APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY1999: INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY1999:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated October 29, 1998
Coordinated by Alfred R. Greenwood
Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations. In addition, the line item veto took effect for the first time in 1997.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations. It
summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels,
and related legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues
covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]
Appropriations for FY1999: Interior and Related Agencies
Summary
The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funding for
agencies and programs in five separate federal departments as well as numerous
smaller agencies and diverse programs.
On February 2, 1998, the President submitted his FY1999 budget to Congress.
The request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $14.26 billion compared to the
$13.79 billion enacted for FY1998 (P.L. 105-83), an increase of $470 million. The
actual increase for Title I and Title II agencies in the FY1999 request is $1.17 billion,
offset by a nonrecurring appropriation of $699 million for priority land acquisitions
and exchanges in Title V of the FY1998 Interior Appropriations Act. However, the
Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 105-174) increased the FY1998 enacted level to a
total of $14.1 billion.
On June 25, 1998, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported
versions of the FY1999 Interior Appropriations bill. On July 23, the House passed
H.R. 4193 by a vote of 245-181, and increased funding by $60 million to $13.49
billion. The House-passed bill is $800 million below the President's request and $700
million below FY1998. During the debate on H.R. 4193, the House voted 253-173
to restore $98 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) following a
point of order deleting the funds since NEA had no program authorization.
The House and Senate totals reflect scorekeeping adjustments (see Table 3).
Before these adjustments, the Senate bill (S. 2237) is $168 million more than the
House bill. Changes from the House bill include: $1.2 billion for the Bureau of Land
Management (+ $20 million), $797.3 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service (+
$52.5 million), $1.66 billion for the National Park Service (+ $55.5 million), $1.71
billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (- $11.5 million), $2.62 billion for the Forest
Service (+ $99.7 million), $1.25 billion for the Department of Energy (+ $18.4
million), and $2.25 billion for the Indian Health Service (- $94 million).
On September 8, the Senate began debate on S. 2237. On September 17, further
action on the bill was suspended in favor of other legislative business. The Office of
Management and Budget, in a Statement of Administration Policy, suggested the
President might veto the bill in its then-current form.
On October 19, following a series of temporary continuing resolutions, a
conference report (H.Rept. 105-825) was submitted on H.R. 4328, the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999. The total
for Interior and Related Agencies was $14.1 billion, matching FY1998 (including the
Emergency Supplemental) and higher than passed the House or reported to the
Senate. The conference report and the bill passed the House on October 20 and the
Senate on October 21, and was signed as P.L. 105-277 by the President on October
CRS
Area of ExpertiseNameDivisionTel.
Arts, Humanities, Cultural AffairsSusan BorenEPW7-6899
Bureau of Land ManagementCarol Hardy-VincentENR7-8651
Energy ConservationFred SissineSTM7-7039
Fish and Wildlife ServiceM. Lynne CornENR7-7267
Forest ServiceRoss. W. GorteENR7-7266
Fossil EnergyMarc HumphriesENR7-7264
Indian Affairs Roger WalkeGOV7-8641
Indian Health ServiceCecilia EcheverriaEPW7-1962
Insular AffairsAndorra BrunoGOV7-7865
Interior Budget Data/CoordinatorAlfred R. GreenwoodENR7-7236
Minerals Management ServiceMarc HumphriesENR7-7264
National Park ServiceDavid WhitemanENR7-7786
Naval/Strategic Petroleum Reserve Robert BambergerENR7-7240
Surface Mining and ReclamationRobert BambergerENR7-7240
U.S. Geological SurveyJames MielkeSTM7-7007
Report Preparation and SupportCarol CanadaENR7-7619
Division abbreviations: ENR = Environment and Natural Resources; EPW = Education and Public Welfare;
GOV = Government; STM = Science, Technology, and Medicine.
Contents
Most Recent Developments........................................1
Introduction ................................................... 1
Status ........................................................ 2
Major Funding Trends........................................4
Key Policy Issues................................................4
Title I: Department of the Interior...............................4
Bureau of Land Management...............................4
Fish and Wildlife Service..................................7
National Park Service.....................................9
U.S. Geological Survey..................................11
Minerals Management Service.............................13
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement..........16
Bureau of Indian Affairs..................................16
Departmental Offices....................................21
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs.........................24
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service...............24
Department of Energy...................................27
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service.30
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation..................31
Other Related Agencies..................................33
For Additional Reading..........................................37
CRS Products.............................................37
Title I: Department of the Interior..........................37
Title II: Related Agencies................................38
Other References...........................................39
Selected World Wide Web Sites................................39
Title I: Department of the Interior..........................39
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs.....................40
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY1999 ......................................2
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1994 to FY1998...4
Table 3. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations....42
Table 4. Congressional Budget Recap...............................44
Table 5. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1993 to FY1998.........45
Appropriations for FY1999:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On October 19, following a series of temporary continuing resolutions, a
conference report (H.Rept. 105-825) was submitted on H.R. 4328, the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999. The total
for Interior and Related Agencies was $14.1 billion, matching FY1998 (including the
Emergency Supplemental) and higher than passed the House or reported to the
Senate. The conference report and the bill passed the House on October 20 and the
Senate on October 21, and was signed as P.L. 105-277 by the President on October
Introduction
The annual Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funding
for agencies and programs in five separate federal departments, as well as numerous
smaller agencies and diverse programs. The President’s FY1999 budget request for
Interior and Related Agencies totals $14.23 billion compared to the $13.79 billion
enacted by Congress for FY1998. Title I of the bill includes agencies within the
Department of the Interior, which manage land and other natural resource programs,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Insular Affairs. Title II of the bill includes the
Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, research and development programs
of the Department of Energy, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, and the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Indian Health Services 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.
Status
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1999
SubcommitteeConference Report
Markup ApprovalHouse House Senate Senate Conference
ReportPassageReportPassageReportPublic LawHouseSenateHouseSenate
H.Rept. 7/23/98 S.Rept. H.Rept.
6/18/98 6/23/98 7/8/98 181) 6/26/98 — 10/19/98 (333-95) (65-29) 105-277
On February 2, 1998, the President submitted his FY1999 budget to Congress.
The FY1999 request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $14.26 billion compared
to the $13.79 billion enacted by Congress for FY1998 (P.L. 105-83), an increase of
$470 million. The actual increase for Title I and Title II agencies in the FY1999
request is $1.17 billion, offset by a nonrecurring appropriation of $699 million for
priority land acquisitions and exchanges in Title V of the FY1998 Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act. However, the Emergency Supplemental (P.L. 105-
Significant requested increases above the FY1998 enacted level include: the
Department of Energy (+ $185.9 million), the Forest Service (+ $91.3 million), the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (+ $140.9 million), the National Park Service (+ $98
million), the Bureau of Land Management (+ $97.7 million), the Fish and Wildlife
Service (+ $49.6 million), the U.S. Geological Survey (+ $46.5 million), the National
Endowment for the Arts (+ 38 million), the National Endowment for the Humanities
(+ $25.3 million), the Smithsonian Institution (+ $17.5 million), and the Departmental
Offices of the Department of the Interior (+ $6.7 million). The only significant
decreases include: the Minerals Management Service (- $21.8 million), and the
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development (- $1.1
million).
On June 18, 1998, the Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee marked up the Interior Appropriations bill and reported the bill to the full
committee. The Subcommittee recommended a $13.4 billion funding bill to include:
$1.3 billion for operation of the National Park System, $246 million for National
Wildlife Refuges, $940 million for wildland fire management, $80 million for
Everglades restoration, $2.2 billion for the Indian Health Service, $772 million for
Bureau of Indian Affair's (BIA) tribal priority allocations, $10 million increases for
both BIA education and BIA law enforcement, and $398 million for the Smithsonian.
Cuts included terminating the $98 million National Endowment for the Arts, $163
million less for energy programs, and termination of the $50 million timber purchasing
road credit program in the Forest Service.
The Subcommittee also recommended extending the recreational fee
demonstration program for 2 years allowing National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and
National Forests to keep 100% of the fees collected which would result in more than
$400 million of added revenue to help reduce backlogs of maintenance and
operational shortfalls. In response to public and congressional criticism of NPS
construction spending, the Subcommittee also recommended imposing major reforms
for the NPS Construction program, a 50% reduction of staff at the Denver Service
Center and to require NPS to contract out 90% of construction projects.
On June 23, 1998, the Senate Interior Subcommittee marked up the Interior bill.
The Subcommittee recommended $13.4 billion in funding, including: $1.2 billion for
the Bureau of Land Management, $797.3 for the Fish and Wildlife Services, $1.66
billion for the National Park Service, $1.7 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
$2.6 billion for the Forest Service, $1.25 billion for the Department of Energy, $2.1
billion for the Indian Health Service, $100 million for the National Endowment for the
Arts, and $110.7 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
On June 25, 1998 the House and Senate Appropriations Committees met to
mark up their respective versions of the FY1999 Interior Appropriations bill. The
House Appropriations Committee approved total mandatory and discretionary
funding of $13.43 billion and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $13.46
billion. Both bills included mandatory funding of $58.5 million.
On July 23, 1998, the House passed H.R. 4193, the FY1999 Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill by a vote of 245-181 and increased funding by $60
million to $13.49 billion. The House-passed bill is $800 million below the President's
request and $700 million below the FY1998 enacted level. It should be noted that
during the consideration of H.R. 4193, the House voted 253-173 to restore $98
million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) following a point of order
which had deleted $98 million since NEA had no program authorization.
It should be noted that the House and Senate totals reflect scorekeeping
adjustments (see Table 3). In the absence of these scorekeeping adjustments, the
Senate bill (S. 2237) is $168 million more than the House bill (H.R. 4193). Changes
from the House bill are included in parenthesis: $1.2 billion for the Bureau of Land
Management (+ $20 million), $797.3 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service (+
$52.5 million), $1.66 billion for the National Park Service (+ $55.5 million), $1.71
billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (- $11.5 million), $2.62 billion for the Forest
Service (+ $99.7 million), $1.25 billion for the Department of Energy (+ $18.4
million), and $2.25 billion for the Indian Health Service (+ $94 million).
On September 8, 1998, the Senate began debating S. 2237, but suspended action
after September 17 in favor of other legislative business. The Office of Management
and Budget in a September 8, 1998 Statement of Administration Policy suggested the
possibility of a Presidential veto if the bill remained in its then-current form.
On October 19, following a series of temporary continuing resolutions, a
conference report (H.Rept. 105-825) was submitted on H.R. 4328, the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999. The
total included for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies was $14.1
billion, matching FY1998 (including emergency supplemental appropriations) and
higher than passed the House or reported to the Senate. The conference report and
the bill passed the House on October 20 and the Senate on October 21, and was
signed as P.L. 105-277 by the President on October 21.
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1994 to FY1998
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)a
FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998
$13.4 $13.5 $12.5 $13.1 $13.8
These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect rescissions.a
Major Funding Trends
From FY1991 to FY1995, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations increased by 16%, from $11.7 billion to $13.5 billion, about 4%
annually. Adjusting for inflation, Interior appropriations remained essentially flat
during this period. However, the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134) provided funding of $12.54 billion
reducing FY1996 budget authority 9% below the FY1995 level. FY1997 funding
increased to $13.1 billion and FY1998 to $13.8 billion. (See Table 3 for a
comparison of FY1998 enacted and the FY1999 budget request for Interior
Appropriations, and see Table 5 for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau, and
program from FY1993 to FY1998.)
Key Policy Issues
Title I: Department of the Interior
For further information on the budget of the Department of the Interior, see the
World Wide Web site of DOI’s Office of the Budget at
[http://www.ios.doi.gov/budget]
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.doi.gov]
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the DOI
or any of its bureaus, see DOI’s Strategic Plan Overview FY1998-FY2002 World
Wide Web site at [http://www.doi.gov/fyst.html]
Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
manages approximately 264 million acres of public land, primarily in the West. The
agency manages an additional 300 million acres of minerals underlying federal and
private lands throughout the country, and handles wildfire management and
suppression on 388 million acres. The management of public lands has been
controversial in recent years, particularly with respect to grazing, mining, logging,
recreation, access across public lands, and wild horses and burros.
For FY1999, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations law (P.L. 105-277)
contained a total of $1.191 billion for the Bureau of Land Management. This figure
is $54.7 million higher than the amount appropriated for FY1998, but $43.0 million
lower than the sum requested by the President for FY1999. The total BLM
appropriation is divided among ten activities, as described below.
About half the total--$619.3 million--is provided for management of lands and
resources. The appropriation funds BLM land activities including protection, use,
improvement, development, disposal, cadastral survey, classification, acquisition of
easements and other interests, as well as other activities such as maintenance of
facilities, the assessment of the mineral potential of public lands, and the general
administration of the agency. The figure is $37.2 million higher than the amount
appropriated for FY1998, but $41.0 million lower than the amount requested by the
President for FY1999.
Approximately another quarter of the BLM appropriation--$286.9 million--is
provided for wildland fire management. This appropriation supports Interior’s fire
activities including preparedness, suppression, emergency rehabilitation, and
hazardous fuels reduction. The appropriation is $6.8 million higher than the
appropriation for FY1998, but $11.5 million lower than the President’s FY1999
request.
The next largest portion of the BLM appropriation, $125.0 million, is for
payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). Under the PILT program, local governments are
paid under a complex formula for certain federally owned land because the federal
government does not pay taxes on land it owns. The PILT money may be used for
any local government purpose including schools, firefighting, and law enforcement.
The appropriation is $5.0 million more than both the sum enacted for FY1998 and
requested by the President for FY1999. (For more information on PILT
appropriations issues, see CRS Report 98-574, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes):
Somewhat Simplified, June 24, 1998.)
For the Oregon and California grant lands, the law provides $97.0 million, which
is $1.9 million lower than both the FY1998 enacted amount and the President’s
request for FY1999. The appropriation is used for activities on the revested Oregon
and California Railroad grant lands and related areas, including for land improvements
and the management, protection, and development of resources on these lands.
Smaller portions of the BLM appropriations support other activities. For land
acquisition, a total of $14.6 million is provided. The funding is to be derived from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the principal source of funds for
acquiring recreation lands. (For more information on the Fund, see CRS Report 97-
1998.) The sum is $3.4 million higher than that enacted for FY1998, but $0.4 million
lower than the President’s FY1999 request. The joint explanatory statement
accompanying the conference report on the omnibus funding measure explains that
most of the $14.6 million is to be distributed among 12 projects.
For construction, the law appropriates $11.0 million, which is more than double
both the amount enacted for FY1998 ($5.1 million) and requested for FY1999 ($4.2
million). The law also specifies the portion of the BLM appropriation allocated for
the central hazardous materials fund ($10.0 million); range improvements ($10.0
million); miscellaneous trust funds ($8.8 million); and service charges, deposits, and
forfeitures ($8.1 million).
Some of the general provisions in the omnibus law affect BLM activities, with
a handful pertaining to mining and mineral claims. For instance, the omnibus law
continues the moratorium on patenting mining claims under the General Mining Law
of 1872, with certain exceptions (Section 312). It postpones for one year the revision
of hardrock mining regulations (43 CFR 3809), pending a study by the National
Academy of Sciences (Section 120). The law reauthorizes through FY2001 the
annual hardrock claim maintenance fee at $100 per claim or site, and provides for a
60-day period to correct any defects to small miner waiver applications
(administrative provisions to the BLM section). General provisions also affect other
issues. For instance, one provision directs the BLM to reauthorize grazing permits
prior to completion of reviews under applicable laws, such as the National
Environmental Policy Act (Section 124).
A number of provisions of the omnibus law cut across agency jurisdictions. One
such provision prohibits the Interior Secretary from purchasing land in Alaska without
first attempting to acquire such lands through exchange of unreserved public land
(Section 127). Because it addresses land purchases by the Secretary of the Interior,
the provision could affect the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), in addition to BLM, although it is likely that the lands involved in the
exchange would be BLM lands. Other cross-cutting provisions affecting BLM, such
as that extending the recreation fee demonstration program (Section 327), are
included elsewhere in this report. (For further discussion of the recreation fee
demonstration program in particular, see the section on the National Park Service.)
Site specific provisions, which do not deal with general policy issues, generally are not
discussed in this report.
Still other cross-cutting provisions were dropped from the omnibus measure
before enactment. For example, the law did not include earlier bill language that
would have terminated the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
(ICBEMP), a joint BLM-Forest Service effort to provide coordinated, long-term
management direction for 72 million acres of Forest Service and BLM land.
The development of the BLM appropriation for FY1999 began with the
Administration's FY1999 request for $1.23 billion, $97.7 million more than enacted
for FY1998 ($1.14 billion). The largest increases were for management of lands and
resources ($78.2 million) and wildland fire management ($18.2 million).
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $1.16 billion for the BLM
for FY1999, $78.1 million less than requested and $19.6 million more than enacted
for FY1998. The House Committee recommended $596.4 million for the
management of lands and resources; $63.9 million less than requested, but $14.3
million more than enacted for FY1998. For wildland fire management, the Committee
recommended $286.9 million, $11.5 million less than requested but $6.8 million more
than enacted for FY1998. For the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program (PILT), the
Committee recommended $120 million; the same amount was requested for FY1999
and was appropriated for FY1998.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported an appropriation of $1.20 billion
for the BLM in FY1999, approximately $33 million less than requested, and $64.7
million more than enacted for FY1998. The Senate Committee recommended $633.1
million for the management of lands and resources; approximately $36.7 million more
than the House bill. The Committee recommended approximately $289 million for
wildland fire management; $9.4 million less than requested, but $8.9 million more than
enacted for FY1998. The House and Senate committee-reported versions also
addressed BLM policy issues in Title III, the General Provisions Title. For instance,
sections in both bills continued the moratorium on patenting new mining claims under
the General Mining Law of 1872 (with certain exceptions in the House bill), and
limited the use of funds for continuation of the ICBEMP in the Pacific Northwest.
The House-passed bill contained $1.18 billion for BLM functions, $39.6 million
more than enacted for FY1998 but $58.1 million less than requested. As passed, the
measure retained the amounts recommended by the House Appropriations Committee
except that a floor amendment increased the funding for PILT by $20 million to a
total of $140 million. During House floor consideration, the House also considered
but rejected several key amendments. These amendments proposed to 1) strike
language terminating the ICBEMP, 2) strike language extending the recreational fee
demonstration program for another 2 years, and 3) increase funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. As noted earlier in this report, the Senate did not pass a
free-standing bill appropriating funds for BLM and other Interior agencies.
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.blm.gov/].
For current information about the BLM on the World Wide Web, see BLM’s
Media Alert at [http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/alerts.html].
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Administration recommended $818.2 million1
for FWS—an increase of $45.7 million (5.9%) over FY1998. Congress appropriated
$802.2 million, an increase of 3.8%. The increase falls almost entirely within
Resource Management (which includes the endangered species program, fisheries, and
refuge management, among other things) which would go from $594.6 million to
$661.1 million.
The Endangered Species program increased overall from $96.2 million to $124.8
million, an amount close to the President’s request. As the following table shows,
the detailed distribution is quite different. Of the congressional increase, $20 million
is for salmon and steelhead recovery in Washington state, and smaller increases were
provided for programs to conserve candidate species (thereby obviating the need to
list some of them), and for consultation with other federal agencies whose actions
might affect listed species.
The Administration's Budget Estimate also includes $8.1 million in reallocated funds for the1
Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fund. This reallocated funding will not be considered
here.
Funding for endangered species programs, FY1998-FY1999
(Millions of Dollars)
ProgramFY1998President’sOmnibus Bill*
Request*
Candidate Conservation5.78.26.7
Listing 5.2 7.5 5.8
Consultation 23.8 36.5 27.2
Recovery 42.5 60.8 71.1
Coop. End. Sp. Cons. Fund 14.017.014
Total 91.2 130 124.8
*The president proposed, and Congress approved, a $5 million Landowner Incentive
Initiative in Recovery.
The Administration proposed continuing language that would cap the money
spent on listing. Congress accepted this language and cap. The language limits the
discretion of the agency to transfer funds for additional listings, e.g., if lawsuits
mandate agency action on listing certain species. It exempts steps to de-list or
down-list a species from the cap. Without a cap, funding would either have to be
transferred away from ongoing listing activities to meet the additional requirements
of a lawsuit, or from other programs within the agency’s Resources Management
function. With the cap, a court order to carry forward a listing decision on particular
species makes listing into a zero sum game, at least at a fiscal level: the listing of some
species or designation of their critical habitats would preclude the listing of others.
FWS supported this change to protect the budgets of other programs. In a related
subject, the Administration proposed transferring de-listing and down-listing
activities from the Listing function to the Recovery function. The step did not require
congressional action, but combined with the above limitation, only new listings or new
designations of critical habitat will be affected by the limitation on the funds.
The Administration proposed $10.0 million (-7.2%) for the National Wildlife
Refuge Fund, which provides payments to local governments in recognition of
reduction of the local tax base due to the presence of federal land. Congress
appropriated $10.779 million, the FY1998 level. The payment levels have been
controversial, since the small additions of land to the National Wildlife Refuge System
over the last several years mean that reduced dollars must be spread still further. The
situation has produced calls for Congress to increase the appropriation, especially
since local governments often (incorrectly) view the payments as entitlements, even
though they are actually subject to annual appropriations.
Land acquisition was proposed to decrease to $60.5 million (-3.4%), relative to
FY1998. Congress cut the amount still further, to $48.0 million, a decrease of 23.4%.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.fws.gov/]
National Park Service. The National Park Service (NPS) currently manages
the 376 units that comprise the National Park System, including 56 "full or actual"
National Parks, the premier units of the System. In addition to the National Parks,
the diverse Park System includes national preserves, recreation areas, reserves,
monuments, battlefields, seashores and a number of other categories. The System has
grown to more than 80 million acres, in 49 states and the District of Columbia. In
recent years over 270 million visitors have visited the parks annually. The NPS has
the often contradictory mission of facilitating access and serving Park System visitors
while protecting and preserving the natural and cultural resources entrusted to it.
For nearly two decades the Park Service has operated with tight budgets.
During this period, Congress restricted appropriations to operate and maintain the
Park System while continuing to add new units to the System. Combined with
increased visitation, the essentially static funding had stretched personnel, impaired
operations, and generated a multibillion dollar backlog of deferred maintenance.
However, spending for the NPS now appears to have a higher priority. Temporary
closure of NPS units (part of a federal government-wide shutdown during the budget
debates of late 1995 and early 1996) helped galvanize public support for increasing
NPS operations and maintenance funding in FY1997, FY1998, and FY1999.
The Administration's Operations budget request for the NPS for FY1999 totals
$1.321 billion. The House recommended $1.333 billion and the Senate recommended
$1.288 billion. The conference agreement provides $1.286 billion for operation of the
National Park System.
Deferred Maintenance. The Park System has a formidable maintenance burden,
with thousands of permanent structures, roads, bridges, tunnels, employee housing
units, water and waste systems, etc. The NPS has valued these assets at over $35
billion, but they would deteriorate without adequate care and maintenance. In
FY1999, the Administration proposed attacking the deferred maintenance backlog
with a $62 million increase in NPS maintenance from FY1998, with a total request for
$446 million. The House Committee recommended a slightly larger increase ($64
million) and the Senate Committee recommended a smaller increase, but still $18
million (5%) above the FY1998 level. The conference agreement provides $412
million for maintenance.
Mounting concerns about the build-up of unmet maintenance needs has
prompted Congress to seek new funding sources. Congress and the Administration
have generally agreed to address problems and adequately fund the operation of the
park system and to aggressively attack the maintenance backlog. In the FY1999
budget request, the Administration had a proposal that would add more than $25
million annually for NPS management purposes from Park concessioners franchise
fees. (A number of large concession contracts are due for renewal and the trend has
been for substantial increases.) The proposal is to keep the concession fees for the
Park System, rather than having them returned to the General Fund of the Treasury
(as is current practice).
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The Administration's proposal for
maintenance parallels the recreation fee demonstration program being tested by the
NPS and three other federal land management agencies. The recreation fee program
began in FY1996 to allow higher entrance and recreation user fees, with the added
fees being retained by the unit where the money is collected. It was hoped that the
additional fees would be incentives to agency managers to be more aggressive in
pursuing "self-financing" for operating and maintaining their units. The NPS is
expecting to collect $136.5 million under this program in FY1999. The Omnibus
Appropriations bill extended the fee demonstration program for 2 additional years.
Urban Park and Recreation Fund. The House had approved an amendment to
the bill to fund the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPRR) program at $2
million (the Administration's request). Although the program was last funded in
FY1994, previous appropriations were about $5 million annually, with communities
competing for many more grants than there was money available for. The highly
popular matching grant program had helped local governments rehabilitate
playgrounds, recreation centers, ball courts, and playing fields in urban areas. The
conference agreement did not provide the proposed $2 million, stating that the
Committee determined that this effort could not be accommodated with the limited
resources available this year.
Related Legislation. Congress approved a bill (S.1693, the National Parksth
Omnibus Management Act of 1998) under expedited procedures at the end of 105.
The bill provides for long anticipated park criteria and management reforms and an
overhaul of the park services concessions policy to allow revenue generated from
concession contracts to be returned to appropriate National Park units without annual
appropriations. Other provisions calling for new fee authorities and higher fees from
film makers were dropped from the final version of this bill. In another "collateral
initiative," National Park roads, considered an important maintenance priority, will
receive a substantial boost ($31 million in FY1998 and $81 million annually for the
next 5 fiscal years, nearly double previous funding) under the new surface
transportation law (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178).
For further information on the National Park Service, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.nps.gov/]
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation fund, established within the
U.S. Treasury and administered by the National Park Service provides grants-in-aid
to states and outlying areas for activities specified in the National Historic
Preservation Act. These preservation grants are normally funded on a 60%
federal-40% state matching share basis. The Administration’s FY1999 budget
estimate would have provided $100.61 million for the Historic Preservation Fund,
$50.61 million for the Historic Preservation Fund grants-in-aid program (compared
to $40.812 million total for the Fund in FY1998) and $50 million for a new initiative
by the Administration, “Save America’s Treasures,” part of the proposed
Environmental Resources Fund for America. This initiative would make preservation
of “America’s treasures”a priority including documents, artwork, manuscripts,
photographs, sound recordings and historic structures. Twenty-five million dollars
of “America’s treasures” funding would provide grants to states and Indian tribes who
would receive funds based upon submission of proposals for preservation and subject
to matching provisions (except to Indian tribes who are not required to match funds.)
The remaining $25 million would be for priority preservation projects in federal
agencies. The Administration’s budget for the Historic preservation fund included
$15.4 million in grants targeted to specified Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) for the preservation and restoration of historic buildings and
structures on their campuses. Funding in FY1998 ($4 million) provided preservation
funds for the most needy historically black colleges including Knoxville College,
(TN); Selma University, (AL), Allen University (SC); Tougaloo College (MS) and
Fisk University (TN).
Chartered by Congress in 1949, the National Trust for Historic Preservation is
responsible for encouraging the protection and preservation of historic American sites
significant to the cultural heritage of the U.S. Although a private nonprofit
corporation, the National Trust receives federal funding through the authority of the
National Historic Preservation Act, Historic Preservation Fund. Federal assistance
has enabled the National Trust to support historic preservation work in local
communities. The Administration’s FY1999 budget estimate does not specify funding
for the National Trust, in keeping with Congress’ plan to replace federal funds with
private funding, and to help the Trust become self-supporting by FY1999. The
National Trust received $3.5 million in FY1998, in keeping with the efforts to
privatize funding, within a period of transition. There is no specific appropriation
mentioned in the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act for the National Trust.
On June 25, 1998 the House Appropriations Committee reported the FY1999
Interior Appropriations bill that would provide a total of $40.812 million for the
Historic Preservation fund with $0 for the National Trust for Historic Preservation
and $0 for the millennium initiative, “Save America’s Treasures.” A statement was
included in House report language that priority would be given to cultural projects
that are backlogged and that the committee would continue to keep in mind proposed
millennium projects during consideration of the Interior bill. On June 25, 1998 the
Senate Appropriations Committee ordered reported the Interior bill (S.2237),
providing $55.612 million for the Historic Preservation Fund; including $0 for the
National Trust, $45.612 million for grants-in-aid, and $10 million for the “millennium
program for historic preservation projects of national importance.” On July 23, 1998,
the full House approved its Appropriations Committee's recommendation. The
Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277 provides a total of
$72,412,000 to the Historic Preservation Fund. Of that amount, $30 million would
be provided to the “Save America’s Treasures” program for priority preservation
projects, with $3 million reserved for restoration of the Star Spangled Banner,
$500,000 for the Sewall-Belmont House, and sufficient funds for restoration of the
Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. From the total for the
Historic Preservation Fund for FY1999, $7 million would remain available until
expended for Section 507 (of P.L. 104-333), the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities Historic Building Restoration and Preservation program.
U.S. Geological Survey. As the nation’s natural science organization, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) conducts research and provides basic scientific
information concerning natural hazards, biological, and environmental issues, as well
as water, land, and mineral resources. After debate in 1995 about its future, the U.S.
Geological Survey had its responsibilities increased with consolidation into it of
activities formerly conducted by other agencies within DOI (National Biological
Service and Bureau of Mines). This consolidation maintains programs for biological
research and minerals surveys and information activities. Currently the USGS
conducts surveys, investigations, and research through four major program activities.
These include the National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes; Water Resources Investigations; and Biological Research.
The Administration has requested $806.88 million for FY1999. This is an
increase of $47.72 million over the 1998 enacted level, comprised of $30.23 million
in program increases and $17.50 million in uncontrollable and related changes.
Program increases include $14.26 million for Water Resources Investigations, $13.58
million for the National Mapping Program, and $9.73 for Biological Research. These
increases will be partially offset by decreases in the Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes Program by $6.23 million and by $1.12 million in General Administration.
No change in FTEs, which number 6,487, is requested.
The FY1999 Budget Request for the USGS Water Resources Investigations
Program Activity includes two proposed program increases totaling $17.5 million and
four proposed program decreases totaling $3.24 million. The major increases
proposed for the FY1999 budget for the USGS Water Resources Programs are
related to water quality information. Program increases are proposed of $10.5 million
for the Administration’s Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative (with
funds being added to four programs) and of $7.0 million for the Water Quality
Information Initiative (with funds being added to three programs). Proposed program
decreases include three reductions to the Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Program
(totaling $2.71 million) and one reduction of $526,000 to the Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program.
The FY1999 Budget Request for the National Mapping Program includes $18.5
million in three proposed program increases and $4.92 million in two proposed
program decreases. The proposed increases are in the Earth Science Information
Management and Delivery subactivity ($15 million for the Disaster Information
Network and $2.5 million for Satellite Data Archive) and the Geographic Research
and Applications subactivity ($1 million for the Clean Water and Watershed
Restoration Initiative). The proposed decreases are in the Mapping Data Collection
and Integration subactivity (a $3 million reduction to eliminate funds appropriated in
FY1998 for high-performance computing and communications; a $1.92 million
reduction to be achieved by planned savings from increased efficiencies). Additional
program highlights for the USGS National Mapping Program include changes in how
it carries out its efforts and an increased emphasis on the civilian applications of
classified data.
The FY1999 Budget Request for Biological Research includes three proposed
increases totaling $12 million and two proposed decreases totaling $2.27 million. The
three program increases are proposed within the Biological Research and Monitoring
subactivity for the Species and Habitat Initiative ($9 million), the Clean Water and
Watershed Restoration Initiative ($2 million), and to replace two infectious waste
incinerators that are not in compliance with state air quality regulations ($1 million).
The two proposed decreases within the Biological Research and Monitoring
subactivity reflect an across-the-board cut ($1.37 million) in research and monitoring,
and elimination of USGS participation in a federal and state partnership program
involving chemical and drug registration efforts ($899,000).
The FY1999 Budget Request for the Geologic Hazards, Resources and
Processes Activity includes two program increases totaling $5.0 million and six
program reductions totaling $11.23 million. Program increases are proposed for the
Earth Surface Dynamics Program related to the Departmental Initiative regarding
habitat restoration and species conservation ($2.0 million) and within the Mineral
Resources Program in support of the Administration’s Clean Water and Watershed
Restoration Initiative ($3.0 million). Program reductions are proposed for the
Minerals Resources Program ($5.0 million), Coastal and Marine Geology Program
($3.5 million), National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program ($1.73 million), and
Energy Resources Program ($1.0 million).
The House Appropriations Committee recommends $774.838 million for the
U.S. Geological Survey, a decrease of $32.045 million from the Administration’s
request. This would be a decrease of $12.791 million below the budget request for
the National Mapping Program; an increase of $1.811 million above the budget
request for Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; a decrease of $13.480
million below the request for Water Resources Investigations; a decrease of $7.441
million below the request for Biological Research; a decrease of $119,000 below the
request for General Administration; and a decrease of $25,000 for Facilities.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $772.115 million for the
U.S. Geological Survey, a decrease of $34.768 million from the Administration’s
request. For the National Mapping Program, this would be a decrease of $16 million
from the budget estimate; for Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes an
increase of $1.976 million; a decrease of $17.013 million in Water Resources
Investigations; and a decrease of $3.731 million for Biological Research.
The conference agreement provided $797.896 million for the U.S. Geologic
Survey, more than the House or Senate proposed. Of this amount, $69.596 million
shall be available for cooperation with states or municipalities for water resources
investigations; $16.4 million shall be expended for conducting inquiries into economic
conditions affecting mining and materials processing industries; $161.221 million for
2 years for biological research activity; and $6.6 million to the University of Alaska
for marine research.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.usgs.gov/]
Minerals Management Service. The Minerals Management Service (MMS)
administers two programs: Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management and Oil Spill
Research. The Offshore Minerals Management Program administers competitive
leasing on outer continental shelf lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas
and other minerals. The Royalty Management Program (RMP) seeks to ensure timely
and accurate collection and disbursement of revenues from all mineral leases on
federal and Indian lands (oil, gas, coal, etc.). MMS anticipates collecting about $5.5
billion in revenues in FY1999. Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states
in which they were collected, the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury and various
designated programs. Revenues from the offshore leases are allocated among the
coastal states, Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund,
and the U.S. Treasury.
The Administration’s FY1999 request of $128.5 million would provide $122.4
million for Royalty and Offshore Management program and $6.1 million for oil spill
research, $15 million less than the FY1998 appropriation, but use of offsetting
receipts would grow from $65 million in FY1998 to $94 million in FY1999. The
offsets would come from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues. Increased
revenues from the recent record breaking lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico are
expected to continue for the next several years. Exploration activity in the ultradeep
waters (below 800 meters) has increased significantly. The House approved $122.5
million to include: $116.4 million for the Royalty and Offshore Management program
and $6.1 million for oil spill research. The Senate Appropriations Committee
approved $123.4 million to include: $117.3 million for Royalty and Offshore
Management and $6.1 million for oil spill research. The conference agreement
approved by both Houses allocates $117.9 million for royalty and offshore
management and $6.1 million for oil spill research.
The Administration’s request for supplemental funding of $6.7 million to
oversee the surge of exploration and development activity in the Gulf of Mexico was
approved by Congress (H.Rept. 105-504). Increased receipts from OCS activity will
offset the supplemental funding.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its World
Wide Web site at [http://www.mms.gov/]
Royalty Issues. At issue in the 105th Congress is how well MMS carries out its
functions, and whether some of its responsibilities should be vested with the states.
Critics of the agency, pointing to reported discrepancies between posted prices and
fair market value prices that are the basis for royalty valuation, argue that the U.S.
Treasury is being underpaid. MMS has proposed a rule change for crude oil valuation
that would rely less on posted prices and more on an index price to better reflect fair
market value. Oil industry officials have criticized using index prices as a benchmark
and have offered a number of other options for benchmarks. The MMS extended its
comment period on the valuation rule twice in July (7/9 - 7/24 and 7/24 - 7/31) to
allow for additional industry and congressional input. Industry representatives believe
that the extension was necessary to make further improvements to the proposal while
critics of the extension argue that enough has been said on the proposed rulemaking
and that no extension is necessary. Details on the oil valuation rule were provided to
House and Senate Committees on August 31, 1998. Language in the Senate
appropriations report (S. Rept. 105-227) for FY1999 postpones the rules release
until October 1, 1999. Further, they would like the MMS to use the royalty in kind
(RIK) approach that would allow MMS to receive royalties in the form of oil
produced, then resell the oil for cash. However, as part of the FY1999 Omnibus
Appropriation Act (P.L. 105-277), Congress and the Administration reached a
compromise which postpones the new oil valuation rule 8 months (June 1, 1999)
instead of one year. House and Senate negotiators believe that the delay will allow for
a rule that is fair to industry and the U.S. Government. However, critics argue that
the delay will continue to cost taxpayers millions of dollars in underpaid royalties.
An RIK Feasibility Study concluded that RIK could be workable and generate
positive revenue for the U.S. Treasury. The MMS is preparing to conduct a second
pilot study on a RIK process that includes natural gas production in the Gulf of
Mexico, oil production in Wyoming and Texas offshore (8g) natural gas. This pilot
will take several years to complete.
Separate legislation enacted in the 104th Congress (P.L. 104-185), authorized
interested states that demonstrate competence, to collect royalties from federal oil and
gas leases. The MMS functions that could be delegated to the states include: reporting
of production and royalties, error correction and automated verification.
OCS Moratoria. During FY1996, as the 104th Congress revisited many
regulatory programs, the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) moratorium on leasing
activity was debated in some depth but was extended in several areas. The extension
was continued through FY1998. In previous appropriations since the early 1980s, the
moratoria had been approved annually, without extensive discussion. Each year,
Congress banned the expenditure of appropriated funds for any leasing activity in
environmentally sensitive areas of the OCS. In 1990, President Bush issued a directive
which parallels the moratoria, essentially banning OCS leasing activity in places other
than the Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama offshore. The executive branch ban remains
in effect. The moratoria apply only to environmentally sensitive areas. With the
exception of the California OCS, little hydrocarbon production has occurred in these
regions.
Lease Sales in the Gulf of Mexico. Leasing continues in the Central and
Western Gulf of Mexico, where recent lease sales have been quite robust. During
1996, the spring (Central Gulf) sale resulted in 606 tracts leased for total bonuses of
$352 million. The fall (Western Gulf) sale resulted in 902 tracts leased for $512
million. And the Central Gulf auction held March 5, 1997 set an all time record,
attracting 1790 bids for 1,032 tracts. High bids totaled $824 million.
This was the last sale under the 1992-1997 leasing plan. FY1996 and FY1997
included four record breaking sales which produced over $2.4 billion in bonuses. The
OCS Leasing Plan for the 1997-2002 period included a Western Gulf auction that
took place in August, 1997. This record breaking August sale ($680 million) was
33% larger than the Western Gulf sale held a year earlier. Two additional sales in the
Gulf of Mexico were also record breakers. The new plan embodies the congressional
moratoria, but envisions continued annual lease sales in Gulf Coast planning areas,
where lease sales have attracted great interest during 1996 and 1997 as the nation's
oil imports rose to half of total consumption.
In addition to the Central and Western Gulf, sales are planned in the Beaufort
Sea, Chukchi Sea, Hope Basin, Cook Inlet/Shelik of Straight, and the Gulf of Alaska.
The timing of these lease sales is several years off, and the level of interest and the
amount of revenues that might accrue to the government are uncertain since these are
relatively untested tracts.
The development of deep water wells is expanding rapidly, as several new deep
water discoveries have been made over the past couple of years. MMS is proposing
to increase its effort in technological needs and potential environmental issues
associated with deep water drilling. Currently the Gulf of Mexico accounts for over
half of the worlds drilling rigs operating in deepwater.
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’ intention was that individual states and Indian tribes would
develop their own regulatory programs to enforce uniform minimum standards estab-
lished by law and regulations. As reliance upon the state agencies has increased, the
regulatory part of OSM’s budget has decreased and the agency has been downsized.
OSM is required to maintain oversight of state regulatory programs.
The Administration request for FY1999 — at $276.6 million — is again
essentially level with prior year funding. Of this total, $93.5 million is for Regulation
and Technology programs — a decrease of $1.7 million from adjusted FY1998 levels.
The Administration’s AML request for FY1999 is $183.4 million, an increase of $2.6
million over adjusted FY1998 levels. A requested increase of $2.0 million for acid
main drainage remediation and prevention partly accounts for the increase.
Senate appropriations reduced the request for the Abandoned Mine Land slightly
($360,000) while the House added $2 million to raise the authority for the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative to $7 million and the total request for the AML
to $185.4 million, which was the level approved in the omnibus spending package.
Both House and Senate appropriations committees modestly reduced the request for
Regulation and Technology. The House approved $278.8 million. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $276 million for the OSM for FY1999.
The final total approved by the 105 Congress was $278.8 million, including $93.4th
million for Regulation and Technology.
Appropriations for AML activities are based on states’ current and historic coal
production. “Minimum program states” are states with lower coal production that
nevertheless have sites needing reclamation. The minimum funding level for each of
these states was increased to $2 million in 1992. However, over the objection of
these states, Congress appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program states in
FY1996-FY1998. The Administration budget proposed to keep minimum program
state funding at this level in FY1999, and the report from Senate Appropriations
explicitly recommended keeping the current level as well.
For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a wide
variety of services to federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes
and their members, and has historically 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, natural
resource and real estate management, economic development, employment assistance,
housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection, implementation of land and water
settlements, and partial gaming oversight, among others.
The key issues for the BIA are reorganization and downsizing, the movement
toward greater tribal influence on BIA programs and expenditures, and the equitable
distribution of BIA funding among tribes. Additional significant issues raised by
proposed provisions of previous Interior appropriations bills include taxation of
certain Indian businesses and tribal sovereign immunity from suit.
The BIA is under intense pressure to reorganize, from tribes, the Administration,
and Congress, but proposals from the three sources have not always been in
agreement. Under the Administration's National Performance Review Reinventing
Government initiative, the BIA had planned to pursue restructuring and downsizing
through the "tribal shares" process (in which tribes and the BIA determine, first,
which BIA functions are inherently federal and which are available for tribal
management, and, second, what each tribe's share of funds is for the latter functions),
but the BIA states the Interior solicitor has advised against that procedure.
Appropriations committee reports for FY1997 and FY1998 directed the BIA to
develop a reorganization plan and consolidate central, area, and agency offices, and
the BIA states it is developing reorganization plans and consolidation options.
Greater tribal control over federal Indian programs has been the goal of Indian
policy since the 1970s. In the BIA this policy has taken three forms: tribal
contracting to run individual BIA programs under the Indian Self-Determination Act
(P.L. 93-638, as amended); tribal compacting with the BIA to manage all or most of
a tribe's BIA programs, under the Self-Governance program (P.L. 103-413); and
shifting programs into a portion of the BIA budget called Tribal Priority Allocations
(TPA), in which tribes have more influence in BIA budget planning and within which
each tribe has authority to reprogram all its TPA funds. In FY1998 TPA accounts for
49.5% of the BIA's operation of Indian programs (including most of the BIA funding
for tribal governments' operations, human services, courts and law enforcement,
natural resources, and community development) and for 44.5% of total BIA direct
appropriations.
The issue of the equitable distribution of BIA funding—often referred to as
"means-testing"—has two aspects, one relating to how funds are distributed, the
other relating to whether a tribe's other financial resources are taken into account.
First, much if not most BIA funding, even while serving tribal needs, is not required
to be distributed on a national per capita or other formula basis. Second, tribes' own
non-BIA resources, especially business revenues, are not always required to be taken
into account. Both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House Interior
Appropriations Committee take note of the issues. For both the FY1998 and FY1999
Interior appropriations bills, the Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed (1)
requiring the BIA to develop several alternate formulas for distributing TPA funds on
the basis of need, taking into account tribal business revenues including gaming, and
(2) requiring tribes to submit tribal business revenue information to BIA, and in the
FY1999 bill proposed implementing the new distribution formula in FY2000. In
addition the Senate committee's FY1999 bill proposed reallocating half of TPA funds
from tribes (outside Alaska) in the top 10% of per-capita tribal business revenues to
tribes in the bottom 20% of per-capita tribal business revenues. The House
Committee provided $250,000 in FY1999 to continue the FY1998 TPA-allocation
work group (see below) to develop needs-measurement methods, directed the BIA
to develop TPA allocation criteria that address equity in TPA funding, and included
an administrative provision assuring tribes who return funds to the BIA that the
federal trust responsibility to them, and the federal government-to-government
relationship with the tribes, will not be diminished.
Supporters of the Senate committee's proposals claim that BIA funding is
inequitably distributed, that poorer tribes do not receive adequate funding, that tribal
TPA funds received per capita do not correspond with indicators of tribal need, that
only 30 percent of TPA funding is based on formulas, and that a GAO study shows
some rich tribes got more TPA funds in FY1998 than tribes with no outside revenues.
Opponents respond that almost all tribes are in poverty, that BIA funding is
insufficient to meet tribal needs, and that means-testing TPA funding would penalize
tribes who still have severe needs, would violate the federal trust responsibility to
tribes, has not been fully analyzed, and would be unfair since it is not required of state
or local governments receiving federal assistance.
In considering similar proposals in the FY1998 appropriations bill, Congress had
dropped the requirements for a formula and tribal income data, and instead had
distributed some FY1998 TPA funds so that each tribe might receive the minimum
funding recommended by the 1994 report of the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Task Force on
BIA Reorganization ($160,000 per tribe, except $200,000 per tribe in Alaska), with
allocation of any remaining TPA funds based on recommendation of a tribal/federal
task force. In addition, several Senators had requested the GAO to report on TPA
distribution issues. The tribal/federal TPA task force made its distribution
recommendations January 29, 1998, and also recommended creating a long-term
work group on TPA funding allocation, a recommendation the BIA supported. The
GAO presented its TPA distribution study in April and July, 1998. Among the GAO
findings were that two-thirds of FY1998 TPA funds were distributed based on
historical levels and one-third was distributed based on formulas, that TPA
distribution per capita varied widely across BIA areas, and that tribal governments'
reporting of revenues were inconsistent in including or excluding non-federal
revenues. The GAO results were used by the Senate Appropriations Committee in
developing the FY1999 proposals described above.
Congress, in the Interior appropriations portion of the FY1999 omnibus
appropriations act, dropped the Senate Appropriations Committee's proposed
reallocation scheme and dropped the requirement that tribes submit revenue data, but
retained the requirement that the BIA develop proposals for alternative TPA funding
methods. Congress also retained the House provision of $250,000 for the TPA work
group and the language concerning tribes returning funds to the BIA.
During congressional debates over FY1997 and FY1998 Interior appropriations,
Congress considered but did not approve several additional controversial provisions.
One proposal, considered in the House, would have prohibited the Interior Secretary
from using his general authority to take land into trust for a tribe unless the tribe had
agreed with state and local governments on the collection of state and local retail sales
taxes from non-members of the tribe. (This proposal has also been put forward in the
105th Congress in H.R. 1168, on which hearings were held June 24, 1998.) The
other provision, proposed by the Senate Appropriations Committee, would have
waived tribal governments' sovereign immunity to civil suit in federal court if a tribe
accepted TPA funding. The tribal immunity waiver provision was withdrawn on the
Senate floor. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee held several hearings this year on
a bill (S. 1691, introduced February 27, 1998) restricting tribal sovereign immunity.
One of the issues raised at the hearings was the degree to which tribes are insured
against torts and other liability claims. At the Committee's mark-up of S. 1691,
consideration was postponed on the motion of the bill's sponsor, who later introduced
five new, more specific bills. Neither of these proposals was offered during
consideration of FY1999 Interior appropriations. In the Interior portion of the
FY1999 omnibus appropriations act, however, Congress required the Interior
Secretary to study tribal liability insurance coverage and make a report with legislative
recommendations.
In considering the FY1999 bill, both the Senate Appropriations Committees and
the House took note of several further issues. Congress addressed most of these
issues in the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act. Both the House and the Senate
committee supported placing BIA-funded law enforcement under centralized line
authority and both made BIA law-enforcement funds unavailable for reprogramming;
Congress approved these proposals. Concerning support costs for self-determination
contracts and self-governance compacts, both forbade use of FY1999 funds to pay
for unpaid contract support costs from earlier years, in spite of court decisions
confirming federal responsibility for such costs; Congress again approved. The House
recommended a one-year moratorium on self-determination contracts and self-
governance compacts, so that BIA and tribes can address the contract support costs
problem. The Senate committee directed the GAO to conduct a study of the issue.
Congress approved both ideas. Both the House and the Senate committee also noted
environmental penalties against BIA for violations regarding underground storage
tanks and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the House
provided funds for environmental cleanup; Congress approved $3 million for this
purpose. Only the Senate committee included bill language restricting the "Huron
Cemetery" in Kansas to use as a cemetery (an Oklahoma tribe has at times proposed
using it for gaming); Congress retained this provision. The Senate committee also
prohibited taking lands into trust in Scott County in Minnesota, near Minneapolis-St.
Paul, but Congress dropped the provision because the BIA asserted it would make no
decision on such lands in FY1999. The Senate committee also directed the Interior
Secretary to develop a five-year plan for the repair or reconstruction of all BIA school
facilities, and to review Indian post-secondary institutions' current facility needs;
Congress did not address this issue. The Senate during debate on the FY1999
Interior appropriations bill approved an amendment prohibiting the Interior Secretary
from approving class III Indian gaming compacts without state approval and from
promulgating during FY1999 proposed regulations for approving gaming compacts
in situations where a state invokes its immunity from suit over compact negotiations.
Congress chose only to prohibit promulgation of the regulations, and that only for the
first half of FY1999. Finally, Congress amended the Tribal Self-Governance Act of
1994 (P.L. 103-413) to extend to self-governance compacts the same requirements
for repaying misused funds that already cover self-determination contracts.
BIA's FY1998 direct appropriations enacted to date are $1.703 billion. For
FY1999 the Administration proposed $1.84 billion—8.4% over FY1998—including
increases of 4.5% in TPA (to $791.2 million), 5.8% in BIA school operations (to
$486.9 million), 18.4% in aid under the Tribally Controlled Community College
Assistance Act (to $35.4 million), and 21.6% in total BIA construction (to $152.1
million, including $86.6 million in education construction, a 59% increase over
FY1998). Among the new proposals in the FY1999 BIA budget were a law
enforcement initiative, to meet the increasing rate of violent crime in Indian country,
and an Indian land consolidation pilot program. The former would increase BIA law
enforcement spending by 29% in FY1999, to $103 million, in conjunction with
Department of Justice (DOJ) spending on Indian-country jail construction and law
enforcement that would total $182 million. The land acquisition pilot program would
provide $10 million to consolidate fractionated ownership of allotted Indian trust
lands, thereby reducing the costs and problems of managing millions of acres broken
up into tiny fractional interests.
The House approved $1.714 billion for the BIA for FY1999, an increase of
0.6%, while the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed $1.702 billion, a
decrease of 0.1%. Compared to FY1998, the House recommendation for FY1999
included increases of $14.2 million (1.8%) in TPA, $9.6 million (2%) in BIA school
operations, $0.4 million (1.3%) in aid to tribally-controlled community colleges, $4.2
million (7.7%) for BIA school construction (within a decrease of $3.6 million in total
BIA construction), and $10 million for the joint BIA/Justice Department law
enforcement initiative. The Senate committee recommended a decrease of $62.3
million (8%) in TPA (mostly from shifting $70.3 million in law enforcement funds to
another part of the BIA budget); increases of $12.4 million (2.7%) in BIA school
operations, $3 million (10%) in aid to tribal colleges, and $6 million (11%) for BIA
school construction (within a decrease of $1.9 million in total BIA construction); and
the transfer of $70.3 million to another part of the BIA budget for the joint
BIA/Justice Department law enforcement initiative.
Congress in the Interior appropriations portion of the FY1999 omnibus
appropriations act approved a total of $1.746 billion for the BIA, an increase of 2.5%
from FY1998. Included is a net increase of $14 million in TPA (to $697.9 million)
after transfer of law enforcement to another portion of the BIA budget. Also included
are increases of $13.5 million (2.9%) in BIA school operations (to $473.9 million),
$1.4 million (4.7%) in aid to tribal colleges (to $31.3 million), and $6 million (11%)
in BIA school construction, to $60.4 million (within an overall decrease of $1.9
million in total BIA construction, to $123.4 million). For the proposed BIA/DOJ law
enforcement initiative, Congress provided a $20 million increase to fund the BIA
portion of the initiative, and it transferred BIA law enforcement out of TPA to
another portion of the BIA budget, thereby reducing tribes' ability to reprogram these
funds. For the land acquisition pilot project, Congress provided $5 million, half of the
administration's request.
For further information on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html]
Departmental Offices.
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988
(P.L. 100-497) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of tribal bingo and other "Class II"
operations, as well as aspects of "Class III" gaming (casinos, racing, etc.). The NIGC
may receive federal appropriations but its budget authority has consisted chiefly of fee
assessments on tribes' Class II operations. The FY1998 Interior Appropriations Act
amended the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to increase the amount of assessment
fees the NIGC may collect (to $8 million), to make Class III as well as Class II
operations subject to fees, and to increase the authorization of NIGC appropriations
from $1 million to $2 million. The Act also prohibited the Commission from
amending its definitions of electronic gaming devices but allowed it to gather
information on the issue.
For FY1998, NIGC appropriations were $1 million. The President proposed no
appropriations for FY1999, recommending instead that all the NIGC's activities be
funded from fees. The Senate Appropriations Committee and the House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the President's recommendation, as did the
full House. Likewise, the Interior appropriations portion of the FY1999 Omnibus
Appropriations Act included no appropriations for the NIGC.
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special Trustee
for American Indians, in the Secretary of the Interior's office, was authorized by Title
III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-
412). The Office of Special Trustee (OST) is responsible for general oversight 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 were formerly managed by the BIA, but numerous federal, tribal, and
congressional reports had shown severely inadequate management, with probable
losses to Indian tribal and individual beneficiaries. Indian trust funds comprise two
sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by 338 tribes in approximately 1,500 accounts,
with a total asset value of about $2.5 billion; and (2) individual Indians' funds, known
as Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in 345,356 accounts with a total asset
value of $463.7 million. (Figures are from the OST FY1999 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 physical trust assets
(e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as investment income. In 1996, at Congress’
direction, trust fund management was transferred from the BIA to the OST. The
Special Trustee in 1996 estimated the eventual cost of recommended improvements
in trust-fund management at $100 million.
While a congressionally-required outside audit has been made of non-investment
transactions—deposits and withdrawals—in tribal trust fund accounts (for the 20-
year period 1973-1992), Congress did not require that the outside auditors examine
transactions in the IIM accounts, so their reconciliation status has been in doubt. On
June 11, 1996, a class-action suit was filed against the federal government on behalf
of all IIM account owners. The suit sought an accounting of the IIM funds,
establishment of adequate management systems, and full restitution of any money lost
from the IIM accounts. The case was certified as a class action in February 1997, and
is scheduled to go to trial on March 15, 1999.
In April 1997 the OST submitted its Strategic Plan for improving the
management of Indian trust funds and trust assets. The plan recommended creation
of a new federally chartered agency, to which trust funds and assets would be
transferred, and management and investment of the funds and assets to assist Indian
economic growth. While considering FY1998 Interior appropriations, Congress
noted departmental and some tribal opposition to the Strategic Plan, especially to the
proposed new agency. Congress directed the OST not to implement the proposed
new agency but to pursue trust funds systems improvements and OST responsibilities
relating to the settlement of financial claims made by tribal and individual
beneficiaries, before Congress and in court, because of BIA trust-funds
mismanagement. In August 1997 the Secretary of the Interior agreed to implement
aspects of the Strategic Plan dealing with trust management systems, data cleanup,
and trust asset processing backlogs.
FY1998 funding for the Office of Special Trustee was set at $33.9 million, which
supplemental appropriations have increased to $38.6 million. The President proposed
a FY1999 budget of $42 million, an increase of 8.9% over total FY1998
appropriations. Included in the FY1999 request were $17.7 million for trust systems
improvements (an increase of 33.2% from the original FY1998 appropriation), $5
million for settlement and litigation support (up 129%), and $17.6 million for trust
funds management (up 4.9%). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
FY1999 appropriations of $38 million, a decrease of $0.557 million from total
FY1998 appropriations. The House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
recommended $39.5 million, including $16.6 million for trust systems improvement
and $4 million for settlement and litigation support. The House of Representatives
agreed with its Appropriations Committee's recommendations. Congress, in the
FY1999 omnibus appropriations act, approved the House figure of $39.5 million.
In the same act, Congress authorized the expenditure of current (or past
unobligated) BIA and OST appropriations to meet unfunded costs of trust
management improvement activities, and also authorized the OST to make fewer
reports for, and allow account-holder withdrawals from, the thousands of trust
accounts with balances of $1 or less and no activity for at least 18 months.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
Insular Affairs. The Secretary of the Interior has primary federal responsibility
for all U.S. territories except Puerto Rico, as well as certain responsibilities for the
three freely associated states. The Secretary has delegated these responsibilities to
the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA), under the general supervision of the department’s
Assistant Secretary-Policy, Management and Budget. OIA provides the insular areas
with funding for various types of activities, including capital improvements and
technical assistance.
The President requested $86.7 million in funding for insular affairs for FY1999;
the FY1998 appropriation totaled $88.1 million. For FY1999 the President requested
decreases in funding (compared to the amounts appropriated for FY1998) for several
items including the general technical assistance program, while requesting an increase
of $1.0 million for brown tree snake control. (The FY1998 appropriation for brown
tree snake control was $1.6 million. For more information on this issue, see CRS
Report 97-507 ENR, Non-Indigenous Species: Government Responses to the Brown
Tree Snake and Issues for Congress.)
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $86.7 million in FY1999
insular affairs funding, the same amount as requested by the President. The
committee allocated the funding differently, however, providing $0.5 million less than
the President’s request for brown tree snake control and $0.4 million more than the
President’s request for technical assistance. The committee also recommended that
funding for the Enewetak support program, which provides food assistance to the
people of Enewetak (in the Marshall Islands), remain at its FY1998 level (of $1.2
million) rather than being reduced to $1.1 million, as requested by the President. The
FY1999 Interior Appropriations bill passed by the House contained $84.7 million in
insular affairs funding, $2.0 million less than the House committee recommendation.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $86.9 million in FY1999
insular affairs funding, $0.2 million more than requested by the President and
recommended by the House committee. The Senate committee provided $0.2 million
less for operations grants to American Samoa than either the President or the House
committee. (The President’s FY1999 request for these grants was $23.1 million, the
same as the FY1998 appropriation.) The Senate committee also provided $1.5
million for the Enewetak support program, $0.4 million more than the President’s
request and $0.3 million more than the House committee’s recommendation. This
proposed $1.5 million in funding for Enewetak support included $0.4 million to
improve food self-sufficiency.
The conference report on the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill provides
$87.1 million in funding for insular affairs. The conference agreement generally
follows the House Committee’s recommended funding levels. It, however, provides
$1.6 million in total funding for Enewetak support, more than the amount
recommended by either the House Committee (and approved by the House) or the
Senate Committee. That $1.6 million includes the $0.4 million in special funding
recommended by the Senate Committee.
In its FY1999 budget justifications for OIA, the Interior Department described
brown tree snake control as a major priority. The department believes that the brown
tree snake is “a significant ecological threat” to Guam and “represents an increasing
threat to other areas where it may migrate,” including the Northern Mariana Islands
and Hawaii. The department requested a FY1999 budget increase for brown tree
snake control in order to more fully implement a plan for “a coordinated operational
and research program involving control and eradication techniques.” The House
Appropriations Committee report noted that the committee provided a substantial
increase for the brown tree snake program, although not as much as requested by the
President.
Another key issue in FY1999 territorial appropriations is the financial condition
of the American Samoa government. In recent years, the Interior Department and
Members of Congress have expressed concerns about the failure of the territorial
government to implement a financial recovery plan developed by representatives of
the department and the American Samoa government. Both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees reiterated concerns about American Samoa’s fiscal
problems in their FY1999 reports. The Senate report noted, in particular, the
territory’s failure to pay for medical care provided to its people in Hawaii and called
for aggressive action by the American Samoa government to pay these bills.
A third issue is the alien labor situation in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI). The Interior Department and other federal agencies
participate in a joint federal-CNMI program established to address labor, immigration,
and law enforcement problems in the CNMI. As requested by OIA to meet the needs
identified by the joint program, the bills reported by the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees earmarked $5.0 million, of the $11.0 million in Covenant
grant funding provided to the CNMI, for a prison facility and $0.5 million for a crime
laboratory. The House-passed bill also included these earmarks. The Senate report
directed the Interior Department to use some of the funds provided for the joint
federal-CNMI program to establish an ombudsman’s office in the CNMI to assist
workers. The conference agreement endorsed that proposal.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html]
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service. The Administration
requested $2.657 billion, $150 million (6%) more than was appropriated in FY1998.
Most of the increase is $102 million in emergency contingency appropriations for
wildland fire management, offset by a proposed $30 million decrease in annual
appropriations for fire operations.
The House appropriated $2.523 billion, $43 million less than the FY1998
appropriation and $134 million less than the request, but with no contingent fire
funds. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.623 billion, $57
million more than FY1998 but $34 million less than the request; however, this
included $102 million emergency contingent fire funds and several other major
modifications. The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations enacted $2.752 billion,
including the $102 million contingent emergency fire funds. This is $95 million more
than the Administration requested, $126 million more than the House passed, and
$129 more than recommended by the Senate.
Increasing Forest Service fiscal accountability was the focus of much debate.
The House shifted maintenance of trails and recreation facilities from the recreation
account to the infrastructure account; and road maintenance from the infrastructure
account to the reconstruction/construction account. The Senate Committee
concurred with these changes.
The House Committee also recommended restricting "indirect support activities"
to 25% of obligations from the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund, but this was striken by a
floor amendment, 236-182, and replaced with language prohibiting the use of these
funds for indirect support activities. The Senate Committee took a different
approach, recommending $0 for general administration ($259 million was requested),
$122 million allocated among the National Forest System accounts and $108 million
among other Forest Service accounts for general administration, and details in the
FY2000 budget request on overhead funding for each account. The Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations rejected both of these approaches, and instead required
further reporting on "indirect expenditures" to the Committees and in the FY2000
budget request and restricting indirect expenditures from six specific trust funds and
special accounts to not more than 20% in FY2000.
For further information on the Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service,
see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.fs.fed.us/]
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the U.S.
Forest Service, see the USDA Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at
[http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm]
Timber Sales and Forest Health. Timber sales, especially salvage timber, and
forest health are likely to continue to dominate debates over Forest Service budget
and authorizing legislation. The FY1999 budget request proposed declines both in
salvage sales (from 1.251 billion board feet, or BBF, to 1.083 BBF) and in new green
sales (from 2.562 BBF to 2.356 BBF); the proposed sale program of 3.4 BBF would
be the lowest level since FY1950. The House Committee recommended timber sales
offered of 3.6 BBF, and the bill passed with no change in recommended funding; the
Senate Committee recommended sales sold (not just offered) of 3.784 BBF. An
amendment by Rep. Furse to transfer $80.5 million from the timber program to
recreation and watershed improvements was offered and then withdrawn. Finally, in
Section 334, the House expanded the authorized use of the 10% Roads and Trails
Fund “to improve forest health conditions and repair or reconstruct roads, bridges and
trails …,” emphasizing the wildland-urban interface and areas with abnormally high
risk from potential wildfires.
The Senate bill contains several additional provisions addressing timber sales.
Section 338 would require the Forest Service to offer economically viable timber sales
of at least 90% of the maximum allowable sale quantity (ASQ) under the 1997
Tongass Land Management Plan Revision; this could be enforced through civil suits
by economically-dependent persons. In addition, Section 340 contains complicated
directions on timber sales and western red cedar shipments, to the lower 48 states or
for export, from the Tongass National Forest (continued from the FY1998 Interior
Appropriations Act). Section 332 would prohibit prescribed burning until "every
effort has been made to remove all economically viable, commercial wood products
from the proposed burn area;" the regional foresters could grant waivers on a site-by-
site basis, but this could stifle efforts to improve forest health using prescribed fire to
reduce undergrowth. Section 335 would authorize “Stewardship End Result
Contracting Demonstration Projects” in each national forest in Idaho and Montana
and in the Umatilla National Forest (WA and OR) through FY2002; contracts of up
to 10 years can be used to “achieve land management goals … that meet local and
rural community needs,” with the value of the timber removed offsetting the costs of
other services.
The Omnibus Appropriations bill enacted several (but not all) of these
provisions. The complicated provision on timber sales and western red cedar
shipments from the Tongass were enacted as Section 350, but the Tongass sale target
and the prescribed burning provisions were deleted. The Stewardship End Results
Contracting Demonstration was enacted as Section 347, but was modified to
authorize 28 projects, including 9 in Montana and northern Idaho. Finally, Section
health improvements activities, as well as road, bridge, and trail repair and
reconstruction.
Land Management Planning. Management of the federal lands has been
controversial for decades. Increasing conflicts among users in the 1960s and early
and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) to establish and
guide land and resource management planning for the national forests and BLM lands.
Despite lofty goals, the public participatory planning processes have not led to
harmonious land management. Bills to improve planning, some emphasizing forest
health, have been introduced in both Houses, but none have been enacted.
Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended that the
scientific findings of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project be
incorporated into the land and resource management plans and the project terminated.
A House floor amendment to strike this section was defeated, 202-221. This
provision was not enacted in the Omnibus Appropriations bill.
The Senate Committee recommended several other provisions addressing
planning. Section 321 would prohibit new land management plans for the national
forests until the planning regulations had been revised, except for forests which had
begun revisions before October 1997 or which were operating under court orders, and
except for the White Mountain National Forest. The report language indicates that
plan revisions to incorporate ICBEMP findings (under Section 337) are also excepted,
but the language in Section 321 includes no reference to the latter section. Section
329 would direct the agency to continue management under existing plans until the
plans were revised under the new regulations, despite the provision in NFMA
requiring revisions within 15 years. Finally, Section 322 would prohibit the Forest
Service from spending to complete the RPA Program; the report language indicates
that the RPA Program is to become part of the agency’s strategic planning under
GPRA. Two of these provisions were enacted in the Omnibus Appropriations: the
prohibition on new plans (with noted exceptions) prior to the revision of the planning
regulations was enacted as Section 321, and the prohibition on completing the RPA
Program was enacted as Section 322.
The Omnibus Appropriations bill also contains two titles affecting specific areas.
Title IV enacts the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act.
This title directs a 5-year pilot project for managing 3 national forests in California
under the plan devised by a local group of users, environmentalists, and others
(known as the Quincy Library Group). The provision excludes certain areas, and
specifies management activities, funding sources, and annual and final reporting
requirements. Title V enacts the Land Between the Lakes Protection Act, to transfer
this area from the Tennessee Valley Authority to the Forest Service and manage it as
a National Recreation Area; similar provisions had been recommended by the Senate
Appropriations Committee and passed (contingent upon certain Energy and Water
Development appropriations) by the House.
Forest Roads. Road construction in the national forests continues to be
controversial. Some interests oppose new roads because roads increase access to
areas they believe should be preserved in a pristine condition, because roads are a
major source of erosion, stream sedimentation, and other environmental degradation,
and because road funding is asserted to be a corporate subsidy for the timber industry.
Supporters argue that access roads are needed for forest protection (e.g., from
wildfire) and for timber harvesting and other on-site uses, and maintain that roads can
be built without causing significant environmental problems.
The Administration has again proposed to end the use of purchaser road credits
to finance road construction. This system, authorized in Section 4(2) of the 1964
National Forest Roads and Trails Act (P.L. 88-657), allows the Forest Service to
build “forest development” roads through requirements on timber purchasers, and to
compensate those purchasers with credits that can generally be used to pay for
timber. The House approved (in Section 332), and the Senate Appropriations2
Committee recommended (in Section 339), to end the use of road credits, make the
specified road construction a contract requirement (to be paid like any other cost the
purchaser must incur), and to continue the “Purchaser Elect Program” whereby small
businesses may elect to have the Forest Service build the road and then pay the
agency more for the timber (to cover the estimated road construction cost). Such a
provision was enacted as Section 329 of the Omnibus Appropriations.
In separate action, the Administration has also issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking to revise current regulations governing the management of the
National Forest System transportation system (63 Federal Register 9980-9987, Feb.
27, 1998). At the same time, the Administration issued a proposed interim rule that
would temporarily halt road construction into many roadless areas. Environmental
groups objected to the limitations on areas covered by this road construction
moratorium, while the timber industry and many Members of Congress decried the
moratorium as needless national direction overriding locally agreed-upon plans for
managing the national forests.
Department of Energy. For further information on the Department of Energy,
see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.doe.gov/]
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the DOE
or any of its departments, see DOE’s Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at
[http://www.doe.gov/policy/doeplan.html]
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The Clinton
Administration’s FY1999 budget request for fossil fuel research and development
(R&D) continues to reflect its energy and environmental priorities. Fossil fuel R&D
efforts will focus on environmental issues associated with electric power, particularly
global climate change concerns.
Overall, the Administration’s FY1999 request for fossil energy is $383.4 million,
a 6% increase from the FY1998 appropriation of $362.4 million. Funding for coal
R&D projects would rise by 21% and account for almost all of the increase from
The system is substantially more complicated than this statement suggests. For more2
information, see CRS Report 97-14 ENR, The Forest Service Budget: Trust Funds and
Special Accounts, Appendix E: Timber Purchaser Road Credits, pp. 40-41.
current FY1998 levels. Petroleum R&D would increase by 3.3% and natural gas R&D
would decrease 1.5%. The Administration is requesting no new funding for the Clean
Coal Technology Program. However, $14.9 million was allocated for administration
of clean coal programs. The House approved $315.6 million and the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $376.4 million for FY1999. The conference
agreement appropriates $384 million for fossil energy research.
Natural gas research would decline by $47.6 million while coal research would
increase by $6.4 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee differs significantly
from the House on natural gas research by approving $112.2 million. However, the
approved funding level of $117 million for coal research is much closer to the House
Committee level. The difference between the House and Senate marks is largely in
the Senate funding of the natural gas advanced turbine system while the House panel
recommended to move and consolidate that program under energy conservation. The
conference agreement keeps the natural gas advanced turbine system under fossil
energy R&D.
The Administration’s efforts are focused on new technology that would take
advantage of natural gas as a clean fuel and would reduce or eliminate many
environmental problems associated with coal. Critics question the extent to which
fossil fuel R&D should be based on current trends and a view of natural gas as a
“transition fuel” to non-fossil fuels. They question whether the Administration is
taking too narrow a view of coal’s potential for electric generation and technology
exports and whether these changes will have a negative impact on jobs and the
economy or will develop new markets and opportunities.
For further information on Fossil Energy, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/]
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. After purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve ended in FY1994, the program was largely funded using previously
authorized but unspent balances in the petroleum acquisition account. When this was
no longer a practical source for funding, the Administration and Congress approved
sales of SPR oil to finance some program costs in FY1996, and all of them in
FY1997. In its FY1998 budget request, the Administration asked for a conventional
appropriation of $209 million to operate and maintain the SPR, but Congress again
authorized a sale.
For FY1999, the Administration requested a conventional appropriation of
$160.1 million. The lower level partly reflects completion of work at some storage
sites for the SPR’s Life Extension Program. Infrastructure is being replaced or
updated to assure the integrity of the SPR system well into the next century. In the
current budget climate, congressional authorization of another sale of SPR oil seemed
unlikely, and neither the House or Senate appropriations committee proposed one.
The House approved the Administration request. Senate appropriations, however,
has proposed an appropriation of $155.1 million, a reduction of $5 million from the
Administration request and House recommendation. The omnibus spending bill
adopted the Administration-proposed and House-approved figure of $160.1 million.
For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.fe.doe.gov/spr/spr.html]
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), and established a 2 year timetable for completion of the sale. On
Feb. 5, 1998, Occidental Petroleum Corporation took title to the site and wired $3.65
billion to the U.S. Treasury. In anticipation of operating Elk Hills for only part of
1998, the Administration had requested $117 million for FY1998 and Congress
approved $107 million.
In settlement of a long-standing dispute between California and the federal
government over the state’s claim to Elk Hills as “school lands,” the California
Teachers’ Retirement Fund will receive 9 % of the sale proceeds after the costs of sale
have been deducted. The FY1999 budget enacted by Congress provides an initial
appropriation of $36 million; the hope is that future payments of this settlement will
be made directly from the proceeds of the sale rather than by appropriation.
The Administration requested $22.5 million for the balance of the NPR program
for FY1999 for close-out activities at Elk Hills, and for well-plugging and
environmental restoration activities at NPR-3 (Teapot Dome) that are prerequisite to
shutting the field down. Congress has mandated the transfer of the Naval Oil Shale
Reserves to the Department of the Interior for possible commercial leasing. The
budget provides for routine management of these reserves until transfer is completed.
Both the House and Senate appropriations committees reduced the recommended
appropriation to $14 million through the use of unobligated balances in the Reserve's
revolving fund. This is the figure that was approved by Congress in the omnibus
spending bill.
For further information on Naval Petroleum Reserves, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.fe.doe.gov/nposr/nprpage.html]
Energy Conservation. The FY1999 request for DOE’s Energy Efficiency
Program seeks $808.5 million (including $35 million in oil overcharge funding), a
$196.8 million, or 32% increase. R&D would increase by $160.8 million, or 35%,
and grants would increase by $36 million, or 23%. For FY1998, P.L. 105-83
appropriated $611.7 million (including $20.6 million from oil overcharge funds).
The House approved $675.3 million for DOE’s FY1999 Energy Efficiency
Program (including $43 million for a proposed transfer of the Advanced Turbines
Program from the Office of Energy Research). This mark includes $45 million added
to the Appropriations Committee’s recommendation in a floor amendment (Regula,
Fox, Skaggs). The increase from the amendment includes $9 million more for
Weatherization grants, $2 million more for State Energy grants, and $34 million that
is not specified for particular programs. Excluding transfer of the Advanced Turbines
Program (which the Administration did not request), the House mark totals $632.3
million, which is $176.2 million, or 22%, less than the Administration Request; and
it is $45.4 million, or 7%, less than the Senate mark.
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s mark for DOE’s Energy Efficiency
Program seeks $677.7 million. In contrast to the House, it does not propose to
transfer the Advanced Turbines Program from the Office of Energy Research. Also,
it seeks $130.8 million, or 16%, less than the Administration request. This difference
from the request includes $31.5 million less for Transportation, $17.4 million less for
Buildings R&D, $9.1 million less for FEMP, $23.4 million less for Industry, $25.1
million less for Weatherization grants, and $5.8 million less for State Energy grants.
In the Omnibus Appropriations bill, the conference mark is $692 million, an $80
million, or 13% increase over the FY1998 level. This includes $526 million for R&D,
a $69 million increase; and $166 million for grant programs, an $11 million increase.
Further, the mark for R&D includes $202 million for Transportation, a $9 million
increase; $96 million for Buildings, a $17 million increase; $24 million for FEMP, a
$4 million increase; and $166 million for Industry, a $30 million increase.
(For more details, see CRS Issue Brief 97027, Energy Efficiency: Key to
Sustainable Energy Use.)
For further information on Energy Efficiency, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.eren.doe.gov/]
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service. The
Indian Health Service (IHS) carries out the federal responsibility of assuring
comprehensive preventive, curative, rehabilitative, and environmental health services
for approximately 1.3 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to
more than 545 federally recognized tribes in 35 states. Care is provided through a
system of federal, tribal, and urban operated programs and facilities that serves as the
major source of health care for American Indians and Alaska natives. IHS funding is
separated into two accounts: Indian Health Services and Indian Health Facilities.
Included in Indian Health Services are such services as hospital and health clinic
programs, dental health, and mental health, alcohol, and substance abuse programs,
preventive health services, urban health projects, and funding for Indian health
professions. The Indian Health Facilities account includes funds for maintenance and
improvement, construction of facilities, sanitation facilities, and environmental health
support. The IHS program is funded through a combination of federal appropriations
and through collections of reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, and private
insurance for services to eligible patients who have such insurance coverage.
The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill provides for $2.239 billion
budget for the Indian Health Service ($1.950 billion for the Indian Health Services and
$289 million for Indian Health Facilities).
The Administration requested $2.118 billion for FY1999 budget appropriations
to the IHS ($1.844 billion for Services and $274 million for Health Facilities). The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended FY1999 funding of $2.152 billion
to the IHS ($1.889 billion for Services and $264 million for Health Facilities). The
House proposal recommended $2.246 billion for FY1999 for the IHS ($1.933 billion
for Services and $313 million for Health Facilities).
The conference agreement does not include statutory language mandating a pro-
rata distribution of contract support costs across all IHS self-determination contracts
and self-governance compacts. Contract support costs are the costs awarded a tribe
for the administration and management of a program -- operation costs are awarded
separately. This language was included in both the House and Senate bills but was
dropped due to objections raised by tribal organizations and individual tribes.
The Committees have added more than $35 million to the Administration's
budget request to address the inequity in the distribution of contract support cost
funding in FY1999. Additionally, the Committees have instituted a one-year
moratorium on new contracts and compacts.
The population served by the IHS bears a higher incidence of illness and
premature mortality than other U.S. populations, although the differences in mortality
rates have diminished in recent years in such areas as infant and maternal mortality,
as well as mortality associated with alcoholism, injuries, tuberculosis, gastroenteritis,
and other conditions. American Indians and Alaska Natives also have less access to
health care than does the general U.S. population, with the number of physicians and
nurses per Indian beneficiary, already below that of the general population, dropping
since the 1980's. In FY1996, the IHS per capita health expenditure was $1,578,
compared to the U.S. civilian per capita expenditure of $3,920. The population
eligible for IHS services is increasing at an approximate rate of 2.1% per year.
According to the IHS, the increases in program funding over the past decade have
failed to keep pace with inflation.
Many IHS health care providing facilities are reportedly in need of repair or
replacement. Funding for the construction of new facilities has decreased in recent
years while funding for the provision of health services has increased; a priority list
has been established for new construction. The Omnibus FY1999 budget for IHS
facilities allocates $289 million for facility construction, repair, maintenance,
improvement and equipment of health and related auxiliary facilities, such as domestic
and community sanitation facilities for Indians.
For further information on Department of Health and Human Services: Indian
Health Service, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.tucson.ihs.gov/]
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the IHS,
see The Department of Health and Human Services Government Performance &
Results Act World Wide Web site at [http://www.hhs.gov/progorg/fin/gpraindx.html]
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation. The Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation (ONHIR) was reauthorized for FY1995-1997 by P.L. 104-15. The
1974 relocation legislation (P.L. 93-531, as amended) was the end result of a dispute
between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving land originally set aside by the federal
government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, lands were
partitioned between the two tribes and members of one tribe who ended up on the
other tribe's land were to be relocated. Most relocatees are Navajo. A large majority
of the estimated 3,455 Navajo families formerly on the land partitioned to the Hopi
have already relocated under the Act, but the House Appropriations Committee in
including about 71 Navajo families still on Hopi partitioned land (many of whom
refuse to relocate).
Negotiations had gone forward among the two tribes, the Navajo families on
Hopi partitioned land, and the federal government, especially regarding Hopi Tribe
claims against the United States. The United States and the Hopi Tribe reached a
proposed settlement agreement on December 14, 1995. Attached to the settlement
agreement was a separate accommodation agreement between the Hopi Tribe and the
Navajo families, which provided for 75-year leases for Navajo families on Hopi
partitioned land. The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-
301) approved the settlement agreement between the United States and the Hopi
Tribe. Not all issues have been resolved by these agreements, however, and
opposition to the agreements and the leases is strong among some of the Navajo
families. Navajo families with homesites on Hopi partitioned land faced a March 31,
1997, deadline for signing leases. An initial Hopi report said 60 of the 80 homesites
affected had signed the leases.
The Hopi Tribe has called for enforcement of relocation against Navajo families
without leases. Like the FY1997 and FY1998 Interior appropriations acts, the
FY1999 Interior appropriations bill proposed by the President, and the bills reported
by the Senate Appropriations Committee or approved by the full House, as well as the
version enacted into law in the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act, all contained a
proviso forbidding ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi partitioned
lands unless a replacement home is provided. This language appears to prevent
ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families, since ONHIR has a large backlog
of other families that need homes. The settlement agreement approved by P.L. 104-
possession actions against the United States in the year 2000 if Navajo families on
Hopi partitioned land have not entered into leases with the Hopi Tribe.
Congress has for a long time been concerned by the slow pace of relocation and
by relocatees' apparent low level of interest in moving to the "new lands" acquired for
the Navajo reservation for relocatee use. Appropriations committee reports in 1995,
and the Senate in the 104 Congress considered a bill phasing out ONHIR. Theth
House FY1998 Appropriations Committee report directed ONHIR to stop further
development work on the new lands beyond that required to meet relocatee demand.
For FY1998, ONHIR received appropriations of $15 million. For FY1999 the
Administration proposed the same amount. The Senate Appropriations Committee
agreed with the Administration figure, while the House of Representatives approved
$13 million, a 13% reduction from FY1998. In the Interior appropriations portion of
the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act, Congress approved $13 million for the
ONHIR.
Other Related Agencies. One of the pervasive issues for the programs and
agencies delineated below is whether federal government support for the arts and
culture is an appropriate federal role, and if it is, what should be the shape of that
support. If the continued federal role is not appropriate, might the federal
commitment be scaled back such that greater private support or state support would
be encouraged? Each program has its own unique relationship to this overarching
issue.
Smithsonian. The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education and
research complex of 16 museums and galleries and the National Zoo. Nine of its
museums and galleries are located on the Mall between the U.S. Capitol and the
Washington monument, and counted over 30 million visitors in FY1997. The
Smithsonian is estimated to be 70+ percent federally funded. A federal commitment
was established by initial legislation in 1846. In addition to receiving federal
appropriations, the Smithsonian has private trust funds, which include endowments,
donations, and other revenues from its sales stores and magazine.
The FY1999 Clinton Administration budget would have provided $419.8 million
to the Smithsonian, and $357.3 million of that amount would be for salaries and
expenses. Of the total for the Smithsonian, $16 million (and a request for an advance
appropriation of $19 million for FY 2000) would be provided to complete
construction of the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) on the Mall.
The NMAI was controversial; opponents of the new museum argued that the current
Smithsonian museums need renovation and repair, and maintenance of the collection
with over 140 million items, more than the public needs another museum on the Mall.
Proponents felt that there had been too long a delay in providing a museum “in
Washington” to house the Indian collection. Private donations to the Smithsonian
and a fund-raising campaign totaled $37 million, required to meet the non-
appropriated portion of project funding. Of this amount, $15 million came from the
Indian community directly. However, the total cost of the American Indian museum
was estimated at $110 million; Congress asked that there be an attempt to “scale
down” the plans and cost. The final FY1998 Interior appropriations provided $29
million for the construction of the American Indian Museum.
The FY1999 budget would have included $40 million for repair and renovation
of the Smithsonian. Four of the Smithsonian’s buildings account for approximately
the American Art and Portrait Gallery (built between 1836 and 1860), the Castle
building (built 1846), and the Arts and Industries building (1849). The cost to renew
these four buildings is approximately $200 million. The Smithsonian contends that
funding for repair and renewal of SI’s facilities has not kept pace with need, resulting
in accelerated deterioration of the physical plant.
The Smithsonian has indicated that it has completed a 5 year strategic plan and
an associated performance plan for FY1999 under the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 and in keeping with the Smithsonian’s mission. On another
matter, the final report of the Latino Oversight committee, Toward a Shared Vision:
U.S. Latinos and the Smithsonian Institution, was released in October 1997. It
indicates that although there is a significant change in commitment at the top (SI
management) toward including Latinos in all aspects of the Smithsonian, some of the
implementation of the plan has lagged. Latinos accounted for only 2% of senior
Smithsonian personnel and 4% as members of Smithsonian boards and commissions.
Those critical of the Smithsonian urge that Latino representation be addressed in this
budget cycle.
The Smithsonian marked its 150 anniversary in FY1997 and generated publicth
programs associated with it including “America’s Smithsonian,” a traveling exhibit.
The Smithsonian indicated that the traveling exhibit (free to the public) was too
costly, and to offset the cost, SI might institute admission charges for special exhibits
in the Smithsonian buildings on the Mall. In view of the trend toward diminished
federal support, the Smithsonian has also begun to use bond issues for some
construction projects including the renovation of the National Museum of Natural
History and the Dulles National Air and Space Museum extension.
On June 18, 1998, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee marked up
the FY1999 Interior appropriations bill, allowing $397.5 million for the Smithsonian.
On June 25, the House Appropriations Committee concurred with the earlier estimate
that would provide $397.449 million, (allowing $346.449 million for salaries and
expenses). Also, on June 25, the Senate Appropriations Committee ordered reported
the Interior bill providing $404.554 million for the Smithsonian (allowing $352.154
million for salaries and expenses, and providing $16 million for construction of the
National Museum of the American Indian.) The full House approved its
Appropriations Committee's recommendation. The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations
Act provides $347.154 million for salaries and expenses of the Smithsonian; with $16
million for construction, primarily for the National Museum of the American Indian;
and $40 million for repair and restoration of Smithsonian buildings.
For further information on the Smithsonian, see its World Wide Web site at
[http://www.si.edu/newstart.htm]
National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities,
and Institute of Museum Services. One of the primary vehicles for federal support
for arts, humanities and museums 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 a newly constituted 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, has expired but has been operating on temporary
authority through appropriations law. The last reauthorization for the National
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities occurred in 1990 and expired in FY1993.
Authority has been carried through appropriations language since that time. The 104th
Congress established the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) under P.L.
Among the questions Congress is considering is whether funding for the arts,
humanities, and museums is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. The
current climate of budget constraints raises questions about the need for such support.
Some argue that NEA and NEH should be abolished altogether, contending that the
federal government should not be in the business of supporting arts and humanities.
They also argue that culture can and does flourish on its own through private support.
Proponents of federal support for arts and humanities argue that the federal
government has a long tradition of such support, beginning with congressional
appropriation of funds for works of art to adorn the U.S. Capitol in 1817.
Spokesmen for the private sector say that they are unable to make up the gap that
would be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts. Some argue that abolishing or
CRS-35
any significant reduction to NEA, NEH and IMLS will curtail or eliminate the
programs that have national purposes (such as touring theater and dance companies,
radio and television shows, etc.)
The Administration’s FY1999 budget would provide $136 million for NEA and
NEH and $26 million for OMS within the Institute of Museum and Library Services.
For the NEA this would include a $15 million increase in state Partnership funds to
allow NEA to work with state arts agencies by investing in arts education activities.
For the NEH, $5 million in start-up funds would support regional humanities centers
as part of a new special initiative Rediscovering America: the Humanities and the
Millennium. For the IMLS, OMS would receive $17 million for General Operating
support to help museums improve the quality of their services to the public--they are
already popular, serving over 600 million visitors annually.
In the 105 Congress, elimination of the NEA was once again on a list ofth
priorities for some House members. Among the House Republican leadership, a small
group was formed called the “values action team,” to coordinate legislative action
with conservative groups (e.g., Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and the
Family Research Council). In contrast, the Congressional Member Organization for
the Arts (CMO) testified in favor of full support for the arts at the FY1999
Administration budget request level. The President’s Committee on the Arts released
a publication, Creative America that recommends that federal funding be restored for
NEA, NEH and IMLS to levels “adequate to fulfill their national roles.” The goal
expressed was for appropriations to equal $2.00 per person by the year 2000 for all
three agencies.
The controversy involving charges of obscenity concerning a small number of
NEA individual grants remains an issue despite attempts to resolve these problems
through statutory provisions. To date, no NEA projects have been judged obscene by
the courts. In addition, a federal appeals court (Nov. 5, 1996) upheld an earlier
decision, ruling that applying the “general standards of decency” clause to NEA
grants was “unconstitutional.” Prior to the federal appeals court decision, Congress
eliminated funding for most grants to individual artists; and in anticipation of the
Congress’s action, NEA had already eliminated grants to individuals by arts discipline
except to maintain Literature fellowships, Jazz masters and National Heritage
fellowships in the Folk and Traditional Arts. On June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court
reversed the federal appeals court decision for NEA v. Finley by a vote of 8 to 1,
stating that the NEA can consider “general standards of decency” when judging grants
for artistic merit, and that the decency provision does not “inherently interfere with
First amendment rights nor violate constitutional vagueness principles.”
On November 14, 1997, the FY1998 Interior Appropriations bill was enacted as
P.L. 105-83. In spite of attempts by the House to eliminate funding for NEA, the
Congress approved $98 million for NEA, $110.7 million for NEH, and $23.280
million for the OMS, IMLS, with reform language included for NEA. The NEA
reform measures included an increase in the percentage of funding to states for basic
state arts grants and for grants to underserved populations from 35% to 40%. In
addition, language emphasizing arts education was included. There would be a 15%
CRS-36
cap on funds allocated to each state, exempting only those grants with a national
impact. It was recommended that three members of the House and three members of
the Senate serve on the National Council on the Arts, and that the size of the National
Council be reduced to 20 from 26. Both NEA and NEH were given specific authority
to solicit funding and to invest those funds.
On June 18, 1998, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee marked up
the FY1999 Interior Appropriations bill, allowing $23 million for the IMLS-OMS,
$110 million for NEH, and recommending “termination of $98 million for the
National Endowment for the Arts.” On June 25, the House Appropriations
Committee restored $98 million for NEA (an amendment to restore funding was
adopted by a vote of 31-27) under the FY1999 Interior appropriations bill. Also, on
June 25, the Senate Appropriations Committee ordered reported the FY1999 Interior
appropriations, providing $100.060 million for NEA, and $110.7 million for NEH,
and $23.280 million for the OMS, IMLS.
On July 21, 1998, during consideration of the FY1999 Interior Appropriations
bill, the House voted (253-173) to approve an amendment to restore $98 million for
the NEA in FY1999. Prior to this vote the House, on a point of order, had removed
$98 million for NEA, stating that there was no program authorization. On July 23,
the full House approved H.R. 4193, which included the above noted House figures.
The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act provided $98 million for the NEA, $110.7
million for NEH, and $23.405 million for the OMS.
(Notes on reauthorization: The authorization has expired for the Nationalth
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act. The 104 Congress considered but
did not enact legislation to reauthorize the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities. However, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) was
authorized through the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, merging
the previous Institute of Museum Services with library resources programs. On July
1020, a bill to reauthorize for 5 years the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965. There was no further action on the arts reauthorization;
although some of the reforms placed in the Interior appropriations bill for FY1998
(P.L. 105-83) were similar to provisions in S. 1020.)
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its site at
[http://arts.endow.gov/]
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
site at [http://ns1.neh.fed.us:80/]
For further information on the Institute of Museum Services, see its site at
[http://www.imls.fed.us/]
CRS-37
For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Report 97-206 ENR. Appropriations for FY1998: Interior and Related
Agencies , by Alfred R. Greenwood, 45 p.
CRS Report 97-904 GOV. Fiscal Year 1998 Continuing Resolution, by Sandy
Streeter, 6 p.
Title I: Department of the Interior.
CRS Report 98-479 ENR. Department of the Interior Budget Request for FY1999:
An Overview, by Alfred R. Greenwood, 53 p.
CRS Report 97-332 ENR. Department of the Interior Budget Request for FY1998,
by Alfred R. Greenwood, 34 p.
CRS Report 96-514 ENR. Department of the Interior Budget Request for FY1997,
by Alfred R. Greenwood, 31 p.
CRS Issue Brief 95003. Endangered Species: Continuing Controversy, by M. Lynne
Corn. (Updated regularly)
CRS Report 97-851 A. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy, 29 p.
CRS Report 98-36 ENR. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela
Baldwin, 12 p.
CRS Report 90-192 ENR. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by M. Lynne Corn, 37 p.
CRS Report 96-450 ENR. Grazing Fees: An Overview, by Betsy A. Cody, 6 p.
CRS Issue Brief 96006. Grazing Fees and Rangeland Management, by Betsy A.
Cody. (Updated Regularly)
CRS Report 96-123 EPW. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by
Susan Boren, 5 p. (Updated regularly)
CRS Report 93-793 A. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Judicial and Administrative
Interpretations, by M. Maureen Murphy, 28 p.
CRS General Distribution Memorandum. Indian Issues in the 105th Congress, by
Roger Walke, 5 p.
CRS-38
CRS Report 97-792 ENR. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn, 6 p.
CRS Report 95-599 ENR. The Major Federal Land Management Agencies:
Management of Our Nation’s Lands and Resources, Coordinated by Betsy A.
Cody, 45 p.
CRS Report 94-438 ENR. Mining Law Reform: the Impact of a Royalty, by Marc
Humphries, 14 p.
CRS report 95-259 ENR. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified,
by M. Lynne Corn, 10 p.
CRS Report 95-145 SPR. U.S. Geological Survey: Its Mission and Its Future, by
James E. Mielke, 6 p.
Title II: Related Agencies.
CRS Report 97-539 EPW. Arts and Humanities: Funding and Reauthorization in
the 105th Congress, by Susan Boren, 15 p.
CRS Report 95-15 ENR. Below-Cost Timber Sales: Overview, by Ross W. Gorte,
CRS Issue Brief 96020. The Department of Energy’s FY1997 Budget, Coordinated
by Marc Humphries. (Updated regularly)
CRS Report 90-275 SPR. Energy Conservation and Electric Utilities:
Developments and Issues in Regulating Program Profitability, by Fred Sissine,
CRS Issue Brief 95085. Energy Efficiency: A New National Outlook?, by Fred
Sissine. (Updated regularly)
CRS Report 98-233 ENR. Federal Timber Harvests: Implications for U.S. Timber
Supply, by Ross W. Gorte, 6 p.
CRS Report 95-548 ENR. Forest Health: Overview, by Ross W. Gorte, 5 p.
CRS Report 97-706 ENR. Forest Roads: Construction and Financing, by Ross W.
Gorte, 6 p.
CRS Report 97-14 ENR. The Forest Service Budget: Trust Funds and Special
Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte and M. Lynne Corn, 43 p.
CRS Report 94-866 EPW. Health Care Fact Sheet: Indian Health Service, by
Jennifer A. Neisner, 2 p.
CRS-39
CRS Report 96-191 SPR. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
(PNGV), by Fred Sissine, 24 p.
CRS Report 95-364 ENR. Salvage Sales and Forest Health, by Ross W. Gorte, 5
p.
CRS Report 96-569 ENR. The Salvage Timber Sale Rider: Overview and Policy
Issues, by Ross W. Gorte, 6 p.
CRS Issue Brief 87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
(Updated regularly)
Other References
Report of the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Reorganization of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior and the Appropriations
Committees of the United States Congress. [Washington: The Task Force].
August 1994.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Information regarding the budget, supporting documents, and related
departments, agencies and programs is available at the following web or gopher sites.
House Committee on Appropriations.
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
[http://www.senate.gov/committee/appropriations.html]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide.
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]
Congressional Budget Office.
[http://www.cbo.gov/]
General Accounting Office.
[http://www.gao.gov]
Office of Management and Budget.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/ombhome.html]
Title I: Department of the Interior.
Department of the Interior (DOI).
[http://www.doi.gov/]
Department of the Interior’s Office of the Budget.
[http://www.doi.gov/budget/]
CRS-40
Department of the Interior’s Strategic Plan Overview FY1998-FY2002.
[http://www.doi.gov/fyst.html]
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
[http://www.blm.gov/]
Bureau of Land Management Media Alert.
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/alerts.html]
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
[http://www.fws.gov/]
National Park Service (NPS).
[http://www.nps.gov/parks.html]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
[http://www.usgs.gov/]
Minerals Management Service (MMS).
[http://www.mms.gov/]
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
[http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html]
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.
[http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
Insular Affairs.
[http://www.doi.gov/oia/index.html]
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
[http://www.usda.gov/]
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service.
[http://www.fs.fed.us/]
USDA Strategic Plan.
[http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index.htm]
Department of Energy (DOE).
[http://www.doe.gov/]
DOE Strategic Plan.
[http://www.doe.gov/policy/doeplan.html]
CRS-41
Fossil Energy.
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/]
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/spr/spr.html]
Naval Petroleum Reserves.
[http://www.fe.doe.gov/nposr/nprpage.html]
Energy Efficiency.
[http://www.eren.doe.gov/]
Department of Health and Human Services.
[http://www.dhhs.gov]
Department of Health and Human Services Government Performance & Results Act.
[http://www.hhs.gov/progorg/fin/gpraindx.html]
Indian Health Service (IHS).
[http://www.tucson.ihs.gov]
Smithsonian.
[http://www.si.edu/newstart.htm]
National Endowment for the Arts.
[http://arts.endow.gov/]
National Endowment for the Humanities.
[http://ns1.neh.fed.us:80/]
Institute of Museum Services.
[http://www.imls.fed.us/]
CRS-42
Table 3. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
(in thousands of dollars)
b c
Bureau or AgencyHouse BillP.L. 105-277FY1998FY1999SenateEnactedRequestBilld
1,136,001 1,233,659 1,175,557 1,200,697 1,190,695
772,539 818,228 744,885 797,352 802,192
1,655,134 1,753,102 1,606,079 1,661,531 1,748,224
760,358 806,883 774,838 772,115 797,896
150,314 128,520 122,520 123,393 124,020
273,061 276,956 278,765 275,966 278,769
1,703,269 1,844,136 1,713,517 1,701,999 1,746,428
250,073 260,679 248,800 252,549 266,052
6,700,749 7,122,163 6,664,961 6,785,602 6,954,276
2,565,550 2,656,809 2,522,884 2,622,534 2,751,853
1,255,651 1,441,529 1,233,429 1,251,809 1,316,878
-101,000-40,000—- 40,000- 40,000
362,403 383,408 315,558 376,431 384,056
-1,500 -1,300 -1,300 -1,300 -1,300
107,000 22,500 14,000 14,056 14,000
611,723 808,500 675,250 677,701 691,701
2,725 1,801 1,801 1,801 1,801
207,500 160,120 160,120 155,120 160,120
66,800 70,500 68,000 68,000 70,500
2,098,712 2,118,349 2,246,128 2,152,118 2,239,787
15,000 15,000 13,000 15,000 13,000
4,250 3,188 — 3,188 4,250
402,258 419,800 397,449 404,554 407,554
62,029 64,249 64,249 64,249 64,249
20,375 33,000 21,187 33,000 32,187
CRS-43
b c
Bureau or AgencyHouse BillP.L. 105-277FY1998FY1999SenateEnactedRequestBilld
98,000 136,000 98,000 100,060 98,000
110,700 136,000 110,700 110,700 110,700
23,280 26,000 23,405 23,280 23,405
907898898898898
7,000 7,500 7,000 7,000 7,000
2,745 3,000 2,800 2,800 2,800
5,740 6,212 5,954 5,954 5,954
31,707 32,607 31,707 32,607 32,107
— 39,913 39,913 29,913 34,913
6,709,744 7,146,094 6,824,543 6,865,504 7,151,375
— — — 6,600 —
14,109,493 14,268,257 13,489,504 13,657,706 14,105,651
(- 255,665)(- 145,000)(- 61,000)(- 195,000)—
o longer funded in the Interior Appropriations bill. Beginning in FY1998, Indian Education was funded in the Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education Appropriations.
CRS-44
Table 4. Congressional Budget Recap
(in thousands of dollars)
a FY1999
Bureau or Agencycompared withFY1998FY1999EnactedEstimates
FY1998
- 20,000- 4,000+ 16,000
- 2,000—+ 2,000
3,000—- 3,000
2,000—- 2,000
15,000—- 15,000
55,000—- 55,000
12,000—- 12,000
- 2,000—+ 2,000
1,000—- 1,000
—- 39,000- 39,000
- 314,385- 102,000+ 212,385
- 1,605—+ 1,605
- 3,675—+ 3,675
- 255,665- 145,000+ 110,665
13,853,82814,123,344+ 269,516
(14,109,493)(14,268,344)(+ 158,851)
(- 255,665)(- 145,000)(+ 110,665)
13,853,82814,123,344+ 269,516
(55,633)(58,520)(+ 2,887)
(13,798,195)(14,064,824)(+ 266,629)
CRS-45
Table 5. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1993 to FY1998
(in thousands of dollars)
Agency or BureauFY1993FY1994FY1995FY1996FY1997 aFY1998Enacted
1,028,261 1,069,388 1,099,0051,105,9551,195,6481,137,852
750,288 679,712 671,038645,831670,596745,387
—167,209 162,041———
1,385,963 1,416,632 1,387,3291,367,6671,425,8581,646,926
578,187 584,585 571,462732,163740,051759,160
200,670 198,526 194,621188,995163,395143,639
174,235 169,436 152,42764,000——
300,836 301,849 293,407269,857271,757273,061
1,569,967 1,777,653 1,730,9701,588,4121,618,2741,701,991
124,622 127,847 124,679———
122,300 132,147 124,022236,242240,020241,195
6,235,369 6,625,086 6,507,8976,199,1226,325,5996,649,211
2,345,207 2,372,770 2,803,6022,363,1732,919,5642,506,568
808,318 1,471,261 1,265,8871,179,1561,020,0971,048,151
1,858,419 1,942,859 1,963,0621,986,8002,054,0002,098,612
80,583 83,500 81,34152,50061,000—b
24,698 26,936 24,88820,34519,34515,000
9,312 12,563 11,2135,5005,5004,250
344,273 342,149 362,706376,092371,342402,258
54,719 54,739 56,91858,28660,22362,029
20,62920,629 19,30619,30624,87520,375
6,252 6,352 8,8785,8405,8405,840
174,460 170,228 162,35899,49499,49498,000
177,413 177,491 172,044110,000110,000110,700
28,454 28,777 28,71521,00022,00023,280
791 805 834834867907
7,000 7,500 7,5006,0006,0007,000
2,757 2,959 2,9472,5002,5002,745
5,750 5,868 5,6555,0905,3905,740
535 49 48147500—
14,078 14,220 6,822———
21,268 21,679 26,60928,70731,70731,707
5,964,587 6,763,354 7,011,3336,340,7706,820,2446,443,162
12,199,956 13,388,440 13,519,23012,539,89213,145,84313,791,373c