Appropriations for FY2004: Interior and Related Agencies

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2004:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated June 10, 2004
Carol Hardy Vincent, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Susan Boren, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit
legislation, other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the
operation of programs and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to
constraints established in authorizing statutes. Congressional action on the budget
for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission of the President’s budget at
the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing the consideration
of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the Constitution, the
standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
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 Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior and Related Agencies.
It summarizes the status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS
staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropr i a t i o ns / a pppa g e . s ht m l ] .

Appropriations for FY2004:
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 for
some agencies or programs within three other departments — Agriculture, Energy,
and Health and Human Services. It also funds numerous smaller related agencies.
President Bush’s FY2004 budget for Interior and related agencies totaled $19.89
billion, $220.5 million (1%) less than enacted for FY2003 ($20.11 billion). On July
17, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2691 (268-152) containing a total of $19.60 billion
for Interior and related agencies for FY2004. On September 23, 2003, the Senate
passed its version of H.R. 2691 with a total of $20.01 billion. A conference report
was filed on October 28, 2003, and agreed to by the House (216-205) on October 30
and approved by the Senate (87-2) on November 3, 2003. The bill was signed into
law on November 10, 2003 (P.L. 108-108).
The final FY2004 appropriation provided $20.01 billion for the Department of
Interior and Related agencies, which reflected two across-the-board cuts: a 0.646%
cut in the Interior appropriations statute (P.L.108-108), and a 0.59% cut in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199).
The FY2004 enacted level is slightly less than enacted for FY2003 (less than 1%
lower). It is essentially the same as the amount approved by the Senate (less than 1%
higher), and higher than the House-passed total (2% higher) and the President’s
request (less than 1% higher). The appropriate levels of funding for wildland
firefighting and land acquisition were among the major issues debated. The FY2004
law contained $2.76 billion for wildland fire fighting by the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior, approximately 13% less than the total enacted for
FY2003. For land acquisition (and state assistance) by the four major federal land
management agencies, the law contained $263.4 million, 36% less than enacted for
FY2003.
Many controversial issues arose during consideration of the FY2004 Interior and
related agencies appropriations bill, and were addressed by conferees. The FY2004
law (1) continued the automatic renewal of expiring grazing permits and leases for
FY2004 — FY2008; (2) extended the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program; (3)
modified procedures for seeking judicial review of timber sales in Alaska, primarily
in the Tongass National Forest; (4) capped funds for competitive sourcing efforts of
agencies and required documentation on the initiative; and (5) led to a stay of a court
decision requiring an accounting of Indian trust funds and trust asset transactions
since 1887. The law dropped language barring funds from being used (1) to
implement changes to regulations of the Bureau of Land Management on Recordable
Disclaimers of Interest in Land, (2) for the Klamath Fishery Management Council,
and (3) for Outer Continental Shelf leasing activities in the North Aleutian Basin
planning area, which includes Bristol Bay, Alaska.

Key Policy Staff
^{Area of E}^x^pertis^e^N^am^e^CRS^a^Telepho^ne^E-^m^a^il
^Dⁱ^vi^sⁱ^on
^In^t^e^ri^{or Bu}^dg^et^C^a^rol^Hardy^Viⁿ^cen^t^RSI^7-⁸⁶⁵¹^ch^vⁱⁿ^cen^t@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Data/Co^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^to^r^s^an^{d Su}^s^aⁿ^B^o^ren^DSP^7-⁶⁸⁹⁹^s^boren^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^A^r^{t, Hu}^m^aⁿ^ities,^S^u^s^aⁿ^Boren^D^S^P^7-⁶⁸⁹⁹^s^boren^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Cu^ltu^r^a^{l A}^f^f^a^ir^{s an}^d
^Histo^r^{ic P}^r^eser^v^a^tioⁿ
^B^u^reau^of^L^aⁿ^d^C^a^rol^H^a^rdy^Vⁱⁿ^cen^t^R^S^I^7-⁸⁶⁵¹^ch^vⁱⁿ^cen^t^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt
^En^erg^y^C^oⁿ^s^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^F^{red S}ⁱ^s^sⁱⁿ^e^R^S^I⁷^-⁷⁰³⁹^f^sⁱ^s^sⁱⁿ^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Ev^erg^l^ades^R^e^s^t^oration^P^erv^{aze S}^h^eik^h^R^S^I⁷^-⁶⁰⁷⁰^ps^h^e^ik^h^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Fish^an^d^W^ild^lif^e^{M. L}^yⁿⁿ^e^C^o^rn^R^S^I⁷^-⁷²⁶⁷^l^c^orn^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Ser^v^ice
^F^o^res^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^R^os^s^{W. G}^o^rt^e^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁶⁶^rg^ort^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^F^o^s^sⁱ^l^En^erg^y^{Marc H}^u^m^p^h^rⁱ^e^s^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁶⁴^m^h^u^m^ph^ri^es^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^In^di^an^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^R^og^{er Wal}^k^e^D^S^P^7-⁸⁶⁴¹^rw^al^k^e^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^In^di^an^H^eal^t^h^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^D^onⁿ^a^V^o^g^t^D^S^P⁷^-⁷²⁸⁵^dv^og^t^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^In^s^u^l^a^{r A}^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^K^ei^t^h^Bea^G^&^F^7-⁸⁶⁷²^k^b^ea@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^L^aⁿ^d^A^c^qu^is^ition^J^ef^f^r^ey^Zⁱⁿⁿ^R^S^I⁷^-⁷²⁵⁷^j^zⁱⁿⁿ^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^Mⁱ^ne^r^a^l^s^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^{Marc H}^u^m^p^h^rⁱ^e^s^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁶⁴^m^h^u^m^ph^ri^es^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Ser^v^ice
^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Park^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^D^avⁱ^d^Whⁱ^t^e^m^aⁿ^R^S^I^7-⁷⁷⁸⁶^dw^hⁱ^t^e^m^aⁿ^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v
^Nav^a^l/Str^ateg^ic^R^obert^Bam^b^erg^e^r^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁴⁰^rbam^berg^er@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^Pe^t^r^ol^e^u^m^R^e^s^e^r^v^e
^Su^rf^{ace Min}ⁱⁿ^g^an^d^R^obert^Bam^b^erg^e^r^R^S^I^7-⁷²⁴⁰^rbam^berg^er@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov
^R^eclam^ation
^U.S^.^Geolog^{ical S}^u^rv^ey^P^e^rv^{aze S}^h^eik^h^R^S^I⁷^-⁶⁰⁷⁰^ps^h^e^ik^h^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v
^a Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance; RSI =
Resources, Science, and Industry.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
In troduction ......................................................1
FY2003 Regular and Supplemental Appropriations...................2
FY2004 Budget and Appropriations...............................3
Major Funding Trends..........................................5
Title I: Department of the Interior.....................................5
Bureau of Land Management.....................................5
Management of Lands and Resources..........................5
Wildland Fire Management..................................7
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT).....................8
Land Acquisition..........................................8
Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................10
Endangered Species Funding................................10
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement..........11
Land Acquisition.........................................12
Wildlife Refuge Fund.....................................12
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF)...............12
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.............................13
National Park Service.........................................14
Operation of the National Park System........................15
Construction and Maintenance..............................16
United States Park Police (USPP)............................16
National Recreation and Preservation.........................17
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR).................17
Land Acquisition and State Assistance........................17
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo)............17
Historic Preservation......................................18
U.S. Geological Survey........................................19
National Mapping Program.................................20
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes...................21
Water Resources Investigations..............................21
Biological Research.......................................21
Science Support and Facilities...............................22
Minerals Management Service...................................23
Budget and Appropriations.................................23
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore...............................23
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement..............24
Bureau of Indian Affairs.......................................26
BIA Reorganization.......................................27
BIA School System.......................................28
Departmental Offices..........................................29
National Indian Gaming Commission.........................29
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.................30
Insular Affairs...........................................33
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs..............................34

Forest Fires and Forest Health...............................35
State and Private Forestry..................................37
Infrastructure ............................................38
Land Acquisition.........................................38
Other Accounts..........................................38
Department of Energy.........................................39
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration........39
Strategic Petroleum Reserve................................40
Naval Petroleum Reserves..................................42
Energy Conservation......................................43
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ......46
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.......................49
Smithsonian Institution........................................50
Appropriations ...........................................50
Facilities Capital.........................................50
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI)..............50
Smithsonian Institution Center for Materials Research and Education
(SCMRE) ...........................................50
Trust Funds.............................................51
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities
.......................................................52
NEA ...................................................52
NEH ...................................................53
Office of Museum Services.................................53
Cross-Cutting Topics..............................................54
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) ..................54
Conservation Spending Category.................................56
Everglades Restoration........................................60
Overview of Appropriations................................61
FY2004 Appropriations to DOI..............................61
Transfer of Funds.........................................63
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades..........63
Other Issues.................................................64
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs.....................64
Klamath River Basin......................................66
“Bear Baiting”...........................................66
For Additional Reading............................................72
Title I: Department of the Interior................................72
Land Management Agencies Generally............................72
Title II: Related Agencies......................................73
Selected Websites................................................74
Title I: Department of the Interior ...............................74
Title II: Related Agencies......................................75
Departments .............................................75
Agencies ................................................75

Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004........................................4
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1999 to FY2003...5
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2003-FY2004......................9
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2003-FY2004.......11
Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System, FY2003-FY2004....12
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Migratory
Bird Fund, FY2003-FY2004....................................13
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2003-FY2004 .............................................14
Table 8. Appropriations for NPS, FY2003-FY2004......................15
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2003-FY2004 .............................................19
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2003-FY2004..22
Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2003-FY2004..26
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2003-FY2004..............................31
Table 13. Federal Wildland Fire Management Appropriations,
FY2000-FY2004 .............................................36
Table 14. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2003-FY2004...43
Table 15. Appropriations for IHS, FY2003-FY2004.....................48
Table 16. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2003-FY2004.........51
Table 17. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2003-FY2004................53
Table 18. LWCF Funding for Federal Land Acquisition and State Grants,
FY2001-FY2004 .............................................55
Table 19. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations,
FY2001-FY2004 .............................................58
Table 20. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2003-FY2004 .............................................62
Table 21. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2003-FY2004 .............................................68
Table 22. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2000 to FY2003.........70

Appropriations for FY2004:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
H.R. 2691, the FY2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, was
enacted into law on November 10, 2003 (P.L. 108-108). The conference report had
passed the House narrowly (216-205) on October 30, 2003, and was approved by the
Senate (87-2) on November 3, 2003.
On January 23, 2004, the President signed H.R. 2673, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199). This act contains an across-the-board
cut of 0.59% for Interior and related agencies, as well as most other FY2004
appropriations laws. The FY2004 enacted numbers in this report reflect this cut.
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.
In this report, the term “appropriations” generally represents total funds
available, including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as
rescissions, transfers, and deferrals, but excludes permanent budget authorities.
Increases and decreases generally are calculated on comparisons between the funding
levels appropriated for FY2003 and requested by the President or recommended by
Congress for FY2004.

FY2003 Regular and Supplemental Appropriations
For FY2003, Congress enacted (P.L.108-7) which appropriated $18.96 billion
for Interior and related agencies, plus $825.0 million for wildland fire fighting efforts
in FY2002, for a total of $19.79 billion. Congress subsequently enacted P.L. 108-83
containing an additional $324.0 million in FY2003 emergency funding, consisting
of: $5.0 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service for Resource Management, $36.0
million for the Bureau of Land Management for wildland firefighting, and $283.0
million for the Forest Service for wildland firefighting. With the emergency funding,
the FY2003 total was $20.11 billion.
On July 7, 2003, the Administration requested emergency FY2003 supplemental
funding that included $289.0 million for firefighting efforts. The request consisted
of $253.0 million for the Forest Service, and $36.0 million for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for fighting fires on lands of the Department of the Interior
(DOI). The President stated that the monies were needed to ensure sufficient funding
for the 2003 fire season, as large portions of the West are at risk of catastrophic fire
this summer. The money was intended for fire suppression and emergency
rehabilitation activities. The President stated that with the supplemental money,
funding for wildland fire suppression would be at the 10-year average.
On July 11, 2003, the Senate passed H.R. 2657 containing the requested level
($289.0 million) of supplemental funding for wildfires. The Senate also adopted an
amendment adding another $25.0 million to remove dead trees in forests devastated
by insects, which could exacerbate fire threats. On July 21, 2003, the House
Committee on Appropriations ordered reported a draft measure containing $319.0
million in FY2003 supplemental funds for fire fighting, reflecting a $30.0 million
increase over the President’s request. However, the House passed H.R. 2859 on July
25, 2003, without supplemental funds for wildland fire fighting. On July 31 the
Senate passed the bill without amendment, clearing it for action by the President. The
law (P.L.108-69) did not contain supplemental funds for wildland fire fighting.
Congress subsequently included FY2003 emergency supplemental funding for
wildfire fighting in the FY2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. As enacted,
P.L. 108-83 contained $319.0 million for wildland firefighting efforts in FY2003,
comprised of $36.0 million for the Bureau of Land Management and $283.0 million
for the Forest Service, plus $5.0 million for Resource Management of the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The Senate-passed version of the FY2004 Interior and related agencies
appropriations bill, H.R. 2691, contained an additional $400.0 million in emergency
funding for wildfire fighting, comprised of $75.0 million for the BLM and $325.0
million for the Forest Service. The President subsequently submitted a $400.0
million supplemental request for fire funding, consisting of $99.0 million for BLM
and $301.0 million for the Forest Service. While the House-passed bill did not
contain emergency monies, the House conferees were instructed to support the Senate
funding level in conference. The FY2004 law contained $98.4 million in emergency
funding for BLM firefighting efforts, and $299.2 million for the Forest Service, for
a total of $397.6 million in emergency funds. The money was appropriated to replace
funds borrowed from other accounts for wildland fire fighting.

FY2004 Budget and Appropriations
President Bush’s FY2004 budget for Interior and related agencies totaled $19.89
billion. On July 10, 2003, the House Committee on Appropriations reported a bill
(H.R. 2691, H.Rept. 108-195) for Interior and related agencies containing a total of
$19.60 billion for FY2004. On the same date, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations reported a companion bill (S. 1391, S.Rept. 108-89) containing
$19.61 billion for FY2004.
On July 17, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2691 (268-152) containing a total of
$19.60 billion for Interior and related agencies for FY2004. On September 23, 2003,
the Senate passed its version with $19.61 billion, plus $400.0 million in emergency
funding for wildland fire management to repay transfers from other accounts for fire
fighting efforts in FY2003, for a bill total of $20.01 billion. With the additional fire
funds, the Senate total was $411.2 million more than passed by the House and $121.3
million more than requested by the Administration. However, the Senate-passed
level for FY2004 was $99.2 million less than the total appropriated for FY2003,
including the emergency supplemental in P.L.108-83.
Following passage of the bill, the Senate appointed conferees on H.R. 2691 on
September 23, 2003. The House subsequently appointed its conferees on October 1.
Before appointing its conferees, the House agreed to a motion to instruct its conferees
to support the additional $400.0 million in emergency firefighting funds included in
the Senate-passed version of the bill. On October 27, 2003, a brief formal conference
committee meeting was held. A conference report (H.Rept. 108-330) was filed on
October 28, 2003, and narrowly passed the House (216-205) on October 30 and was
approved by the Senate (87-2) on November 3. The narrow passage in the House has
been attributed to the inclusion in the bill of a provision that led to a stay — a
temporary suspension — of a court decision requiring an exhaustive, expensive
accounting of Indian trust lands and trust asset transactions since 1887.
The President signed H.R. 2691 into law on November 10, 2003, as P.L. 108-

108. From the start of FY2004 on October 1, 2003 until the enactment of the bill,

Interior and related agencies were funded under the provisions of a continuing
resolution.
The FY2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act contained
$20.01 billion for FY2004, which reflected an across-the-board cut in the law of

0.646%. This figure, and figures throughout this report, reflect an additional across-

the-board cut of 0.59%, which was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2004 (P.L. 108-199). This across-the-board cut also applies to most other FY2004
appropriations laws.
The FY2004 enacted level was slightly less than enacted for FY2003 (less than
1% lower). See Table 21 below for a comparison of FY2003-FY2004 Interior
Appropriations. The FY2004 level was essentially the same as the amount approved
by the Senate (less than 1% higher), and higher than the House-passed total (2%
higher) and the President’s request (less than 1% higher). The appropriate levels of
funding for wildland firefighting and land acquisition were among the major issues
debated. The FY2004 law contained $2.76 billion for wildland fire fighting by the

Forest Service and the Department of the Interior, approximately 13% less than the
total enacted for FY2003. This figure includes an additional $49.7 million provided
for Forest Service wildland firefighting ion P.L.108-199. (For further information,
see “Bureau of Land Management” and “Forest Service” sections below.) For land
acquisition (and state assistance) by the four major federal land management
agencies, the FY2004 law contained $263.4 million, 36% less than enacted for
FY2003. (For further information, see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” and “Conservation Spending Category” sections below.)
Many controversial issues arose during consideration of the FY2004 Interior and
related agencies appropriations bill, and were addressed by conferees. The FY2004
law (1) continued the automatic renewal of expiring grazing permits and leases for
FY2004 — FY2008 (see “Bureau of Land Management” section below); (2)
extended the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (see “National Park Service”
section below); (3) modified procedures for seeking judicial review of timber sales
in Alaska, primarily in the Tongass National Forest (see “Forest Service” section
below); (4) capped funds for competitive sourcing efforts of agencies and required
documentation on the initiative (see the “Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs”
section below); and (5) led to a stay of a court decision requiring an accounting of
Indian trust funds and trust asset transactions since 1887 (see Litigation in the
“Office of Special Trustee for American Indians” section below ).
The FY2004 law dropped language barring funds from being used (1) to
implement changes to BLM regulations on Recordable Disclaimers of Interest in
Land, (see “Bureau of Land Management” section below) (2) for the Klamath Fishery
Management Council (see “Klamath River Basin” section below), and (3) for Outer
Continental Shelf leasing activities in the North Aleutian Basin planning area, which
includes Bristol Bay, Alaska (see “Minerals Management Service” section below).
Table 1 below contains information on congressional consideration of the
FY2004 Interior appropriations bill.
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2004
Subcom m i t t e e Conf erence
MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.Report ApprovalPublic
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t LawH ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
7/10/03 7/10/03 9/23/03 10/30/03
(H.Rept. 7/17/03 (S.Rept. (Unan. (216- 11/03/03 11/10/03

6/18/03 7/9/03 108-195) (268-152) 108-89) Consent) 10/28/03 205) (87-2) 108-108

Major Funding Trends
During the ten-year period from FY1994 to FY2003, Interior and related
agencies appropriations increased by 50% in current dollars, from $13.39 billion to
$20.11 billion including supplemental funds for FY2003. The change in constant
FY2003 dollars is an increase of 21%. 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 $13.39 billion to $13.79
billion, but decreased by 7% in constant dollars. By contrast, during the most recent
five years, from FY1999 to FY2003, funding increased by 41% in current dollars,
from $14.30 billion to $20.11 billion, or 27% in constant dollars. See Table 2 below.
The single biggest increase during the decade occurred from FY2000 to FY2001,
when the total appropriation rose 27% in current dollars, from $14.91 billion to
$18.89 billion, or 23% in constant dollars. Much of the increase was provided to
land management agencies for land conservation and wildland fire management. See
Table 22 below for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau, and program from
FY2000 to FY2003.
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1999
to FY2003
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
F Y 1999 F Y 2000 F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2003
$14.3 $14.9 $18.9 $19.2 $20.11
^No^te:^T^h^{ese f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ex^clu^d^e^p^e^r^m^an^en^{t b}^u^d^g^{et au}^th^o^r^{ities, an}^d^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly^d^oⁿ^o^{t r}^e^f^l^{ect sco}^r^ek^eepⁱⁿ^g
^a^d^j^u^stm^e^nts.^Ho^w^e^ve^r^,^the^y^r^e^fle^c^t^r^e^sc^issioⁿ^s.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 261.5 million acres of public
land for diverse, and, at times, conflicting uses, such as energy and minerals
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.
The FY2004 appropriations law contained $1.79 billion for the BLM, less
($84.7 million, or 5%) than the FY2003 level ($1.88 billion). The enacted level is
roughly the same as that passed by the Senate and requested by the Administration,
while significantly higher than the House-passed amount. See Table 3 below.
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, the FY2004 law provided $839.8 million, a $19.5 million (2%) increase
over FY2003, when $820.3 million was appropriated. The enacted level was also

an increase over the President’s request and the House-passed level but a decrease
from the Senate-passed amount. This line item funds an array of BLM land
programs, including protection, recreational use, improvement, development,
disposal, and general BLM administration.
Some of the increase for FY2004 is targeted for realty and ownership
management as well as recreation management. For realty and ownership
management, the FY2004 law provided $93.2 million, a $4.6 million (5%) increase
over FY2003 ($88.6 million). While the Administration and House had sought to
reduce funds for this program ($80.9 million), the Senate had sought more funds
($101.9 million) primarily to expedite the processing of native allotment applications
and land selections under the Alaska Statehood Act. For managing recreation on
BLM lands, the FY2004 law contained $66.4 million, a $6.5 million (11%) increase
over FY2003 ($59.8 million). The Administration, House, and Senate had sought
increases. The House Appropriations Committee charged the BLM to report on
efforts to develop a unified strategy for recreation management, asserted that BLM
and the Forest Service should take measures to provide adequate public access for
recreation, and directed the agencies to submit a strategy for developing recreational
access plans for individual forests and public land units.
The FY2004 appropriation law provided $80.3 million for transportation and
facilities maintenance, which funds annual and deferred maintenance and
infrastructure improvement. This was a reduction ($2.4 million, or 3%) from
FY2003 ($82.8 million). The Administration, House, and Senate had sought to
reduce funding.
Energy and Minerals. The FY2004 appropriations law provided $110.0
million for the energy and minerals program, including Alaska minerals, an increase
over FY2003 and the President’s request. Both the House and Senate had
recommended increases over FY2003, with processing of energy permits a focus.
The House sought an increase to address the backlog in processing permits for
development of coalbed methane. In report language, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations expressed concern with the backlog in processing oil and gas permits,
and suggested that the BLM Director establish a pilot program in 5 states to eliminate
the backlog and create a best practices program for permitting on federal lands. In the
joint explanatory statement, the conferees modified the Senate report language to
make the pilot program optional, on the grounds that BLM has made progress in
addressing the backlog of oil and gas permits.
The FY2004 law continued to bar funds included 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. The law also continued the moratorium on accepting and
processing applications for patents for mining and mill site claims on federal lands.
However, applications meeting certain requirements that were filed on or before
September 30, 1994, would be allowed to proceed, and third party contractors would
be authorized to process the mineral examinations on those applications.
Disclaimers of Interest. The FY2004 law did not include House-passed
language with regard to disclaimers of interest, whereby the United States declares

that it has no property interest in a parcel of land. A House floor amendment had
originally sought to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement revised
DOI regulations on disclaimers, which allow states, state political subdivisions, and
others to apply for disclaimers regardless of whether they are the property owners of
record. The House instead adopted a revision limiting the application of the
amendment to certain lands — national monuments, wilderness and wilderness study
areas, park units, and national wildlife refuges. Opponents of the new regulation
feared that it will be used to confirm “RS2477" highway rights of way, despite
provisions of law barring new rules pertaining to recognition or validity of such
rights of way unless authorized by Congress. Supporters welcomed the new
regulations as a way to resolve ownership of property, including private property
interests, thus allowing the potential for development.
Grazing and Wild Horses and Burros Issues. The FY2004 law kept
Senate language to continue the automatic renewal of grazing permits and leases that
expire, are transferred, or waived during FY2004-FY2008 and that were issued by
the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture. The automatic renewal
would continue 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. The Secretaries are to report annually on the
extent to which they are completing required analyses before permits expire, and
biennially on recommendations for ensuring the timely completion of permit
renewals. The language also accorded the Secretaries discretion to determine the
priority and timing for completing the environmental analysis of grazing allotments.
The House bill had a similar provision, but was limited to permits and leases expiring
in FY2004.
In its report, the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed “frustration”
with the “escalating problems” in the Wild Horse and Burro Program. The
Committee asked BLM to provide the results of a program audit and to prepare a cost
analysis of alternatives to adoption for reducing animals on the range.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2004,
the FY2004 appropriations law contained $783.6 million, a significant reduction
($91.6 million, or 10%) from the FY2003 enacted level ($875.2 million). The major
difference is with regard to the amount of funds provided to replace money borrowed
from other accounts for fire fighting during the previous fiscal year. During FY2003,
$189.0 million was appropriated to the BLM to repay advances from other accounts
for fire fighting during the prior year,¹ whereas the FY2004 law contained $98.4
million for this purpose. The FY2004 law provided a substantial increase over the
House-passed amount ($698.7 million), a slight increase over the Senate-passed level
($773.7 million), and a slight decrease from the Administration’s request ($797.7
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

¹ P.L.108-83 contained an additional $36.0 million in FY2003 appropriations to repay
advances from other accounts.

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 which can contribute to catastrophic fires, among other provisions. (For more
information, see the “Forest Service” section below.)
In earlier action, the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern that
funding may not achieve the level of readiness needed for public safety, and directed
DOI to analyze readiness levels. The Senate Committee on Appropriations cited
deteriorating forest health as an underlying cause of wildland fire and encouraged
BLM to implement Stewardship Contracting as quickly as possible and to report on
its progress. Both the House and Senate had supported the President’s request of
$186.2 million for hazardous fuels reduction, including the wildland-urban interface.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). The PILT program
compensates local governments for federal land within their jurisdictions because
federally-owned land is not taxed. The PILT program has been controversial because
in recent years appropriations have been substantially less than authorized amounts.
For FY2004, the Administration proposed to shift the program from the BLM budget
to Departmental Management in DOI because PILT payments are made for lands of
the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest Service, and certain
other federal lands, in addition to BLM lands. The FY2004 law reflected the move
to Departmental Management, and funded the program at $224.7 million, an increase
over the President’s request ($200.0 million) and FY2003 ($218.6 million). This
level would fund the program at approximately 65-70% of the level authorized in the
complex PILT formula. In proposing a reduction, the Administration expressed an
intent to examine the PILT distribution formula to determine if changes would
achieve a distribution of payments to local governments that would, in their view, be
more equitable.
Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition, the FY2004 law appropriated
$18.4 million, most of which was earmarked for 12 acquisitions. This is a $14.9
million (45%) reduction from FY2003 ($33.2 million). The Administration, House,
and Senate, had sought to reduce funding for land acquisition, with the House
seeking the largest cut. In its report, the House Appropriations Committee had
expressed concern about “the unfocused direction” in the land acquisition program
of the agencies, and had directed the Secretaries of DOI and Agriculture to develop
a plan outlining the acreage goals and conservation objectives of federal land
acquisition (H.Rept. 108-195, p. 10). It sought alternatives to fee title land
purchases, such as land exchanges and purchase of conservation easements, which
often are less expensive approaches. Money for land acquisition is appropriated from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section below.)

Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
Bureau of LandFY2003FY2004FY2004HouseFY2004SenateFY2004
Management Approp. Request P assed P assed Approp.
Management of Lands and$820.3$828.1$834.1$847.1$839.8
Resources
Wildland Fire Management 875.2^c797.7^d698.7773.7^e783.6^f
Central Hazardous Materials9.910.010.010.09.9
Fund
Construction 11.9 11.0 11.0 12.5 13.8
Payments in Lieu of Taxes ^a[218.6][200.0][225.0][230.0][224.7]
Land Acquisition 33.223.714.025.618.4
Oregon and California Grant104.9106.7106.7106.7105.4
Lands
Range Improvements10.010.010.010.010.0
Service Charges, Deposits,^b00000
and Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Trust Funds 12.412.412.412.412.4
Total Appropriations ^a1,878^c1,800^d1,6971,798 ^e1,793^f
^No^tes: ^a^Fuⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r th}^{e P}^I^L^T^prog^ram^{are n}^o^t^ref^l^ectedⁱⁿ^colu^mⁿ^totals^becau^s^e^th^{e prog}^ram^h^a^s^been
^t^r^an^s^f^{erred ou}^t^of^BL^{M t}^o^D^O^I^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^al^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^.^b
^T^h^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^of^“⁰^"^{are a res}^u^{lt of}^an^{appropriation}^m^a^tch^e^{d by}^of^f^s^ettin^g^f^ees^.^c
^In^clu^d^es^$189.0^m^illion^{to replace m}^oⁿⁱ^es^borrow^e^{d f}^r^om^oth^e^{r accou}ⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^{FY2002 f}^o^r^fⁱ^re^fⁱ^g^h^tin^g
^an^{d a $36.0 m}^illion^s^u^pplem^en^{tal appropriation}^.^d
^In^clu^d^es^{$99.0 m}^illi^oⁿⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^{tal em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^s^{to replace m}^oⁿⁱ^es^borrow^e^{d f}^r^om^oth^e^r
^accouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2003 f}^o^{r f}ⁱ^{re f}ⁱ^g^h^tin^g^.^e
^In^clu^d^es^{$75.0 m}^illion^{to replace m}^oⁿⁱ^es^borrow^e^{d f}^r^om^oth^e^{r accou}ⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^{FY2003 f}^o^{r f}ⁱ^{re f}ⁱ^g^h^tin^g^.^f
^In^clu^d^es^{$98.4 m}^illion^{to replace}^m^oⁿⁱ^es^borrow^e^{d f}^r^om^oth^e^{r accou}ⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^FY2003^f^o^r^fⁱ^re^fⁱ^g^h^tin^g^.
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its website at
[ http://www.doi.gov] .
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index .htm].
CRS Report RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,” and RS2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RS21634. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Consideration of Changes
by the Bureau of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2004, the Administration requested $1.29 billion for the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), a 3% increase over FY2003. The House approved $1.30
billion, and the Senate, $1.34 billion. The conference approved $1.31 billion, a 5%
increase, and this funding level was enacted into law for FY2004.
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources
Management account. The President’s FY2004 request was $941.5 million. The
FY2003 appropriation was $911.5 million plus a $5.0 million emergency
supplemental appropriation. The House approved $959.9 million, while the Senate’s
figure was $942.2 million. Counting subsequent recisions, the FY2004 level was
$956.5 million, a 4% increase. Included in Resources Management are the
Endangered Species Program, the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement, among
other things.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. For
FY2004, the Administration proposed to reduce the program from $131.8 million to
$128.7 million. See Table 4 below. The House approved $134.5 million, and the
Senate approved $135.2 million. The final appropriations was $137.0 million, a 4%
increase, and this level was enacted into law.
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
increase from $80.5 million to $86.6 million under the President’s request. Congress
enacted $81.6 million, a 1% increase. The Landowner Incentive Program would
increase from a minus $260,000 (due to a net decrease resulting from a $40.0 million
rescission of FY2002 funds in the FY2003 law) to $40.0 million under the
President’s proposal. The House and Senate initially approved $40.0 million, but the
FY2004 enacted level was $29.6 million. Stewardship Grants would increase from
a minus $65,000 (due to a rescission of $10.0 million in FY2002 funds in the FY2003
law) to $10.0 million under the President’s proposal, which was likewise approved
by the House and Senate.² The FY2004 enacted level was $7.4 million.
Under the President’s request, overall FY2004 funding for the endangered
species program and related programs would increase from FY2003 by $53.4 million

² The rescissions resulted from criticism of the amount of time it took to issue regulations
for these two new programs. The extent to which this interval was substantially longer than
that for other new programs is unclear, however. There was also a concern that the two
programs may overlap existing programs.

(25%), largely due to increases in related programs rather than in the endangered
species program itself. However, this increase primarily reflects the FY2003
rescission of prior year funding. The conference approved $255.6 million, an overall
increase of 21% — less than either body approved separately and less than the
President’s request for this package of programs. This level was enacted into law.
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2004House F Y 2004Senat e FinalF Y 2004
Approp. Re que s t P assed P assed Approp.
Endangered Species Program
Candidate Conservation$9,867$8,670$9,920$10,130$9,808
Listing 9,018 12,286 12,286 12,286 12,135
Consultation 47,459 45,734 47,734 46,034 47,146
Recove ry 65,412 62,029 64,529 66,739 67,907
Subtotal 131,756 128,719 134,469 135,189 136,996
Related Programs
Cooperative Endangered80,47386,61486,61486,61481,596
Species Conservation Fund
Landowner Incentive Program-26040,00040,00040,00029,630
Stewardship Grants-6510,00010,00010,0007,408
Total 211,904 265,333 271,083 271,803 255,630
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement. On March
14, 2003, the nation observed the centennial of the creation by President Theodore
Roosevelt of the first National Wildlife Refuge on Pelican Island in Florida.
Accordingly, Congress appropriated funding in FY2003 for various renovations,
improvements, and activities to celebrate the event; it included all of this funding
under operations and maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).
For operations and maintenance, the President proposed a decrease of 9% for
FY2004 while the House approved an increase of 8%, and the Senate supported a 5%
increase. The final FY2004 level was $391.5 million, a 7% increase. For
infrastructure improvements in the system, the Administration requested $53.4
million but the House, the Senate, and the conference rejected the proposal.
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. See Table 5 below.

Table 5. Funding for National Wildlife Refuge System,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
Refuge ProgramFY2003FY2004FY2004FY2004FY2004
Approp. Re que s t House Senat e Approp.
PassedPassed
Operations and$367.4$334.7$397.3$387.0$391.5
Maintenance
Cooperative 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Conservation Initiative
Infrastructure 0.0 53.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Improvement
Youth Conservation0.02.00.0[2.0][2.0]
Corps (YCC)
Total 367.4 402.0 397.3 387.0 391.5
^Note:^Fuⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r th}^{e YC}^C^con^t^ain^e^{d in}^brack^ets^{are in}^clu^d^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^e^t^o^t^a^l^{for operation}^s^an^d
^m^aⁱⁿ^ten^aⁿ^ce.
The President proposed $52.7 million for Law Enforcement — up $1.1 million
from FY2003 ($51.6 million). The House approved a larger increase, to $54.4
million. The Senate-passed bill contained $53.4 million, and the final FY2004 level
was $53.7 million.
Land Acquisition. For FY2004, the Administration proposed $40.7 million,
a 44% decrease from the FY2003 level of $72.9 million. The FY2004 level was
$43.1 million, a 41% cut. The bulk of this program has been for acquisition of
federal refuge land, but a portion is used for closely related functions such as
acquisition management, land exchanges, and emergency acquisitions. In FY2003,
24% of Land Acquisition funding was allocated to these related functions; the
FY2004 request would have allocated 39% to them. These related functions
constituted 31% of the enacted appropriation; the remainder was for direct land
acquisition. (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” section below.)
Wildlife Refuge Fund. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates counties for the presence of the non-
taxable 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 FY2004, up slightly from FY2003, and
the FY2004 enacted level was $14.2 million. When combined with the estimated
receipts, this appropriation level would cover 49% of the authorized full payment.
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 again proposes to move funding for the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. For FY2004, the
President proposed $7.0 million for the MSCF (including the proposed addition of
the NMBCF within this program). Congress rejected the proposed transfer in
FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004. The FY2004 enacted level for the MSCF represents
a 16% increase over the previous year. See Table 6 below.
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
Multinational SpeciesFY2003FY2004 FY2004HouseFY2004SenateFY2004
Conservation FundApprop.RequestPassedPassedApprop.
African elephant$1,192$1,000$1,200$1,500$1,383
Tiger and Rhinos1,1921,0001,4001,5001,383
Asian elephant1,1921,0001,2001,5001,383
Great Apes1,1921,0001,2001,5001,383
Neotropical Migratory^a[2,981][3,000][5000][3000][3,951]
Birds
Total 4,768 4,000 5,000 6,000 5,532
^No^te:^a^T^hⁱ^s^prog^ram^w^a^s^fⁱ^rs^t^au^t^h^ori^{zed i}ⁿ^F^Y²⁰⁰²^,^aⁿ^dⁱ^sⁿ^o^t^part^of^t^h^{e MS}^C^F^{, al}^t^h^o^{ugh t}^h^e
^tran^s^f^{er w}^a^s^propos^{ed in}^th^{e P}^r^es^iden^t’^s^bu^dg^ets^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2002, F}^Y^{2003, an}^{d F}^Y^{2004. Becau}^s^e
^Coⁿ^g^r^{ess h}^a^{s r}^e^j^ected^th^{e tr}^an^sf^er^th^r^{ee tim}^{es, th}^{e p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^{is n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e co}^lu^mⁿ^to^tals.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
program helps fund efforts to conserve species (including non-game species) of
concern to states and tribes. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior
appropriations law (P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior
appropriations bills. It lacks any other authorizing statute. Funds may be used to
develop conservation plans as well as support specific practical conservation
projects. As of FY2002, a portion of the funding is set aside for competitive grants
to tribal governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining state portion is for
matching grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined on a formula basis. The
President proposed a 7% decrease, but the enacted level was $69.1 million, a 7%
increase. See Table 7 below.

Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
State and TribalFY2003FY2004FY2004FY2004FY2004
Wildlife GrantsApprop.RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Tribal Grants$5.0$5.0$6.0$5.0$5.9
State Grants57.853.266.770.063.2
Admi nistration 1.8 1.8 2.3 NA NA
Total 64.660.075.075.069.1
^No^tes:^T^h^{e Ho}^u^s^{e p}^r^o^p^o^s^e^d^t^h^{at FW}^{S b}^e^lim^ited^to³^%^o^f^th^{e to}^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^f^o^r^u^s^{e in}
^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e ex}^pen^s^es^{. T}^h^{at f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e is}ⁱⁿ^{dicated h}^e^re.
^NAⁱⁿ^dicates^th^{at th}^{ere w}^a^sⁿ^o^s^p^ecifⁱ^{c am}^ouⁿ^t^a^llo^cated^to^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^r^a^tioⁿ^o^f^th^{is p}^r^o^g^r^a^mⁱⁿ^th^e
^Sen^a^{te b}^{ill, o}^rⁱⁿ^th^{e co}ⁿ^f^er^en^{ce ag}^r^eem^en^{t. Ho}^w^e^v^e^r^,^th^e^c^oⁿ^f^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^ag^r^eem^en^{t r}^e^q^u^ir^ed^th^{at th}^e
^admⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e cos}^t^s^{be dedu}^{cted f}^r^om^th^e^{state, r}^a^th^er^th^an^th^{e tr}^ib^{al allo}^catioⁿ^.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at
[ http://www.fws.gov/] .
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by Eugene H.
Buck and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System,
currently comprising 388 separate and diverse units with more than 84 million acres.
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 park
system uses some 20 types of designations, including national park, to classify sites,
and visits to these areas total close to 280 million annually. The NPS also supports
land conservation outside the park system.
The FY2004 enacted level is $2.26 billion for the NPS. This is $19.2 million
above the FY2003 enacted level ($2.24 billion), but $103.3 million below the
President’s request ($2.36 billion). The Senate-passed bill contained $2.32 billion
and the House-passed bill provided $2.24 billion. See Table 8 below.
Some amendments affecting the NPS were rejected on the floor. The House
narrowly defeated (on a tie vote) an amendment that sought generally to prohibit use
of funding to manage recreational snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks, and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway which links
them. The amendment would have resulted in the phase-out of snowmobile use in

these park units, as provided for in a controversial Clinton Administration rule. (For
more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10093, National Park Management and
Recreation, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.) The House also rejected an
amendment to ban the use of funds to kill bison straying from Yellowstone National
Park.
The FY2004 appropriations law contained language not directly tied to specific
funding accounts. It modified House language on the Administration’s competitive
sourcing initiative by capping study expenditures by agencies, and established
rigorous reporting requirements. (For more information, see the “Competitive
Sourcing of Government Jobs” section below.) The law retained Senate language to
limit displays of commercial sponsorship on the National Mall. It also replaced a
House provision calling for a study of a controversial land exchange proposal
involving Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians with the text of H.R. 1409, that accomplishes the exchange despite NPS
concerns of unequal values. Further, the law retained the Senate recommendation
designating Congaree Swamp National Monument (SC) as Congaree National Park.
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. For FY2004, the law provided $1.61 billion for NPS operations.
This was $22.3 million below the Administration’s request, and $45.3 million more
than the FY2003 level. The report of the House Committee on Appropriations
contained strong language regarding the “erosion” of NPS operating funds by the
absorption of unbudgeted costs associated with management initiatives, including
competitive sourcing, financial management reform, and other activities. The
Committee urged the Administration to submit more realistic FY2005 budget
justifications that factor in the true costs of fixed cost increases and management
initiatives. Further, park advocacy groups estimate that the national parks operate,
on average, with two-thirds of needed funding.
Table 8. Appropriations for NPS, FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
F Y 2004 F Y 2004 F Y 2004
National Park Service FY2003Approp.FY2004RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Operation of the National Park System$1,564.3$1,631.9$1,630.9$1,636.3$1,609.6
U.S. Park Police77.978.978.978.377.9
National Recreation and Preservation 61.347.954.960.261.8
Urban Park and Recreation Fund0.30.30.30.30.3
Historic Preservation Fund68.667.071.075.873.6
Construction 325.7 327.3 303.2 342.1 329.9
Land and Water Conservation Fund^a-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance

F Y 2004 F Y 2004 F Y 2004
National Park Service FY2003Approp.FY2004RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Assistance to States97.4160.097.5104.093.8
NPS Acquisition74.078.633.754.541.8
Total 171.3238.6131.2158.5135.6
Total Appropriations2,239.42,361.92,240.32,321.52,258.6
^No^te:^a^Fig^u^r^es^ref^l^{ect a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^con^t^{ract au}^th^ority^.
Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds the
construction, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. The FY2004 law
provided $329.9 million for NPS Construction, $2.6 million more than the
Administration’s request ($327.3 million) and $4.2 million more than the FY2003
appropriation ($325.7 million). The Senate-passed bill approved $342.1 million and
the House had allowed $303.2 million. The FY2004 law provided $559.2 million for
FY2004 for facility operation and maintenance (an activity funded within the
Operation of the National Park System line item), $10.5 million less than the
Administration requested ($569.7 million) and $39.2 million more the FY2003
appropriation ($520.0 million). The House had approved $569.2 million and the
Senate had provided $567.3 million.
Combined, the Administration requested $897.0 million for construction and
facility operation and maintenance, an increase of $51.3 million from FY2003
($845.7 million). Of this total, the Administration stated that $705.8 million is
applicable to construction and annual and deferred maintenance projects in FY2004,
implying that $191.2 million is for facility operations. The House approved a
similarly-combined total of $872.4 million, while the Senate approved $909.4
million. The FY2004 law included a combined total of $889.1 million, or $43.4³
million above the FY2003 amount. How to reduce the maintenance backlog for the
NPS, estimated at $5.4 billion according to DOI, has been controversial and a stated
priority of the Administration and some Members of Congress. (For information on
the maintenance backlog, see CRS Issue Brief IB10093, National Park Management
and Recreation, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
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. For FY2004, the law provided
$77.9 million for the USPP, the same as for FY2003. The conference agreement was
critical of USPP’s failure to implement recommendations made in a 2001 report by
the National Academy of Public Administration to address problems of budget
accountability, management issues, and overtime. Administration priorities for
FY2004 focus on border park security problems.

³ None of the sources separate facility operation from facility maintenance.

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 FY2004
request of $47.9 million was significantly less than FY2003 funding ($61.3 million).
The House-passed bill allowed $54.9 million, including $13.9 million for heritage
partnerships and $6.5 million for statutory and contractual aid. The Senate-passed
bill provided $60.2 million, with $13.6 million for heritage partnerships and $9.9
million for statutory and contractual aid. The FY2004 law contained $61.8 million,
with $14.3 million for heritage areas and $12.8 million for statutory and contractual
aid.
The FY2004 law established the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area (NC) and
funded the area with $0.5 million. It also directed the NPS to conduct a heritage area
study for Muscle Shoals, AL, using available funds. Study legislation was approved^th
by the 107 Congress (P.L. 107-348), but no funds had been appropriated.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This matching grant
program, long popular with Congress, was designed to help low-income inner city
neighborhoods rehabilitate existing recreational facilities. Funding for new program
grants was problematic until the Conservation Spending Category (CSC) was created
in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act, with $30.0 million for UPARR. The
President did not request funds for UPARR in FY2002, but Congress funded the
program at $30.0 million. No funding was requested for FY2003. Although the
House approved $30.0 million and the Senate supported $10.0 million, the conferees
ultimately provided only $298,000 for program administrative costs in FY2003. For
FY2004, the Administration, House, and Senate agreed on $305,000 to administer
previously awarded grants, but not to provide money for a new round of grants. The
FY2004 law provided $301,000 for program administration.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. The FY2004 law provided a
total of $135.6 million, with $41.8 million for federal land acquisition and $93.8
million for state assistance. The total was $103.0 million less than the
Administration’s request ($238.6 million) and $35.7 million less than the FY2003
enacted level ($171.3 million). The House-passed bill contained $131.2 million, and
the Senate $158.5 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 for park land acquisition and recreation planning and
development by the states. State-side appropriated funds are allocated to states
through a formula, with the states determining their internal spending priorities.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo). Under this
trial program, the four major federal land management agencies are authorized to
retain and spend receipts from entrance and user fees. The receipts are available
without further appropriation for projects at the collecting sites that reduce the
backlog of deferred maintenance and enhance visitor experience. A portion of fee
receipts is distributed to other agency sites. The NPS estimates Fee Demo receipts
of $141.9 million for FY2004.
The FY2004 law extended Fee Demo for 15 months — through December 2005
for fee collection, and 1 year — through FY2008, for fee expenditures. While the

Senate-passed bill did not have a Fee Demo provision, the House-passed bill would
have extended Fee Demo for two years. The extension is to give the authorizing
committees more time to consider the controversial issue of a permanent program.
A House amendment to limit the extension of the fee demo program to national park
units was defeated. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10093, National
Park Management and Recreation, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.)
For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at
[ http://www.nps.gov/] .
CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation, by Carol
Hardy Vincent, coordinator.
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid to states (primarily through State Historic
Preservation Offices), 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.
The FY2004 appropriations law provided $73.6 million for the Historic
Preservation Fund, $6.6 million above the budget request, $2.6 million above the
House-passed bill, and $2.2 million below the Senate-passed measure. The FY2004
appropriation included $0.5 million for the National Trust for Historic Preservation;
$34.6 million for grants-in-aid to states and territories; $3.0 million for Indian tribes;
$32.6 million for Save America’s Treasures, former President Clinton’s Millennium
initiative; and $3.0 million for the restoration of buildings on campuses of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). See Table 9 below.
A major issue is whether historic preservation programs should be funded by
private money rather than the federal government. Congress eliminated permanent
and annual federal funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, but has
provided specific appropriations for Millennium projects under 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. Due to concerns that the
Save America’s Treasures program did not reflect geographic diversity,
appropriations law now requires that project recommendations be subject to approval
by the Appropriations Committees prior to distribution of funds. The FY2004 law
provided $32.6 million for Save America’s Treasures, $2.8 million more than enacted
for FY2003.
In the past, the Historic Preservation Fund account 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 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 or FY2003. For
FY2004, both the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill restored funding, with
competitive grants administered by the National Park Service. The FY2004 law
provided $3.0 million for the HBCU program for FY2004.
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 technically a private
non-profit corporation, but it received federal funding until FY1998. Since that time,
the National Trust generally has not received direct federal funding in keeping with
Congress’ plan to make it self-supporting. However, the FY2004 appropriations law
provided $0.5 million for the National Trust’s endowment fund for the care and
maintenance of the most endangered historic places.
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
F Y 2004 F Y 2004 F Y 2004
Historic PreservationFY2003Approp.FY2004Request^bHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Grants in aid to State Historic^a$33,779$34,000$34,000$37,000$34,569
Preservation Offices
Tribal grants2,9813,0003,0003,2502,963
Save America’s Treasures29,80530,00030,00032,00032,594
HBCU’s — — 4,0003,0002,963
National Historic Trust
Endowment grant/Historic1,987 — — 500494
Sites Fund
HPF (total)68,55267,000^b71,00075,75073,583
^No^tes: ^a^T^h^{e term}^“^g^ran^t^sⁱⁿ^{aid to States}^an^d^T^e^rritori^es^”^is^u^s^{ed in}^con^j^uⁿ^c^tion^w^ith^th^{e bu}^dg^{et an}^d
^r^e^f^e^r^s^to^th^{e sam}^e^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^{as Gr}^an^{ts in}^{aid to State His}^t^{oric P}^r^es^erv^a^tion^Of^fⁱ^ces^.^b
^F^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e H}ⁱ^s^t^ori^c^Pres^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^F^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^t^h^{e 2004 bu}^dg^et^h^a^sⁱ^t^s^m^a^j^o^r^com^pon^en^t^s^lⁱ^s^t^e^d^uⁿ^d^er
^th^{e “}^c^on^s^e^rv^ation^s^p^en^din^g^categ^ory^.^”
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website at
[ http://www2.cr.nps.gov/] .
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.

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:
The National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water
Resources Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities. The
FY2004 Interior appropriations law provided $938.0 million for the USGS, which
is $42.5 million above the Administration’s request of $895.5 million and $18.7
million above the FY2003 appropriation of $919.3 million. The Senate-passed
version of the bill contained $928.9 million and the House-passed version approved
$935.7 million. See Table 10 below.
The FY2004 law provided increases in funding over the Administration’s
request for five of the six activities conducted by the USGS, but funded Science
Support at $0.7 million less than the request of $91.5 million. Compared to the
FY2003 enacted level, all programs except for the National Mapping Program show
an increase in appropriations.
National Mapping Program. The National Mapping Program aims to
provide access to high quality geospatial data and information to the public. The
FY2004 law provided $129.8 million for this program, an increase of $9.3 million
over the Administration’s request of $120.5 million and a decrease of $3.4 million
from the FY2003 enacted level of $133.2 million. Sub-programs within the National
Mapping Program were funded at levels lower than FY2003 enacted levels. The
FY2004 law contained $80.8 million for the Cooperative Topographic Mapping
Program, $33.7 million for the Land Remote Sensing Program, and $15.2 million for
geographic analysis and monitoring.
The conference report discussed the significance of the Landsat 7 Satellite
Program and made recommendations for improving the program. Landsat 7 is a
satellite that takes remotely sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and
surrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring. Conference
managers stated that the USGS should secure data purchase agreements with other
federal agencies and others in the user community to establish a stable funding
source. Managers also recommended that the USGS consult with users of medium
resolution data to determine if degraded data can be used. Degraded data is
acknowledged by the managers as a problem of the Landsat 7 Program.
Conference managers stated their support for improving the management of
collected data at the EROS Data Center, specifically the initiatives to convert
archived remote sensing data to a modern disk-based storage system, and
implementing remote mirroring technology. Remote mirroring technology utilizes
mirror sites, which are exact copies of an existing site that are made to reduce the

load on the source site and speed up access for users in locations geographically far
away from the server.
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. This heading covers
programs in three budget sub-activities: Hazard Assessments, Landscape and Coastal
Assessments, and Resource Assessments. For Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes activities, the FY2004 appropriations law contained $234.2 million for
FY2004 — an increase of $12.6 million above the Administration’s request of
$221.6 million and $1.0 million above the FY2003 enacted level of $233.2 million.
The FY2004 law provided funding for assessment programs that is similar to
FY2003 enacted levels. For geologic hazards and assessments, $75.3 million was
included; for geologic landscape and coastal assessments, $78.4 million; and for
geologic resource assessments, $80.5 million.
The FY2004 law included $16.0 million for conducting inquiries into how
economic conditions are affecting mining and materials processing industries. In the
conference report, there are increases of $1.7 million over House-recommended
levels for volcanic monitoring, as well as increases of $0.3 million for the National
Cooperative Geological Mapping program and $1.5 million for the Minerals at Risk
program in Alaska. The Administration requested a decrease of $13.4 million for
aggregate and industrial mineral studies, minerals research and assessment activities,
and the Alaska Minerals-At-Risk program. Both the House- and Senate-passed bills
provided support for the USGS mineral resources program, and in their respective
reports noted the relevance of mineral resource and assessment research for national
security and infrastructure development as well as for assisting the U.S. mineral
industry.
Water Resources Investigations. For the Water Resources Investigations
heading, the FY2004 law appropriated $215.7 million, which is $15.6 million over
the Administration’s request of $200.1 million and $8.6 million above the FY2003
enacted level of $207.2 million.
The FY2004 law provided $64.0 million for cooperation with states or
municipalities for water resource investigations. Most programs within the Water
Resources Investigations heading received greater funding than enacted levels in
FY2003. The Ground Water Resources Program was provided $6.0 million for
FY2004; the National Water Quality Assessment Program, $63.3 million; the Toxic
Substances and Hydrology, $14.9 million; Hydrological Research and Development,
$17.1 million; the National Streamflow Information Program, $14.2 million; and
Hydrological Networks and Analysis, $29.9 million. The FY2004 law also provided
$6.4 million for Water Resources Research Institutes. As was the case with the Bush
Administration’s FY2002 and FY2003 budget requests, the FY2004 request sought
to discontinue USGS support for Water Resources Research Institutes based on the
finding that most institutes have been successful in leveraging sufficient funding for
program activities from non-USGS sources. Congress also restored funding for the
Institutes in FY2002 and FY2003.
Biological Research. For FY2004, the law appropriated $174.5 million,
$5.6 million above the Administration’s request of $168.9 million and $4.7 million

above the FY2003 enacted level of $169.8 million. The law further stated that no
funds provided for biological research can be used to conduct new surveys on private
land unless the surveys are specifically authorized by the property owner in writing.
Funding for FY2004 increased for biological research and monitoring programs
($135.1 million for FY2004) and biological information management and delivery
($24.7 million for FY2004).
The conference report identified a decrease of $1.0 million below the House-
passed level for invasive species research and $0.6 million for chronic wasting
disease research. Chronic wasting disease is a progressively degenerative and
ultimately fatal disease in deer and elk. Proposed funding will be used to conduct
studies to determine the transmission of the disease among deer and elk populations.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for management and dissemination
of scientific information. For FY2004, the law provided $90.8 million for Science
Support, which is $0.7 million less than the Administration’s request of $91.5
million, and $5.6 million over the FY2003 enacted level of $85.2 million.
Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of facilities. The
FY2004 law provided $93.0 million for the Facilities budget, nearly the same as the
Administration’s request, ($0.4 million above), and $2.2 million over the FY2003
enacted level of $90.8 million. The conference managers stated that they are aware
that the facilities budget may not be sufficient for rent and operations of some
facilities. The managers attributed this deficiency, in part, to insufficient funds being
transferred to facilities in previous years. The managers directed the USGS to
resolve this issue by developing a funding strategy for their facilities by March 2004.
The conference managers added $3.0 million to the USGS budget for FY2004
to counter streamlining reductions in the Administration’s request. They directed the
USGS to spread these funds to program areas on a pro-rata basis.
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2004FY2004
FY2003FY2004 HouseSenateFY2004
U.S. Geological SurveyEnactedRequestPassed PassedApprop.
National Mapping
Program $133.2$120.5$130.2$128.9$129.8
Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes233.2221.6231.4236.9234.2
Water Resources
Inve stigations 207.2 200.1 215.2 209.5 215.7
Biological Research169.8168.9173.3169.6174.5
Science Support85.291.591.591.490.8
Facilities 90.8 92.9 93.9 92.6 93.0
Total Appropriations919.3895.5935.7 928.9938.0

For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website 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 $5.8
billion in revenues in FY2004 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 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.
Budget and Appropriations. The FY2004 law funded MMS programs at
$270.5 million, including $7.0 million for oil spill research and $263.5 million for
the Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management program. Funding for the Royalty
and Offshore Minerals Management program is further broken down as follows:
$139.3 million for OMM, $79.7 million for MRM, and $44.5 million for
administrative activities. Of the total for MMS, $100.2 million came from offsetting
collections that MMS has been retaining from OCS receipts since 1994 while $170.3
million is derived from direct appropriations.
The Administration’s proposed budget for MMS for FY2004 was $271.5
million. This proposal included $7.1 million for oil spill research, and $264.4
million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management. Of the total budget, $171.3
million would have derived from appropriations, and $100.2 million from offsetting
collections. The House supported the Administration’s request. The Senate
approved slightly more for MMS — $273.3 million — comprised of $7.1 million in
oil spill research and $266.2 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management.
Of the total budget, $173.1 million would have derived from appropriations and
$100.2 million would come from offsetting collections.
The MMS mineral leasing revenue estimates are higher for FY2004 than in
FY2003. Current revenue estimates for these years are $5.8 billion and $5.1 billion
respectively. Price fluctuation is the most significant factor in the revenue swings.
Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40%-

45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties accounted for not more than 25%.

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts were considered during the FY2004 appropriations process. The FY2004
appropriations law continued the moratorium on preleasing and leasing activities in
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico except for Lease Sale 181 off the Florida coast. Sales in
the Eastern GOM have been 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 environment
and local economies are too great. The FY2004 law continued leasing moratoria in
other areas, including the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and parts of Alaska.
However, in a controversial development, the law omitted language that would
have prohibited funding for preleasing and leasing activity in the North Aleutian
Basin Planning Area, currently under a leasing moratorium. There is some interest
in eventually opening the area to oil and gas development as an offset to the
depressed fishing industry in the Bristol Bay area. Environmentalists, among others,
oppose this effort. The North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, containing Bristol Bay,
is not in the MMS current 5-year (2002-2007) leasing plan. Under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1331), the Secretary of the
Interior submits 5-year leasing programs that specify the time, location, and size of
lease sales to be held during that period.
Controversy over MMS oil and gas leases in offshore California has drawn
congressional interest. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1451), development of federal offshore leases must be consistent with state coastal
zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended 36 out of the 40 leases at issue in
offshore California by granting lease suspensions, but the State of California
contended that it should have first reviewed the suspensions for consistency with the
state’s coastal zone management plan. In June 2001 the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of California agreed with the State of California and struck down the MMS
suspensions.
The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 9, 2002, to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after the state rejected a more limited lease
development plan that involved 20 leases using existing drilling platforms. However,
on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the District
Court decision. The Department of the Interior did not appeal this decision and is
currently working with lessees to resolve the issue. A breach-of-contract lawsuit has
been filed against MMS by nine oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in compensation
for their undeveloped leases.
In a related effort, House-Senate conferees on the energy bill (H.R. 6)
considered but did not include language calling for a comprehensive inventory of
OCS oil and natural gas resources. The House had agreed to a non-binding motion
to instruct conferees to remove the OCS inventory language from conference
consideration, among other changes. Supporters of the inventory contended that it
is important for enhancing domestic oil and gas supply and reducing foreign imports.
Opponents argued that it could lead to the removal of the leasing moratoria currently
in place for much of the U.S. coastline.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website
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.
Congress provided OSM $295.2 million in the FY2003 appropriations law. The
Administration’s request for FY2004 was $281.2 million. The House and Senate both
approved higher levels — $301.2 million and $297.6 million respectively. The
FY2004 law included $296.0 million.
For the AML Fund, which is one of the two primary components of OSM, the
Administration requested $174.5 million for FY2004, marginally higher than the
Administration requested for FY2003, but a reduction of $16.0 million from the
$190.5 million approved for FY2003 by Congress. The FY2004 law provided a total
of $190.6 million. In earlier action, the full House had accepted the Appropriations
Committee’s recommendation of $194.5 million for the AML Fund, $20.0 million
above the Administration request, and $4.0 million more than the level enacted by
Congress for FY2003. In approving this level, the House Appropriations Committee
noted “the great amount of reclamation work that remains to be done...” (H.Rept.
108-195, p. 64). The Senate Committee on Appropriations and the full Senate had
supported a boost over the Administration’s request for the AML fund, increasing it
by $16.4 million to $190.9 million.
The other component of the OSM budget is for Regulation and Technology
programs. For Regulation and Technology, the Administration requested $106.7
million. Included in the FY2004 request was $10.0 million in funding for the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002-2003, and
$10.0 million for the Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). The requested
level was approved by both bodies ($106.7 million), while the enacted level was
slightly lower — $105.4 million.
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 $2.0 million in 1992. However, over the objection of
these states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program states
since FY1996. The FY2003 appropriations provided $1.5 million to minimum
program states and the FY2004 law proposed no change.
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 approach $1.75 billion by the end of FY2004.
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its website 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 FY2003 direct appropriations were $2.26 billion. For FY2004, the House
approved $2.31 billion, an increase of $52.1 million over FY2003 and $16.6 million
over the Administration’s request. The Senate approved $2.32 billion, which was
$63.2 million over FY2003 and $27.7 million more than the request. The FY2004
law contained $2.30 billion for BIA, $43.6 million more than FY2003 and $8.1
million over the request. Table 11 below presents figures for FY2003 and FY2004
for the BIA and its major budget components; selected BIA programs are shown in
italics. Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of the
Bureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in the BIA
school system.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2004House F Y 2004Senat e F Y 2004
Approp. Request P assed P assed Approp.
Operation of Indian$1,845,246$1,889,735$1,902,106$1,912,178$1,892,706
Programs
Tribal Priority Allocations772,481777,689778,809780,689770,637
Contract Support Costs132,343135,315135,315135,315134,441
Other Recurring Programs597,724602,063609,293620,789614,136
School Operations512,562528,515528,515528,515522,003
Tribally-controlled colleges42,83839,20639,20649,20648,600
Non-Recurring Programs72,48573,54373,84376,68575,641
Central Office Operations69,57999,36194,86185,36188,506
Office of Federal1,6001,1001,6001,1001,350
Acknowledgment
Information Resources16,43648,71043,71034,71038,233
Technology
Regional Office63,80564,48164,48164,48163,686
Operations
Special Programs and269,172272,598280,819284,173280,100
Pooled Overhead
Public Safety and Justice162,306171,147174,647174,647172,495
Const r uct i on 345,988 345,154 345,154 351,154 346,825

F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2004House F Y 2004Senat e F Y 2004
Approp. Request P assed P assed Approp.
Education construction293,795292,634292,634298,634294,954
Land and Water Claim60,55251,37555,58350,58354,866
Settlements and Misc.
Payments
Indian Guaranteed Loan5,4576,4976,4976,4976,417
Program
Total 2,257,2432,292,7612,309,3402,320,4122,300,814
BIA Reorganization. In April 2003, Secretary of the Interior Norton initiated
a reorganization of the BIA, the office of Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs (AS-
IA), and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) in the Office of
the Interior Secretary (see “Office of Special Trustee” section below). The
reorganization, announced in December 2002, arises from issues and events related
to trust funds and trust assets management, and is integrally related to the reform and
improvement of trust 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), and cover about 45 million acres of tribal trust land and 10 million acres
of individual Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate services,
processing of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), 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
accounting and retention of records. This led to a trust reform act in 1994 and an
extensive court case in 1996 (see “Office of Special Trustee” section below). The
1994 act created the OST, assigning it responsibility for oversight of trust
management reform. Trust fund management was transferred to the OST from the
BIA in 1996, but the BIA still manages trust assets.
Unsuccessful efforts at trust management reform in the 1990s led DOI to
contract with a management-consultant firm. The firm’s recommendations included
both improvements in trust management and reorganization of the DOI agencies
carrying out trust management and improvement. Events in the court case helped
push DOI to act on these recommendations.
The current reorganization of BIA, AS-IA, and OST chiefly involves trust
management structures and functions. Under the plan, the BIA’s trust operations at
regional and agency levels are being split off from other BIA services. The OST will
have trust officers at BIA regional and agency offices overseeing trust management
and providing information to Indian trust beneficiaries.
The BIA, OST, and AS-IA, together with the Office of Historical Trust
Accounting in the Secretary’s office, are also implementing a trust management
improvement project, announced in March 2003, which includes improvements in

trust asset systems, policies, and procedures, historical accounting for trust accounts,
reduction of backlogs, and maintenance of the improved system.
Many Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the plaintiffs in the court case,
have been critical of the new reorganization. While DOI carried out numerous
consultation meetings with tribes through much of 2002, they did not reach
agreement before DOI announced the reorganization. Tribes argue that the
reorganization is premature, because new trust procedures and policies are still being
developed, and that it insufficiently defines new OST duties.
Congress has thus far supported the BIA/OST reorganization. The House
Appropriations Committee’s report for FY2004 urged DOI to implement the
reorganization as quickly as possible, and the Senate defeated a proposed amendment
to stop BIA/OST reorganization (by transferring $79.3 million from OST to the
Indian Health Service). The Senate did add a provision to the FY2004 appropriations
bill excluding from reorganization certain tribes that have been operating trust
management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices. The FY2004 law
retained this Senate provision.
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 120 of these institutions; the BIA operates the
remainder. BIA-funded schools’ key problems are low student achievement and,
especially, a high level of inadequate school facilities.
Some observers feel tribal operation of schools will improve student
achievement. The Bush Administration suggested language in the FY2003 Interior
appropriations bill encouraging privatization, but the Appropriations Committees
disagreed and urged additional funding and consultation with tribes. In the FY2004
bill, the House and Senate approved a provision creating a $3 million fund to pay
tribal school boards’ start-up administrative costs to encourage tribal boards to take
over operation of current BIA-operated schools. The FY2004 law retained this
provision.
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 estimates the current backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million, but
this figures changes as new repair needs appear each year. Table 11 above shows
FY2003 and FY2004 education construction appropriations. Because construction
appropriations are not reducing the need fast enough, Indian tribes have urged
Congress to explore additional sources of construction financing.
In the FY2001-FY2004 Interior appropriations acts, Congress has authorized a
demonstration program that allows tribes to help fund construction of BIA-funded,
tribally-controlled schools. The FY2004 Act added provisions allowing non-BIA-
funded schools to participate in the demonstration project, although first priority for
grants would be assigned to BIA-funded schools and only grantees’ that were already

BIA-funded would be eligible for BIA school-operations funding. The FY2004 law
also enacts a controversial land exchange between the Eastern Cherokee Tribe of
North Carolina and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, to allow the tribe to
build several replacement schools.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu]. The main BIA website at
[http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html] is offline because of a court order
in the trust funds litigation (see “Office of Special Trustee” section below).
CRS Report RS21670. Major Indian Issues in the 108^th Congress, by Roger Walke.
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
Departmental Offices
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)
of 1988 (P.L. 100-497, as amended) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of tribal bingo
and other “Class II” operations, as well as aspects of “Class III” gaming (e.g., casinos
and racing). The chief issue for NIGC is whether its funding is adequate for its
regulatory responsibilities.
The NIGC is authorized to receive annual appropriations of $2 million, but its
budget authority consists chiefly of annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II and III
operations. IGRA currently caps NIGC fees at $8 million per year. The NIGC in
recent years has requested additional funding because it has experienced increased
demand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field investigations.
Congress, in the FY2003 appropriations act, increased the NIGC’s fee ceiling to $12
million, but only for FY2004. In the FY2004 budget, the Administration proposed
language amending IGRA to create an adjustable, formula-based ceiling for fees
instead of the current fixed ceiling. The Administration argued that a formula-based
fee ceiling would allow NIGC funding to grow as the Indian gaming industry grew.
Gaming tribes did not support the increased fee ceiling or the proposed amendment
of IGRA’s fee ceiling, arguing that NIGC’s budget should first be reviewed in the
context of extensive tribal and state expenditures on regulation of Indian gaming, and
that changes in NIGC’s fees should be developed in consultation with tribes. The
FY2004 act did not include the Administration’s proposed language, but did extend
the temporary $12-million fee ceiling through FY2005.
During FY1999-FY2003, all NIGC activities were funded from fees, with no
direct appropriations. For FY2004, the Administration, House, Senate, and enacted
bill provided no direct appropriations for the NIGC.
The FY2004 conference report expressed concern about several existing tribes
who are trying to establish gaming operations in states or areas where they have
either no reservations or no traditional connection. It directed the NIGC and the
Interior Department to implement fully existing statutes and regulations covering
such situations.

Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians, in the Secretary of the Interior’s office, was authorized
by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
(P.L. 103-412). The Office of Special Trustee (OST) generally oversees the reform
of Interior Department management of Indian trust assets, the direct management of
Indian trust funds, establishment of an adequate trust fund management system, and
support of department claims-settlement activities related to the trust funds. Indian
trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in 1996, at Congress’ direction
and as authorized by P.L. 103-412, the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust fund
management from the BIA to the OST. (See “Bureau of Indian Affairs” section
above.)
Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal
funds owned by about 290 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset
value of about $2.8 billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual
Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 230,000 accounts with a current total asset
value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2004 budget
justifications.) The funds include monies received both from claims awards, land or
water rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from income from non-
monetary trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as investment income.
FY2003 funding for the OST was $148.3 million, which included $140.4
million for federal trust programs — trust funds management, trust systems
improvements, settlement and litigation support, and historical trust accounting —
and $7.9 million for the Indian land consolidation pilot project. The purpose of the
land consolidation project is to purchase and consolidate fractionated ownerships of
allotted Indian trust lands, thereby reducing the costs of managing tens of thousands
of IIM accounts representing tiny fractional interests. For FY2004, the
Administration proposed transferring the land consolidation project from OST to
BIA, but neither the House, Senate, nor enacted bill included this transfer.
The House approved a FY2004 funding level of $240.6 million for the OST, an
increase of $92.3 million (62%) over FY2003 but $55.0 million (-19%) less than the
Administration proposal. Included in the House FY2004 bill were $219.6 million for
federal trust programs (up $79.3 million, or 56%, over FY2003 but $55.0 million, or
20%, less than the Administration proposal) and $21.0 million for the Indian land
consolidation pilot project (up $13.0 million, or 163%, over FY2003 and the same
as the Administration’s proposal). The Senate approved $242.6 million for the OST;
the amount approved for federal trust programs was identical to that approved by the
House, but the Senate approved $2.0 million more for the land consolidation project
than did the House. The Senate Appropriations Committee report urged the DOI to
direct land consolidation funds to reservations that already try to reduce land
fractionation.
The FY2004 law provided $209.0 million for the OST, $60.7 million (41%)
over FY2003 but $86.6 million (-29%) less than the request. Included were $187.3
million for federal trust programs and $21.7 million for land consolidation. Table
12 below presents figures for FY2003 and FY2004 for the OST; the Historical
Accounting program is shown in italics.

Key issues for the OST are its current reorganization, an historical accounting
for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal and IIM accounts.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for
American Indians, FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2004House F Y 2004Senat e F Y 2004
Approp. Request P assed P assed Approp.
Federal Trust Programs$140,359$274,641$219,641$219,641$187,305
Historical Accounting$17,500$130,000$75,000$75,000$44,446
Indian Land Consolidation$7,928$20,980$20,980$22,980$21,709
Total OST$148,287$295,621$240,621$242,621$209,014
Reorganization. Both OST and BIA have recently begun a reorganization
(see “Bureau of Indian Affairs” section above), one aspect of which is the creation
of OST field operations. OST will have fiduciary trust officers and administrators
at the level of BIA agency and regional offices. Many Indian tribes disagree with
parts of the reorganization and have asked Congress to put it on hold so that OST and
BIA can conduct further consultation with the tribes. About $15.1 million of the
proposed FY2004 increase was to fund the new field operations. The House, Senate,
and enacted bill approved the proposed amount for reorganization. The House
Appropriations Committee report encouraged the Interior Department to implement
the reorganization. The Senate did not explicitly endorse or oppose the OST/BIA
reorganization, but defeated a proposed amendment to stop reorganization by
transferring $79.3 million from OST to the Indian Health Service.
Historical Accounting. The historical accounting seeks to assign correct
balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especially because of litigation. Because of
the long historical period to be covered (some accounts may date from the 19^th
century), the large number of IIM accounts, and the large number of missing account
documents, an historical accounting based on actual account transactions is expected
to require large and time-consuming projects. The Interior Department has proposed
an extensive, five-year, $335-million project to reconcile IIM accounts. Most of the
appropriations increase that the Administration proposed for the OST for FY2004
was for historical accounting, which would have gone from $17.5 million in FY2003
to $130 million in FY2004. Of this $112.5 million increase for historical accounting,
$82.5 million would have been for IIM accounts and $30 million for tribal accounts.
The House and Senate reduced total historical accounting funds to $75 million, or
$55 million less than the Administration proposal. The conference report, as enacted,
reduced historical accounting funds even further, to $44.4 million, to be used only
for necessary, short-term historical accounting activities. This reduction was in
tandem with a controversial provision discussed under “Litigation” below.
Litigation. An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Norton) was
filed in 1996, in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the

federal government by IIM account holders.⁴ Many OST activities are related to the
Cobell case, including litigation-support activities, but the most significant issue for
appropriations concerns the method by which the historical accounting will be
conducted to estimate IIM accounts’ proper balances. The DOI’s proposed method
was estimated by the Department to cost $335 million over five years and produce
a relatively low total owed to IIM accounts; the plaintiffs’ method, whose procedural
cost is uncertain, was estimated to produce a figure of $176 billion owed to IIM
accounts.
In 2003 the court conducted a lengthy trial to decide which historical accounting
method to use in estimating the IIM accounts’ proper balances. Previously, in the
first phase of the Cobell case, in 1999 the court had found that DOI and the Treasury
Department had breached trust duties regarding the necessary document retention and
data gathering needed for an accounting, and regarding the business systems and
staffing to fix trust management. The lawsuit’s final phase will determine the
amount of money owed to the plaintiffs, based on the historical accounting method
chosen.
Congress has for several years been concerned about the current and potential
costs of the Cobell lawsuit, although it has defeated appropriations language directing
settlement of the case. The Appropriations Committees have expressed concern that
the IIM lawsuit was jeopardizing DOI trust reform implementation and have required
reports from DOI on the costs and benefits of historical accounting methods,
including statistical sampling. Congress also, in the FY2003 Interior appropriations
act, required a summary for Congress of a full historical accounting performed for
five of the plaintiffs, capped the compensation of two court-appointed officials
monitoring trust reform, and authorized the Interior Secretary to help employees pay
for legal costs related to the IIM suit.
The summary of the historical accounting for the five plaintiffs, which was
based on a methodology closer to that proposed by DOI, was transmitted to Congress
in 2003. According to the House Committee, it indicated a very low error rate in the
accounts’ transactions. In its initial reduction of the amount for FY2004 historical
accounting, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the funding should be
adequate for a statistical sampling model (part of DOI’s proposed methodology) and
that the reduction was not an endorsement of the plaintiffs’ accounting model. For
FY2004, Congress retained the provisions capping the court officials’ compensation
and assisting federal employees in paying legal bills related to the IIM litigation.
The court’s decision on historical accounting was delivered on September 25,
2003. The court rejected both the plaintiffs’ and DOI’s proposed historical
accounting plans and instead ordered DOI to account for all trust fund and asset
transactions since 1887, without using statistical sampling. The Interior Department
estimated that the court’s choice for historical accounting would cost $6-12 billion.

⁴ Cobell v. Norton (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). Updated information is available on the
websites of the plaintiffs [http://www.indiantrust.com], the DOI
[http://www.doi.gov/indiantrust/], and the Justice Department
[http://www.usdoj .gov/civil/cases/cobell/index.htm] .

The FY2004 Interior appropriations conference report added a controversial new
provision aimed at the court’s September 25 decision. The provision directed that
no statute or trust law principle should be construed to require the Interior
Department to conduct the historical accounting until either Congress has delineated
the department’s specific historical accounting obligations or December 31, 2004,
whichever is earlier. The conferees asserted in the conference committee report that
the court-ordered historical accounting is too expensive, beyond the intent of the
1994 Act, and likely to be appealed, and that Congress needs time to resolve the
historical accounting question or settle the suit. Opponents in the House and Senate
argued that the provision is of doubtful constitutionality, since it directs courts’
interpretation of law and effectively suspends a court order in an ongoing case, and
further is unjust to the plaintiffs and might undermine the Interior Department’s
incentives to negotiate a settlement.
The FY2004 conference report with this provision passed both the Senate and,
narrowly, the House, and was enacted on November 10, 2003. Based on this
provision, the DOI on the same day appealed the court’s September 25 order. On
November 12, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
temporarily stayed the September 25 order.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its website at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
CRS Report RS21670. Major Indian Issues in the 108^th Congress, by Roger Walke.
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to the U.S. territories (Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) as well as three former
insular areas (Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Federated States of Micronesia
(FSM), and Palau), manages relations between these jurisdictions and the federal
government, and attempts to build the fiscal and government capacity of units of
local government. Funding for the OIA consists of two parts: (1) permanent and
indefinite appropriations and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject
to the appropriations process.
OIA funding for FY2004 is set at $366 million. This constitutes a reduction of
5% from the President’s request ($387 million) and roughly 5% more than the
amount approved for FY2003 ($350 million).
Permanent and indefinite appropriations historically constitute roughly 70% to
80% of the OIA budget and consist of two parts. For FY2004 they total $284
million, as follows:
^!$162 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau)
formerly included in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under

conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free Association;⁵
and,
^!$122 million in fiscal assistance to the U.S. Virgin Islands for
estimated rum excise and income tax collections, and to Guam for
income tax collections.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the remaining balance (roughly 20% to 30%) of the OIA budget. Two
accounts — Assistance to Territories (AT) and the Compact of Free Association
(CFA) — comprise discretionary and current mandatory funding. As enacted,
discretionary funding for FY2004 was set at $82.1 million, with AT funded at $75.7
million and CFA at $6.4 million. This constituted a 15% decrease from the amount
appropriated for such payments in FY2003 ($96.8 million). The FY2004 request
would have reduced AT funding to $71.3 million and CFA assistance to $16.1
million, for a total of $87.5 million.
Little debate has occurred in recent years on funding for the territories and the
OIA. In general, Congress continues to monitor economic development and fiscal
management by government officials in the insular areas.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[ http://www.doi.gov/oia/index .html] .
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The FY2004 law contained a Forest Service (FS) budget of $4.54 billion,
including $348.9 million in FS emergency funding. The total is $120.8 million (3%)
more than the Senate-passed budget of $4.42 billion (including $325.0 million
emergency borrowing repayment); $362.8 million (9%) more than the House-passed
budget of $4.18 billion, and $180.9 million (4%) more than requested by the
Administration (including a $301.0 million emergency borrowing repayment).
A significant amendment to FS management was debated on the Senate floor.
The Senate-reported bill modified procedures for seeking judicial review of timber
sales in FS Region 10 (Alaska, primarily the Tongass National Forest). A Senate
amendment to strike the language was defeated. The section shortens timeframes for
filing suits related to these timber sales. The FY2004 law retained this provision.

⁵ Portions of the Compacts of Free Association with the FSM and the RMI had expired in
the fall of 2001 and were renegotiated. Legislation to approve the amended compacts was
enacted as P.L.108-188. For background, see CRS Report RL31737, The Marshall Islands
and Micronesia: Amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the United States,
by Thomas Lum. The Compact with the Republic of Palau began in FY1994 and will
terminate in FY2009.

Two significant amendments to FS management were defeated on the House
floor. The Udall (of New Mexico) amendment would have prohibited funding to
finalize or implement the National Forest System planning regulations proposed on
December 6, 2002, by the Bush Administration. An Inslee amendment would have
prohibited funding to propose, finalize, or implement changes to the Protection of
Roadless Areas rule finalized on January 12, 2001, by the Clinton Administration.
Forest Fires and Forest Health. Fire funding and fire protection programs
were among the most controversial issues confronted during consideration of the
FY2003 Interior appropriations bill. In fact, in the 2^nd Session of the 107^th Congress,
the Senate did not pass an Interior appropriations bill largely due to disputes about fire
funding and a new program for wildfire protection. The ongoing discussion, including
during consideration of the FY2004 Interior appropriations bill, includes questions
about funding levels and locations for various fire protection treatments, such as
thinning and prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and clearing around structures to
protect them during fires. Another focus is whether, and to what extent, environmental
analysis, public involvement, and challenges to decisions hinder fuel reduction
activities.
National Fire Plan. The FY2004 funding debate continued the increased
attention in recent years to wildfires and the damage they cause. The severe fire
seasons in the summers of 2000 and 2002 prompted substantial debates and proposals
related to fire control and fire protection. The 2000 fire season led the Clinton
Administration to propose a new program, called the National Fire Plan, which applied
to BLM lands as well as to Forest Service lands, with $1.8 billion to supplement the
$1.1 billion requested before the fire season began. The National Fire Plan comprises
the Forest Service wildland fire program and fire fighting on DOI lands; the DOI
wildland fire monies are appropriated to the BLM. Congress enacted much of the
proposal for FY2001, adding money to the FY2001 request for wildfire operations, fuel
reduction, burned area restoration, fire preparedness, and programs to assist local
communities. Total appropriations for the FY2001 National Fire Plan, covering BLM
and FS fire funds, were $2.86 billion. The higher wildfire funding level has generally
been continued. (For historical background and descriptions of funded activities, see
CRS Report RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)
FY2004 Appropriations. The FY2004 law contained National Fire Plan
funding (for the FS and BLM) of $2.76 billion, including emergency borrowing
repayment. This is $138.5 million more than the Senate-passed level, $456.9 million
more than the House-passed level, and $139.8 million more than the amount requested.
The Senate had included emergency borrowing repayment authority of $400.0 million
($325.0 million for the FS and $75.0 million for the BLM) in title IV of the bill. The
President subsequently asked for a $400.0 million emergency appropriation to repay
borrowed monies for fire fighting, split $99.0 million for BLM and $301.0 million for
the FS. The FY2004 law contained the same total for emergency contingency funding
($400.0 million), but with an across-the-board cut, for $299.2 million for the FS and
$98.4 million for the BLM. In addition, the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 108-199) included $49.7 million in FS emergency funding for fuel reduction and
state fire assistance. See Table 13 below.

Table 13. Federal Wildland Fire Management Appropriations,
FY2000-FY2004
($ in millions)
FY2000FY2001FY2002FY2003 ^bFY2004RequestFY2004House FY2004SenateFY2004Approp.^c
est Service$1,008.0$1,882.8$1,560.3$2,290.0$1,842.8$1,624.6$1,868.1$1,971.8
ildfire Suppression139.2319.3255.3352.0604.6520.0514.3597.1
^a 390.0 425.1 266.0 919.0 301.0 0.0 325.0 348.9
408.8 611.1 622.6 678.0 609.7 698.0 700.0 671.6
70.0 527.2 416.4 341.0 327.4 406.6 328.7 354.2
591.0 977.1 678.4 875.2 797.7 698.7 773.7 783.6
ildfire Suppression158.1153.1127.4159.3195.3170.3195.3192.9
^a 200.0 199.6 54.0 225.0 99.0 0.0 75.0 98.4
165.8 314.7 280.8 275.4 282.7 302.7 282.7 274.3
67.0 309.7 216.2 215.4 220.7 225.7 220.7 218.0
2,859.82,238.83,165.12,640.52,323.42,641.82,755.5
ildfire Suppression297.3472.4382.7511.3799.9690.3709.6790.0
^a 590.0 624.6 320.0 1,144.0 400.0 0.0 400.0 447.3
574.6 925.9 903.4 953.4 892.5 1,000.7 982.7 945.9
137.0 836.9 632.6 556.4 548.1 632.3 549.4 572.2
^No^tes:^a^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal an}^{d con}^tin^g^eⁿ^t^appr^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^ar^{e in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^ag^en^cy^to^tals.^b
^In^clu^d^es^s^u^pplem^en^tal^of^$636.0^m^illion^f^o^r^th^{e FS an}^{d $189.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^L^{M ($825.0 m}^illion
^{total) in}^P^.^L^.^108-^{7 an}^{d of}^{$283.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^e^F^S^aⁿ^d^$36.0^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^L^{M ($319.0 m}^illion
^t^o^t^a^l⁾ⁱⁿ^P.L^.^108-^83.^c
^In^clu^d^es^s^u^pplem^en^{tal of}^$49.7^m^illion^f^o^r^th^{e FS in}^P^.^L^.^108-^{199 in}^th^{e W}^ildlan^d^{Fire Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t
^an^{d State an}^{d P}^r^iv^{ate f}^o^res^t^ry^lin^{e item}^s^.
The FS and BLM wildland fire line items include funds for fire suppression
(fighting fires), preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention, and
detection), and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel treatment, research, and state and
private assistance). The FY2004 budget request as well as the House, Senate, and
enacted levels for suppression were significantly higher than the enacted FY2003
appropriations, but they included significantly less emergency wildfire funds. See
Table 13 above.
The FY2004 law reduced BLM wildfire funding (including emergency borrowing
repayment) to $783.6 million, $14.1 million (2%) below the request, $84.9 million
(12%) above the House-passed level, and $9.9 million (1%) above the Senate-passed
level. Much of the difference is the result of varying levels of emergency funding. The
FY2004 law nearly matched the requested and Senate-passed levels for BLM fire
suppression and other fire operations, reducing the amounts by $2.4 million and $2.7
million, respectively. It reduced the amount for fire preparedness by $8.4 million (3%),
to $274.3 million. The House had shifted $25.0 million from fire suppression to fire
preparedness ($20.0 million) and other fire operations ($5.0 million).

The FY2004 law provided FS wildfire funding of $2.00 billion, including $348.9
million in emergency funding. This is $128.6 million (7%) more than the Senate-
passed level, $372.1 million (23%) more than the House-passed level, and $153.9
million (8%) more than the request. Much of the difference from the request and
House level is emergency funding. The FY2004 law increased FS fire suppression
nearly to the requested level, substantially above the House and Senate levels. It
reduced FS fire preparedness from the House and Senate levels, but the level is $61.9
million (10%) above the request. For other FS fire operations, the FY2004 law
provided $354.2 million, $25.5 million (8%) more than the Senate-passed level and
$52.4 million (13%) less than the House-passed level.
In the House Appropriations Committee, an amendment was offered to add $550
million for FY2003 fire suppression, as the fire season was again expected to be severe,
and not all FY2002 borrowed funds had been repaid even with the $825.0 million in
supplemental firefighting funds enacted in P.L. 108-7, the FY2003 omnibus
appropriations act. The amendment was withdrawn on promises that the funding
shortfall would be made up later. On July 7, 2003, the Administration requested
emergency supplemental funding of $289.0 million for FY2003 FS and BLM
firefighting efforts. On July 11, the Senate passed a bill (H.R. 2657, Legislative
Branch Appropriations) containing the supplemental funding, with an amendment
adding another $25.0 million to remove dead trees in forests devastated by insects that
could exacerbate wildfire threats. The FY2004 legislative branch appropriations
conference report, containing $319.0 million in supplemental FY2003 firefighting
funds for the FS and BLM ($30.0 million more than requested), was enacted as
P.L.108-83, and these funds are included in Table 13 above. This is in addition to the
$397.6 million of emergency borrowing repayment included in the FY2004 Interior
appropriations law, and the $49.7 million (split equally between state fire assistance
and hazardous fuel reduction) in P.L. 108-199.
State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center
of debate, many changes have been proposed in State and Private Forestry (S&PF) —
programs that provide financial and technical assistance to states and to private forest
owners. For FY2004, Congress provided $329.2 million of total S&PF funding. This
is $33.8 million (11%) more than the Senate, $38.4 million (13%) more than the
House, and $13.4 million (4%) more than requested. Of the total, the conference
agreement directed that $64.5 million come from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund; this is $20.2 million less from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
than had been directed by the Senate, while the House had provided no direction on
S&PF spending from LWCF.
Levels differ significantly within S&PF funding. For forest health management
(insect and disease control on federal and cooperative (nonfederal) lands), the FY2004
law contained $98.6 million, $16.5 million (20%) more than the Senate and the request,
and $4.4 million (4%) less than the House-passed level of $103.0 million. The House,
Senate, and enacted bills rejected the request for a new $12.0 million Emerging Pest
and Pathogens Fund to rapidly address invasive species problems, but the Senate and
the FY2004 law allowed $2.0 million to be used for emerging problems. In addition,
the FY2004 law provided $24.7 million for forest health management in other wildfire
operations appropriations, more than double the Senate-passed and requested level of
$11.9 million, and nearly matching the House-passed level of $25.0 million.

For FY2004, Congress provided $63.3 million for S&PF cooperative fire
assistance to states and to volunteer fire departments, including $24.9 million in
emergency supplemental funding in P.L. 108-199. The total is $32.7 million (107%)
above the Senate, $22.2 million (54%) more than the House, and $32.8 million (108%)
above the request. In addition, the FY2004 Interior act included $59.2 million in
cooperative fire assistance in other wildfire operations appropriations, $3.2 million
(6%) more than the Senate, $0.1 million (0.2%) less than the House, and $4.5 million
(8%) more than the Administration requested.
The FY2004 law contained $161.4 million for cooperative forestry programs,
$15.3 million (9%) less than the Senate, $20.8 million (15%) more than the House, and
$36.9 million (19%) less than the request. Major differences pertain to the forest
legacy and economic action programs. For the forest legacy program (for purchasing
title or easements for lands threatened with conversion to nonforest uses, such as for
residences), the FY2004 law appropriated $64.1 million, $20.6 million (24%) less than
the Senate level of $84.7 million; $18.6 million (41%) more than the House level of
$45.6 million; and $26.7 million (29%) less than the Administration’s request of $90.8
million. The law also retained the S&PF Economic Action Program (EAP, including
rural community assistance and wood recycling, and the Pacific Northwest economic
assistance) at $25.6 million, $1.6 million (7%) more than the Senate and $8.2 million
(47%) more than the House-passed level. The Administration had proposed
terminating the EAP. The law did not include any EAP funding in other wildfire
operations appropriations; the House had included $6.0 million in other wildfire
operations appropriations for the EAP, whereas the Senate included $5.0 million in
other wildfire operations funding to implement the Community Forest Restoration Act
(title VI of P.L. 106-393).
Infrastructure. The FY2004 law retained separate funding for Infrastructure
Improvement (to reduce the agency’s backlog of deferred maintenance, estimated at
$6.5 billion as of October 2002) at $31.6 million. The Senate had passed $25.0
million, while the House had passed $47.0 million. The Administration had proposed
terminating this funding and replacing it with increased capital improvement and
maintenance funds for roads and trails of $23.1 million (8%) from FY2003.
Land Acquisition. The FY2004 law appropriated $66.4 million for Land
Acquisition, $10.1 million (13%) less than the Senate level of $76.4 million, $37.1
million (127%) more than the House level of $29.3 million, and $22.2 million (50%)
more than the $44.1 million requested. Most of the difference is in land purchases
(rather than in acquisition management), with the law providing $51.3 million for
purchases compared to $60.1 million passed by the Senate, $14.4 million passed by the
House, and $27.8 million requested for land purchases. The FY2003 appropriation for
land acquisition was $132.9 million, with $118.0 million for land purchases.
Other Accounts. The FY2004 law provided $266.4 million for FS Research,
$0.2 million more than the Senate, $0.8 million less than the House, and $14.2 million
(6%) more than the Administration’s request. It also included $1.37 billion for the
National Forest System (NFS), $4.9 million (0.3%) less than the Senate, $28.9 million
(2%) less than the House, and $3.7 million (0.3%) less than the request. As requested,
and as passed by the House and the Senate, the law included an FS administrative
provision allowing the agency to transfer up to $15 million to Interior (for the FWS)

or Commerce (for NOAA Fisheries) to expedite consultations under the Endangered
Species Act.
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its website at
[ http://www.usda.gov/] .
For further information on the U.S. Forest Service, see its website at
[ http://www.fs.fed.us/] .
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Issue Brief IB10124. Wildfire Protection Legislation in the 108^th Congress, by
Ross W. Gorte
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
FY2004 law funded fossil fuel research and development programs at $672.8 million,
about 30% more than the President’s request, 10% higher than the House-passed level,
and 13% higher than the Senate figure. The major differences in funding levels include
the $169.9 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative, ($39.9 million over the
Administration’s request and House- and Senate-passed funding level of $130.0
million) and the $8.9 million allocated for the FutureGen R&D project of the
Department of Energy (DOE). The FutureGen project is a 10-year, $1 billion Bush
Administration initiative designed to establish the feasibility of producing electricity
and hydrogen from a coal-fired plant yielding no emissions. The FY2004 law also
deferred spending $97.0 million (as in the Senate version) from the previously
appropriated Clean Coal Technology (CCT) account but rescinded an additional $88.0
million from CCT not contained in the Administration’s request or in the House or
Senate versions of the bill. The FY2004 law provided increases to the
Administration’s request and the Senate- and House-passed bills in Fuels and Power
Systems, Natural Gas, and Petroleum Technology. The law established a separate
account of $988,000 for the U.S./China Energy and Environmental Center, previously
funded out of the Clean Coal Technology account.
The Bush Administration’s FY2004 budget request of $514.3 million for fossil
energy research and development was less than the appropriated amount for FY2003
($620.8 million) and higher than the FY2003 request ($489.3 million). The House
approved fossil fuel programs at $609.3 million. The Senate approved a total of $593.5
million for fossil energy. A key difference between the House and Senate versions was
that the House-passed bill provided funds for the administration of the clean coal
program as did the FY2004 law.

The Administration requested $130.0 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative
(CCPI) for FY2004 as part of a $2 billion, 10-year commitment. The program is
designed for “funding advanced research and development and a limited number of
joint government-industry-funded demonstrations of new technologies that can enhance
the reliability and environmental performance of coal-fired power generators,”
according to DOE. The CCPI is along the lines of the Clean Coal Technology Program
(CCTP), which has completed most of its projects and has been subject to rescissions
and deferrals since the mid-1990s. The CCTP eventually will be phased out. In the
Senate-passed bill, up to $9.0 million of previously appropriated CCTP would have
been used for research supporting the FutureGen project and the production of
electricity and hydrogen from coal. The conferees supported funding this project
separately at $8.9 million under the Fossil Energy R&D account, and that level was
enacted.
The Administration’s proposal would have cut research and development (R&D)
on natural gas by 44% to $26.5 million, and R&D on petroleum by two-thirds to $15.0
million. The FY2004 law supported natural gas funding at $43.0 million and
petroleum technology programs at $35.1 million.
In a statement in the House Committee’s report, the Committee disagreed with the
Administration’s approach to fossil energy R&D for FY2004. The Committee
considered the Administrations approach unbalanced, with too heavy a focus on a few
major initiatives and not enough emphasis on long-term R&D on traditional sources
of energy, particularly oil and natural gas technologies (H.Rept. 108-195, p. 12-13.).
The Administration’s request would have phased out funding for the fuels
program, including R&D on ultra-clean fuels technology, reducing the funding to $5.0
million for FY2004 from $31.2 million in FY2003. However, the House supported
$30.6 million for the Fuels Program in FY2004 while the Senate supported $24.9
million. The FY2004 law provided $31.2 million.
Funding levels for Sequestration R&D, which would test new and advanced
methods for greenhouse gas capture, separation, and reuse, would have increased under
the FY2004 Administration’s request by $22.1 million to $62.0 million. However, the
House approved essentially flat funding for FY2004 — $40.8 million — as compared
with $39.9 million for FY2003, as did the Senate — $39.8 million. The FY2004 law
funded the program at $40.3 million.
For further information on the Department of Energy (DOE), see its website at
[ h ttp://www.energy.gov/engi ne/content.do? BT_CODE=DOEHOME] .
For further information on Fossil Energy, see its website at
[ h ttp://www.fe.doe.gov/] .
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR),
authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in late 1975,
consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in Louisiana and
Texas in which more than 600 million barrels of crude oil are stored. The purpose of
the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil which may be tapped in the
event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption

threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the Reserve.
Volatility in oil prices since the spring of 1999 prompted calls from time-to-time for
drawdown of the Reserve, but both the Clinton and Bush Administrations did not think
circumstances warranted it.
In mid-November 2001, President Bush ordered that the SPR be filled to capacity
(700 million barrels) using royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil. This is oil turned over to the
federal government as payment for production from federal leases. Acquiring oil for
the SPR by RIK avoids the necessity for Congress to make outlays to finance direct
purchase of oil; however, it also means a loss of revenues to the Treasury in so far as
the royalties are paid in wet barrels rather than in cash. Deliveries of RIK oil began in
the spring of 2002. The fill rate has varied depending upon geopolitical and market
conditions. Deliveries scheduled for late 2002 and the first months of 2003 were
delayed due to tightness in world oil markets. With the end of the military phase of the
war with Iraq, deliveries of RIK oil to the SPR ramped up during the spring and
exceeded 200,000 barrels per day during the summer. The Administration is currently
filling the SPR at a rate of about 100,000 barrels per day. The costs of transporting
RIK oil to SPR sites are now borne by the contractors, so no new money was
recommended for the SPR Petroleum Account for FY2004.
The FY2004 budget request for the SPR, $180.1 million, was approved by the
House on July 17, 2003. The SPR budget included $159.0 million for storage facilities
development and operations, $16.1 million for management of the SPR sites, and $5.0
million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR). The full Senate
provided $178.1 million, a decrease of $2.0 million from the request, with storage
facilities development and operations bearing the entire reduction. The FY2004 law
provided $175.9 million, including $155.0 million for storage facilities development
and operations. It also included $15.9 million for management of the SPR sites, and
$4.9 million for the NHOR.
The FY2004 law did not include Senate language that would have required the
Energy Department to develop procedures to assure that the SPR is filled consistent
with the objective of minimizing acquisition costs — including revenue foregone when
the oil is acquired under the RIK program — and consistent with maximizing domestic
supply. The language, agreed to on the floor, stemmed from a study that suggested that
the Administration’s acquisition schedule diverted oil from markets at inopportune
times, exacerbating crude price increases.⁶
The NHOR, established by the Clinton Administration, houses 2 million barrels
of home heating oil in above-ground facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode
Island. Savings in the cost of leasing these facilities has reduced the cost of
maintaining the NHOR. The House, Senate, and FY2004 law contained $5.0 million,
adjusted to $4.9 million. The FY2004 law did not include Senate language that would
have required the Secretary of Energy to deliver a report to Congress by December 1,
2003, that would have set out assumptions and specify scenarios for use of the NHOR
and make recommendations for alternative formulae to authorize a drawdown. The

⁶ The study is available on the website of Senator Levin at
[ ht t p: / / www.access.gpo.gov/ c ongr e ss/ senat e / s enat e12cp108.ht ml ] .

House Appropriations Committee had made a comparable recommendation. The
provision reflected that some in Congress were not satisfied with the formula currently
in place that permits drawdown of the NHOR.
The FY2003 appropriation provided a total of $179.6 million for the SPR. This
consisted of $157.8 million for storage facilities development and operations; $13.9
million for management; $1.9 million in new money for the SPR Petroleum Account,
reflecting a level of $7.0 million for transportation of RIK oil, less a $5.0 million
rescission of unobligated prior-year funds; and $6.0 million for the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve. The FY2003 law also reauthorized the SPR through FY2008.
Conference report language on comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 6) would
require that the SPR be filled to its current capacity of roughly 700 million barrels as
soon as practicable, and would authorize $1.5 billion for expansion of the SPR to 1
billion barrels. H.R. 6 also would permanently authorize the Reserve. The conference
report passed the House but became stalled in the Senate in November 2003. The
outcome for comprehensive energy legislation is unclear.
For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, see its website at
[http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/res erves/spr/].
CRS Issue Brief IB87050, The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
Naval Petroleum Reserves. The National Defense Authorization Act for
FY1996 (P.L. 104-106) authorized sale of the federal interest in the oil field at Elk
Hills, CA (NPR-1). On February 5, 1998, Occidental Petroleum Corporation took title
to the site and wired $3.65 billion to the U.S. Treasury. P.L. 104-106 also transferred
most of two Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSR) to DOI; the balance of the second was
transferred to DOI in the spring of 1999. On January 14, 2000, the Department of
Energy (DOE) returned the undeveloped NOSR-2 to the Ute Indian Tribe; the FY2001
National Defense Authorization (P.L. 106-398) provided for the transfer. The U.S.
retains a 9% royalty interest in NOSR-2, with any proceeds to be applied to the costs
of remediating a uranium mill tailings site near Moab, Utah.
This leaves in the Naval Petroleum Reserves program two small oil fields in
California and Wyoming, which will generate estimated revenue to the government of
roughly $6.9 million during FY2003. The request to maintain the Naval Petroleum
Reserves (NPR) for FY2004 was $16.5 million, of which $5.6 million was for
environmental remediation at NOSR-3, transferred to the Department of the Interior
in 1999. Under terms of the transfer, DOE remained responsible for remediation. The
FY2004 request ($16.5 million) was a decrease of $1.2 million from the FY2003
appropriation ($17.7 million). The House approved the Appropriations Committee’s
boost of the NPR budget to $20.5 million, adding $4.0 million to restore funding for
the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC).
The Senate Appropriations Committee — and subsequently the full Senate — set
funding for the NPR at $17.9 million. The Committee agreed with the House that
funding should be maintained for the RMOTC, adding $3.0 million for operation of the
Center, and $728,000 for program direction. However, the Committee approved only
$500,000 for restoration activities, a reduction of $2.3 million from the level requested

by the Administration. The final FY2004 appropriation was slightly less than $18.0
million, decreasing the funds intended for restoration activities by about $2.5 million
from the House-passed level.
In settlement of a long-standing dispute between California and the federal
government over the state’s claim to Elk Hills as “school lands,” the California
Teachers’ Retirement Fund is to receive 9% of the Elk Hills sale proceeds after the
costs of sale have been deducted. The agreement between DOE and California
provided for five annual payments of $36.0 million beginning in FY1999, with the
balance due to be paid in equal installments in FY2004 and FY2005. The FY2003
budget request included an advance appropriation of $36.0 million for the Elk Hills
School Lands Fund, to be paid at the start of FY2004. This was enacted in the FY2003
appropriations law.
The FY2004 budget request sought an appropriation of $36.0 million, pending
the completion of divestment activities and calculation of the remaining balance owed
to the California Teachers’ Retirement Fund. The House agreed to the Appropriations
Committee’s recommendation to make the $36.0 million request an advance
appropriation that will be payable on October 1, 2004 instead of October 1, 2003. The
Senate and FY2004 law concurred as well. The FY2004 law maintained $36.0 million
plus an advance appropriation for FY2005 of $36.0 million for a total of $72.0 million.
For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, see its
website at [http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/].
Energy Conservation. The FY2004 budget request stressed that the
Administration’s energy efficiency programs can improve economic growth, energy
security, and the environment. The request presented, and Table 14 below shows, a
new budget structure that reflects the recent reorganization of DOE’s Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The Administration proposed to decrease
conservation funding under EERE from $891.8 million in FY2003 to $875.8 million
in FY2004. The main Administration initiatives are: (1) FreedomCAR and Hydrogen
Fuels, reflected in a $22.4 million, or 41%, increase for Fuel Cell Technologies to help
reduce foreign oil dependence, improve electric power infrastructure security and
reliability, and curb greenhouse gas emissions; (2) the National Climate Change
Technology Initiative (NCCTI), which would receive $9.5 million to promote
competitive project solicitations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and (3) the
Weatherization grants program, which would increase by $64.7 million, or 29%, to
reduce energy bills and improve energy affordability for low-income families.
Table 14. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2003-
FY2004
($ in millions)
DOE EnergyFY2003FY2004FY2004FY2004FY2004
Conservation Approp. Re que s t House Senat e Approp.
Passed Passed
Vehicle Technologies $177.3$157.6$184.4$174.2$178.0
Fuel Cell Technologies55.177.556.568.565.2
Intergovernmental 314.4 357.0 322.5 311.5 308.6

DOE EnergyFY2003FY2004FY2004FY2004FY2004
Conservation Approp. Re que s t House Senat e Approp.
Passed Passed
Weatherization Grants223.5288.2240.0230.0227.2
Distrib. Energy Resources61.151.864.357.561.0
Building Technologies59.452.659.062.159.9
Industrial Technologies98.664.497.776.493.1
Biomass/Biorefinery 24.6 8.8 0.0 10.8 7.5
Federal Energy Mgmt.19.320.020.020.019.7^a
Program Management 77.076.790.2 80.7 85.0 ^a
Energy Eff. Sci. Initiative 5.00.0[5.0] 0.0 0.0
Climate Tech. Initiative0.09.50.00.00.0
Rescissions & Transfers0.00.00.00.00.0
R&D Subtotal623.5548.8 594.5 587.6606.9
Grants Subtotal268.2327.0 285.0 274.0271.1
General Reduction — — -15.0 — 0.0
Total Appropriations$891.8$875.8$879.5$861.6$878.0^a
^No^te:^Usⁱ^ng^E^E^R^E^’^sⁿ^e^w^accouⁿ^t^s^t^ru^ctu^r^{e f}^o^{r FY2004, th}^{e Hou}^s^{e A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^ittee’^s
^r^e^p^o^r^t’^{s n}^a^r^r^a^tiv^{e an}^d^b^u^d^g^{et tab}^l^{e in}^clu^d^ed^$⁵^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^f^o^r^th^{e En}^er^g^y^Ef^fⁱ^cien^cy^Scien^{ce I}ⁿ^itiativ^e^as
^{part of}^th^{e F}^Y^{2004 total}^f^o^r^P^r^og^ram^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^.^In^con^t^ras^t^{, u}^sⁱⁿ^g^EER^E’^s^{old accou}ⁿ^t^s^t^ru^ctu^r^{e f}^o^r
^{FY2003, th}^{e report’}^s^bu^dg^{et table s}^h^ow^s^{FY2003 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^{e En}^erg^y^Ef^fⁱ^cien^cy^Scien^{ce In}^itiativ^e
ⁱⁿ^its^owⁿ^accouⁿ^t^lin^{e, s}^e^{parate f}^r^om^th^{e P}^r^og^ram^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^accouⁿ^t^lin^e.
To offset these increases, the FY2004 request proposed several decreases.
Compared to the FY2003 appropriation, the FY2004 request would have cut overall
funding by $16.0 million, or 2%, not accounting for inflation. R&D funding would
have declined from $623.5 million to $548.8 million, a drop of $74.7 million, or 12%.
The House approved $879.5 million for DOE energy conservation funding in
FY2004. Compared to the Administration’s request, this would have been an increase
of $3.7 million, or 0.4%. However, compared to the FY2003 appropriation, this would
have been a decrease of $12.3 million, or 1%, excluding inflation. In House floor
action, an amendment added $15.0 million for Weatherization grants with an
unspecified $15.0 million offsetting cut in energy conservation.
The House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 108-195, p. 12) stated that
DOE “needs to do a better job measuring potential program success and discontinuing
programs that do not yield expected results.” Further, it asserted that incremental
technology improvements are key to short-term and mid-term energy efficiency
improvements and related emission reductions. In particular, the Committee stated that
it restored many DOE-proposed energy conservation reductions because “it would be
fiscally irresponsible to discontinue research in which we have made major investments
without bringing that research to a logical conclusion.”
Among other agreements, the Committee concluded that (H.Rept. 108-195, p.

122-123): (1) several positions will be eliminated, based on the EERE reorganization,

(2) the National Academy of Public Administration’s recommendations as to its review
of the reorganization should be implemented as soon as possible after delivery, (3) the
FY2005 budget justification document should include a program specific table with
greater detail about sub-activities, (4) the State Technologies Advancement

Collaborative should be continued and supplemented with other program funds, (5)
EERE cooperative programs should be closely coordinated with certain fossil energy
programs, (6) the National Climate Change Technology Initiative should be more
clearly defined, and (7) the National Academy of Sciences program review should
become a continuing annual review.
The Senate approved $861.6 million for FY2004 DOE energy conservation
funding. Compared to the Administration’s request, this would have been a decrease
of $14.1 million, or 1.6%, excluding inflation. However, compared to the FY2003
appropriation, this would have been a decrease of $30.1 million, or 3.4%, excluding
inflation. This difference included a cut of $35.9 million for R&D and an increase of
$5.8 million for grants. The Senate approved a provision that would define electric
thermal storage technology as a weatherization measure. The Senate also approved a
provision that would incorporate “neighborhood electric vehicle” (one that is both low-
speed and has zero emissions) into the definition of alternative-fueled vehicles, making
it eligible for certain incentives.
The Interior Appropriations conference approved $883.2 million for DOE energy
conservation funding. However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY2004 (P.L.
108-199) included an across-the-board rescission of 0.59%. Thus, a total of $878.0
million was enacted for FY2004. Compared to the Administration’s request, this is an
increase of $2.2 million, or 0.3%. However, compared to the FY2003 appropriation,
this is a decrease of $13.8 million, or 1.5%. The FY2004 level included a cut of $16.6
million for R&D and an increase of $2.9 million for grants.
The conference managers agreed on many directives, special provisions, and
clarifications for energy conservation. The two provisions recommended by the Senate
were not included in the FY2004 law. However, the conference report noted that the
Secretary of DOE has the authority to add measures, such as electric thermal storage
technology, to the list of eligible weatherization measures. Seven of the key provisions
in the conference agreement follow: (1) support for the Climate Change Technology
Initiative (CCTI) should proceed, but only with funding from existing programs; (2)
with increased funding provided above the request for non-petroleum-fuels, DOE shall
design/engineer at least two additional natural gas vehicle infrastructure platforms for
medium duty trucks, develop liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles, and conduct
research on fueling stations that could dispense compressed natural gas, liquefied
natural gas, and compressed hydrogen; (3) $7.75 million is provided for the Next
Generation Lighting Initiative; (4) the DOE Secretary is empowered to consider
making electrochemical storage technology eligible for weatherization grants, as
proposed in the Senate bill; (5) no funding is provided in FY2004 for the Energy
Efficiency Science Initiative; (6) funds provided by the Interior bill shall not be used
to support programs funded by the Energy and Water bill; and (7) a concerted
technology transfer effort should be applied to new conservation technologies
developed at national laboratories.
For further information on energy conservation, see the DOE website at
[http://www.eere.energy.gov/].

Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health
Service
The Indian Health Service (IHS) carries out the federal responsibility of assuring
comprehensive medical and environmental health services for approximately 1.5 million
to 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) who belong to 562
federally recognized tribes located in 35 states. Health care is provided through a
system of federal, tribal, and urban Indian operated programs and facilities. IHS
provides direct health care services through 36 hospitals, 59 health centers, 2 school
health centers, 49 health stations, and 5 residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribal
groups, under IHS contracts and compacts, operate another 13 hospitals, 172 health
centers, 3 school health centers, 260 health stations, including 176 Alaska Native village
clinics, and 28 residential treatment centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups also operate
9 regional youth substance abuse treatment centers and more than 2,252 units of
residential quarters for staff working in the clinics.
IHS funding is separated into two Indian health budget categories: services and
facilities. The FY2004 law contained total IHS appropriations of $2.92 billion for
FY2004, which is $72.1 million (3%) over the FY2003 appropriation of $2.85 billion.
The House had recommended $2.95 billion and the Senate had recommended $2.94
billion. See Table 15 below. Of the total IHS appropriations enacted for FY2004, 87%
would be used for health services, and 13% for the health facilities program.
The Senate considered three amendments affecting IHS funding. First, an
amendment to give IHS an additional $292 million for FY2004 fell on a point of order
that it violated provisions of the Budget Act. Senator Daschle used a recently-
published study to support a claim that additional funding was needed to combat unmet
health needs and to show that the U.S. Government in 2003 spent $1,914 per capita on
medical care for American Indian and Alaska Natives while spending $3,803
(approximately twice as much) on medical care for federal prisoners.⁷ Second, the
Senate also rejected an amendment that sought to strike funding for the reorganization
plan for the BIA and OST and transfer the funds to the IHS.
However, the Senate agreed to a third amendment that sought to ensure that IHS
funds are not redirected to programs and projects that have not been fully justified in the
Administration’s budget request and supported by the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. The FY2004 law modified this provision to prohibit the use of funds for
assessments or charges by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that
are not specifically identified in the budget request and the agreement, or approved by
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees through the reprogramming process.
The provision also restricted reductions in IHS personnel, as in recent years.
IHS services are funded not only through congressional appropriations, but also
from money reimbursed from private health insurance and federal programs such as
Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Both the
House and Senate estimated that IHS will collect $567.6 million in reimbursements in

⁷ Sen. Tom Daschle, remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149,
Sept. 23, 2003, p. S11780.

FY2004, a $117.6 million or 26% increase over the estimated amount of $450.0 million
for FY2003.
The IHS health services budget has several subcategories: clinical services,
preventive health services, and other services. Clinical services include basic primary
care for inpatient and outpatient services at IHS hospitals and clinics. The FY2004 law
contained a total of $2.02 billion for clinical services, which was $51.1 million (3%)
over the FY2003 level of $1.97 billion. The law provided all programs within clinical
services with increases over FY2003, but only funding for hospital and health clinic
programs increased over the President’s request. Specifically, $1.25 billion (62%)
would go to support programs for hospitals and clinics; this was an increase of $37.8
million (3%) over FY2003 and $55.2 million (5%) over the Administration’s request.
Dental health received $104.5 million; mental health received $53.3 million, and
substance abuse treatment received $138.3 million. For contract health services, which
are services purchased from local and community health care providers when IHS
cannot provide medical care and specific services through its own system, the FY2004
law contained $479.1 million. This was a $14.0 million reduction (3%) from the
President’s request.
For preventive health services, the FY2004 law contained $106.9 million, an
increase of $4.3 million (4%) over the FY2003 appropriation of $102.6 million. It
provided all programs within preventive health services with increases over FY2003,
but with flat or decreased funding relative to the President’s request. The law contained
$42.6 million for public health nursing, $11.8 million for health education in schools
and communities, $1.6 million for immunizations, and $51.0 million for the community
health representatives (CHR) program. The CHR program, which is tribally
administered, supports tribal community members who work to prevent illness and
disease in their communities.
For other health-related activities, the FY2004 law contained a total of $398.5
million, adecrease of $1.0 million (less than 1%) from FY2003 and $8.5 million (2%)
from the President’s request. The law provided $31.6 million to support health-related
activities in off-reservation urban health projects, $30.8 million for scholarships to
health care professionals, $2.4 million for costs associated with providing tribal
management grants to tribes, $60.7 million for IHS administration and management
costs for programs it operates directly, $5.7 million for self-governance, and $267.4
million for contract support costs. The law did not contain increases requested by the
Administration for scholarships, self-governance, or contract support costs. Contract
support costs are awarded to tribes for administering programs under contracts or
compacts authorized under the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638, as
amended). They include costs for expenses tribes incur for financial management,
accounting, training, and program start-up. Most tribes and tribal organizations are
participating in new and expanded self-determination contracts and self-governing
compacts.
The IHS’s facilities category includes money for the construction, maintenance,
and improvement of both health and sanitation facilities. The FY2004 law contained
$391.4 million, a 5% increase over the FY2003 appropriation of $373.7 million.

Table 15. Appropriations for IHS, FY2003-FY2004
($ in millions)
F Y 2004 F Y 2004 F Y 2004
Indian Health ServiceFY2003Approp.FY2004RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
Hospital and Health Clinic $1,212.0 $1,194.6$1,266.5$1,249.6$1,249.8
Programs
Dental Health99.6105.6105.8105.1104.5
Mental Health50.354.054.053.653.3
Alcohol and Substance 136.8140.0140.0139.1138.3
Abuse
Contract Care475.0493.0478.0490.0479.1
Total Clinical Services1,973.81,987.12,044.32,037.42,024.9
Preventive Health
Public Health Nursing39.643.143.142.942.6
Health Education11.011.911.911.911.8
Community Health Reps.50.451.651.651.351.0
Immunization (Alaska)1.51.61.61.61.6
Total Preventive Health102.6108.3108.3107.6106.9
Other Services
Urban Health Projects31.331.632.031.831.6
Indian Health Professions31.135.431.231.230.8
Tribal Management2.42.42.42.42.4
Direct Operations60.256.661.561.560.7
Self-Governance 5.6 10.3 5.7 5.7 5.6
Contract Support Costs 269.0270.7270.7269.0267.4
Total Other Services399.5407.0403.5401.5398.5
Medicare/Medicaid Reimburse.(450.0)(567.6)(567.6)(567.6)(567.6)
Total Indian Health Services2,475.92,502.42,556.12,546.52,530.4
Indian Health Facilities
Maintenance and Improvement49.547.349.549.548.9
Sanitation Facilities93.2114.294.293.493.0
Construction Facilities81.669.992.192.094.6
Facilities and Envt. Health 132.3139.5139.5138.8137.8
Support
Equipment 17.2 16.3 17.3 17.5 17.1
Total Indian Health Facilities373.7387.3392.6391.2391.4
Total Appropriations2,849.72,889.72,948.62,937.72,921.7
For further information on the Indian Health Service, see its website at
[ http://www.ihs.gov/] .

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) and its predecessor
were created pursuant to a 1974 act (P.L. 93-531, as amended) that was the end result
of a lengthy dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originally
set aside by the federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974
act, the lands were partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe living
on land partitioned to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes,
and bonuses, at federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary. Congress has been
concerned, at times, about the speed of the relocation process and about avoiding
forced relocations or evictions.
ONHIR’s chief activities consist of housing acquisition and construction, land
acquisition, infrastructure construction, post-move family support, and certification
of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.
For FY2003, ONHIR received appropriations of $14.4 million. For FY2004,
the Administration, the House, and the Senate all recommended $13.5 million, a
decrease of $865,000, or 6%. The FY2004 law provided $13.4 million.
Relocation began in 1977 and is not yet complete. ONHIR has a backlog of
relocatees who are approved for replacement homes but have not yet received them.
Most families subject to relocation are Navajo — an estimated 3,477 Navajo families
resided on land partitioned to the Hopi, while 27 Hopi families were on Navajo
partitioned land. While a large majority of the Navajo families have been relocated
to replacement homes, the House Appropriations Committee estimated in 2003 that
190 Navajo families still have yet to complete relocation. Most of these remaining
Navajo families are not currently living on Hopi partitioned land, but a majority have
not begun the process of acquiring replacement housing. All but one of the 27 Hopi
families had completed relocation by the end of FY2002, according to ONHIR.
ONHIR estimated in its strategic plan that it would complete relocation moves by the
end of FY2006 and post-move assistance by the end of FY2008, but the schedule
depended on infrastructure needs and relocatees’ decisions. Congressional
committees have in the past expressed impatience with the speed of relocation but
at present have not criticized the current pace.
Many Navajo families have resisted relocation for years, while the Hopi Tribe
has insisted on their relocation. About 16 of the 190 remaining Navajo families are
still on Hopi partitioned land, according to the House Committee, and some of them
refuse to relocate. In 1996 Congress approved “accommodation agreements,” with
75-year leases, for Navajo families who wished to remain on Hopi partitioned land
(P.L. 104-301), as a means of compromise between the Navajo families and the Hopi
Tribe. Most Navajo families then on Hopi partitioned land signed the agreements,
but resistant Navajo families remain.
A long-standing proviso in ONHIR appropriations language, retained in the
FY2004 act, prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi
partitioned lands unless a replacement home were provided. This language appears
to prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families in the near future,
because of ONHIR’s backlog of approved relocatees awaiting replacement homes.

As the backlog is reduced, however, forced eviction may become an issue, if any
Navajo families refuse relocation and if the Hopi Tribe were to exercise a right under
P.L. 104-301 to begin legal action against the United States for failure to give the
Hopi “quiet possession” of all Hopi partitioned lands.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education, and research complex
of 16 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and research facilities throughout the
United States and around the world. Nine of its museums and galleries are located
on the Mall between the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument. The SI is
responsible for over 400 buildings with approximately 8 million square feet of space.
It is estimated to be 70% federally funded, and also is supported by various types of
trust funds. A federal commitment to fund the Institution had been established by
legislation in 1846.
Appropriations. The FY2004 law provided a total of $596.3 million for the
Smithsonian Institution, $12.6 million above the House-passed level ($583.7 million)
and $18.3 million above the Senate-passed bill ($577.9 million). The enacted level
is an increase over the FY2004 Administration budget ($566.5 million) and the
FY2003 appropriation ($544.9 million.) The increase above the FY2003
appropriation is primarily for operations of, and transportation of collections to, the
new National Museum of the American Indian; for renovation at the National Zoo;
other revitalization of deteriorating SI buildings; and SI security. For the
Smithsonian Institution’s Salaries and Expenses, the FY2004 law provided $488.7
million — an increase of $12.1 million above the FY2004 request and $42.6 million
above the FY2003 appropriation. See Table 16 below.
Facilities Capital. For FY2004, a new account title, “Facilities Capital” was
used; it is comprised of revitalization, construction, and facilities planning and
design. The FY2004 law provided $107.6 million for “Facilities Capital,” with $89.6
million for “revitalization.” The revitalization program is to address advanced
deterioration in SI buildings, help with routine maintenance and repair in
Smithsonian Institution facilities, and make critical repairs.
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The FY2004 law did
not specify new construction money for the museum. However, under Smithsonian
Institution’s Salaries and Expenses, it provided approximately $38.1 million for
operations of the NMAI to help support the Museum’s opening. The NMAI had been
controversial. Opponents of constructing a new museum argued that the current
Smithsonian Institution museums needed renovation, repair, and maintenance more
than the public needed another museum on the Mall. Proponents argued that there
had been too long a delay in providing a museum in Washington to house the Indian
collection. Based on a new estimate of $219.3 million for construction of the Indian
museum, the Smithsonian Institution indicated that some of its trust funds could be
used to cover opening costs. The groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI took place
September 28, 1999 and the projected opening is September of 2004.
Smithsonian Institution Center for Materials Research and
Education (SCMRE). The direction of SI’s research priorities is of concern to

Congress. A recent controversy involved the proposed closing of the Smithsonian
Institution Center for Materials Research and Education (SCMRE), which the
Smithsonian Institution decided to retain. The FY2002 Interior Appropriations law
had provided that an independent “blue ribbon” Science Commission would be
established and meet before any final decision about closing the SCMRE. The
Commission’s report of January, 2003 noted that science programs of the
Smithsonian Institution have eroded over time due to a “long-term trend in declining
support for mandatory annual salary increases.” The FY2004 law provided
essentially level funding for the SCMRE ($3.5 million).
Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian
Institution receives trust funds to expand its programs. The SI trust fund includes
general trust funds, contributions from private sources, and government grants and
contracts from other agencies. General trust funds include investment income and
revenue from “business ventures” such as the Smithsonian magazine, and retail
shops. There are also trust funds that are private donor-designated funds that specify
and direct the purpose of funds. Finally, government grants and contracts are
provided by various government agencies for projects specific to the Smithsonian
Institution, and they were projected to be $87.0 million for FY2003.
Tracking of the Smithsonian Institution’s Trust fund expenditures has been of
concern to the Congress. In FY2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended instituting a plan, that the Smithsonian Institution has now developed,
to track trust fund budget proposals and expenditures. According to the Inspector
General of the Smithsonian Institution, there was a discrepancy between what the
Board of Regents approved and actual expenditures. This matter has been resolved.
Table 16. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
FY2004FY2004 FY2004
Smithsonian Institution (SI)FY2003Approp.FY2004RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
Salaries and Expenses$446,096$476,553$489,748$487,989488,653
Repair, Restoration, and82,883 — — — —
Alteration of Facilities
Facilities Capital — 89,97093,97089,970107,626
Construction15,896 — — — —
SI total544,875566,523583,718577,959596,279
For further information on the Smithsonian Institution, see its website at
[ http://www.si.edu/] .

National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment
for the Humanities
One of the primary vehicles for federal support for the arts and the humanities
is the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, composed of the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH),
and the Institute of Museum Services (IMS), now constituted as the Institute of
Museum and Library Services (IMLS) with an Office of Museum Services (OMS).
The authorizing act, the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act,
was last reauthorized in 1990 and expired at the end of FY1993, but NEA and NEH
have since been operating on temporary authority through appropriations law. The^th
104 Congress established the Institute of Museum and Library Services and created
the Office of Museum Services (P.L. 104-208).
Among the questions Congress continually considers is whether funding for the
arts and humanities is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Some opponents
of federal arts funding argue that NEA and NEH should be abolished altogether.
Other opponents argue that culture can and does flourish on its own through private
support. Proponents of federal support for arts and humanities contend that the
federal government has a long tradition of support for culture and that abolishing
NEA and NEH could curtail or eliminate programs that have national significance
and purpose (such as national touring theater and dance companies.) Some
representatives of the private sector say that they are unable to make up the gap that
would be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts.
NEA. For FY2004, Congress enacted $121.0 million for NEA. See Table 17
below. NEA’s direct grant program currently supports approximately 1,600 grants.
State arts agencies are now receiving over 40% of grant funds, with 1,000
communities participating nationwide, particularly from under-represented areas.
The NEA total included $21.7 million for the Challenge America Arts fund, a
program of matching grants for arts education, outreach and community arts activities
for rural and under-served areas. The NEA is required to submit a detailed report to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees describing the use of funds for the
Challenge America program.
Although there appears to be an increase in congressional support for the NEA,
debate often recurs on previous questionable NEA grants when appropriations are
considered.⁸ Congress continues to restate the language of NEA reforms in
appropriations laws. The FY2004 appropriations law retained language on funding
priorities and restrictions on grants, including that no grant may be used generally for

⁸ The debate involved whether or not some of the grants given were for artwork that might
be deemed obscene, culminating in a 1998 Supreme Court decision (NEA v. Finley
(CA9,100F.3d 671)) that the NEA “can consider general standards of decency” when
judging grants for artistic merit and that the decency provision does not “inherently interfere
with First Amendment rights nor violate constitutional vagueness principles.” No NEA
projects have been judged obscene by the courts. Also, NEA eliminated grants to
individuals by arts discipline with some exceptions.

seasonal support to a group, and no grants may be for individuals except for literature
fellowships, National Heritage fellowships, or American Jazz Master fellowships.
NEH. The NEH generally supports grants for humanities education, research,
preservation and public humanities programs; the creation of regional humanities
centers; and development of humanities programs under the jurisdiction of the 56
state humanities councils. NEH also supports a Challenge Grant program to
stimulate and match private donations in support of humanities institutions. The
FY2004 appropriations law provided $135.3 million for NEH, including $119.4
million for Grants and Administration and $15.9 million for Matching Grants. The
enacted level is an increase of $10.4 million (8%) above the FY2003 appropriation
($124.9 million) and $16.7 million (11%) below the Administration’s request
($152.0 million). The Administration sought a 22% increase for NEH above the
FY2003 appropriation, primarily to provide for a new program entitled the “We the
People initiative.” The FY2004 law provided $9.9 million for the “We the People
Initiative grants.” These grants will include model curriculum projects for schools
to improve course offerings in the humanities — American history, culture, and
civics.
Office of Museum Services. The Office of Museum Services provides
grants in aid to museums in the form of leadership grants, museum conservation,
conservation project support, museum assessment, and General Operating Support
(GOS) to help over 400 museums annually to improve the quality of their services
to the public. Effective with FY2003, the appropriation for the Office of Museum
Services (OMS) was moved from the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill
to the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies. For FY2004, IMLS would receive $262.2
million, comprised of $31.4 million for OMS, $198.2 million for Library services,
and $32.6 million for specified projects (P.L. 108-199). For further information, see
CRS Report RL31803, Appropriations for FY2004: Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, by Paul M. Irwin.
Table 17. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
Arts/^aFY2003FY2004FY2004 HouseFY2004SenateFY2004
Humanities Funding Approp.RequestPassedpassedApprop.
NEA $115,732^b $100,480 $127,480 $117,480 $120,972
Challenge America Arts[16,889]^b17,000[27,000]^b[17,000]^b[21,729]^b
Fund
Subtotal NEA115,732117,480127,480117,480120,972
NEH grants and108,919135,878125,878125,878119,386
administration
NEH matching grants16,01716,12216,12216,12215,924
Subtotal NEH124,936152,000142,000142,000135,310
^No^tes:^a^Begⁱⁿⁿⁱⁿ^g^wⁱ^t^h^F^Y^{2003, t}^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Mu^s^e^u^m^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^as^part^of^IML^Sⁱ^sⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^t^h^e
^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^{ill f}^o^r^th^{e Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^{s o}^f^L^a^b^o^r^-^HHS-^E^d^an^d^Related^A^g^en^cies.

^b^T^h^{e total f}^o^{r NEA}^g^r^an^ts^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rationⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^th^{e C}^h^allen^g^e^A^m^{erica prog}^ram^.
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its website
at [http://arts.endow.gov/].
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
website at [http://www.neh.gov/].
For further information on the Institute of Museum Services, see its website at
[ http://www.imls.gov/] .
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by
Susan Boren.
Cross-Cutting Topics
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
The four principal land management agencies — Bureau of Land Management,
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest Service — draw
primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The presentations about each of those
agencies earlier in this report identify funding levels for their land acquisition
activities. The LWCF also funds acquisition and recreational development by state
and local governments through a state grant program administered by the NPS. In
recent years, Congress also has appropriated money from the LWCF to fund some
related activities that do not involve land acquisition. Appropriations for federal
acquisitions generally are earmarked to specific management units, such as a
National Wildlife Refuge, while the state grant program rarely is earmarked. Funds
may not be spent without an appropriation. The LWCF is authorized at $900 million
annually through FY2015.
Through FY2004, the total amount that potentially could have been appropriated
from the LWCF since its inception was $27.2 billion. Actual appropriations have
been $13.6 billion. In recent years, until FY2003, appropriators provided generally
increasing amounts from the Fund for federal land acquisition and the state grant
program. The total had more than quadrupled, rising from a low of $138 million in
FY1996 to $573 million in FY2002. However, the FY2003 appropriation was $410
million, a decrease of $163 million from FY2002. Further, the FY2004 total of $263
million is a decrease of $147 million from FY2003. This amount is less than both
the Administration request and the Senate-passed amount, but more than then the
House-passed amount, as shown in Table 18 below. This table shows the
components of LWCF appropriations for FY2001 through FY2004.

Table 18. LWCF Funding for Federal Land Acquisition and State Grants,
FY2001-FY2004
($ in millions)
F Y 2004 F Y 2004 F Y 2004
AgencyFY2001Approp.FY2002Approp.FY2003 Approp.FY2004 RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
BLM $56 $50 $33 $24 $14 $26 $18
FWS 121997341236543
NPS Federal1251307479345542
Acquisitions
NPS Administered90144971609810494
State Grants
FS 15615013344297666
Total 548573410348198326263
^So^urc^e^:^D^a^t^a^{for F}^Y^2001com^pi^l^e^{d by}^t^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e In}^t^e^ri^{or Bu}^dg^et^O^f^fⁱ^ce;^dat^a^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2002 f}^r^om^In^t^e^ri^or
^A^ppropriation^s^C^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^{port (H.R}^{ept. 107-}^{234); data f}^o^{r FY2003 an}^{d FY2004}^f^r^om^A^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^ittees^’
^docu^m^en^t^s^.
^Note:^In^s^o^m^e^recen^{t y}^ears^,^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^h^a^s^{appropriated L}^W^C^F^Fuⁿ^d^s^{to f}^e^{deral ag}^en^cies^f^o^{r pu}^rpos^es^oth^e^{r th}^an^lan^d
^acq^uⁱ^sitioⁿ^an^d^statesid^{e g}^r^an^{ts. T}^h^{ese f}^uⁿ^d^{s f}^o^r^o^t^h^e^r^p^u^r^p^o^s^es^ar^eⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{is tab}^l^{e. T}^h^{is p}^r^o^{cess star}^ted^w^h^en
^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^prov^{ided $72 m}^illion^f^o^{r oth}^e^{r pu}^rpos^esⁱⁿ^th^{e FY}^{1998 In}^{terior appropriation}^s^law^.^In^FY1999,ⁿ^o^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g
^w^a^s^{appropriated f}^o^{r oth}^e^{r pu}^rpos^es^{. Sin}^ce^th^en^,^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r oth}^e^{r pu}^rpos^es^h^a^sⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed $15 m}^illioⁿⁱⁿ^{FY2000, $456}
^m^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2001, $135 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2002, an}^{d $197 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2003. T}^h^e^FY2004^bu^dg^et^requ^es^{t in}^clu^d^es^$554
^m^illion^f^o^{r oth}^e^{r con}^s^erv^a^tion^prog^ram^s^{, an}^{d th}^{e FY2004 law}^prov^id^{ed abou}^t^{$221 m}^illioⁿ^.
Reductions of the magnitude that occurred in FY2003 and again in FY2004
were last seen in the early and mid 1990s as part of efforts to address the federal
budget deficit. This time, the federal budget deficit is becoming important, and other
priorities have become more pressing in the wake of the many components of the war
on terrorism. The lower FY2003 and FY2004 appropriation requests of $532 million
and $348 million, respectively, for land acquisition contrasted with the Bush
administration request for full funding for FY2002. In the FY2003 legislative
process, the decline continued chronologically with each step; the House approved
less funding ($528 million) than the Administration requested, then the Senate
approved less funding ($464 million) than the House, and the conference committee
agreed to a total of $410 million, which was $118 million less than the House-passed
total and $54 million less than the Senate-passed total. The FY2004 appropriation
did not follow this progression, although the end result is a large reduction from the
preceding year. Not only did the total decline in FY2003 and again in FY2004, but
each of the five component accounts also declined.
In FY2004, the Administration requested the largest amount in the program’s
history — $554 million — for purposes other than land acquisition and stateside
grants. The programs and amounts are listed in appendix E of the FY2004 Interior
Budget in Brief. In recent years, Congress has appropriated funds for other programs,
as identified in the note following Table 18 above. For FY2004, the President
sought to fund specific programs using the LWCF including: Forest Service’s Forest
Stewardship Program ($65.6 million), Forest Legacy Program ($90.8 million), and
Urban and Community Forestry Program ($37.9 million); the Department of the

Interior’s interagency Cooperative Conservation Initiative ($113.2 million); and Fish
and Wildlife Service’s State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ($60.0 million), Landowner
Incentive Grants ($40.0 million), Stewardship Grants ($10.0 million), Cooperative
Endangered Species Grants ($86.6 million), and North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund Grants ($49.6 million).
Both the full House and Senate agreed with this approach for FY2004 for
funding other programs, but provided less total funding and funding for fewer
programs from the LWCF. The House provided a total of $260 million and the
Senate provided $175 million, while the FY2004 law provided about $221 million.
More specifically, the FY2004 law provided $29.6 million for Landowner Incentive
Grants, $7.4 million for Stewardship Grants, $49.4 million for Cooperative
Endangered Species Grants, $69.1 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, and
$64.2 million for State and Private Forestry Programs, as well as small amounts to
two other programs.
For FY2004, the Administration again sought funding for the Cooperative
Conservation Initiative to promote conservation through partnerships that match
BLM, NPS, and FWS funds with local contributions. In FY2003, the Bush
Administration had first proposed this Initiative, and sought $100 million. Half this
total was to come from the state grant program portion of the LWCF, and the
remainder would have come from the operating accounts of the three DOI land
management agencies. Congress appropriated $14.9 million to this Initiative for
FY2003. In contrast to the FY2003 request, the entire FY2004 request of $113.2
million was to come from the LWCF. Neither the House nor Senate bills for FY2004
funded this Initiative, and no funds were included in the FY2004 law.
Conservation Spending Category
Congress created the Conservation Spending Category (CSC), as an amendment
to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, in the FY2001
Interior appropriations law. The CSC, which is also being called the Conservation
Trust Fund by some, combines funding for more than 2 dozen resource protection
programs including the LWCF. It also includes some coastal and marine programs
funded through Commerce appropriations. This action was in response to both the
Clinton Administration request for substantial funding increases in these programs
under its Lands Legacy Initiative, and congressional interest in increasing
conservation funding through legislation known as the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (CARA), which passed the House in the 106^th Congress.
The CSC law authorized that total spending under the category would grow each
year by $160 million, from $1.6 billion in FY2001 (of which $1.2 billion would be
through the Interior appropriations laws and the remainder through the Commerce
appropriations laws) to $2.4 billion in FY2006. All funding each year is subject to
the appropriations process. How programs are categorized matters — the
Administration and the Appropriations Committees disagree on whether all or
portions of funding for some programs, such as the Cooperative Conservation
Initiative, should be credited to the CSC. The appropriations history through FY2004
is as follows.

^!The FY2001 laws exceeded the target of $1.6 billion by
appropriating a total of $1.68 billion; $1.20 billion for Interior
appropriations programs and $0.48 billion for Commerce
appropriations programs (provided in Title IX of P.L. 106-522).
Totals for Interior and Commerce funding were both increases from
the preceding year of $566 and $160 million, respectively.
^!The FY2002 request totaled $1.54 billion for this group of programs,
and Congress appropriated $1.75 billion, thus almost reaching the
target of $1.76 billion. The appropriation for the Interior portion
was $1.32 billion, reaching the authorized target amount.
^!The FY2003 request totaled $1.67 billion for this group of programs,
a decrease from FY2002 funding, and below the target of $1.92
billion. Congress appropriated a total of $1.51 billion. For the
Interior portion, Congress provided $1.03 billion, less than the
authorized target of $1.44 billion.
The Administration’s FY2004 request totaled $1.33 billion, according to
estimates compiled by Interior and Commerce Appropriations subcommittee staffs.
This amount was below the target of $2.08 billion. For the Interior portion, the
request was $1.00 billion, and the target was $1.56 billion. The Administration had
an alternative estimate that increased the total FY2004 request to $1.22 billion for
Interior programs, but it was based on some different assumptions about which
programs to include.
For FY2004, none of the bills or accompanying committee reports identified
funding levels for the CSC, with one exception. The House Appropriations
Committee report included “additional views” by Representatives Obey and Dicks
in which they inserted a table to document, by program, the difference between the
$1.56 billion target and their estimate of the total funding for CSC programs of $991
million. During floor consideration, Representative Obey offered an amendment to
fund this difference by rescinding 3.21% of the tax cut for taxpayers with adjusted
gross incomes in excess of $1 million. The amendment was rejected on a point of
order raised by both Resource Committee Chair Pombo and Interior Appropriations
subcommittee Chair Taylor against including authorizing legislation in an
appropriations bill.
For further information on the CSC, see Table 19 below. The table has not
been updated for FY2004 since the chambers and the conference committee did not
address the CSC in bill or report language.

Table 19. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations,
FY2001-FY2004
($ in millions)^a ^b
Subcategory/Approps. AccountFY2001FY2002FY2003FY2003FY2004
Approp.Approp. RequestApprop.Request
LWCF, Federal and State
BLM Federal Land Acquisition$47.3$49.9$44.7$33.2$23.7
FWS Federal Land Acquisition121.299.170.472.940.7
NPS Federal Land Acquisition124.8130.186.174.078.6
FS Federal Land Acquisition150.9149.7130.5132.944.1
NPS Stateside Grants and Administration90.3144.0200.0^c97.4160.0
Subtotal, Federal and State534.5572.9531.7^d410.4347.2
LWCF, Other
FWS State Wildlife Grants^e49.985.0 ^e60.064.660.0
FWS Incentive Grant Programs — 40.0^f50.0(0.3)40.0
FWS Stewardship Grants Program — 10.0^f10.09.910.0
FWS Cooperative Endangered Species104.796.291.080.586.6
Conservation Fund
FWS North American Wetlands39.943.543.630.349.6
Conservation Fund
FS, Forest Legacy59.965.069.868.490.8
FS, NFS Inventory and Monitoring20.0 — - — —
Subtotal, Other LWCF funded^{g h}274.4339.7324.4253.4337.0
Conservation Programs
Total LWCF808.9912.6856.1663.8684.2
Conservation Programs
BLM MLR Cooperative Conservation — — 10.014.9 ⁱ36.1ⁱ
Initiative
FWS RM Cooperative Conservation — — 18.0 — —
Initiative
NPS ONPS Cooperative Conservation — — 22.0 — —
Initiative
USGS State Planning Partnerships24.925.013.620.020.0
Subtotal Conservation Programs24.925.063.634.956.1
Urban and Historic Preservation Programs
NPS Historic Preservation Fund94.174.567.068.667.0
NPS Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery29.930.00.30.30.3

Grants

Subcategory/Approps. AccountFY2001FY2002FY2003FY2003FY2004
Approp.Approp. RequestApprop.Request
FS Urban and Community Forestry35.636.036.236.037.9
BLM Youth Conservation Corps1.01.01.01.01.0
FWS Youth Conservation Corps1.02.02.02.02.0
NPS Youth Conservation Corps2.02.02.02.02.0
FS Youth Conservation Corps2.02.02.02.02.0
Subtotal Urban and Historic Preservation165.7147.5110.5111.8112.2
Programs
Payments in Lieu of Taxes, BLM49.950.015.059.650.0
Subtotal PILT49.950.015.059.650.0
Federal Infrastructure Improvement Programs
BLM - Management of Lands & Resources24.928.029.030.829.4
FWS - Resource Management24.929.058.049.462.4
NPS - Construction49.966.982.228.50.0
FS - Capital Improvement and49.961.050.945.60.0
Maintenance
Subtotal Federal Infrastructure149.6184.9220.1153.791.8
Improvement Programs
Total 1,199.0 1,320.0 1,265.3 1,032.2^j 1,001.3^k
^Source:^Ho^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittee.^a
^No^tes:^T^h^{e Bal}^aⁿ^{ced Bu}^dg^et^an^{d Em}^erg^e^nc^y^D^e^fi^cⁱ^t^C^oⁿ^t^rol^A^c^t^of^{1985 (2 U}^.^S^.^C^.^{901(c)) as}^am^en^{ded es}^t^a^blⁱ^s^h^e^{d 3}
^dis^c^retion^a^ry^s^p^en^din^g^categ^ories^.^T^{itle VIII of}^P^.^L^.^106-²⁹¹^es^tab^lⁱ^s^{hed a f}^o^u^r^th^categ^ory^of^dis^c^retion^a^ry^s^p^en^din^g^{— f}^o^r
^“^c^oⁿ^s^e^r^v^atioⁿ^.^{” T}^h^{at law}^also^id^en^tif^ied^th^{e sp}^ecifⁱ^{c activ}^{ities th}^{at w}^o^u^l^d^b^eⁱⁿ^clu^d^ed^w^ithⁱⁿ^th^{e “}^c^oⁿ^ser^v^atioⁿ^sp^en^dⁱⁿ^g^cate^gory^.^”
^T^h^{e categ}^o^r^y^essen^tiallyⁱⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^s^t^h^o^s^e^activ^{ities, id}^en^tif^ied^b^y^Coⁿ^g^r^{ess, in}^p^a^rticu^l^{ar b}^u^d^g^{et acco}^uⁿ^t^{s (o}^{r p}^o^r^tioⁿ^s^th^ereo^f⁾
^p^r^o^v^idⁱⁿ^g^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^to^p^r^eser^v^e^an^d^p^r^o^t^{ect lan}^d^{s, h}^a^b^{itat, w}^ild^lif^{e, an}^d^o^t^h^e^rⁿ^a^tu^r^a^{l r}^e^so^u^r^{ces; to}^p^r^o^v^id^{e r}^ecr^eatioⁿ^a^l
^opport^uⁿ^ities^;^an^{d f}^o^{r oth}^e^{r pu}^rpos^es^{. T}^h^is^{table pres}^en^ts^th^{e cu}^rren^t^an^{d propos}^{ed dis}^t^ribu^tion^of^th^es^{e con}^s^erv^a^tion^fund^s^.
^Das^h^esⁱⁿ^{dicate th}^{at th}^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^is^uⁿ^d^ers^t^{ood to be}^{zero, eith}^{er becau}^s^eⁿ^o^thⁱⁿ^g^w^a^s^prov^{ided or s}^o^ught,^o^r^b^{ecause the acco}^unt
^{did n}^o^{t ex}^is^{t. Fu}^rth^e^{r, s}^e^v^e^{ral prog}^ram^sⁱⁿ^th^is^categ^ory^h^a^v^eⁿ^o^{t receiv}^e^{d s}^e^{parate f}^uⁿ^dⁱ^ng^und^e^r^c^o^ns^erv^a^tion^s^p^en^din^g^f^o^r
^FY2001-^{FY2003 or as}^propos^{ed in}^th^{e FY2004 bu}^dg^{et w}^{ill n}^o^{t receiv}^e^s^e^{parate f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^T^h^eyⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e C}^o^m^p^etitiv^{e Gran}^ts^f^o^r
^In^dian^T^r^ibes^{, FW}^{S Neotropical Mig}^r^atory^Bⁱ^rds^,^{FS Stew}^ards^hⁱ^p^In^cen^tiv^e^an^{d FS Stew}^ards^hⁱ^{p, Departm}^eⁿ^t^{al Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t
⁽^B^I^A^W^a^ter^Settlem^eⁿ^t⁾^,^an^d^Natioⁿ^a^{l W}^ild^lif^{e Ref}^u^g^e^f^uⁿ^d^{, FW}^S.
^In^F^Y^{2003, t}^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e, S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^{, an}^{d appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^(P.L^{. 108-}^{7) di}^dⁿ^o^t^con^t^aiⁿ^cal^cu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^of^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e C}^S^C^.^T^h^{e j}^oⁱ^nt
^ex^plan^atory^s^t^atem^en^{t of}^th^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report on}^th^{e en}^acted^m^eas^u^r^{e s}^t^{ated th}^{at n}^o^f^uⁿ^d^sⁱⁿ^th^{e law}^{are deriv}^e^{d f}^r^om^th^e^C^S^C^,
^bu^t^t^h^at^m^o^s^t^of^t^h^{e prog}^ram^s^prevⁱ^o^u^s^l^y^f^uⁿ^d^{ed u}ⁿ^d^{er t}^h^at^cat^eg^ory^{are con}^tⁱⁿ^u^e^{d i}ⁿ^F^Y^2003.
^T^h^{e table}^h^a^sⁿ^o^t^been^u^pdated^f^o^{r FY2004 s}ⁱⁿ^{ce n}^e^ith^{er of}^th^e^ch^am^bersⁿ^o^{r th}^{e con}^f^eren^{ce com}^m^{ittee in}^clu^d^{ed a tabu}^lation^of
^fund^{ing in b}^{ill o}^r^r^e^p^o^r^{t la}^ngua^ge^.
^b^S^u^bt^ot^al^s^an^{d t}^o^t^a^l^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^t^{add du}^{e t}^o^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^c^{$50.0 m}^illion^of^th^is^{total is}^{part of}^{a n}^e^w^C^ooperativ^{e C}^oⁿ^s^erv^a^tion^Iⁿ^itiativ^{e, an}^{d th}^{e rem}^aⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g^{$150.0 m}^illion^w^o^u^l^{d be}
^dⁱ^strⁱ^b^u^ted^to^{states u}^sⁱⁿ^g^an^allo^catioⁿ^f^o^r^m^u^l^{a d}^e^v^e^lo^p^e^d^b^y^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^f^o^r^th^{e tr}^ad^itioⁿ^a^{l lan}^d^acq^uⁱ^sitioⁿ^an^d^site
^d^e^v^e^lo^p^m^en^{t activ}^{ities o}^f^states.^d
^Departm^eⁿ^t^{al Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^/B^IA^W^a^{ter Settlem}^eⁿ^t^isⁿ^o^{t lis}^{ted becau}^s^e^{it w}^a^s^{a on}^e-^tim^e^requ^es^tⁱⁿ^{FY2003 f}^o^{r $3.0 m}^illion^.
^T^h^{e FY2003 requ}^es^{t f}^o^{r $3.0 m}^illion^isⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{ed in}^th^{e total.}^e
^For^{FY2001, an}^addition^a^{l $50.0 m}^illion^w^a^s^a^{ppropriated f}^o^{r f}^o^rm^u^l^{a g}^r^an^ts^w^h^ich^w^e^{re au}^th^{orized in}^T^itle^IX^of^th^e^FY2001
^C^o^m^m^e^{rce appropriation}^s^law^.^Fu^rth^e^{r, th}^{e FY2002 en}^{acted am}^ouⁿ^t^doesⁿ^o^{t ref}^l^{ect a propos}^ed^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^$25.0^m^illion^.

^f^T^h^{e F}^Y^{2004 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^hⁱ^s^t^oryⁱⁿ^di^cat^es^t^h^at^t^h^{e res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^F^Y²^{002 w}^a^sⁿ^o^t^adopt^{ed, i}^.^{e. t}^h^at^t^h^{e In}^cen^tⁱ^v^{e G}^r^an^t
^prog^ram^s^an^{d S}^t^ew^ards^hⁱ^{p g}^r^an^t^s^prog^ram^s^w^e^{re s}^u^s^t^aiⁿ^e^{d i}ⁿ^F^Y^2002.^g
^T^h^{e State an}^d^o^t^h^e^r^coⁿ^s^er^v^a^tioⁿ^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s^su^b^g^r^o^u^p^alsoⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^th^e^FW^S^Mig^r^ato^r^y^Bⁱ^r^d^Fuⁿ^d^an^d^th^{e FW}^{S Mu}^ltin^atioⁿ^a^l
^Species^f^uⁿ^d^{. T}^h^{e FY2003 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r th}^es^{e w}^a^s^{$3.0 m}^illion^f^o^r^mⁱ^g^r^atory^birds^an^{d $4.8 m}^illion^f^o^{r m}^u^ltin^ation^a^{l s}^p^ecies^{, an}^d
^th^{e FY2004 requ}^es^{t w}^a^s^{$0 an}^{d $7.0 m}^illion^res^p^ectiv^ely^.^h
^F^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r F}^S^,^F^o^res^t^S^t^ew^ards^hⁱ^{p w}^e^{re n}^o^t^con^sⁱ^d^{ered part}^of^t^h^{e C}^S^Cⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2001 an}^{d F}^Y^{2002 s}^o^t^h^{e t}^a^bl^e^doesⁿ^o^t^ref^l^ect^f^uⁿ^d^s
^f^o^{r th}^is^prog^ram^.^{It w}^a^s^propos^{ed to be f}^uⁿ^d^{ed in}^th^{e FY2003 requ}^es^{t at $49.5 m}^illion^,^bu^{t did n}^o^{t receiv}^e^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.ⁱ
^T^h^{e F}^Y^{2003 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^an^{d F}^Y^{2004 requ}^es^tⁱ^s^{a t}^o^t^a^l^f^o^{r BL}^{M, F}^W^S^,^an^{d N}^P^S^.
^j ^T^h^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^{l to}^{tal in}^clu^d^es^$⁷^.⁸^m^illioⁿ^d^e^rⁱ^v^e^d^f^r^o^m^th^e^FW^{S Mig}^r^ato^r^y^Bⁱ^r^d^Fuⁿ^d⁽^$³^.⁰^m^illioⁿ⁾^an^d^FW^{S Mu}^ltin^atioⁿ^a^{l sp}^ecies
^f^uⁿ^d⁽^$⁴^.⁸^m^illioⁿ⁾
^k ^T^h^{e FY2004 requ}^es^{t of}^{$7 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FW}^S^Mu^ltin^ation^a^{l Species}^Fuⁿ^d^is^ref^l^ectedⁱⁿ^th^e^FY04^requ^es^{t f}ⁱⁿ^a^{l total f}^o^{r th}^e
^CSC.
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106^th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
Everglades Restoration
The alterations of the natural flow of water by a series of canals, levees, and
pumping stations, combined with agricultural and urban development, are thought
to be the leading causes of environmental deterioration in the South Florida
ecosystem. In 1996, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
to create a comprehensive plan to restore, protect, and preserve the entire South
Florida ecosystem, which includes the Everglades (P.L 104-303). A portion of this
plan, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), completed in 1999,
provides for federal involvement in the restoration of the ecosystem. Congress
authorized the Corps to implement CERP in Title IV of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000, P.L. 106-541). While restoration activities
in the South Florida ecosystem are conducted under several federal laws, WRDA

2000 is considered the seminal law for Everglades restoration.

Based on CERP and other previously authorized restoration projects, the
federal government, along with state, local, and tribal entities, is currently engaged
in a collaborative effort to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The principal
objective of CERP is to redirect and store “excess” freshwater currently being
discharged to the ocean via canals, and use it to restore the natural hydrological
functions of the South Florida ecosystem. CERP seeks to deliver sufficient water to
the natural system without impinging on the water needs of agricultural and urban
areas. The federal government is responsible for half the cost of implementing
CERP, and the other half is borne by the State of Florida, and to a lesser extent, local
tribes and other stakeholders. CERP consists of 68 projects that are expected to be

implemented over approximately 36 years, with an estimated total cost of $7.8
billion; the total federal share is estimated at $3.9 billion.⁹
Overview of Appropriations.Appropriations for restoration projects in the
South Florida ecosystem have been provided as part of several annual appropriations
bills. The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations laws have
provided funds to several DOI agencies for restoration projects. Specifically, DOI
conducts CERP and non-CERP activities in Southern Florida through the National
Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
Appropriations for other restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem
have been provided to the Corps (Energy and Water Development Appropriations),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (VA, HUD, and Related Agencies
Appropriations), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Department of
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations). (For other Everglades funding,
see CRS Report RL31807, Appropriations for FY2004: Energy and Water
Development, coordinated by Carl Behrens and Marc Humphries).
From FY1993 to FY2003, federal appropriations for projects and services
related to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem have exceeded $1.9 billion
dollars, and state funding has topped $3.6 billion.¹⁰ The average annual federal cost
for restoration activities in Southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to be
approximately $286 million/year.¹¹ For FY2004, the Administration requested
$311.0 million for restoration efforts in the Everglades, $46.9 million above the
FY2003 enacted level of $264.1 million.¹² Of this total, $48.0 million was requested
for the implementation of CERP.
FY2004 Appropriations to DOI. With regard to DOI for FY2004, $69.1
million was appropriated for CERP and non-CERP activities related to restoration
in the South Florida ecosystem. This was $43.2 million below the requested level of
$112.3 million. Of the total appropriated, the NPS was appropriated $44.3 million
for construction and research activities, $42.0 million below the request for $86.4
million. The FWS received $16.3 million for refuges, ecological services, and other
activitie, an increase of $3.4 million over its request for $12.9 million. The USGS
received $7.8 million for research, planning, and the Critical Ecosystem Studies
Initiative, a decrease of $0.8 million from its request of $8.6 million. Lastly, the BIA

⁹ CERP is the first stage in a three stage process to restore the Everglades. The estimated
total cost of the entire restoration effort in the Everglades (i.e., all three stages) is estimated
at $14.8 billion.
¹⁰ These figures represent an estimated cost of all CERP and non-CERP related costs for
restoration in the South Florida ecosystem.
¹¹ This figure is based on CERP and non-CERP related restoration activities in South
Florida.
¹² This figure is based on the contributions of all federal agencies.

received $0.5 million for water projects on Seminole and Miccosukee Tribal lands,
$0.1 million over its request of $0.4 million. For conducting activities authorized by
CERP, DOI received $8.8 million. See Table 20 below.
Table 20. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2003-FY2004
($ in thousands)
Agencies Requesting Funding forFY2003FY2004FY2004FY2004FY2004
Everglades RestorationApprop.RequestHouseSenateApprop.
PassedPassed
National Park Service
CERP $5,513 $5,555 N/A N/A $5,463
Park Operations ^a 23,87424,194N/AN/A23,991
Land Acquisition14,92440,000N/AN/A-5,000
Water quality improvements,00[32,000] ^b N/A0
eradicating exotic species, and
endangered species recovery
Modified Water Delivery9,93512,990012,99012,830
Everglades research3,9740N/AN/A3,937
South Florida Ecosystem Task Force1,3201,332N/AN/A1,308
Everglades Acquisitions Management2,7822,300N/AN/A1,800
NPS Total62,32286,37168,100N/A44,329
Fish and Wildlife Service
CERP 3,329 3,351 N/A N/A 3,309
Land Acquisition2,4841,964N/AN/A0
Ecological Services2,5372,554N/AN/A2,523
Refuges and Wildlife3,6824,306N/AN/A9,784
Law Enforcement632636N/AN/A628
Fisheries 99 100 N/A N/A 98
FWS Total12,76312,911N/AN/A16,342
U.S. Geological Survey
Research, Planning and Coordination 8,5808,636N/AN/A7,847
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Stormwater treatment on Seminole393396N/AN/A539
Tribal lands
DOI TOTALS84,058112,314N/AN/A69,057
^Source:^S^o^u^t^h^F^l^ori^d^{a Ecos}^y^s^t^e^m^Tas^k^F^o^{rce, F}^Y^{2004 C}^r^os^s^-^C^u^t^Bu^dg^et^at^:
^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^s^f^r^e^s^t^o^r^e^.^o^r^g^/^d^o^c^u^m^eⁿ^t^s^/^c^c^2004/in^dex^%^2004.h^t^m^]^{, acces}^s^e^{d Ju}^ly^{2, 2003.}
^No^tes:^N/Aⁱⁿ^dⁱ^{cates th}^{at in}^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^{is n}^o^{t av}^ailab^l^e.^a
^T^h^{is in}^clu^d^{es to}^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^p^a^r^k^o^p^e^r^a^tioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^Ev^er^g^l^ad^{es Natio}ⁿ^a^{l P}^a^r^k^{, Dr}^y^T^o^r^t^u^g^a^{s Natio}ⁿ^a^{l P}^a^r^k^{, B}ⁱ^scayⁿ^e^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^a^r^k,
^an^{d B}ⁱ^g^C^y^pres^s^Nation^a^{l P}^r^es^erv^e^.^b
^T^h^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^e^{re recom}^m^eⁿ^d^{ed by}^th^{e Hou}^s^{e A}^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^ittee^to^b^e^tr^an^sf^er^r^e^d^f^r^o^m^uⁿ^o^b^lig^ated^b^a^lan^{ces f}^r^o^m^last
^y^{ear (F}^Y^2003).
The largest difference between the requested amount of funding for the DOI for
restoration in South Florida and the appropriated amount was $40 million requested
for the acquisition of mineral rights in the Big Cypress Preserve. The Collier
Resources Company has mineral rights and has reached an agreement in principle to

sell them to the DOI.¹³ Forty million dollars would cover a portion of the cost of the
mineral rights, estimated at $120 million. Appropriators, however, did not include
this funding in the FY2004 appropriations because the agreement had not been
authorized and a recent DOI inquiry has been initiated.¹⁴
The FY2004 law: 1) exempted funds appropriated for the implementation of the
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-229), and
2) funds appropriated to Florida for acquiring lands for Everglades restoration from
a prohibition on using DOI appropriations for filing declarations of takings or
condemnations without the approval of the Appropriations Committees. A
restoration project authorized by P.L. 101-229, the Modified Water Deliveries
Project, is expected to use condemnation if required land is owned by unwilling
sellers.
Transfer of Funds. The FY2004 law contained provisions that directed the
funds to be transferred among restoration activities in the Everglades. The Secretary
of the Interior was authorized to use prior year unobligated funds for acquiring lands
in the Everglades watershed to transfer $5.0 million to the FWS for monitoring water
quality, eradicating invasive plants, and bolstering the recovery of endangered
species. Further, the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to transfer necessary
funds (from the same accounts) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement
additional water quality improvement technologies for portions of the Everglades
ecosystem that affect the LNWR. This assistance is expected to help the state of
Florida meet its water quality standards. The Secretary also was authorized to use
any remaining funds from the accounts described above to fund Everglades
restoration activities on DOI lands, subject to the approval of a reprogramming
request by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. These provisions
may have originated from the House Committee report for FY2004, which stated that
the State of Florida may not view the acquisition of land for the implementation of
CERP as its highest priority.
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades. Several
concerns regarding restoration efforts in the Everglades were presented in the House
Committee report on Interior appropriations. One concern was over a Florida State
Law (Chapter 2003-12, enacted on May 20, 2003) that amended the Everglades
Forever Act of 1994 (Florida Statutes §373.4592) by authorizing a new plan to
mitigate phosphorus pollution in the Everglades. Phosphorus is one of the primary
water pollutants in the Everglades and a primary cause for ecosystem alteration in the
Everglades. Some critics argue that this new law extends previously established
phosphorus mitigation deadlines for the Everglades, and may compromise efforts to
restore the Everglades, as well as jeopardize federal appropriations for CERP.
Proponents of the law argue that the new plan represents a realistic strategy for
curbing phosphorus. A subsequent law of the Florida State Legislature (May 27,

¹³ The Collier family is the primary holder of mineral rights under the Big Cypress Preserve,
and their mineral rights were established before the creation of the preserve. It is estimated
that there are 40 million barrels of recoverable oil under the Big Cypress Preserve.
¹⁴ M. Spangler, “Funding for Everglades Leases Buyout Halted by Interior IG Investigation,”
Inside Energy/with Federal Lands, Oct. 13 2003.

2003, S 00054-A) attempted to address some of these concerns. Some Members of
Congress reacted to these new laws unfavorably and wrote letters expressing their
disapproval.¹⁵ Their concerns also were reflected in conditions that were included
in the FY2004 Interior appropriations conference agreement.
Specifically, several provisions that condition funds for restoration based on the
achievement of water quality standards were included in the FY2004 law. Funds for
the Modified Water Deliveries Project will be provided unless administrators of four
federal departments/agencies (Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of the Army,
Administrator of the EPA, and the Attorney General) jointly file a report annually
until 2006 indicating that water entering the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge and Everglades National Park meet state water quality standards, and the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations respond in writing disapproving
the further expenditure of funds. Similar conditions also are present in the House-
and Senate-passed versions of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations.
For a review of this issue, and a side-by-side comparison of the FY2004 Interior
appropriations language and the Energy and Water Appropriations bills, see CRS
Report RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh and
Barbara Johnson.
For further information on Everglades Restoration, see the website of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program at [http://www.sfrestore.org] and the website
of the Corps of Engineers at [http://www.evergladesplan.org/].
CRS Report RL31621. Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze
A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara A. Johnson.
Other Issues
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs. The Bush Administration
is considering privatizing numerous and diverse government jobs, under its
“competitive sourcing” initiative first outlined in 2001. The goal is to save money
through competition between government and private businesses in areas where
private businesses might provide better commercial services, for instance, law

¹⁵ Joint statement by Reps. C.W. Bill Young, David Hobson, Ralph Regula, Charles Taylor,
Clay Shaw, and Porter Goss, released by the House Committee on Appropriations, April 29,

2003.

enforcement and maintenance. Under the “outsourcing” plan, as it is commonly
known, agencies are to submit some of their jobs to competition with the private
sector. The plan has been controversial, with concerns as to whether it would save
the government money and whether the private sector could provide the same quality
of service in certain areas. The competitive sourcing initiative was considered during
the Interior appropriations process as well during the appropriations process for other
departments and agencies, and also is being examined by authorizing committees.
For agencies funded by the Interior appropriations bill, concern has centered on
the National Park Service and the Forest Service. According to one Park Service
source, more than 11,000 of the Park Service’s 19,000 jobs were judged to be not
“inherently governmental” and are therefore being considered under the initiative,
with 1,708 possibly outsourced.¹⁶ The Forest Service was reported to be considering
a plan that would allow the private sector to compete for more than a quarter of its
approximately 40,000 jobs.¹⁷
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees expressed concern that the
agencies are spending significant sums on outsourcing, although the Administration
did not request or receive funds for this purpose. In particular, there was concern that
the Forest Service was reprogramming money without approval. In its report, the
House Committee on Appropriations expressed concern about the “massive scale,
seemingly arbitrary targets, and considerable costs associated with this initiative”
(H.Rept. 108-195, p.9).
The House and Senate included language on outsourcing in their Interior
appropriations bills. The House-passed bill sought to bar agencies from using funds
in the bill to begin new outsourcing studies. The President threatened to veto the bill
if this language was included. The Senate rejected a floor amendment that, like the
House-passed language, would have prohibited funds in the bill from being used to
initiate competitive sourcing studies. Instead, the Senate adopted an amendment to
require the Secretary of the Interior to report annually to Congress on outsourcing.
Among other issues, the reports were to address the numbers of outsourcing
competitions announced and completed; the costs, savings, and improvements in
services that result from contracting out; and the number of federal employees
impacted by outsourcing.
The final language enacted for FY2004 outlined spending limits for outsourcing
studies of agencies during FY2004. Specifically, it limited Forest Service spending
on outsourcing studies to no more than $5.0 million. DOI was capped at $2.5 million
and DOE was limited to $0.5 million unless Congress approves the reprogramming
of additional funds under revised reprogramming guidelines printed in the joint
explanatory statement of the conference report. For outsourcing studies involving

¹⁶ Guy Gugliotta, “Archaeologists on the Block?,” The Washington Post, July 15, 2003, p.
A17.
¹⁷ Matthew Daly, “Forest Service Considers Plan to Open 10,000 Jobs to Private Sector,”
The Associated Press on the Web, June 30, 2003. Visited January 13, 2004 at
http://www.nexis.com/ research/search/submitViewT agge d.

more than 10 federal employees, a contracted function must be less costly to the
government by 10% or $10.0 million, whichever is lower.
The FY2004 law also required the DOI agencies and DOE programs funded by
the bill, as well as the Forest Service, to report annually to Congress on their
outsourcing activities. As had been recommended by the Senate, the reports are to
contain detailed information including the numbers of outsourcing competitions
announced and completed; the costs, savings, and improvements in services that
result from contracting out; and the number of federal employees impacted by
outsourcing. For FY2004, the agencies are to submit a detailed competitive sourcing
proposal to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 60 days of
enactment of the bill. Beginning in FY2005, the agencies are required to specify in
their annual budget requests the level of funding requested for outsourcing studies.
In adopting the outsourcing language, conferees expressed support for the
“underlying principle” of the Administration’s outsourcing initiative, but concern that
the effort was being conducted too fast for its costs and implications to be understood
and “in violation” of guidelines on reprogramming funds.
Klamath River Basin. The FY2004 law did not contain a provision
prohibiting Interior Department funding of the Klamath Fishery Management
Council. Such a provision had been included in the House Committee reported and
House-passed bills, but no similar provision was included by the Senate. In addition,
a House floor amendment to prohibit farmers from planting certain crops on new
leases in two Klamath Basin national wildlife refuges was defeated. The House
provisions sparked considerable controversy among interested parties. They relate
to an on-going conflict in the Klamath River Basin over water allocations for farmers
in the Klamath River Project area in the Upper Basin and water needed to avoid harm
to three federally listed fish species. The Bureau of Reclamation (Department of the
Interior) is currently operating the Klamath Project under a one-year operations plan
announced in April 2003 while it continues to work on completing a 10-year
operations plan. The FWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries completed consultation on a 2002 10-year plan on May 31, 2002;
however, the Bureau rejected the FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)/NOAA Fisheries biological opinions on its 10-year operating plan and
stated that it would comply for the immediate future but also requested new
consultation. Controversies continue over science and data used to support the
agencies’ decisions, and recent court decisions have sought to address such concerns.
For more information on the Klamath controversy, see CRS Issue Brief 10072,
Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, and
Pamela Baldwin, and CRS Report RL31098, Klamath River Basin Issues: An
Overview of Water Use Conflicts, coordinated by Betsy A. Cody.
“Bear Baiting”. On July 17, 2003, the House rejected an amendment to
restrict the use of funds by the Forest Service or BLM to administer any action
related to bear baiting, except to prevent the practice. No other action was taken on
the issue in the remainder of the FY2004 appropriations process. Bear baiting is a
hunting practice involving the intentional feeding of bears for the purpose of enticing
bears to a particular area to be hunted. A significant factor cited by opponents of the
amendment was the general pre-eminence of states in controlling wildlife within their
boundaries, and preservation of their major role in wildlife management on federal

lands. Certain procedural questions relating to hearings on H.R. 1472, a bill related
to ending bear baiting on federal lands, also were raised by Members who objected
to the hearing process. Amendment proponents argued that the practice is cruel and
unsportsmanlike, and that banning bear baiting appeared to have little effect on bear
populations in states that had disallowed it.

gencies Appropriations, FY2003-
FY2004
($ in thousands)
F Y 2004 F Y 2004 F Y 2004
reau or AgencyFY2003 Approp.FY2004 RequestHouseSenateApprop.
Passed Passed
tle I: Department of the Interior
e me nt $1,877,892 $1,799,521 $1,696,844 $1,722,947 $1,793,230
ice 1,248,533 1,285,227 1,296,265 1,338,228 1,308,405
Service 2,239,430 2,361,873 2,240,323 2,321,461 2,258,581
ical Survey919,272895,505935,660928,864937,985
ement Service170,312171,321171,321173,121170,297
Reclamation
ent 295,179 281,168 301,168 297,592 295,975
ndian Affairs2,257,2432,292,7612,309,3402,320,4122,300,814
ental Offices ^a 624,609775,285707,401730,717682,674
9,632,470 9,862,661 9,658,322 9,833,342 9,747,961
tle II: Related Agencies
ice4,869,839 4,358,9724,177,1034,094,1084,539,899
ent of Energy1,740,5321,703,8371,722,5161,671,3451,713,772
echnology -87,000 — -86,000-97,000-185,000
y R & D620,837514,305609,290593,514672,770
al Petroleum and Oil Shale
es 17,715 16,500 20,500 17,947 17,995
Hills School Lands Fund36,000 36,00036,00036,00072,000
y Conservation891,769875,793879,487861,645877,985
ic Regulation1,4771,0471,0471,0471,034
ic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)171,732175,081175,081173,081170,949
Account1,954 — — — —
e Heating Oil Reserve5,9615,0005,0005,0004,939
y Information Administration80,08780,11182,11180,11181,100
ice 2,849,661 2,889,662 2,948,642 2,937,712 2,921,715
ajo and Hopi Indian
14,397 13,532 13,532 13,532 13,366
merican Indian and Alaska
e Culture and Arts Development5,4545,2505,2506,2506,173
ithsonian Institution544,875566,523583,718577,959596,279
of Art92,842100,449100,44997,25098,225
ennedy Center for the
ing Arts33,69032,56032,56032,56032,159
nternational Center
8,433 8,604 8,604 8,604 8,498
ent for the Arts115,732117,480127,480117,480120,972
tional Endowment for the Humanities124,936152,000142,000142,000135,310

F Y 2004 F Y 2004 F Y 2004
reau or AgencyFY2003 Approp.FY2004 RequestHouseSenateApprop.
Passed Passed
mission of Fine Arts1,2161,4221,4221,4221,405
tional Capital Arts and Cultural
6,954 5,000 7,000 6,000 6,914
isory Council on Historic
a tion 3,643 4,100 4,100 4,000 3,951
Comm. 7,206 8,230 7,730 8,030 7,635
orial Museum38,41239,99739,99739,99739,505
r ust 21,188 20,700 20,700 20,700 20,445
10,479,010 10,028,318 9,942,803 9,778,949 10,266,223
and Total (in Bill) ^b20,111,481^c19,890,97919,601,12520,012,29120,014,184^d
^Ho^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee an}^d^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^.^a
^Departm^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^cesⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^In^s^u^{lar A}^f^f^a^irs^,^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^e^{Special T}^r^u^s^tee^f^o^r^A^m^erican^In^dian^s^,^an^{d th}^{e P}^a^y^m^en^tsⁱⁿ^Lⁱ^eu
^a^x^e^s^P^r^og^ram^(P^IL^T⁾^.
^u^r^es^{do n}^o^{t ref}^l^{ect s}^c^orek^eepin^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^.
^{2003 en}^act^{ed f}ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^e^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^board^cu^t^of^0.65%ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2003 con}^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^(P.L^{. 108-}^{7). T}^h^e^to^tal
^d^es^{$825.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r w}^ildlan^d^fⁱ^{re em}^erg^eⁿ^c^ies^,^con^s^is^tin^g^of^{$189.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r B}^L^{M an}^d^$636.0^m^illion^f^o^r^th^e^Fores^t^S^ervⁱ^ce.
^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^{are to repay}^am^ouⁿ^t^s^tran^s^f^erred^f^r^om^oth^e^r^accouⁿ^t^s^f^o^{r f}ⁱ^{re f}ⁱ^g^h^tin^gⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2002. T}^h^{e total appropriation}^f^o^{r F}^Y²⁰^{03 in}^clu^d^es
^Su^pplem^en^tal^{appropriation}^(P^.L^.^108-⁸³⁾^addin^g^$36.0^m^illion^f^o^{r B}^L^{M, $5.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r FW}^{S, an}^{d $283.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r F}^S.
^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^board^cu^t^of^0.646%ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2004 In}^t^e^ri^{or an}^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^(P.L^.108-¹⁰⁸^{) an}^d
^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board cu}^tⁱⁿ^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2004 (P.L}^{. 108-}^199).

Table 22. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2000 to FY2003
($ in thousands)
Agency or BureauFY2000FY2001FY2002FY2003
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management$1,231,402$2,147,182$1,872,597$1,877,892
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service875,0931,227,0101,276,4241,248,533
National Park Service1,803,8472,135,2192,380,0742,239,430
U.S. Geological Survey813,376882,800914,002919,272
Minerals Management Service116,318139,221156,772170,312
Office of Surface Mining Recl. and Enforce.291,733302,846306,530295,179
Bureau of Indian Affairs1,869,0522,187,6132,212,8762,257,243
Departmental Offices ^a319,869352,519367,144624,609
General Provisions — 12,572 — —
Total for Department7,320,6909,386,9829,486,4199,632,470
Related Agencies
U.S. Forest Service2,819,9334,435,3914,130,4164,869,839
Department of Energy1,226,3931,453,6441,766,4701,740,532
Indian Health Service2,390,7282,628,7662,759,1012,849,661
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation8,00014,96715,14814,397
Inst. of Amer. Indian and Alaska Culture &
Arts Dev.2,1254,1164,4905,454
Smithsonian Institution438,130453,854518,860544,875
National Gallery of Art67,59075,48585,33592,842
JFK Center for the Performing Arts33,87133,92538,31033,690
Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars 6,763 12,283 7,796 8,433
National Endowment for the Arts97,62897,78598,234115,732
National Endowment for the Humanities115,260119,994124,504124,936
Institute of Museum and Library Services24,30724,85226,899^b
Challenge America Arts Fund — 6,98517,000 ^c
Commission of Fine Arts1,0211,0761,2241,216
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs6,9736,9857,0006,954
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation2,9893,1823,4003,643
National Capitol Planning Commission6,2886,4868,0117,206
Holocaust Memorial Museum 33,16134,36336,02838,412
Presidio Trust44,30033,32723,12521,188
Total for Related Agencies7,325,4609,447,4669,671,35110,479,010
Grand Total for All Agencies14,911,65018,892,32019,157,77020,111,480^d

^No^tes:^{a Departm}^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^cesⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^In^s^u^{lar A}^f^f^a^irs^an^d^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e Special T}^r^u^s^{tee f}^o^r^A^m^erican^In^dian^s^f^o^{r all}
^y^e^a^r^s^,^aⁿ^d^t^h^e^P^a^y^m^eⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^Lⁱ^e^u^o^f^Ta^x^e^s^P^r^o^g^r^a^m⁽^P^I^L^T⁾^f^o^r^F^Y^{2003. F}^o^r^F^Y^2000-^F^Y^{2002, PIL}^T^m^oⁿⁱ^es^are
^coⁿ^t^ain^e^dⁱⁿ^th^{e B}^L^{M ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^.^b
^B^e^gⁱⁿⁿⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^{FY2003, th}^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^Mu^s^e^u^m^Serv^ices^as^{part of}^th^{e IML}^S^isⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed in}^th^{e appropriation}^s^{bill f}^o^r^th^e
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^s^of^L^a^bor-^H^H^S^-^E^du^catⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^.^c
^Fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{($17.0 m}^illion⁾^f^o^{r C}^h^allen^g^e^A^m^erica^A^r^ts^Fuⁿ^d^isⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed in}^th^{e total f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e f}^o^{r th}^{e Nation}^a^{l En}^dow^m^eⁿ^t
^f^o^r^th^{e A}^r^ts.^d
^Fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^col^u^mⁿ^ref^l^ect^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^boar^cu^t^of^0.65%ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2003 con}^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^(P.L^.
^108-^{7). T}^h^{e total als}^oⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^$825.0^m^illion^f^o^r^w^ildlan^d^fⁱ^re^em^erg^eⁿ^c^ies^,^con^s^is^tin^g^of^{$189.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r B}^L^{M an}^d
^{$636.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e Fores}^t^Serv^{ice. T}^h^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^{are to repa}^y^am^ouⁿ^t^s^tran^s^f^erred^f^r^om^oth^e^{r accou}ⁿ^t^s^f^o^{r f}ⁱ^{re f}ⁱ^g^h^tin^g
ⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2002. T}^h^{e t}^o^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^r^F^Y^{2003 i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^es^an^F^Y^{2003 Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^S^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^(P.L^.108-
^{83) addin}^g^{$36.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r B}^L^{M, $5.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r FW}^{S, an}^{d $283.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r FS.}

For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106^th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by Eugene H.
Buck and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
CRS Report RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,” and RS2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL31621. Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10093. National Park Management and Recreation, by Carol
Hardy Vincent, coordinator.
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter.
Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey Zinn.

CRS Report RS20002. Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL32393. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resources Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Coordinator, M. Lynne
Corn, Ross W. Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, David Whiteman, and Kori Calvert.
CRS Report RL30335. Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara A. Johnson.
Title II: Related Agencies
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RS20822. Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS21442. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RS20852. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status
and Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Report RS20985. Stewardship Contracting for the National Forests, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
CRS Report RL31679. Wildfire Protection: Legislation in the 107^th Congress and
Issues in the 108^th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.

Selected Websites
Information regarding the budget, supporting documents, and related
departments, agencies and programs is available at the following web or gopher sites.
House Committee on Appropriations.
[ h ttp://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
[http://appropriations.senat e.gov/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide.
[ http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]
Congressional Budget Office.
[ http://www.cbo.gov/]
General Accounting Office.
[ http://www.gao.gov]
House Republican Conference.
[ http://www.gop.gov/]
Office of Management and Budget.
[ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/]
Title I: Department of the Interior
Department of the Interior (DOI).
[ http://www.doi.gov/]
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index .htm]
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
[ http://www.fws.gov/]
Historic Preservation.
[ http://www2.cr.nps.gov/]
Insular Affairs.
[ http://www.doi.gov/oia/index .html]
Minerals Management Service (MMS).
[ http://www.mms.gov/]
National Park Service (NPS).
[ http://www.nps.gov/]

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.
[ http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
[ http://www.usgs .gov/]
Title II: Related Agencies
Departments.
Agriculture, Department of (USDA).
[ http://www.usda.gov/]
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service.
[ http://www.fs.fed.us/]
Energy, Department of (DOE).
[ h ttp://www.energy.gov/engi ne/content.do? BT_CODE=DOEHOME]
Energy Budget.
[ http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/]
Energy Conservation Programs.
[ h ttp://www.eere.energy.gov/]
Fossil Energy.
[ h ttp://www.fe.doe.gov/]
Naval Petroleum Reserves.
[http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/res erves/npr/]
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
[http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/res erves/spr/]
Health and Human Services, Department of (HHS).
[ http://www.dhhs.gov/]
Indian Health Service (IHS).
[ http://www.ihs.gov/]
Agencies.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
[ h ttp://www.achp.gov]
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.
[ h ttp://www.iaiancad.org/ ]

Institute of Museum Services.
[ http://www.imls.gov/]
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
[http://Kennedy-Center.org/ ]
National Capital Planning Commission.
[ h ttp://www.ncpc.gov]
National Endowment for the Arts.
[ http://arts.endow.gov/]
National Endowment for the Humanities.
[ http://www.neh.gov/]
National Gallery of Art.
[ http://www.nga.gov/]
Smithsonian Institution.
[ http://www.si.edu/]
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
[http://www.ushmm.org/ ]
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
[http://wwics.si.edu/]