# Appropriations for FY2003: Interior and Related Agencies > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31306 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** March 15, 2003 - **Citation:** RL31306 ## 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 E-mail [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 India [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31306. Public record. Not legal advice.