with funds provided under the Everglades National Park
Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8) and funds provided by the
DOI 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 provides
that the Modified Water Delivery Project must be completed before several CERP
projects involving water flows on the east side of ENP can receive appropriations
(§601(b)(2)(D)(iv) of Title IV, P.L. 106-541).
12
The Corps reports that 77 households need to be acquired for Alternative 6D to be
implemented. Owners of 67 of the 77 households are reported to be willing sellers
[http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/hot_topics/impact_of_imp.htm], accessed
February 21, 2003.
13
The Corps asserts its power for condemnation is authorized under 40 U.S.C. 257 and 33
U.S.C. 591. This authority is extended to practices of flood control under 33 U.S.C. 701
according to the Corps. Personal communication with Barry Vorse, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, on September 17, 2002.
14
15
The Modified Water Delivery Project was authorized in P.L. 101-229.
The conference managers expressed that if the Corps must take the property of residents
in the 8.5 SMA, the Corps must offer residents who choose to relocate, land of greater or
equal size with land use regulations and permits suitable for the same use as their original
land. The Corps is also authorized to acquire additional residential property (presumably
outside of the 8.5 SMA) only if residents are offered the opportunity to relocate to
comparable land within the 8.5 SMA. The conferees further state that financial assistance
should be given to residents to build homes of equal size (as their original) as well as
compensate for moving and temporary living arrangements. They state that the Corps is not
required to complete relocations before making land acquisitions. According to the
conference report, land acquisitions and relocations will be made according to a schedule
determined by the Corps and the non-federal sponsor. See U.S. House of Representatives,
Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003, and for Other Purposes,
H.Rept. 108-10, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, GPO: 2003), p. 994 -995.
CRS-22
Authorization to implement the Alternative 6D Plan has been controversial in
Congress. A provision authorizing the implementation of Alternative 6D was
stricken 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 omnibus appropriations bill that
included an amendment authorizing the Corps to implement its flood protection plan,
under Alternative 6D, for the 8.5 SMA.
For more information on the Modified Water Delivery Project, see CRS Report
RS21331, 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 Web
site at [http://www.nps.gov/].
CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation, by (name
redacted) and David
Whiteman, coordinators.
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid to states (primarily through State Historic
Preservation Offices (SHPOs), certified local governments, and territories and the
Federated States of Micronesia for activities specified in the National Historic
Preservation Act. These activities include protection of cultural resources and
restoration of historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant in American
history and culture. Preservation grants are normally funded on a 60% federal- 40%
state matching share basis. In addition, the Historic Preservation Fund provides
funding for cultural heritage projects for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians. Programs of the Historic Preservation Fund 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 million
from the FY2003 Administration budget and the Senate-passed figure. However, it
is 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 $6
million 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’s
Treasures grants are given to preserve “nationally significant intellectual and cultural
artifacts and historic structures” including monuments, historic sites, artifacts,
collections, artwork, documents, manuscripts, photographs, maps, journals, film and
sound recordings. The appropriation for Save America’s Treasures has been used,
for example, for restoration of the Star Spangled Banner; properties throughout the
U.S., including the Rosa Parks Museum in Alabama and the Mark Twain House in
CRS-23
Connecticut; repair and restoration of the Sewall-Belmont House; the National
Women’s Party headquarters; and the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.
Constitution located in the National Archives. Although the program was funded in
FY2001 ($34.9 million) and FY2002 ($30.0 million), it was criticized for not
reflecting geographic diversity. As a result, the FY2001 Interior appropriations law
(P.L. 106-291) required that any project recommendations would be subject to formal
approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to
distribution of funds. Projects require a 50% cost share, and no single project can
receive more than one grant from this program. The FY2003 enacted appropriations
level 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 Public
Lands Management Act of 1996) were earmarked for preservation projects for
specific colleges and universities. Grants were awarded to complete repairs on
HBCU buildings, particularly those listed in the National Register of Historic Places
that required immediate repairs. An appropriation in FY2001 of $7.2 million
represented the unused authorization remaining from P.L. 104-333. There was no
funding for HBCU’s under HPF for FY2002, and it was eliminated from the FY2003
Bush Administration budget because technically the authorized funding has been
expended.
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-profit
corporation. The National Trust has generally not received any direct federal funding
on a regular basis since FY1998, in keeping with Congress’ plan to replace federal
funds with private funding and to make the Trust self-supporting. However, a onetime appropriation in FY2002 was provided to the National Trust for the endangered
properties endowment. The National Trust still maintains several financial assistance
programs including the Preservation Services Fund, a program of matching grants to
initiate preservation projects, and the National Preservation Loan Fund, providing
below-market-rate loans to nonprofit organizations and public agencies to preserve
properties listed in the National Register of Historic places, particularly those on the
“Most Endangered Historic Places” list. In FY2002, $2.5 million was appropriated
to the endowment for the National Trust Historic Sites Fund, to be matched dollar
for dollar with non-federal funds, for the care and maintenance of the most
endangered historic places. The FY2003 budget recommended eliminating that onetime grant for the National Trust. The House-passed appropriation for FY2003
included $2.5 million for the Historic Sites Fund endowment and the FY2003 final
appropriation provides funding for the endowment at $2.0 million.
CRS-24
Table 8. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund
(FY2002-FY2003)
($ in thousands)
Historic
Preservation
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003
Senate
Passed
FY2003
House
Passed
FY2003
Approp.
Grants in aid to
State Historic
Preservation
Officesa
$39,000
$34,000
$34,000
$40,000
$34,000
Tribal grants
3,000
3,000
3,000
4,000
3,000
Save America’s
Treasures
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
—
—
–
–
–
National Historic
Trust Endowment
grant/Historic Sites
Fund
2,500
—
–
2,500
2,000
Massillon Heritage
Foundation
—
–
–
—
–
74,500
67,000
67,000
76,500
69,000
HBCU’s
HPF (total)
a
The term “grants in aid to States and Territories” is used in conjunction with the budget and refers
to the same program as Grants in aid to State Historic Preservation Offices.
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www2.cr.nps.gov/].
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by (name
redacted).
U.S. Geological Survey. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the
nation’s primary science agency in providing earth and biological science
information related to natural hazards; certain aspects of the environment; and
energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In addition it is the federal
government’s principal civilian mapping agency and a primary source of data on the
quality of the nation’s water resources.
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; Water
Resources and Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities.
For FY2003, the USGS will receive $925.3 million, which is $11.3 million over the
FY2002 enacted level, and $58.0 million over the FY2003 request from the
Administration. The FY2003 enacted level was 3.1 million below the level passed
by the House ($928.4 million) and $10.7 million above the Senate approved level of
CRS-25
$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 Mapping Program and related activities. This is $4.8
million above the request by the Administration ($129.3 million) and $0.8 million
above FY2002. The FY2003 appropriation included $81.6 million for Cooperative
Topographic Mapping, $35.9 million for land remote sensing activities, and $16.5
million for geographic analysis and monitoring. The committee expressed interest
in the continuing efforts to develop and implement the National Map for urban areas
in this country. The National Map is expected to be a compilation of digital and
topographic maps that cover the entire country. This map is expected to provide up
to date information that will 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 report
language, the House Appropriations Committee also emphasized the importance of
completing and implementing the National Map. The Senate passed $131.1 million
for this program, $1.8 million above the request but $2.2 million below FY2002.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For the Geologic
Hazards, Resources, and Processes activity, FY2003 enacted funding is $234.7
million, $10.0 million above the Administration’s request and $1.9 million above
FY2002 funding levels. The Administration had proposed decreases totaling $13.7
million, which covered no fewer than twelve line item programs across the three
budget subactivities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and
Resource Assessments. Contrary to the Administration’s request, funding for
FY2003 was increased slightly for each of these programs (compared to FY2002
levels). Hazards Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource
Assessments received $75.4 million, $79.2 million, and $80.0 million, respectively
for FY2003. Funding for some programs were maintained and others received
increases in funding for FY2003. For example, funding for volcanic equipment in
Shemya, Alaska was restored to FY2002 levels, as well as funding for a coastal
erosion study in North Carolina. There was an increase of funding ($1.5 million
above FY2002) for the coastal program, including over $4 million dedicated to
research efforts in the Gulf of Mexico. A recommendation for a transfer of $4.0
million from the NPS to the USGS to support a Critical Ecosystems Initiative in the
Everglades, made by the Senate 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 above
FY2002 funding were given to the National Coastal Program, research examining the
impact of global dust events affecting the continental United States, oil and gas
resource assessments, and geothermal resource assessments. The Senate had
approved $234.9 million for this program, $10.2 million above the request and $2.1
million over FY2002. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had not agreed with
many of the program reductions assumed in the budget request and restored a number
of them. (For details, see Congressional Record, January 15, 2003, S574).
CRS-26
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 sought to discontinue USGS financial
support for the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and to reduce funding for the
National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). Funding for these
programs, however, were increased above the President’s request, including $63.6
million for NAWQA and $13.5 million for the Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program. As with the FY2002 budget request, the FY2003 request sought to
discontinue USGS support for Water Resources Research Institutes based on the
finding that most institutes have been very successful in leveraging 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 FY2002 funding level of
$14.3 million, and funding for Hydrologic Research and Development increased to
$15.5 million for FY2003. Included in FY2003 Appropriations are $1 million for the
Long-term Estuary Assistance Program and an increase of $0.5 million for the
Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin to 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, the
conferees explained that it was supportive of the project, yet believed that required
agreements and funds were not secured. Further, the conferees stated a willingness
to 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 more
than FY2002.
The Senate had passed $206.6 million for water resources
investigations—$28.8 million over the request and $0.8 million above FY2002. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations had not concurred with the Administration’s
proposed reductions and restored funding for the National Water Quality Assessment
Program, Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, National Streamflow Information
Program, 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 ($166.4 million). For Biological Research and
Monitoring, $133.0 million was provided for FY2003, including $2.7 million for
chronic wasting disease research. For biological information management and
delivery, $22.9 million was appropriated for FY2003. The conference managers
expressed their concerns about the National Biological Information Infrastructure
program (NBII), specifically for “an apparent lack of direction and budget
accountability” (Congressional Record, February 12, 2003, H1061). The NBII is a
program designed to provide increased access to data and information on the nation’s
biological resources. The conference managers directed the USGS to create a plan
that would prioritize a vision for the NBII, addressing national and international
activities of NBII, and how the program relates to the USGS’s programmatic and
strategic goals for data sharing. Further, the managers requested a list of
accomplishments for each “node” of the NBII and an explanation of how these
CRS-27
accomplishments support USGS Science Centers and DOI land management
agencies. The conference managers expect pertinent committees to receive 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. The
Senate had approved $166.9 million, $6.4 million above the request and $0.5 million
over FY2002. The Senate Committee on Appropriations had not agreed with many
of the proposed reductions, restoring funding for several activities.
Science Support Funding. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for management and dissemination
of scientific information. For FY2003, $85.7 million was appropriated for Science
Support, $0.4 million below the Administration’s request and $0.5 million below the
FY2002 level. A decrease of $1.6 million from the House enacted level for
accessible data transfer was enacted. The House had approved $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, $0.4 million 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 for Facilities is $91.4 million, $2.4
million above the Administration’s request of $89.0 million and $1.9 million above
FY2002 levels ($89.4 million). This includes a decrease of $1.3 million for the
Leetown Research Center expansion from FY2002 and 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 above FY2002. The Senate had
passed $89.4 million for facilities. The conference managers expressed their strong
support for USGS partnerships with institutions that emphasize collaboration,
federal-state partnerships, and public-private partnerships.
Table 9. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2002FY2003
($ in millions)
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003
Senate
Passed
FY2003
House
Passed
FY2003
Approp.
National Mapping
Program
$133.3
$129.3
$131.1
$135.1
$134.1
Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes
232.8
224.7
234.9
234.7
234.7
Water Resources
Investigations
205.8
177.8
206.6
209.7
208.5
Biological Research
166.4
160.5
166.9
170.4
170.9
Science Support
86.3
86.1
85.7
87.4
85.7
Facilities
89.4
88.9
89.4
91.2
91.4
Total Appropriations
914.0
867.3
914.6
928.4
925.3
U.S. Geological Survey
CRS-28
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.usgs.gov/].
Minerals Management Service. The Minerals Management Service
(MMS) administers two programs: the Offshore Minerals Management (OMM)
Program and the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) Program, formerly known
as the Royalty Management Program. OMM administers competitive leasing on
outer continental shelf lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas and other
minerals. MRM collects and disburses bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal
onshore and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases and Indian mineral leases. MMS
anticipates collecting about $4.2 billion in revenues in FY2003 from offshore and
onshore federal leases. Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in
which they were collected, the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, and various
designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated among the
coastal states, Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund,
and the U.S. Treasury.
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 total
included $6.1 million for oil spill research. It also included $265.5 million for
Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management, comprised of $165.3 million from
appropriations 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 $264.4
million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management (including $137.5 million
for 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 offsetting
collections which MMS has been retaining from OCS receipts since 1994. The
FY2003 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 $270.7
million for MMS, including $137.6 million for OMM and $83.3 million for MRM
programs (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 for
MRM, 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 $7.3
billion in FY2003. Current revenue estimates for these years are $5.1 billion and $4.2
billion respectively. Price fluctuation is the most significant factor in the revenue
swings. Oil prices that were in the $26-$30 per barrel range came down dramatically
to the $20-$22 per barrel range in 2001. Also, natural gas prices fell significantly
during the past year in part because of the relatively mild winter. Over the past
decade, 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 discussion
of related issues of interest to Congress that have been considered within the context
of the appropriations process.
CRS-29
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 specifies
the time, location and size of lease sales to be held during that period. The new 5year leasing program (2002 -2007) went into effect July 1, 2002. MMS will conduct
20 oil and natural gas lease sales during the five year period. Half of those sales will
be in the Western or Central Gulf of Mexico (GOM), two in the Eastern GOM and
the remainder around Alaska. Sales in the Eastern GOM are especially controversial.
Industry groups contend that the sales are too limited given what they say is an
enormous resource potential while environmental groups and some state officials
argue that the risks to the ecology and the economy are too great. The FY2003
appropriations law continues the moratorium in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico outside
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 nine
oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in compensation for their undeveloped leases.
The companies claim that MMS failed to conduct consistency determinations
required 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 oil
and 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 suspensions
arguing that MMS failed to show consistency with the state’s coastal zone
management plan. The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 11,
2002, in the Ninth Circuit and proposed a more limited lease development plan that
involves 20 leases using existing platforms. The Court however upheld its decision
favoring California. The Administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals in San Francisco. On December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel upheld the
earlier decision. The Department of the Interior has 90 days (early March 2003) to
appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. The leases are in effect, pending the
appeal.
The FY2003 appropriations law includes a (non-binding) Sense of the Congress
provision barring Interior bill funding for any exploration and development of the 36
leases that were extended by the MMS. In earlier action, the House had approved
legislative language to the Interior appropriations bill to prohibit funding in the bill
from being used to develop these leases. The language sought a permanent
prohibition on new drilling in the contested area. On September 10, 2002, the
Senate agreed to a Sense of the Senate amendment to bar Interior bill funding for any
exploration and development of the above mentioned 36 leases, but the bill was not
passed by the Senate. A similar sense of the Senate amendment was approved by the
Senate on January 23, 2003, and included in the Senate-passed omnibus
appropriations bill.
Also, 107th Congress legislation (S. 1952) by Senators Boxer (D-CA) and
Landrieu (D-LA) sought to compensate the companies for surrendering all
undeveloped leases off California’s coast with financial credits to acquire oil and gas
leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The credits could be as much as $3 billion.
CRS-30
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 were
oil and gas lease buybacks in the Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National
Preserve and the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge that would require
approval 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 of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87) established the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) to ensure that land
mined for coal would be returned to a condition capable of supporting its pre-mining
land use. SMCRA also established an Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) fund, with
fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites that pose serious health or
safety hazards. Congress’s intention was that individual states and Indian tribes
would develop their own regulatory programs incorporating minimum standards
established by law and regulations. OSM is required to maintain oversight of state
regulatory programs. In some instances states have no approved program, and in
these instances OSM directs reclamation 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 of
Surface Mining for FY2003—at $279.4 million—reflected a drop of $27.1 million
from the FY2002 level of $306.5 million. The House approved $290.1 million, and
the Senate passed $297.1 million. The Senate-passed total was enacted in the
FY2003 appropriations law.
The OSM budget has two components: Regulation and Technology programs
and Abandoned Mine Lands (AML, or Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund). For
Regulation and Technology, the Administration sought $105.4 million, an increase
of roughly $2.3 million from the FY2002 level ($103.1 million). Included in the
FY2003 request was $10 million in funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams
Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002, and $1.5 million for the Small
Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). For the AML Fund, the Administration
sought $174.0 million for FY2003, a reduction of $29.4 million from the $203.4
enacted for FY2002. Major components of this reduction included a decrease of $17
million for State and Tribal conventional AML grants, and a reduction of nearly $11
million 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 had
approved $184.7 million for AML, $10.7 million more than the Administration
request, but a reduction still of $18.7 million from the FY2002 enacted level for
AML. The House Committee on Appropriations specifically rejected the
Administration’s proposal to make any cuts in spending for Federal high priority
projects. However, the Senate Committee recommended $191.7 million for AML,
more than restoring the $17 million cut by the Administration for State and Tribal
CRS-31
conventional AML grants. Specifically, the Senate Committee included $17.5
million 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 million
for SOAP. The omnibus appropriations legislation approved by the Senate on
January 23, 2003, adopted the Committee’s recommendation, and these were the
levels 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 with
significant AML problems, but with insufficient levels of current coal production to
generate significant fees to the AML fund. The minimum funding level for each of
these states was increased to $2 million in 1992. However, over the objection of
these states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program states
since FY1996. The FY2003 law also appropriates $1.5 million to minimum program
states.
In general, several states have been pressing in recent years for increases in the
AML appropriations. The unappropriated balance of AML collections in the fund
is 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 recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes
and their members, and historically has been the lead agency in federal dealings with
tribes. Programs provided or funded through the BIA include government
operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education,
roads, economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian
rights protection, implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust
assets (real estate and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.
BIA’s FY2002 direct appropriations were $2.22 billion (including supplemental
appropriations but excluding a $10.0 million rescission). For FY2003, the
Administration proposed $2.25 billion, an increase of 1% over FY2002. The Senate
and House passed, and Congress enacted, approximately $2.27 billion. The enacted
amount 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 budget
components; 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 programs
as 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 lack
of resources, the Administration proposed an additional $0.05 million (5%) over
CRS-32
FY2002. The Senate agreed with the Administration’s request, while the House
approved an additional $0.55 million over FY2002, a 52% increase. Congress
enacted the House level of $1.6 million. See Table 10. Related to tribal recognition
(and Indian gaming), a provision for a study commission on Native American policy,
added by the House Appropriations Committee to the FY2003 Interior bill, was
dropped by the full House. A proposed Senate floor amendment to the bill, to place
a moratorium on BAR tribal recognition approvals or denials pending certain
procedural changes, was tabled.
The Senate, in 108th Congress floor consideration of the FY2003 omnibus
appropriations bill, added a new title that would enact a settlement of an Indian land
claim by Sandia Pueblo of New Mexico involving Cibola National Forest. This title
remained in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003 as enacted.
CRS-33
Table 10. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2002-FY2003
($ in thousands)
FY2003 Approp.
compared with:
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003
Senate Passed
FY2003
House Passed
FY2003 Approp.
Operation of Indian Programs
$1,799,809
$1,837,110
$1,855,635
$1,859,064
Tribal Priority Allocations
752,156
775,534
775,534
Contract Support Costs
130,209
133,209
Other Recurring Programs
586,968
School Operations
Tribally-controlled colleges
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
$1,857,319
3%
1%
780,654
777,534
3%
<1%
133,209
133,209
133,209
2%
–
596,192
595,642
607,196
601,635
2%
1%
504,015
522,816
510,916
524,817
515,916
2%
(1%)
41,118
39,118
43,118
41,118
43,118
5%
10%
Non-Recurring Programs
72,798
67,510
72,360
70,824
72,960
<1%
8%
Central and Regional Office
Operations
120,785
136,713
136,713
134,258
134,258
11%
(2%)
1,050
1,100
1,100
1,600
1,600
52%
45%
Special Programs and Pooled
Overhead
267,102
261,161
275,386
266,132
270,932
1%
4%
Public Safety and Justice
160,652
161,368
166,543
161,368
163,568
2%
1%
357,132
345,252
348,252
345,252
348,252
(2%)
1%
292,503
292,717
295,717
292,717
295,717
1%
1%
Branch of Acknowledgment and
Research
Construction
Education construction
CRS-34
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003 Approp.
compared with:
FY2003
Senate Passed
FY2003
House Passed
FY2003 Approp.
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
Land and Water Claim Settlements
and Misc. Payments
60,949
57,949
57,949
60,949
60,949
–
5%
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
4,986
5,493
5,493
5,493
5,493
10%
–
2,222,876
2,245,804
2,267,329
2,270,758
2,272,013
2%
1%
Rescission (P.L. 107-206) in
Operation of Indian Programs
(10,000)
–
–
–
–
–
–
Total BIA After Rescission
2,212,876
–
–
–
–
–
–
Total BIA
CRS-35
Key issues for the BIA include the proposed reorganization of the Bureau’s trust
asset management functions, the movement toward greater tribal influence on BIA
programs and expenditures (especially the role of contract support costs), and
problems in the BIA school system.
BIA Reorganization. Current BIA reorganization proposals arise from issues
and events related to trust funds and assets management. Historically, the BIA has
been responsible for managing Indian tribes’ and individuals’ trust funds and trust
assets. Trust assets include trust lands and the lands’ surface and subsurface
economic resources (e.g., timber, grazing lands, or minerals); trust asset management
includes real estate services, processing of transactions (sales, leases, etc.), surveys,
appraisals, probate functions, land title records activities, and other functions. The
BIA had, however, historically mismanaged Indian trust funds and trust assets,
especially in the areas of record-keeping and accounting. This led to a legislative
reform act in 1994 and an extensive court case in 1996. The 1994 act created the
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) (see below), assigning it
responsibility for oversight of trust management 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 Trust
Transition), are implementing the Secretary’s current trust management improvement
project. The project includes improvements in trust asset systems, policies, and
procedures, historical accounting for trust accounts, reduction of backlogs, and
maintenance of the improved system. The current project replaces an earlier High
Level Implementation Plan (HLIP) created under the Clinton Administration. While
a computerized trust fund accounting system, operated by OST, had been installed
successfully under the HLIP in 2000, a new computerized trust asset management
system drew much tribal, congressional, and court criticism. That criticism led the
current Secretary to have a consultant, Electronic Data Systems, Inc. (EDS), review
the 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 Secretary
proposed to split off BIA’s trust asset management responsibilities into a new Bureau
of Indian Trust Asset Management (BITAM), and requested approval from both
Appropriations Committees for a reprogramming of FY2002 funds to carry out the
BITAM reorganization. The Committees did not approve the reprogramming
request, instead directing the Secretary to consult with Indian tribes. The
consultation process took place during much of 2002 through a joint tribal-DOI Trust
Reform Task Force. The great majority of commenting tribes opposed the BITAM
proposal and many tribes and tribal organizations offered alternative plans. The
BIA’s proposed FY2003 budget did not include the BITAM reorganization proposal
(or a reprogramming request). The Senate Appropriations Committee’s June 2002
report (S.Rept. 107-201) forbade the Secretary to implement the BITAM proposal or
to use FY2003 funds for any action that would alter the BIA’s tribal or individual
trust authority. In the fall of 2002, the tribal members of the Trust Reform Task
Force decided that they could not agree with the Department on trust standards and
oversight. In December 2002 the head of the BIA announced a new proposed
reorganization of BIA and OST trust management structures. Under the plan, the
CRS-36
BIA’s trust operations at regional and agency levels will be split off from other BIA
services, and the OST will have trust officers at BIA regional and agency offices
overseeing trust management and providing information to the Indian trust
beneficiaries. Tribes and tribal organizations were critical of the new proposal. In
recent court filings, the Secretary states that the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittees did not object to the necessary reprogramming and that the
reorganization will proceed.
Tribal Control. Greater tribal control over federal Indian programs has been
the goal of Indian policy since the 1970s. In the BIA this policy has taken three
forms: tribal contracting to run individual BIA programs under Title I of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended); tribal
compacting with the BIA to manage all or most of 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 BIA budget called Tribal Priority Allocations
(TPA), in which tribes have more influence in BIA budget planning and within which
each tribe has authority to reprogram all its TPA funds. In FY2002, TPA accounted
for 42% of the BIA’s operation of Indian programs (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 programs
under self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts, and are calculated
using a negotiated tribal cost rate (a percentage of the funding base covered by a
tribe’s contracts or compact). Issues raised by contract support costs include the
consistent shortfall in contract support cost appropriations, tribes’ claim of
entitlement to full support cost funding, identity of programs included in tribes’
funding base, and rate-setting methods. The BIA estimates that appropriations for
contract support costs met 88% of reported tribal need in FY2001 and 91% in
FY2002 and will meet 92% of the need in FY2003. Table 10 shows FY2003
contract support costs.
BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools
and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating about 48,000
students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-determination
contracts and other grants, operate 121 of these institutions; the BIA operates the
remainder. BIA schools’ key problems are low 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’ academic
performance, the Administration proposes a “School Privatization Initiative” under
which BIA-operated schools will all either become tribally operated or be privatized
by the end of FY2007. Some Indian tribes and organizations expressed doubt over
this proposal, arguing that funding for tribally-operated schools is presently below
need and that under the initiative tribes would be forced to choose between operating
schools with inadequate resources or allowing them to be privatized. Both the Senate
and House Committees opposed the proposed privatization initiative and removed
CRS-37
its funding. No funding for the initiative was included in the FY2003 appropriations
law.
Many BIA school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety
deficiencies. BIA education construction covers both construction of new school
facilities to replace facilities that cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair of
existing facilities. Schools are replaced or repaired according to priority lists. The
BIA in 2001 estimated the backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million.
Table 10 shows FY2002 education construction appropriations, as well as the
FY2003 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. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by (n
ame redacted).
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 Appropriations
Committees 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 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988
(P.L. 100-497) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of 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 its budget authority consisted chiefly of
annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II operations. As Indian gaming expanded
rapidly in the 1990s, Congress decided the NIGC needed a larger budget. The
FY1998 Interior Appropriations Act, amending the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,
increased the ceiling for total NIGC fees to $8 million, made Class III as well as
Class II operations subject to fees, and increased NIGC’s appropriations
authorization from $1 million to $2 million. However, the NIGC says it has recently
experienced a new increase in demand for its oversight resources, especially audits
and field investigations, primarily because of the rapid expansion of California Indian
gaming (following the March 2000 state referendum authorizing California to
negotiate more liberal Class III gaming compacts with tribes).
During FY1999-FY2002, all NIGC activities were funded from fees, with no
direct appropriations. For FY2003, however, the Administration proposed
appropriations of $2 million for the NIGC, in addition to the Commission’s fee
receipts of $8 million. The House agreed to the proposed amount, but the Senate
made no FY2003 appropriations. Congress did not enact NIGC appropriations in
FY2003, but the appropriations law included a provision that increases the NIGC’s
fee ceiling to $12 million for FY2004. Also, the conference report directs the NIGC
to consult with tribes about a new fee schedule.
CRS-38
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians, in the Secretary of the Interior’s office, was authorized
by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
(P.L. 103-412). The Office of Special Trustee (OST) generally oversees the reform
of Interior Department management of Indian trust assets, the direct management of
Indian trust funds, establishment of an adequate trust fund management system, and
support of department claims settlement activities related to the trust funds. Indian
trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but numerous federal, tribal, and
congressional reports had shown severely inadequate management, with probable
losses to Indian tribal and individual beneficiaries. In 1996, at Congress’ direction
and as authorized by P.L. 103-412, the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust fund
management from the BIA to the OST. (See “Bureau of Indian Affairs,” 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 million
for the Indian land consolidation pilot project. The purpose of the land consolidation
project is to purchase and consolidate fractionated ownerships of allotted Indian trust
lands, thereby reducing the costs of managing millions of acres broken up into tiny
fractional 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 $151.0
million for federal trust programs (up $51.8 million, or 52%) and $8.0 million for the
Indian land consolidation pilot project (down $3 million, or 27%). The Senate
approved an increase for the OST to $162.0 million, 47% over FY2002. It included
the same amount as the Administration for federal trust programs and an additional
$3 million for the Indian land consolidation project. The House approved $149.3
million for FY2003, an increase of 35% over FY2002 and a decrease of 6% from the
Administration’s request. The House approved the requested amount for land
consolidation ($8.0 million) but cut the requested amount for trust programs by $9.8
million, 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 $3.1
billion; 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 monies
received both from claims awards, land or water rights settlements, and other onetime 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 federal
government by IIM account holders. The latest stage of the IIM lawsuit relates to an
historical accounting for IIM funds, to determine the amount of money owed to the
plaintiffs. The FY2001 Interior appropriations conference report, and the FY2002
House and conference reports, had directed DOI to develop a sampling methodology
for 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 the
CRS-39
prohibition on allocating funds for an historical accounting before submission of the
plan and report. The requested report was transmitted to the Committees in early
July 2002 by the DOI’s Office of Historical Trust Accounting. The plaintiffs in the
lawsuit object to an historical accounting methodology and, using a different
methodology based on federal and state leasing returns, have estimated that they are
owed about $137 billion. Recently the district court held the Secretary of the Interior
and the Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs in contempt for continuing problems in
trust management reform (following a trial on the contempt issues). While the court
did not grant the plaintiffs’ request that it appoint a receiver to take over reform of
IIM accounts management, it did direct both defendants and plaintiffs to submit plans
for future trust management and historical accounting by January 6, 2003. Both
parties 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 of
provisions to the FY2003 Interior appropriations act. The provisions would limit the
time period to be covered by the historical accounting, require a summary of a full
historical accounting of 5 of the plaintiffs, cap the compensation of two courtappointed officials monitoring trust reform, direct that a new OST advisory board be
appointed in accordance with the 1994 act, and authorize the Interior Secretary to
help employees pay for legal costs related to the IIM suit. The full House agreed to
all these provisions except the limit on the time period for historical accounting. The
Senate agreed to none of these provisions, but the FY2003 appropriations 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 insular areas, manages relations between
these jurisdictions and the federal government, and attempts to build the capacity of
units of local government. Funding for the OIA consists of two parts: (1) permanent
and indefinite appropriations that do not require action by the 108th Congress or the
Administration, and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the
appropriations process. The combined funding of both parts for FY2002 was $353.0
million; the President’s request for the FY2003 budget was $343.5 million, a
reduction of $9.5 million, or 2.7%. The Senate approved a total of $348.5 million.
The House approved $346.7 million. For FY2003 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 these
appropriations totaled $250.6 million; for FY2003 they total $252.4 million, as
follows:
!
$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 the Compacts of Free Association negotiated with
CRS-40
representatives of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.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 tax collections.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the remaining balance (roughly 20% to 30%) of the OIA budget. The
FY2003 request of the Bush Administration sought to reduce the discretionary
portion of the OIA budget to $91.0 million, a reduction of $11.2 million (11%) from
FY2002. The FY2003 appropriations law includes discretionary funding slightly
higher than the request—$97.2 million. Discretionary funding is comprised of two
parts. 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 fiscal
management 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].
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www.usda.gov/].
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service. For information on the
Department of Agriculture, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.usda.gov/].
U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service (FS) budget enacted for FY2003 is
$3.98 billion of discretionary appropriations, $153.7 million (4%) less than was
appropriated for FY2002 ($4.13 billion), excluding $636 million appropriated in
FY2003 to repay transfers to wildfire suppression from other FY2002 appropriations.
The FY2003 appropriations are $28.0 million (1%) more than the request, and $26.9
million (1%) more than the Senate 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 the
FY2003 Interior appropriations bill. In fact, during the 107th Congress, the Senate
did not pass an Interior appropriations bill largely due to disputes about fire funding
16
Portions of the Compact of Free Association with the FSM and the RMI expired in the fall
of 2001 and are being renegotiated. For background, see CRS Report RL31737, The
Marshall Islands and Micronesia: Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the
United States, by (name redacted). The Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994
and will terminate in FY2009.
CRS-41
and a new program for wildfire protection. The discussion includes questions about
funding levels and locations for various fire protection treatments, such as thinning
and prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and clearing around structures to protect
them during fires. Another focus is whether logging and access roads help in fire
control or exacerbate conflagrations. Still another issue is whether, and to what
extent, environmental analysis, public involvement, and challenges to decisions
hinder 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 the
summers of 2000 and 2002 prompted substantial debates and proposals related to fire
control and fire protection. The severe 2000 fire season led the Clinton
Administration to propose a new program, called the National Fire Plan, which
applied to BLM lands as well as to Forest Service lands, with $1.8 billion to
supplement the $1.1 billion requested before the fire season began. The National Fire
Plan comprises the Forest Service wildland fire program and fire fighting on DOI
lands; the DOI wildland fire monies are appropriated to the BLM. Congress largely
enacted the proposal for FY2001, adding money to the FY2001 request for wildfire
operations, fuel reduction, and burned area restoration, fire preparedness, and
programs to assist local communities. Total appropriations for the FY2001 National
Fire Plan, covering BLM and FS fire funds, were $2.89 billion. Many of the
increases were continued in FY2002, although the less severe 2001 fire season led
to decreases in fire suppression operations, restoration and rehabilitation, emergency
contingency funds, and private land fire assistance. The FY2002 National Fire Plan
was 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 the
FY2002 level. The FY2003 enacted appropriation was $2.03 billion, $11 million
(1%) more than requested, but $204 million less than the FY2002 level. (See Table
11.) The appropriation is less than the House passed ($2.17 billion), but more than
the Senate passed ($2.01 billion).
CRS-42
Table 11. Federal Wildland Fire Management Funding, FY2002FY2003
($ in millions)
Forest Service
FY2002 Appropriated
BLM
Total
$1,560.3
$678.4
$2,238.8
Suppression
521.3
161.4
682.7
Preparedness
622.6
280.8
903.4
Other Operations
416.4
236.2
652.6
Admin. Request
1,369.1
653.8
2,022.9
Suppression
420.7
160.4
581.1
Preparedness
600.7
277.2
877.9
Other Operations
347.7
216.2
563.9
Appropriations
1,379.9
654.4
2,034.3
Suppression
420.7
160.4
581.1
Preparedness
616.0
277.2
893.2
Other Operations
343.2
216.8
560.0
FY2003
The FS and BLM wildland fire line items include funds for fire suppression
(fighting fires), preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention,
and detection), and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel treatment, research, and state
and private assistance). The FY2003 enacted appropriation for suppression matched
the decrease proposed in the President’s FY2003 request by eliminating the
emergency contingent funds for FY2002. (See Table 11). Specifically, the
appropriation includes $160.4 million for the BLM for fire suppression, and $420.7
million for FS fire suppression. This is a small decrease from BLM FY2002
suppression funding (–$1.0 million), and a substantial decrease (nearly –$101
million) 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. For
FS fire preparedness, the appropriation was $616.0 million, down from the FY2002
level of $622.6 million. This roughly split the difference between the House-passed
increase (to $640.0 million), and the President’s proposed and Senate-passed
reduction (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 $20
million from the FY2002 regular and emergency contingent appropriation. For other
FS fire operations, the appropriation was $343.2 million, down $4.5 million from the
request, 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.
CRS-43
FY2002 Supplemental Funds. The 2002 fire season also was severe, with
conflagrations threatening towns in Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, and elsewhere. As
of November 15, 2002, wildfires had burned 7,112,733 acres, nearly as much as in
2000, the most severe fire season since the 1950s.17 The FS and BLM used their
FY2002 suppression funding, and borrowed from other accounts (such as land
acquisition) as authorized. As a result, Congress and the Administration debated
whether to include, in the FY2003 appropriation, supplemental funds for FY2002 to
repay funds borrowed to pay for firefighting. In the FY2003 appropriations law,
Congress ultimately enacted $825 million ($636 million for FS and $189 million for
BLM) 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 appropriations
bill. The House had added $700 million in FY2002 funds to the FY2003 Interior
Appropriations bill for fire suppression ($500 million for FS and $200 million for
BLM). In late August, the Administration requested $825 million ($636 million for
FS and $189 million for BLM) to supplement the FY2002 firefighting efforts.
During Senate floor consideration of H.R. 5093, Sen. Byrd offered an amendment
(No. 4480) to add the Administration’s request to the Interior bill. A draft substitute,
widely attributed to Sen. Domenici, sought $1.25 billion ($1.0 billion for 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 less
environmental and public review. The introduced amendment and various substitutes
were debated sporadically from September 5 through September 25, with no
resolution. The Senate twice tried to end debate on the fire issue by invoking cloture
on 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 107th
Congress. The Byrd and Craig/Domenici amendments remained pending when the
Senate halted debate. The House Resources Committee persisted in considering
related authorizing legislation, but none was enacted in the 107th Congress. (See
CRS Report RL31679.)
Stewardship Contracting. The FY2003 appropriations law included a provision
extending the authorization for stewardship through 2013 to the BLM and to an
unlimited number of FS contracts (§323 of Division F). This authority allows the
agencies to require fuel reduction or other stewardship activities as part of timber sale
contracts—essentially trading goods (timber) for services (e.g., fuel reduction).
Supporters assert that this is an efficient way to achieve non-commercial benefits
using commercial contracts. Opponents counter that this creates incentives to allow
17
Data from [http://www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/nfn.html] on February 27, 2003. Note that acres
burned is widely used as an indicator of fire severity, and that more acres burned in 2000
than in any year since 1960, but that acres burned at best roughly approximates damages.
No measures exist to determine whether damages caused by the fires in 2000 were worse
than damages caused by fires in any other year since 1960 (or before).
CRS-44
more trees to be cut, so as to gain more non-commercial benefits, and grants the
agencies 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 determine FY2003
funding levels. The Administration had proposed terminating the Economic Action
Program (EAP), which includes rural community assistance and wood recycling, and
the Pacific Northwest economic assistance program. The FY2003 appropriations law
contained $26.4 million for EAP, with $5.0 million more for EAP in the Wildfire
Management account — a total of $31.4 million. The law did not include language
from both House and Senate versions of the bill directing an allocation for the Pacific
Northwest. The FY2003 total is $26.2 million (45%) below the 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 the
FY2002 land acquisition appropriation of $149.7 million, but the FY2003 enacted
level was $133.8 million, $15.9 million (11%) less than the FY2002 appropriation.
The request also proposed reducing Infrastructure Improvement (which is used to
address the nearly $7 billion deferred maintenance backlog) by $10.1 million (17%),
to $50.9 million. The FY2003 appropriations law reduced this further, to $45.9
million, 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 reduce
or eliminate a problem while it is still small. The request was for $12.0 million, and
the Senate included $14.0 million, but the House included no money for this Fund
and no FY2003 funds were enacted. The other new proposed program was $15.0
million for Expedited Consultations, where the FS can pay another federal agency to
consult on projects that might jeopardize an endangered or threatened species; this
would assure that the other agencies’ budgets do not limit the FS’s ability to proceed
on its projects. The FY2003 appropriations law did not include funding for
Expedited Consultations.
The Administration proposed $49.5 million, a $16.4 million (49%) increase over
FY2002 in the Forest Stewardship Program, which provides technical assistance for
managing private forests. The FY2003 appropriations law, however, contained
appropriations of $32.2 million, a $1.0 million (3%) decrease from FY2002. The
Administration also proposed $69.8 million, a $4.8 million (7%) increase, in the
Forest Legacy Program, under which the Forest Service purchases title or easements
for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, e.g., residences. The House
had 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 than
requested, 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 administrative
appeals and judicial review of “The Record of Decision for the 2003 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan” (§
335 of Division F). With this provision, Congress has essentially approved the
CRS-45
agency’s decision to recommend no additional wilderness in the Tongass National
Forest in Alaska. Some groups had been advocating additional wilderness
designations and further restrictions on road building and timber harvesting in the
Tongass.
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 (name r
edacted) and (name redacted), coordinators.
CRS Report RL31679. Wildfire Protection: Legislation in the 107th Congress and
Issues in the 108th Congress, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS20822. Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire Protection, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
(name redacted).
CRS Report RS20985. Stewardship Contracting for the National Forests, by (nam
e redacted).
Department of Energy. For further information on the Department of
Energy (DOE), see its World Wide Web site 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 ($489.3 million).18 Much of the difference in funding
between the enacted level and the Administration’s request is in fuel cells,
transportation fuels, natural gas and petroleum production technologies. In earlier
action, the Senate approved funding fossil energy programs at $625.7 million, while
the House approved funding level was even higher—$664.2 million.
18
The FY2003 request and appropriated amount for FY2002 reflect previously appropriated
amounts ($40 million for FY2003 and $33.7 million for FY2002) from the Clean Coal
Technology program and prior year balances ($14.0 million for FY2003 and $6.0 million
for FY2002).
CRS-46
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 the
conference report states that up to $15.0 million in prior year funds may be used to
administer the CCTP in FY2003. The program is a cooperative cost-shared
industry/government program for “funding advanced research and development and
a limited number of joint government-industry-funded demonstrations of new
technologies that can enhance the reliability and environmental performance of coalfired power generators.” The CCPI is along the lines of the Clean Coal Technology
Program, which has completed most of its projects and has been subject to
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 from
previously appropriated Clean Coal Technology Program funds. The CCTP has been
funded separately from the other fossil R&D programs. The Administration had
sought to consolidate it with coal R&D programs under Fossil Energy Research and
Development. Under the proposal, the CCTP would have received no additional
appropriations, but would have received $40.0 million in FY2003 from previously
deferred budget authority to continue with several projects that are still active.
However, the CCTP was retained as a separate program in the FY2003
appropriations 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 FY2004
and using up to $14 million in prior year balances to administer the CCTP in
FY2003. The Senate did not support using $14 million in prior year balances
towards 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 on
petroleum by about a third, to $35.4 million. The Senate however, supported these
programs at $46.3 for natural gas and 44.3 million for petroleum programs. The
House approved $48.2 million for natural gas and $54.9 million for petroleum
technology programs. The FY2003 law contained $47.3 million for natural gas
programs and $42.3 for petroleum technology. The Administration’s request would
have phased out funding for the Fuels program, including R&D on ultra-clean fuels
technology, reducing the request to $5.0 million for FY2003 from $32.2 million in
FY2002. The Senate approved $27.3 million for the Fuels program, while the House
supported spending $31.6 million. The FY2003 law retained the fuels program,
providing $31.4 million. The FY2003 appropriations law contains $68.9 million for
the Energy Technology Center (ETC), as compared with the Administration’s request
of $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 for
sequestration R&D, which would test new and advanced methods for greenhouse gas
capture, separation, and reuse. This is an increase from the FY2002 level of $32.2
million, but a decrease from the Administration’s request of $54.0 million. The
Senate and the House both had approved $42.0 million.
CRS-47
The Administration also proposed to transfer the Fossil Energy (FE)
Infrastructure program that funds natural gas research activities ($10.0 million in
FY2002) to the Department of Transportation’s Office of Pipeline Safety, in order
to reduce any duplication of effort. The Senate and House supported maintaining the
infrastructure program within Fossil Energy, and the FY2003 law retained the
Infrastructure 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 (name redacted).
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The SPR, authorized by the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in late 1975, consists of caverns formed out of
naturally-occurring salt domes in Louisiana and Texas in which more than 570
million barrels of crude oil are stored. The purpose of the SPR is to provide an
emergency source of crude oil which may be tapped in the event of a presidential
finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption threatening adverse
economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the Reserve.
Sharp increases in the price of oil beginning in the spring of 1999 spurred calls
for drawdowns from the Reserve. The Clinton Administration authorized some
exchanges and swaps of oil from the SPR, and also instituted a program to accept
roughly 28 million barrels as royalty-in-kind (RIK) payments for production from
federal leases. Acquiring oil for the SPR by RIK avoids the necessity for Congress
to make outlays to finance direct purchase of oil; however, it also means a loss of
revenues to the Treasury in so far as the royalties are paid in wet barrels rather than
in cash. In mid-November 2001, President Bush ordered that the SPR be filled to
capacity (700 million barrels) using RIK oil. Deliveries of RIK oil began in the
spring of 2002. The fill rate has varied and should average about 55,000 barrels a
day (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, operation
and 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 million
rescission of unobligated prior-year funds; and $6 million for the NHOR, reflecting
lower costs for leasing of the storage facilities. The FY2003 law reauthorized the
SPR 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 three
components. First, it included $154.9 million for storage facilities development and
operations management, and $14.0 million for management of the SPR sites.
Second, $11.0 million was included in the SPR Petroleum Account to support the
costs of transporting RIK oil to SPR sites. Third, the request included $8.0 million
for the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR), established by the Clinton
Administration, which houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground
facilities in Connecticut and New Jersey.
CRS-48
In the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations had recommended a total of
$189.9 million, including $158.9 for facilities development and operations, $16.0
million for management, $7.0 million for transporting RIK oil to the SPR, and $8
million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Committee reduced the
SPR Petroleum Account by $4.0 million, transferring that money to development and
operations for the express purpose of helping to pay for injection of oil into the
Reserve. The House approved $190.9 million, essentially following the Senate
model 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 Petroleum
Account, and $6 million for the NHOR – a total of $185.9 million. The Senate also
included language giving permanent authorization to the SPR, and affirming
President Bush’s previous expression that the SPR should be filled to capacity as
soon as practicable. Similar language had been agreed to by the conferees on the
omnibus energy legislation (H.R. 4) that was not enacted before the 107th 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 (name redacted).
Naval Petroleum Reserves. The National Defense Authorization Act for
FY1996 (P.L. 104-106) authorized sale of the federal interest in the oil field at Elk
Hills, CA (NPR-1). On February 5, 1998, Occidental Petroleum Corporation took
title to the site and wired $3.65 billion to the U.S. Treasury. P.L. 104-106 also
transferred most of two Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSR) to DOI; the balance of the
second was transferred to DOI in the spring of 1999. On January 14, 2000, DOE
returned the undeveloped NOSR-2 to the Ute Indian Tribe; the FY2001 National
Defense Authorization (P.L. 106-398) provided for the transfer. The U.S. retains a
9% royalty interest in NOSR-2, those proceeds to 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 government
of roughly $7.2 million during FY2003. The request to maintain the Naval
Petroleum Reserves (NPR) for FY2003 was $20.8 million, a decrease of $1.5 million
from FY2002 ($22.4 million, including $17.4 million in new appropriations and $5.0
million in prior year funds). The conference report on the FY2003 appropriations bill
provided $17.8 million, making a “general reduction” of $3 million from the Houseand 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 California
Teachers’ Retirement Fund is to receive 9% of the sale proceeds after the costs of
sale have been deducted. The agreement between DOE and California provided for
five annual payments of $36.0 million beginning in FY1999, with the balance due to
be paid in equal installments in FY2004 and FY2005. The FY2003 budget request
included an advance appropriation of $36.0 million for the Elk Hills School Lands
CRS-49
Fund, to be paid at the start of FY2004.
appropriations law.
This was enacted in the FY2003
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 efficiency programs produce substantial benefits for the
Nation,” according to the Budget Appendix to the U.S. Government’s FY2003
Budget (Budget Appendix, p. 403). However, the Administration also stresses that
the FY2003 budget proposes changes that reflect findings of the National Energy
Policy Report and the President’s Management Agenda. Specifically, the request
states that the “Energy Efficiency [Office] will terminate projects that provide
insufficient public benefit, redirect activities to better provide public benefits, place
certain activities on a watch list to ensure they advance effectively, and expand
several programs that could achieve significantly increased benefits with additional
funding.” (DOE Budget Highlights, p. 103). Thus, DOE proposed to decrease
conservation funding under DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) from $912.8 million in FY2002 to $901.6 million in FY2003. See
Table 12.
Table 12. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation,
FY2002-FY2003
($ in millions)
DOE Energy
Conservation
FY2002
Approp.
FY2003
Request
FY2003
Senate
FY2003
House
FY2003
Approp.
Buildings
$380.3
$408.8
$367.0
$405.3
$366.1
Federal Energy Mgmt.
23.3
27.9
26.9
24.9
23.9
Industry
148.9
138.3
140.9
159.8
138.4
Power Technologies
63.8
63.9
65.2
79.7
70.7
Transportation
252.7
222.7
244.4
273.9
248.1
Policy and
Management
43.8
40.1
40.1
44.1a
42.1a
R&D Subtotal
637.8
585.7
614.3
687.6
619.6
Grants Subtotal
275.0
315.9
270.0
300.0
270.0
Gross Total
912.8
901.6
884.3
987.7
889.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.0
8.0b
912.8
901.6
884.3
984.7
$897.6
Adjustments/Other
Total Appropriations
a
Includes funds for a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
Includes $3.0 million for cooperative programs with states and $5.0 million for energy efficiency
science initiatives.
b
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 $71.9
CRS-50
million, or 8%, not accounting for inflation. Compared to the Administration’s
request, the House level would have increased funding by $83.0 million, or 9%. The
House level included $250.0 million for weatherization grants, $50.0 million for state
energy 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 the
107th Congress. Compared to the House-passed bill in the 107th Congress, the Senate
level was $100.4 million, or 10%, lower. This difference includes $73.3 million less
for R&D and $30.0 million less for grants, but did not include a $3.0 million
reduction 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 level
would cut would cut $4.0 million, or 0.4%. Compared to FY2002, the enacted level
cuts $15.2 million, or 2%, not accounting for inflation. This includes cuts of $5.0
million for weatherization grants and $18.2 million for R&D. Transportation R&D
falls 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 Petroleum
Industry Vision and $2.8 million for Combustion Systems. Power Technologies
increases 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 measuring
potential program success” through program reviews by the National Academy of
Sciences to help decide whether to expand or scale-back programs. The FY2003 law
allocates $500,000 for this purpose. Also, the House report directs that EERE adopt
a procurement practice to “allow full and open competition to occur, when
appropriate.” The report of the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed EERE
to “revise and restructure” the budget request documents for FY2004, noting that
they often lack a complete explanation of recommended funding changes. The
conference 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 Energy
Conservation 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 (name redacted).
CRS Report RS20852. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status
and Issues, by (name redacted).
CRS-51
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service.
For further information on the Indian Health Service 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 comprehensive medical and environmental health
services for approximately 1.5 million to 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska
Natives (AI/AN) who belong to over 560 federally recognized tribes located in 34
states. Health care is provided through a system of federal, tribal, and urban Indian
operated programs and facilities that serve as the major source of health care for
AI/AN. IHS provides direct health care services through 36 hospitals, 58 health
centers, 4 school health centers, and 44 health stations. Tribes and tribal groups,
under IHS contracts, operate another 13 hospitals, 161 health centers, 3 school health
centers, and 249 health stations, including 170 Alaska Native village clinics. IHS,
tribes, and tribal groups also operate 11 regional youth substance abuse treatment
centers and more than 2,200 units of staff quarters.
IHS funding is separated into two Indian health budget
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.