Appropriations for FY2002: Interior and Related Agencies

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2002:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated February 1, 2002
Carol Hardy-Vincent, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Susan Boren, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, consolidated, and continuing) bills,
rescissions, and budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget
request and is bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and
current program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Interior Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current legislative status of the
bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists
the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.sht
ml].

Appropriations for FY2002:
Interior and Related Agencies
Summary
The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funds for the
Department of the Interior (DOI), except the Bureau of Reclamation, and funds for
some agencies or programs within three other departments—Agriculture, Energy, and
Health and Human Services. It also funds numerous smaller agencies.
On April, 9, 2001, President Bush submitted his FY2002 budget for Interior and
Related Agencies, totaling $18.19 billion compared to the $19.07 billion enacted for
FY2001 (P.L. 106-291). These figures reflect scorekeeping adjustments. (See Table
10 and Table 11). Title VIII of the FY2001 law created a new discretionary
“conservation spending category.” See Table 12.
On June 19, 2001, the House Appropriations Committee reported the FY2002
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill (H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 107-103).
The House debated and passed H.R. 2217 (376-32) on June 21, 2001, with a total of
$19.00 billion. On June 29, 2001, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported
H.R. 2217 (S.Rept. 107-36) with amendments. The Senate debated the bill on July
11 and 12, 2001, and passed H.R. 2217 by voice vote on July 12, 2001,with a total
of $18.53 billion, a lower level than the House.
House and Senate conferees met on October 10, 2001, and filed a report
containing their agreement (H.Rept. 107-234) on October 11, 2001. On October 17,
2001, the conference report passed the House (380-28) and the Senate (95-3). The
bill was signed into law on November 5, 2001 (P.L. 107-63).
The FY2002 law contains a total of $19.18 billion, higher than the House and
Senate levels. For agencies within DOI, it contains $9.44 billion, while the Forest
Service is funded at $4.13 billion. There is $1.77 billion for energy programs, and
$2.76 billion for the Indian Health Service. The Smithsonian Institution receives
$497.2 million; the National Endowment for the Arts $98.2 million; and the National
Endowment for the Humanities $124.5 million.
The conferees addressed a number of significant energy and mineral issues. The
FY2002 law drops provisions that barred funds from being used to: suspend or revise
existing hardrock mining regulations, implement the Kyoto Protocol, or execute a
final lease agreement for oil and gas drilling in the “Lease Sale 181" area of the Gulf
of Mexico. It includes provisions to bar the use of funds for offshore energy leasing
activities in several areas, and for energy leasing activities within presidentially-
proclaimed national monuments as they were on January 20, 2001. The law also
extends the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for two years, and modifies the
Steel Loan Guarantee Program.
In response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001,
a $40 billion emergency supplemental appropriation was enacted (P.L. 107-38). The
National Park Service has received $3.1 million of the initial fund allocation for
emergency response costs in New York City and Washington D.C.

Area of ExpertiseNameCRS Division^aTel.
Interior BudgetCarol Hardy-VincentRSI7-8651
Data/Coordinatorsand Susan BorenDSP7-6899
Art, Humanities, Cultural AffairsSusan BorenDSP7-6899
Bureau of Land ManagementCarol Hardy-VincentRSI7-8651
Energy ConservationFred SissineRSI7-7039
Fish and Wildlife ServiceM. Lynne CornRSI7-7267
Forest ServiceRoss W. GorteRSI7-7266
Fossil EnergyMarc HumphriesRSI7-7264
Indian AffairsRoger WalkeDSP7-8641
Indian Health ServiceDonna VogtDSP7-7285
Insular AffairsKeith BeaG&F7-8672
Land AcquisitionJeffrey ZinnRSI7-7257
Minerals Management ServiceMarc HumphriesRSI7-7264
National Park ServiceDavid WhitemanRSI7-7786
Naval/Strategic PetroleumRobert BambergerRSI7-7240
Reserve
Surface Mining and ReclamationRobert BambergerRSI7-7240
U.S. Geological SurveyJohn JustusRSI7-7078
Report Preparation and SupportCarol CanadaRSI7-7619
CRS ConsultantAlfred R. GreenwoodRSI7-8651
^a Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finance;
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
In troduction ......................................................1
Status ...........................................................2
Major Funding Trends..........................................5
Funding to Combat Terrorism....................................6
Supplemental FY2001 Appropriations, P.L. 107-38...................6
Supplemental FY2002 Appropriations, P.L. 107-117..................6
Regular Appropriations for FY2002 to Combat Terrorism
........................................................7
Key Policy Issues..................................................8
Title I: Department of the Interior.................................8
Bureau of Land Management.................................8
Fish and Wildlife Service...................................11
National Park Service.....................................17
U.S. Geological Survey....................................23
Minerals Management Service...............................26
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement..........28
Bureau of Indian Affairs...................................29
Departmental Offices......................................34
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs..........................37
Department of Agriculture..................................37
Department of Energy.....................................40
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service..44
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation...................47
Other Related Agencies....................................48
Land Acquisition, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the
Conservation Spending Category: Cross-cutting Issue............54
For Additional Reading............................................58
CRS Products................................................58
Title I: Department of the Interior............................58
Land Management Agencies Generally........................59
Other References.........................................59
Title II: Related Agencies..................................59
Selected World Wide Web Sites.................................60
Title I: Department of the Interior............................60
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs.......................61
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2002 .....................................................2
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1997 to FY2001............................................5

Table 3. Funding for FWS Programs with Special Provisions in FY2001
Appropriations Bills...........................................12
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs, FY2000-FY2002.......13
Table 5. Appropriations for land acquisition and related matters, FY2000-FY2002
...........................................................16
Table 6. Appropriations for Historic Preservation
(FY2001-FY2002) ............................................22
Table 7. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2001-2002.............50
Table 8. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2001-FY2002..................53
Table 9. LWCF Funding (Federal Land Acquisition Only): FY2000 through FY2002
...........................................................55
Table 10. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations...63
Table 11. Congressional Budget Recap...............................65^a
Table 12. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations........66
Table 13. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1997 to FY2002.........68

Appropriations for FY2002:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On November 5, 2001, the FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill was enacted (P.L. 107-63). The conference report had passed
the House (380-28) and the Senate (95-3) on October 17, 2001. House and Senate
conferees had met on H.R. 2217 on October 10, 2001, and filed a report containing
their agreement (H.Rept. 107-234) on October 11, 2001.
The FY2002 law contains a total of $19.18 billion. It includes $9.44 billion for
DOI, $4.13 billion for the Forest Service, $1.77 billion for energy programs, $2.76
billion for the Indian Health Service, $497.2 million for the Smithsonian Institution,
and $98.2 million and $124.5 million respectively for the National Endowment for
the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It drops provisions that
would have barred funds from being used to suspend or revise existing hardrock
mining regulations, implement the Kyoto Protocol, or execute a final lease
agreement for oil and gas drilling in the “Lease Sale 181" area of the Gulf of
Mexico. However, the law bars the use of funds for offshore energy leasing activities
in several areas, and for energy leasing activities within presidentially-proclaimed
national monuments as they were on January 20, 2001. It also extends the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for two years, and modifies the
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program.
Introduction
The annual Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill includes funding
for agencies and programs in four separate federal departments, as well as numerous
smaller agencies and bureaus. The bill includes funding for the Interior Department,
except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and funds for some agencies or programs in
three other departments—Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services.
Title I of the bill includes agencies within the Department of the Interior which
manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and insular areas. Title II of the bill includes the Forest Service of the
Department of Agriculture; several activities within the Department of Energy,
including research and development programs, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and the Indian Health Service in the
Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, Title II includes a variety
of related agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts,
the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Holocaust Memorial Council.

Status
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2002
^Subco^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^{Conference Report}
^Ma^r^k^u^p^Hou^s^e^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Sena^t^e^Conference^A^p^p^r^oval
^Repo^rt^Pas^s^age^Repo^rt^Pas^s^age^Repo^rt^{Public La}^w^H^o^use^S^ena^t^e^H^o^u^se^Sena^t^e
^6-^19-⁰¹^6-^29-⁰¹^7-^12-⁰¹^10-^11-⁰¹^11-^05-⁰¹
^H.R^e^p^t^.^6-^21-⁰¹^S.Rep^t^.^(v^oi^ce^H.R^e^p^t^.^10-^17-⁰¹^10-^17-⁰¹^(P.L^{. 107-}
^6-^7-⁰¹^6-^28-⁰¹^107-¹⁰³^(376-³²⁾^107-³⁶^vo^t^e⁾^107-²³⁴^(380-²⁸⁾^(95-³⁾⁶³⁾
On April 9, 2001, President Bush submitted his FY2002 budget to Congress.
The FY2002 request for Interior and Related Agencies totals $18.19 billion compared
to the $19.07 billion enacted for FY2001 (P.L. 106-291), a decrease of $877.3
million. These figures reflect scorekeeping adjustments. Without the scorekeeping
adjustments, the figures are $18.07 billion requested for FY2002 and $18.89 billion
enacted for FY2001, a decrease of $819.7 `million.
The total funding enacted for FY2001 included emergency supplemental
appropriations in Title IV and funds in Title VIII for land conservation, preservation,
and infrastructure improvement. These appropriations are not specifically continued
in the budget request for FY2002. Figures in this report for FY2001 for the land
management agencies reflect the sum of the monies appropriated in the various titles
of the FY2001 appropriations law (P.L. 106-291). Title VIII of that law also created
an additional category of discretionary spending for “conservation” and identified the
specific activities that would be included within this “conservation spending
category” in each of the next 5 years. This spending will be subject to annual
appropriations each year. This category essentially includes those conservation
activities identified by Congress in particular budget accounts (or portions thereof)
providing appropriations to preserve and protect lands, habitat, wildlife, and other
natural resources; to provide recreational opportunities; and for other purposes.
Table 12 is a distribution of these conservation funds for FY2001 and funding levels
that Congress is considering for FY2002.
In this report, the term “appropriations” represents total funds available,
including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as rescissions,
transfers, and deferrals. Increases and decreases are calculated on comparisons
between the funding levels appropriated for FY2001 and requested by the President
or recommended by Congress for FY2002. The FY2002 requests contained some
substantial changes in agencies’ budgets from the FY2001 levels. Increases were
proposed for some agencies, including the National Park Service ($382.47 million),
Indian Health Service ($78.04 million), Department of Energy ($49.04 million),
Smithsonian Institution ($40.25 million), Minerals Management Service ($16.25
million), Bureau of Indian Affairs ($15.94 million), National Endowment for the
Humanities ($0.51 million), and National Endowment for the Arts ($0.45 million).
Decreases were proposed for other agencies, such as for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement ($-33.89 million), Geological Survey ($-69.42

million), Fish and Wildlife Service ($-135.75 million), Bureau of Land Management
($-375.64 million), and Forest Service ($-703.27 million).
On June 7, 2001, the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee marked up
the FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, and recommended
funding of approximately $18.9 billion. The bill was reported unanimously to the
full House Appropriations Committee. On June 13, 2001, the full House
Appropriations Committee approved the Subcommittee’s recommended funding
levels, including $1.32 billion for the conservation spending category, $64 million
above the President’s request. Other increases recommended above the President’s
request included $87 million for the U.S. Geological Survey ($900.5 million total),
$50 million for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program ($200 million total),
$37 million for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund ($203.5 million total), and
$185 million for Energy Conservation ($940.8 million total). The House
Appropriations Committee reported the bill (H.R. 2217, H.Rept. 107-103) to the
House on June 19, 2001.
During the markup of the House Committee on Appropriations, several
amendments to increase funding for agency programs were rejected. They included
(1) an amendment to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts ($18
million), National Endowment for the Humanities ($5 million), and Institute of
Museum and Library Services ($2 million), and (2) an amendment to increase
funding for energy conservation and fossil energy research and development by $200
million. Another amendment sought to explicitly bar funds in the bill from being
used for any activity intended to permit oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or preliminary studies on permitting such exploration, and
to insert related language into the Committee’s report.
The House debated and passed H.R. 2217 (376-32) on June 21, 2001, with a
total of $19.0 billion. The House accepted amendments, among others, seeking to
increase funds for the arts; assure that the value of oil received as royalty-in-kind is
equal to, or greater than, the proceeds that would be received under the royalty-in-
value program; bar funds in the bill from being used for energy leasing within
presidentially-proclaimed national monuments (with exceptions) and for suspending
or revising existing hard rock mining regulations; and maintain the prohibition on
oil and gas drilling in the Lease Sale 181 area of the Gulf of Mexico until April 1,

2002.

The House rejected amendments seeking to (1) increase funding for the
Payments in Lieu of Taxes program and weatherization assistance programs, with
offsets from the fossil energy research and development program, (2) reduce funds
for the Challenge America Arts Fund while increasing funds for energy conservation
programs, (3) terminate or amend the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, and
(4) prohibit the extension of campsite leases in the Biscayne National Park in Florida.
On June 28, 2001, both the Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee and
the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up H.R. 2217. As reported with
amendments (S.Rept. 107-36) on June 29, 2001, the bill provided a total of $18.66
billion, below the House-passed level but above the FY2002 budget. The Senate
Appropriations Committee concurred with the House in the total conservation

spending category of $1.32 billion. However, the distribution of funds was slightly
different, giving a larger amount, for example, to National Park Service federal land
acquisition.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended increases above the
President’s request for FY2002 for almost all agencies and bureaus of the
Department of the Interior, and increases above the House allowance for National
Park Service, Minerals Management Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
However, the Senate Committee’s recommended funding was below the House
allowance for the Bureau of Land Management (-$13 million), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (-$64 million), the U.S. Geological Survey (-$8 million), and the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (-$1 million). In terms of
Related Agencies, the Senate Committee recommended increases over the House
allowance for the Elk Hills School Lands Fund (+$36 million) under the Department
of Energy and additional funds for the National Endowment for the Humanities (+$2
million).
The Senate debated the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill on
July 11 and 12, 2001, and passed the bill by voice vote with a total of $18.53 billion
on July 12. Among the changes was an amendment to bar funds in the bill from
being used for energy leasing within presidentially-proclaimed national monuments,
as they were on January 20, 2001 (with exceptions). A similar national monument
amendment was agreed to by the House. The Senate rejected an amendment to
maintain the prohibition on oil and gas drilling in the Lease Sale 181 area of the Gulf
of Mexico until April 1, 2002; a similar amendment was accepted by the House.
The Senate also accepted an amendment to extend and modify the Emergency
Steel Loan Guarantee Program, originally established in 1999, although it is not
generally funded in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It would
prolong by ten years, from the end of 2005 to the end of 2015, the deadline when
loans guaranteed under the program must be repaid. The amendment would extend
the deadline for loan guarantee authorizations from later this year to the end of 2003.
The amendment also provides that the portion of a loan covered by a guarantee may
be increased from the present level of 85% to 90% or 95%, provided that no more
than $100 million in total loans may be outstanding at any one time under program
guarantees at each of the higher guarantee rates, nor may any single loan at each
higher rate be greater than $50 million. Originally the amendment included
provisions regarding iron ore mining and coke-producing companies, but this
language was not included in the amendment as modified and agreed to. There was
no provision on the Steel Loan Guarantee Program in the House bill.
On July 12, 2001, the Senate appointed the members of the Subcommittee on
Interior Appropriations as conferees on the bill. On September 20, 2001, the House
appointed conferees including all members of the Subcommittee on Interior
Appropriations and the Chair and Ranking Member of the full Appropriations
Committee.
House and Senate conferees met on October 10, 2001, and filed a report
containing their agreement (H.Rept. 107-234) on October 11, 2001. The conference
report contains a total of $19.18 billion for FY2002, higher than both the House and

Senate passed levels. For agencies within the Department of the Interior, the report
contains $9.44 billion, while the Forest Service is funded at $4.13 billion. The total
fire funds for the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service is $2.24
billion, including $400 million in emergency supplemental monies. For energy
programs there is $1.77 billion, including $912.8 million for energy conservation and
$582.8 million (+$33.7 million by transfer for a total of $616.5 million) for fossil
energy research and development. The Indian Health Service is slated to receive
$2.76 billion. The Smithsonian Institution is funded at $497.2 million, and the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities
are slated respectively for $98.2 million and $124.5 million.
The conference report includes $1.32 billion for the conservation spending
category, and another $120 million for restoration of the Florida Everglades. For the
four land management agencies, the conference report contains a total of $600
million for backlog maintenance needs and $429 million for land acquisition.
The conferees addressed a number of significant energy and mineral issues.
Their agreement dropped provisions that barred funds from being used to: suspend
or revise existing hardrock mining regulations, implement the Kyoto Protocol, or
execute a final lease agreement for oil and gas drilling in the “Lease Sale 181" area
of the Gulf of Mexico. The agreement included provisions to bar the use of funds for
offshore preleasing, leasing, and related activities in several areas, and for such
energy activities within presidentially-proclaimed national monuments as they were
on January 20, 2001 (with exceptions). The agreement also extends the Recreational
Fee Demonstration Program for two years, and retains the Senate’s provision on the
Steel Loan Guarantee Program.
On October 17, 2001, the conference report passed the House (380-28) and the
Senate (95-3). The bill was signed into law on November 5, 2001 (P.L. 107-63).
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY1997 to FY2001
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)^a
F Y 1998 F Y 1999 F Y 2000 F Y 2001 F Y 2002
$13.8 $14.3 $14.9 $18.9 $19.1
^a^T^h^{ese f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ex^clu^d^e^p^e^r^m^an^en^t^b^u^d^g^et^au^th^o^r^ities,^an^d^r^e^f^l^{ect r}^e^scissioⁿ^{s. Ho}^w^e^v^e^r^,^th^ey^d^oⁿ^o^t
^g^eⁿ^e^rally^ref^l^{ect s}^c^orek^eepin^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^.
Major Funding Trends
During the ten year period from FY1993 to FY2002, Interior and Related
Agencies appropriations increased by 56%, from $12.2 billion to $19.1 billion. Most
of this growth occurred during the latter years. For instance, during the five year
period from FY1993 to FY1997, appropriations increased by 8%, from $12.2 billion
to $13.1 billion. By contrast, during the most recent five years, from FY1998 to
FY2002, funding increased by 38%, from $13.8 billion to $19.1 billion. The single

biggest increase during the decade occurred from FY2000 to FY2001, when the total
appropriation rose 27%, from $14.9 billion to $18.9 billion. See Table 10 for a
comparison of FY2001 and FY2002 Interior Appropriations, and Table 13 for a
budgetary history of each agency, bureau, and program from FY1997 to FY2002.
Funding to Combat Terrorism
Supplemental FY2001 Appropriations, P.L. 107-38
On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted a $40 billion Emergency
Supplemental Appropriation, P.L.107-38,¹ in response to the devastation and great
need following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11^th, 2001.
The $40 billion package was constructed in three phases. First, $10 billion was to
be immediately available and dispersed by the President in consultation with the
House and Senate Appropriations Committee leaders. Second, an additional $10
billion was available to be obligated following a 15-day notification to the Congress.
Third, a final $20 billion could be obligated only after money was allocated in
another emergency appropriations act. For more information, see CRS Report
RL31173, Terrorism Funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations-Distribution
of Funds to Departments and Agencies.
Of the $20 billion provided by P.L. 107-38 that did not need additional
legislation, programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior and Related
agencies appropriations received $3.1 million. Specifically, there was $1.7 million
for the National Park Service (NPS), Operations of the National Park System, and
$1.4 million for the U.S. Park Police (NPS) for emergency response costs in New²
York City and Washington, D.C.
Supplemental FY2002 Appropriations, P.L. 107-117
Of the $40 billion appropriated by P.L. 107-38, $20 billion could not be
obligated until allocations were specified in another appropriations Act. In addition,
P.L. 107-38 required OMB to submit to the Congress a proposal for the allocation of
these funds as well. The OMB submitted its $20 billion proposal on October 17,

2001.

On January 10, 2002, Congress enacted P.L. 107-117.³ The law contained $88.1
million in total appropriations for anti-terrorism activities for the programs in the

¹ Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States.
² The U.S. Park Police are authorized to prevent acts of terrorism at monuments and
buildings owned and managed by the NPS, including monuments, memorials, and associated
facilities in Washington D.C., New York City, and San Francisco. Among the protected
entities are the White House, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Washington
Monument, Statue of liberty, Presidio, and areas around the U.S. Capitol.
³ Department of Defense (Division A) and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
(Division B) for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the U.S. Act.

Department of Interior⁴ and related agencies appropriations bills. These funds were
distributed as follows:
^!$10.1 million for operation of the National Park System to increase
security at national monuments,
^!$25.3 million for the United States Park Police to enhance
preparedness for possible attacks against key national park sites in
New York City and Washington, D.C.;
^!$21.6 million for the National Park Service for constructed security
improvements at the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial,
and the Jefferson Memorial;
^!$2.2 million for Interior Departmental management, salaries and
expenses;
^!$798,000 for the National Capital Planning Commission for physical
perimeter security and design plans for federal buildings in the
monument core,
^!$2.15 million for the National Gallery of Art to improve security
operations,
^! $21.7 million for the Smithsonian, salaries and expenses, to clean
up the damaged Heye Center of the National Museum on the
American Indian in NYC ($96,000), and for increased security at the
Smithsonian; and
^!$4.3 million for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
to enhance security equipment and manpower.
Regular Appropriations for FY2002 to Combat Terrorism
Prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush Administration’s initial
FY2002 budget request for the Department of the Interior included an estimated $7.7
million⁵ (representing .07% of the total amount sought government-wide) to combat
terrorism, including defense against weapons of mass destruction (WMD), according
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).⁶ Additional funding was requested
for DOI efforts to protect “critical infrastructure” from terrorist attack, making a total
of $9.6 million requested for DOI for FY2002 for combating “unconventional
threats.” These figures included only DOI agencies and not the numerous “related
agencies” that also are funded by the Department of Interior and related agencies
appropriations laws.
Although the FY2001 and FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations Acts (P.L.
107-38 and P.L. 107-117) contained sizeable sums for anti-terrorism activities, it is
not clear what additional funding for anti-terrorist activities came from the regular

⁴ The Bureau of Reclamation (receiving $30.2 million in the FY2002 supplemental) has
not been included here, because although it is part of the Department of Interior, it is not
funded by Department of Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bills.
⁵ The figure includes funds for the Bureau of Reclamation which is not funded in the
Interior appropriations bill.
⁶ See OMB’s Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, available online at
[ ht t p: / / www.whi t e house.gov/ omb/ l e gi sl at i ve/ nsd_annual _r e por t 2001.pdf ] .)

FY2002 Interior appropriations law, P.L. 107-63. The annual appropriations laws, as
well as agency budgets, typically include money for combating terrorism as part of
larger line items or program requests. Further, the FY2002 Interior appropriations
conference report (H.Rept. 107-234) did not specify what portion of the funds would
be directed toward anti-terrorism, and mentions anti-terrorism indirectly and in only
a few instances. For example, the conference report indicates an increase of
$1,743,000 for the Office of Protection Services of the Smithsonian “in light of
recent events.” Under Bureau of Land Management, the conference report includes
“$3 million to evaluate oil and gas resources and reserves on public lands...in light
of recent attacks on the U.S....that have underscored the potential for disruptions to
America’s energy supply;...this project should be considered a top priority.”
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.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 at
http://www.doi.gov/fyst.html.
For information on the Department of the Interior annual performance plan, see
DOI’s FY2000 Annual Performance Report/FY2002 Annual Performance Plan at
[ http://www.doi.gov/gpra/00apr02app.html] .
Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
manages approximately 264 million acres of public land for diverse, and at times
opposing uses, such as mining, energy development, livestock grazing, recreation,
and preservation. The agency also is responsible for about 700 million acres of
federal subsurface mineral resources throughout the nation, and supervises the
mineral operations on an estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another
key BLM function is wildland fire management on about 370 million acres of DOI,
other federal, and certain non-federal land.
Wildland Fires. The FY2002 appropriations law contains a total of $1.87
billion for the BLM, an increase over the President’s FY2002 budget request ($1.77
billion), but a decrease from FY2001 ($2.15 billion).⁷ A proposed reduction in
funding for Wildland Fire Management accounts for most of the decline from

⁷ Of the total FY2001 appropriations, $1.68 billion was appropriated through Title I of the
FY2001 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 106-291); that title traditionally funds the BLM
and other Interior Department agencies. The balance of the FY2001 appropriations was
provided in other titles of P.L. 106-291, or in other laws.

FY2001. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2002, the law contains $678.4
million, a decrease from FY2001 ($977.1 million), which included emergency
contingent funds in response to severe fires.
The Administration had proposed creating a $5.6 billion National Emergency
Reserve to respond to natural disasters, including extraordinary fire costs. Instead,
the law provides authority for the transfer of funds in certain ”emergency situations,”
including wildfires and other natural disasters, and requires a supplemental
appropriation request to replenish the transferred funds.
The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are to be used for fire fighting on
all Interior Department lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for
wildland fire management to the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire
programs primarily on its lands. In total, for FY2002 wildland fire management for
the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, the law contains $2.24 billion, an
increase over the President’s request and the House and Senate passed levels but a
decrease from the amount enacted for FY2001 ($2.86 billion). A focus of both
departments is the National Fire Plan, developed following the 2000 fire season,
which continues to emphasize reducing hazardous fuels, among other provisions.
(For more information, see “U.S. Forest Service” below.)
Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and Resources, the
FY2002 law contains a total of $775.6 million, including $29.0 million for the
conservation spending category. The total is an increase over the President’s FY2002
request ($760.3 million) and FY2001 ($753.3 million). This line item funds BLM
land programs including protection, use, improvement, development, and disposal.
Land Use Planning. The FY2002 law increases funds for land use planning
from $25.8 million for FY2001 to about $33 million for FY2002 (28% increase). By
contrast, only $6 million was appropriated for land use planning for FY2000. The
additional funds are being recommended as part of a multi-year effort to update land
use plans to address mineral and recreational uses, among other issues. Funds for
some other land and resource programs would be reduced, including those for wild
horses and burros and rangelands.
Energy and Minerals. For energy and minerals, including the Alaska minerals
program, the FY2002 law contains nearly $100 million, an increase over FY2001
($80.6 million). The increases are to help address the demand for energy
development of public lands, and are targeted for oil and gas programs, including
leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; processing of coalbed methane
permits; and assessing energy resources on public lands.
The law bars funds in the bill from being used for energy leasing activities
within the boundaries of national monuments, as they were on January 20, 2001,
except where allowed by the presidential proclamations that created the monuments.
This language was added by House and Senate floor amendments. Amendment
supporters feared that the Administration would adjust the boundaries of national
monuments in order to allow energy leasing, while opponents asserted that the
amendment would preclude development of needed energy resources.

The law does not contain House language that would have barred funds in the
bill from being used to suspend or revise the regulations governing hard rock mining
on federal lands (part 3809 of Title 43, CFR) that were issued by the Clinton
Administration (effective January 20, 2001). Those regulations authorized the BLM
to deny mining operations in certain instances, and made mining operators more
responsible for reclaiming mined land. The House-passed language was advocated
as maintaining necessary environmental protections, but opposed as precluding the
Administration from reviewing regulations that were amended too extensively by the
Clinton Administration.
On March 23, 2001, the Bush Administration proposed suspending the hardrock
mining regulations. On October 30, 2001, the Bush Administration issued a final
hardrock mining rule, effective December 31, 2001, that retained the requirements
for mining operators to reclaim mined land but dropped the authority for the BLM
to deny mining operations in certain instances. On October 30, 2001, the
Administration also issued a proposed rule containing additional changes to the
hardrock mining regulations, with public comment allowed by December 31, 2001.
The law continues the moratorium (contained in previous appropriations laws)
on accepting and processing applications for patents for mining and mill site claims
on federal lands. However, applications meeting certain requirements that were filed
on or before September 30, 1994, would be allowed to proceed, and third party
contractors would be authorized to process the mineral examinations on those
applications. The law also would extend for two years both the annual maintenance
fee of $100 per claim to hold a claim on public land and the $25 location fee for first-
time locators to locate and record a claim. The House passed bill sought to extend
the fees through FY2002; the Senate bill extended the fees through FY2006. Both
fees were to expire in FY2001.
Range Issues. The law continues provisions (contained in previous
appropriations laws) to prevent funds from being used to destroy healthy, unadopted
wild horses and burros. It also continues the automatic renewal of grazing permits
and leases that expire or are transferred until the permit renewal process is completed
under applicable laws and regulations, including any necessary environmental
analyses. The terms and conditions in permits or leases expiring in FY2002 would
continue under the new permit or lease until the Secretary of the Interior completes
the renewal process. In the past, this provision was advocated as necessary to address
heavy agency workload in processing the grazing permits and leases that were up for
renewal. Opponents feared that permits with possibly detrimental terms or
conditions could continue.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For PILT, the FY2002
appropriations law contains $210 million, midway between the House and Senate
approved levels. Of the total, $50 million is for conservation activities included in
the conservation spending category. The enacted level is a substantial increase over
the FY2002 request ($150 million), and an increase over FY2001 ($199.6 million).
The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their
jurisdictions, and has been controversial because in recent years appropriations have
been substantially less than authorized amounts.

Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition, the FY2002 law contains $49.9
million, more than the House and Senate passed levels but less than FY2001 ($56.5
million, including $8.8 million from the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act.)
The funds would be used for conservation activities included in the conservation
spending category, and divided among many projects. The money would be
appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). (For more
information, see “Land Acquisition, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the
Conservation Spending Category” below.)
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index.htm].
CRS Report RL30310. The Mining Law Millsite Debate, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries and Carol
Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL30528. National Monuments and the Antiquities Act: President
Clinton’s Designations and Related Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report 98-574. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Administration requested $1.09 billion for
FWS for FY2002. In FY2001, the agency received a total of $1.23 billion: $0.96
billion in regular appropriations in Title I, plus $251 million in other titles of Interior
and Commerce appropriations bills, plus $15 million in emergency appropriations.
The Administration’s proposal could be regarded as either a decrease of 11.1% from
FY2001 (if the other titles and the emergency appropriation are included as part of
last year’s FWS funding) or an increase of 11.8% (if the other titles are not
included).^8,9 Funding priorities would shift in several areas, described below. The
House passed an appropriation of $1.34 billion, an increase of 8.9% over the FY2001
total, while the Senate approved $1.27 billion (+3.6%). The enacted amount is $1.28
billion (+3.9%).
For FY2001, the additional Title VIII funds affecting existing FWS programs
were (a) $78 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund; (b) $20 million
for the North American Wetlands Fund; (c) $25 million for maintenance needs; and

⁸ Annual appropriations represented 66.4% of the agency’s funding in FY2001; the
remainder is in special or permanently appropriated accounts, and transfers from other
agencies.
⁹ Funding contained in the FY2001 appropriations for Interior and Related Agencies was
reduced 0.22% in an across-the-board cut contained in a subsequent appropriations bill.
These cuts are reflected in this discussion.

(d) $28 million for FWS land acquisition. Title VIII also contained $50 million for
a new FWS program for competitive State Wildlife Grants to benefit non-game
species. The funds in Title IX in the Commerce bill were an additional $50 million
for different (formula-based) State Wildlife Grants to benefit non-game species (P.L.
106-553, Appendix B, §§901-903, 114 Stat. 2762A-118-124). These additional
funds, together with the funding levels requested and enacted for FY2002, are shown
in Table 3¹⁰ and are a portion of the Conservation Spending Category shown in
Table 12 as well. In a subsequent law, these program funds were directed to be
derived from the LWCF. (See “Land Acquisition, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, and the Conservation Spending Category” below.)
Table 3. Funding for FWS Programs with Special Provisions in
FY2001 Appropriations Bills
($ in millions)
^FY^2001-^FY^2001-^FY^2001-^FY^2001-
^Pr^o^g^r^a^m^Reg^u^lar^A^ppr^ops^.^,^{Title V}^III,^{Title IX}^,^To^ta^l^FY^2002,^R^e^que^s^t^FY^2002,^A^ppr^ops^.
^In^teri^or^In^teri^or^Com^m^erce^A^ppr^ops^.
^C^oope^r^a^tiv^e
^Enda^ng^e^r^e^d^26.9^78.0⁰^.0^104.7^54.7^96.2
^S^p^eci^{es F}^uⁿ^d
^No^rth
^A^m^eri^can^20.0^20.0⁰^.0^39.9^14.9^43.5
^W^e^tla^nds^Fund
^Laⁿ^d^62.8^53.0⁰^.0^121.2^164.4^b^178.1^a
^A^c^quisition
^Com^p^e^titiv^e
^Sta^t^e^W^ildlif^e^0.0^50.0⁰^.0^50.0⁰^.0^0.0
^Gr^aⁿ^t^s
^Form^ula^Sta^t^e^0.0⁰^.0^50.0^49.9⁰^.0^60.0
^W^ildlif^e^G^r^aⁿ^ts
^T^o^t^a^l^109.7^201.0^50.0^365.7^234.0^377.8^a
^Iⁿ^c^l^ude^s^ne^w^s^p^e^nding^f^o^r^c^ons^e^r^v^a^{tion on pr}^iv^a^t^e^la^nds^{. Se}^e^Com^p^le^x^Pic^t^ur^e^{in Land Ac}^quis^ition^{, be}^low^.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
Program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. For
FY2002, the Administration requested that endangered species funding (including
the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund) decrease from $225.6
million to $166.5 million, and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund (CESCF) decrease from $104.7 million ($26.9 million from regular
appropriations and $77.8 million from Title VIII) to $54.7 million. See Table 4.
Overall endangered species funding is substantially above FY2000 and FY2001
funding levels, primarily because of CESCF increases and the landowner incentive
program. The House passed a total of $290.2 million for endangered species funding
generally, with $107.0 million proposed for the CESCF. The Senate passed $269.6
million, including $91.0 million for CESCF. The FY2002 appropriations law
provides a total of $272.1 million, including $96.2 million for CESCF.

¹⁰ The add-ons to LWCF funding represent a significant departure from past practice in
magnitude only. Other examples have occurred in recent years. See the section in this report
entitled “Land Acquisition, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Conservation
Spending Category: Cross-cutting Issue” for more information.

Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species Programs,
FY2000-FY2002
($ in thousands)
F Y 2000 F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2002
Enacted Enacted Re que s t Enacted
Candidate Conservation7,3887,0527,2207,620
Listing 6,208 6,341 8,476 9,000
Consultation 32,342 42,750 41,901 45,501
Recove ry 57,363 59,835 54,217 63,717
Landowner Incentive4,9814,969040,000
Stewardship Grants00010,000
Subtotal 108,282 120,947 111,814 175,838
Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund23,00026,86654,69496,235
(regular appropriations)
Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund077,82800
(Title VIII)
Total 131,282 225,641 166,508 272,073
ESA Listing Caps, New and Old. Beginning in FY1998, Congress enacted
annual limits (i.e., “caps”) on funding FWS for its listing function ($6.3 million in
FY2001).¹¹ This language limits FWS discretion to transfer funds to finance
additional listings: if courts mandate agency action on listing certain species, other
listings may not be able to be funded. FWS supported these limits to assure that
funding for other agency programs could not be diverted to finance additional ESA
listing activities. However, courts have held that budget constraints do not excuse
an agency from compliance in some circumstances.
For FY2002, the Administration proposed a new version of this cap, stressing
that (a) current court orders alone meant that the listing function was expected to run
out of funds before the end of the fiscal year, and (b) if it were to make listing
determinations on merely its own estimated backlog, the cost would be roughly $120
million. Under the proposed new version, spending for the listing program would
have been subject to a proviso that:

¹¹ The Listing Program currently includes only the listing of new domestic species, the “up-
listing” of a threatened domestic species as an endangered species, and the designation of
critical habitat. Because de-listing, down-listing, and the listing of species found only
outside of the United States have been moved to the Recovery Program and the International
Program, these types of listing actions have not been affected by the cap.

... notwithstanding the specific time frames and deadlines of section 4(a) and (b)
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, not to exceed $8,476,000
shall be used for implementing subsections (a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(2)(B)(iii), and (e)
of section 4 for species that are indigenous to the United States, to be expended
solely for (1) complying with court orders or settlements in effect as of the date
of the passage of this law, and (2) undertaking such other actions as determined
by the Secretary to be consistent with the priorities established by a listing
priority system to implement these subsections and subject to the requirements
of this appropriation....
This proposal proved to be one of the most controversial in the FWS budget. On the
one hand, FWS claimed it would allow the agency to regain control of the listing
process and to list species on the basis of biological need, rather than on the basis of
continuing lawsuits, which FWS says that, without exception, it had lost. FWS
decried a “race to the courthouse” as impeding listings founded, in its view, on a
biological basis. The agency’s critics (calling the proposed amendment an
“extinction rider”) responded that (1) few listings would have taken place in the last
several years without the law suits; (2) the FWS claimed of conscientious attention
to the law are contradicted by its initial failure to seek more funding to remove the
backlog of listing and its continuing failure to do so in light of its assertion of a $120
million need; (3) the restriction was one-sided since de-listings and down listings
would have no such cap; and (4) the restriction would have been a fundamental
change in the ESA, since the agency could chose the species to be protected
selectively, rather than protecting all species meeting the criteria specified under
§4(b) of the ESA.
The House approved $8.48 million for the listing program, rejected the
Administration’s proposed change, and retained the current cap on spending for
listing. It also accepted a “subcap” of $6 million (out of the $8.48 million) on
designation of new critical habitat. In effect, if the agency is ordered to designate
even a few areas of critical habitat, funding for new listings would be restricted to
$2.48 million. Additional conflicts between court orders and funding restrictions
could occur. The Senate passed a $9 million cap on listing, but did not include a
“subcap” on critical habitat, nor did it accept the Administration’s proposed change.
The FY2002 appropriations law contains the Senate funding level for the listing
program and specifies that the critical habitat designation limitation is exclusive of
funds needed for litigation support.
Klamath River Conflict. A two year drought has exacerbated a controversy
over allocation of scarce water resources in the Klamath River basin in California and
Oregon. Two listed species of suckers (a kind of fish), a coho salmon run, and bald
eagles have become centerpieces of a conflict that also involves farmers, commercial
and sport fishermen, and Indian tribes. After two biological opinions issued under
ESA by FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau of Reclamation
restricted irrigation water to protect fish. While the decision was supported by
fishermen, tribes, and environmentalists, desperate farmers initially tried to open
irrigation canals and sought a reprieve from the Bureau’s decision. A Senate
amendment to prohibit the use of funds to carry out the Bureau’s decision was tabled
on July 12 (52-48). Under the amendment, water deliveries were to continue as set
forth in two earlier biological opinions until FWS carried out certain actions. For

more information on this issue, see CRS IB10019, Western Water Issues, and CRS
RL31098, Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use Conflicts.
Wildlife Refuge Fund. The Administration proposed $11.4 million (no
change) 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.¹² The House passed $16.4 million, while the Senate passed $14.4
million. The FY2002 law provides $14.4 million. Payment amounts are based on
formulas authorized in law. 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 dollars (already reduced by inflation) must be spread still further.
The situation has produced calls for Congress to increase the appropriation,
especially since local governments often view the payments as entitlements, even
though they technically are not, since they are subject to annual appropriations. FWS
estimates that $11.4 million will be sufficient to pay each county approximately 49%
of the formula amounts; an additional $5 million would raise the figure to 70%.
Complex Picture in Land Acquisition, LWCF, and Conservation
Spending. Land acquisition presents an unusually complex picture for analysis in
FY2002. The complexity arises not only from the distribution of the previously-
mentioned Title VIII funds but also from revisions that place some programs under
Land Acquisition that had been elsewhere in the budget. Title VIII, as enacted in the
FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act, derived its funding from the General Fund of
the U.S. Treasury. However, P.L. 106-554 (the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
FY2001, Division B, Title I, §121) amended Title VIII to direct that LWCF would
be the source of funding. In addition, new programs under land acquisition for
FY2002 appear to closely overlap existing programs proposed to be cut elsewhere
under the FY2002 request. To clarify total effort, these similar programs are shown
below.

¹² Payments under PILT (see BLM, above) benefit some counties with land in the National
Wildlife Refuge System. However, those FWS lands that are acquired rather than reserved
from the public domain are not eligible for PILT payments. As a result, cuts in the Wildlife
Refuge Fund generally affect refuges in the eastern and central states more than western
refuges, while PILT cuts affect primarily western refuges.

Table 5. Appropriations for land acquisition and related
matters, FY2000-FY2002
(Amounts x $1000)
^Program^FY²⁰⁰⁰^FY²⁰⁰¹^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰²
⁽^R^equest⁾^Ena^c^t^e^d
^A^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^a⁽^Iⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^T^itle^40,763^78,527^85,110^80,135
^{VIII acqu}ⁱ^s^ition^f^uⁿ^d^s⁾
^E^m^e^r^ge^ncⁱ^e^s^a^1,000⁷⁴⁸^2,000^1,500
^Ex^ch^an^g^e^s^a⁷⁵⁰⁸⁴⁸^1,000^1,000
^I^nho^l^dⁱ^ngs^a⁷⁵⁰⁹⁹⁸^2,000^1,500
^A^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^m^aⁿ^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^a^8,500^9,479^14,291^15,000
^Acqui^sⁱ^tⁱ^{on (}^s^ubt^ot^al⁾^a^51,763^90,600^104,401^99,135
^P^r^opos^{ed addition}^s^{to acqu}ⁱ^s^ition^,^f^o^{r con}^s^erv^a^tion^on^priv^{ate lan}^d
^P^r^iv^{ate Stew}^ards^hⁱ^{p Gran}^ts^a^N^A^N^A^10,000^10,000
^L^aⁿ^dowⁿ^e^{r In}^cen^tⁱ^v^{e P}^r^og^ram^a^N^A^N^A^50,000^40,000
ⁱⁿ^A^c^q^u^isitioⁿ^P^r^o^g^r^a^m
^{Subtotal, Acqui}^s^{ition plus}^51,763^90,600^164,401^149,135
^pr^opos^{ed additions}
^Related^w^ild^lif^{e an}^d^lan^d^coⁿ^s^er^v^a^tioⁿ^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^s
^L^aⁿ^dowⁿ^e^{r In}^cen^tⁱ^v^{e P}^r^og^ram^4,981^4,969⁰⁰
^(uⁿ^d^{er ES}^A^prog^ram⁾
^North^A^m^erican^W^e^tlan^d^s^15,000^39,912^b^14,912^43,500
^Co^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n Fund}
^Co^m^p^etitiv^{e State Gr}^an^ts^N^A^49,890^a⁰⁰
^(T^{itle VIII in}^FY2001)
^Form^u^l^{a State Gran}^ts^c^N^A^49,890⁰^60,000^a
^N^e^ot^ropi^cal^Mi^g^r^at^ory^Bi^rd^NA^NA^NA³^,⁰⁰⁰
^Pr^og^r^a^m
^T^r^ib^{al W}^ild^lif^{e Gr}^an^ts^a^NA^NA^NA⁰^d
^T^o^tal^71,744^235,261^179,313^255,635
^L^W^C^F^T^o^tal^51,763^160,446^164,401^209,135
^a^D^e^rⁱ^v^e^{d f}^r^om^L^W^C^F^.
^b^O^f^this^{, $19,956,000 is}^f^r^om^T^itle^V^{III, a}^{nd the}^r^e^f^ore^f^r^om^L^W^CF.
^c^T^h^is^pr^og^r^a^m^w^a^s^f^unde^{d thr}^oug^{h the}^C^o^m^m^e^r^c^e^a^ppr^opr^ia^{tion in FY}^{2001, e}^v^eⁿ^thoug^{h the}^f^unding^w^a^s^f^o^r
^FW^{S; f}^o^{r FY}^{2002, the}^f^unding^w^{ould c}^o^m^e^throug^{h th}^e^In^t^e^rⁱ^o^r^a^ppropria^{tion; c}^o^m^p^e^titiv^e^g^r^aⁿ^ts^w^e^re
^elⁱ^mⁱⁿ^at^edⁱⁿ^f^a^vo^{r o}^f^f^o^rm^u^l^{a gran}^t^s^.^d
^{$5,000,000 is}^e^a^r^m^a^r^k^e^d^unde^r^the^Sta^t^e^w^ildlif^e^g^r^aⁿ^{t pr}^og^r^a^m^f^o^r^this^pur^pos^e^.
^N^A^-^N^o^{t A}^pplic^a^b^le^{; pr}^og^r^a^m^{did not e}^x^is^t.
The activities funded under these pre-existing, related programs are similar to
those that would be funded under the new Private Stewardship Grants, and the
Landowner Incentive Program appears to be a transfer (and substantial enlargement)
of an existing program, now housed in the Endangered Species Office, to the
Acquisition Program. Neither program focuses on outright acquisition, according to
the FY2002 budget justification, which notes (p. 381) that “[t]hese funds [from
LWCF land acquisition] have traditionally been used to support federal land
acquisition.... The FY2002 budget proposes that funds also be used to support state

and local conservation efforts by redirecting $60 million in federal land acquisition
funds toward private conservation efforts.” In effect, programs currently located
elsewhere in the FWS budget and funded under general appropriations could be
considered to have changed form slightly, then moved to funding under LWCF rather
than general appropriations. The House approved a total of $319.4 million for these
programs for FY2002, up 35.8% over FY2001, and 345.2% over FY2000. The
Senate approved $313.4 million (+33.2% and +336.8%, respectively). The FY2002
law provides $255.6 million (+8.6% and +256.3%, respectively).
The final complication in making comparisons between FY2002 appropriations
and previous years is a new category of discretionary spending called “Conservation
Spending Category” (CSC). Activities included in the CSC have been funded
through several appropriations line items. Across the full FWS appropriation, the
House ascribed $461.4 million to the CSC, while the Senate ascribed $434.4 million.
The FY2002 law contains $404.9 million. (For more information, see Table 12.)
Multi-national Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). MSCF has
generated tremendous constituent interest for so small a program. It benefits Asian
and African elephants, tigers, and the six species of rhinoceroses, and great apes, and
is proposed for $3.2 million (no change).¹³ The House approved an increase to $4
million, as did the Senate. This was retained in the FY2002 law.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.fws.gov/].
CRS Issue Brief IB10073. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The Next Chapter,
by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by Eugene H.
Buck and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 90-192. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by M. Lynne Corn.
National Park Service. The National Park Service (NPS) currently manages
the 384 separate and diverse units that comprise the National Park System, including
57 “National Parks,” and more than 20 other types of designations that cover the
System’s 327 other natural and historic sites. The System has grown to more than
83 million acres, and in recent years park recreation visits annually have totaled
nearly 300 million. The NPS mission, of facilitating use and serving Park System
visitors while protecting and preserving the natural and cultural resources entrusted
to it, can be inherently contradictory (protecting the parks for and from the people)
and constantly challenging to its professional staff.
According to the Interior Department and environmental and park advocacy
groups, the National Park Service has only in recent years begun to emerge from

¹³ For more details, see “Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund”, by M.
Lynne Corn. CRS General Distribution Memo. Apr. 26, 2001. 2p.

several decades of funding shortfalls that resulted in substantial operational and
maintenance problems. 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 expanding NPS funding. National Park System
funding has increased annually since FY1996.
The Bush Administration’s FY2002 total request of $2.5 billion for the NPS was
$382 million above the $2.1 billion FY2001 level. The FY2001 level included
money appropriated in Title I of the law and significant additional funds in Title VIII.
The FY2002 House-passed bill allowed $2.28 billion total for the NPS, while the
Senate-passed bill allowed $2.30 billion. The FY2002 appropriations law provides
$2.32 billion, $187.8 million more than current levels. Park Operations accounts for
nearly two-thirds of the total NPS budget. It covers resource protection, visitor
services and major park programs. The House bill allowed $1.48 billion for Park
Operations, slightly more ($9.8 million) than the request and $92 million above
current funding. The Senate-passed bill allowed $1.47 billion for Park Operations.
The FY2002 law provides $1.48 billion.
The FY2002 request included $48 million for the National Recreation and
Preservation line item. This is a decrease of $11.8 million from FY2001. Most of
the decrease, $9.8 million, came from Statutory or Contractual Aid and $1.5 million
comes from National Heritage Area grants. The House bill allowed $51.8 million for
this line item, $3.8 million more than the request. The Senate-passed bill allowed
$66.3 million. The FY2002 law provides $66.2 million.
Maintenance Backlog. The National Park System has a formidable
maintenance burden with an infrastructure that includes thousands of miles of roads
and thousands of permanent structures (many of these historic), bridges, tunnels,
employee housing units, water and waste systems, etc. Several years ago, mounting
concerns about the build-up of a decades old multi-billion dollar backlog of unmet
NPS maintenance needs prompted Congress to seek new funding sources and to
attack the maintenance backlog. The FY2000 Interior Appropriations law began a
Department-wide campaign to prioritize maintenance over a 5-year period.
The elimination of the NPS maintenance backlog, estimated at $5 billion, is
widely being viewed as a centerpiece of the Administration’s environmental agenda
through its announced National Parks Legacy Project. President Bush is seeking $4.9
billion over the next five years to eliminate the backlog, through a combination of
transportation fund money, appropriated funds, and revenues from the collection of
recreation fees.
Some environmental and park advocacy groups have questioned the
Administration’s funding sources and priorities regarding the maintenance backlog.
The NPS estimates that $2.7 billion, more than half of the maintenance backlog, is
related to roads, bridges, and other transportation projects that are covered under the
Transportation Equity Act (TEA 21) and paid for by gasoline taxes. These Parks
programs already are funded at $165 million annually through FY2003. TEA 21
would provide $820 million to the Park Service over the President’s five-year plan.
The additional $1.9 billion the President has pledged may be allocated if Congress
reauthorizes TEA 21 at a higher level in 2004.

The budget request addressed the remaining $2.2 billion non-road backlog with
appropriated funds and recreation fee revenues. The FY2002 budget proposed “down
payment” of $440 million has been characterized by critics as “modest.” There has
been considerable reported criticism of the relatively low amount of new funds
committed to eliminating the backlog as well as charges of misplaced priorities that
focus mostly on roads and buildings rather than the protection of park resources.
Related to eliminating the backlog, the Administration requested a two-year
moratorium on both new park unit creation and new authorizations to study the
appropriateness and feasibility of potential new units. Nevertheless, Congress has
continued to approve study legislation for a number of potential new units. The
Administration subsequently stated that it would consider study requests on a case-
by-case basis. The Administration, in the budget request, did not submit an annual
list of new areas deemed worthy of study and evaluation for potential inclusion in the
Park System, as required by Congress (P.L. 105-391).
The FY2002 law contains $600 million for backlog maintenance needs of the
four land management agencies. It appears that the NPS portion is not specified.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee-Demo). The NPS
coordinated Fee Demo program, being tested by the NPS and three other federal land
management agencies (BLM, FWS, and the Forest Service), began in FY1996 to
allow higher entrance and recreation user fees. Most of the added fees are used to
support activities at the site where they are collected. Under the program currently,
each agency is allowed to test up to 100 fee projects each year. The Administration
proposed extending the Fee Demo program through 2006 and directing up to 60% of
the NPS generated receipts, expected to total about $100 million, toward deferred
maintenance needs. The House-passed bill allowed the requested four year extension
and other program changes, such as expanding the number of sites at which each
agency may charge fees, and provided instructions regarding the efficiency of fee
collections. However, the House did not support the requested percentage mandate
for maintenance so as to allow park unit managers to decide how to spend fee
revenues. There has been growing concern about the Forest Service’s Fee Demo
Program, with assertions that the fees keep poorer people out, commercialize public
lands, and are unfair if improved facilities are lacking. An amendment to strike the
entire Fee Demo section was defeated on the House floor. The Senate passed bill did
not address the Fee Demo program extension. The FY2002 appropriations law
provides for a 2-year extension until 2004, and makes other program changes
recommended by the House. The agencies participating in the program have
collectively produced draft authorizing legislation that would make Fee Demo
permanent and remove the program from the appropriation process.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This locally popular
matching grant program (70% federal/30% local) targets grants to low-income city
neighborhoods for rehabilitation of recreational facilities. In FY2000, the program
received $2 million, the first new funding in five years. The FY2001 request for
UPARR of $20 million represented a significant $18 million increase. Congress
ultimately enacted $30 million for FY2001 (in Titles I and VIII). The budget request
for FY2002 did not continue funding for the UPARR program. It was asserted that
the FY2002 LWCF state grant program, which the Administration had wanted to

fully fund at $450 million, provided more flexibility and greater opportunities for
local governments to receive grants for recreation and conservation projects. The
U.S. Conference of Mayors, among others, fought the Administration’s attempts to
zero out UPARR and the House Appropriations Committee restored and the full
House approved UPARR funding at $30 million, slightly above the current level.
The Senate-passed bill allowed $20 million. The FY2002 law provides $30 million.
Glacier Bay National Park Cruise Ships. The FY2002 law contains
language from the Senate passed bill that overrides two federal court decisions that
would have reduced the number of cruise ships allowed in Glacier Bay National Park
in Alaska from 139 to 107. The language restores the boat limit to 139, for a
minimum of two years. Environmentalists have been concerned about ecosystem
damage from the ships and about endangered humpback whales that frequent the
park’s waters. One humpback was killed in park waters in August after a collision
with a cruise ship.
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 (HPF), established
within the U.S. Treasury and administered by the National Park Service, provides
grants-in-aid to states (primarily through State Historic Preservation Offices(SHPOs),
certified local governments, and outlying areas (territories and the Federated States
of Micronesia) for activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act.
Preservation grants are normally funded on a 60% federal- 40% state matching share
basis. Preservation grants-in-aid have been provided to Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs) to help preserve threatened historic buildings on their
campuses; and to Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians for cultural
heritage projects. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Amendments of
2000, enacted as P.L. 106-208, reauthorized the Historic Preservation Fund through
FY2005. The FY2002 appropriations law specifies total funding for the HPF at $74.5
million, a slight increase above the Senate-passed level, but a $2.5 million decrease
from the House-passed level.
An additional program now funded in tandem with the Historic Preservation
Fund is former President Clinton’s Millennium initiative, Save America’s Treasures.
Save America’s Treasures grants are given to preserve “nationally significant
intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures” including monuments,
historic sites, artifacts, collections, artwork, documents, manuscripts, photographs,
maps, journals, film and sound recordings. The appropriation for Save America’s
Treasures has been used, for example, for restoration of the Star Spangled Banner;
and the Sewall-Belmont House, the National Women’s Party headquarters; and the
Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution located in the National
Archives.
Although the appropriation was continued for Save America’s Treasures for
FY2000 ($30 million) and FY2001 ($34.9 million), the program was criticized for
not reflecting geographic diversity, particularly in the FY1999 grants program. The
FY2001 appropriations law (P.L.106-291) specified $20 million in projects to receive
funding (leaving $14.9 million undistributed) for Save America’s Treasures,

including projects such as the Rosa Parks Museum in Alabama and the Mark Twain
House in Connecticut. Language was added that any project recommendations would
be subject to formal approval by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations prior to distribution of funds. These projects require a 50% cost
share, and no single project would receive more than one grant from this program.
In the past, the HPF account has included the preservation and restoration of
historic buildings and structures on HBCU campuses. Funds in Section 507 of P.L.
104-333 (the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996) were
earmarked for preservation projects for the following universities: Fisk University
and Knoxville College in Tennessee; Miles College, Talladega College, Selma
University, Stillman College, and Concordia College in Alabama; Allen University,
Claflin College, and Voorhees College in South Carolina; and Rust College and
Tougaloo University in Mississippi. Grants were awarded to complete repairs on
HBCU buildings, particularly those listed in the National Register of Historic Places
that required immediate repairs. An appropriation in FY2001 of $6.9 million
represented the unused authorization remaining from P.L. 104-333, and, according
to the Bush Administration, that obligation has been fulfilled. There is no funding
in the FY2002 appropriations law for HBCUs under this program.
There is no longer direct federal funding for the National Trust for Historic
Preservation as part of the Historic Preservation Fund Account. The National Trust
was chartered by Congress in 1949 to “protect and preserve” historic American sites
significant to our cultural heritage. It is a private non-profit corporation and has not
received federal funding since FY1998, in keeping with Congress’ plan to replace
federal funds with private funding and to make the Trust self-supporting. The
National Trust still maintains several financial assistance programs including the
Preservation Services Fund, a program of matching grants to initiate preservation
projects, and the National Preservation Loan Fund, providing below-market-rate
loans to nonprofit organizations and public agencies to preserve properties listed in
the National Register of Historic places, particularly those on the “Most Endangered
Historic Places” list. The FY2002 Senate and House passed bills and appropriations
law include $2.5 million for a National Historic Trust Endowment grant.
The Administration’s FY2002 budget requested $67.06 million for the Historic
Preservation Fund total. This total reflects the revision resulting from the line item
for “conservation,” which basically zeroed out the HPF and replaced it using a
different accounting procedure. See Table 6 below.

Table 6. Appropriations for Historic Preservation
(FY2001-FY2002)
($ in thousands)
Historic F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2002House F Y 2002Senat e F Y 2002
PreservationApprop.RequestPassed Passed Approp.
HPF (total)$94,239$67,055$77,000$74,000$74,500
Grants in aid to^a
State Historic46,49534,45539,00039,00039,000
Preservation Offices
Tribal grants5,5602,6003,0003,0003,000
Save America’s34,92330,00030,00030,00030,000
Treasures
HBCU’s 7,161 — — — --
Conserva tion^b^b (67,055) (77,000) (74,000) (74,500)
Funding
National Historic
Trust Endowment——5,0002,0002,500
grant
Massillon Heritage100——— --
Foundation
^a^T^h^{e term}^“^g^ran^t^sⁱⁿ^{aid to States}^an^{d T}^e^rritories^”^is^u^s^edⁱⁿ^coⁿ^j^uⁿ^c^tioⁿ^w^ith^th^{e b}^u^d^g^et^an^d^r^e^f^e^r^s
^to^th^{e sam}^e^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^{as Gr}^an^{ts in}^aid^{to State His}^t^{oric P}^r^es^erv^a^tion^Of^fⁱ^ces^.^b
^T^h^{e FY2001 appropriation}^s^prov^id^{ed $14.97 m}^illion^f^r^om^{a n}^e^w^T^{itle VIII, en}^{acted in}^th^{e FY2001}
^Iⁿ^terⁱ^o^r^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^law^,^an^d^r^e^f^e^r^r^e^d^to^{as th}^{e “}^C^oⁿ^ser^v^atioⁿ^Sp^en^dⁱⁿ^g^Categ^o^r^y^{.” Fu}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g
^f^o^r^{all p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^sⁱⁿ^th^{is categ}^o^r^y^ar^{e sh}^o^wⁿⁱⁿ^Ta^ble¹²ⁱⁿ^th^{is r}^e^p^o^r^t.
The full House (6/21/2001) approved $77 million for the Historic Preservation
Fund for FY2002, adding $5 million for a grant to the endowment for the National
Trust Historic Sites Fund, to be matched dollar for dollar with non-federal funds, for
the care and maintenance of historic sites, including the most endangered historic
places. The Senate-passed bill (7/12/2001) concurred with the Senate Appropriations
committee in providing $74 million for the HPF for FY2002. The FY2002 Interior
Appropriations Act provides $74.5 million for the HPF, $19.7 million below the
FY2001 appropriation, $2.5 million below the House-passed level for FY2002, and
$.5 million above the Senate-passed level.
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www2.cr.nps.gov/].
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.

U.S. Geological Survey. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the
Nation’s primary science agency in providing earth and biological science
information related to natural hazards; certain aspects of the environment; and
energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences. In addition it is the federal
government’s principal civilian mapping agency and a primary source of data on the
quality of the Nation’s water resources.
The traditional presentation of the budget for the USGS is in the line item
Surveys, Investigations, and Research, with six activities under that heading:
National Mapping Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water
Resources and Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities.
The Administration requested $813.4 million for the USGS for FY2002, a net
decrease of $69.4 million below the FY2001 level of $882.8 million. Each of the
Survey’s six activities, except Science Support, showed a net decrease in that request,
which provided the same level of spending as for FY2000. It reduced funding for
one-time projects, congressional add-ons, lower priority programs, and select
programs that the Administration identified as being more appropriately funded by
USGS partners. It also provided programmatic reductions to cover a majority of
uncontrollable cost increases at the USGS. In H.R. 2217, the House Committee on
Appropriations recommended, and the full House approved, $900.5 million for
Surveys, Investigations, and Research – an increase of $87.1 million above the
request and $17.7 million over FY2001. The House restored some high-priority
research programs that were proposed for reduction or elimination. In its report on
the bill, the Committee also emphasized that the Survey’s principal goals and
objectives should include an appropriate mix of basic and applied science that
addresses both the needs of the DOI and scientific issues of national concern. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended, and the full Senate approved,
$892.5 million for this line item – an increase of $79.1 million above the request and
$9.7 million above FY2001. The FY2002 appropriations law contains $914.0
million – an increase of $100.6 million above the FY2002 request and $31.2 million
over FY2001. Within this amount, $25.0 million is from the Conservation Spending
Category and is for the USGS to spend on State Planning Partnerships.
In the National Mapping Program activity, the Administration requested $123.7
million – $6.8 million below FY2001 ($130.4 million). Decreases were proposed to
discontinue funding for operation and expansion of the Ohio View consortium under
the Mapping Data Collection & Integration subactivity, to reduce funding for the
Earth Science Information Management & Delivery subactivity, and to discontinue
funding for urban dynamics under the Geographic Research & Applications
subactivity. The House approved $130.7 million for the Program, an increase of $7.0
million over the request and $247,000 above FY2001. The Senate approved $129.8
million, $6.1 million above the request but $0.6 million below FY2001. The FY2002
appropriations law contains $133.3 million for the Program, $9.6 million over the
request and $2.9 million above FY2001.
In the Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes activity, the Administration
requested $213.8 million – a reduction of $11.5 million below FY2001 ($225.3
million). Proposed decreases were intended to reduce funding for global change
research and discontinue funding altogether for the Central Great Lakes Geologic
Mapping Coalition under the Earth Surface Dynamics Program. The budget

proposed to eliminate the FY2001 increase for an expanded geologic mapping
program and sought to discontinue funding in the Geologic Landscape & Coastal
Assessments subactivity for other unrequested earmarks from FY2001. A decrease
was sought in the Geologic Resource Assessments subactivity to eliminate
unrequested earmarks and as a means of refocusing available funding on domestic
minerals information and analysis activities.
The House approved $228.2 million for Geologic Hazards, Resources, and
Processes – an increase of $14.4 million above the request and $2.9 million over
FY2001. In its report on the bill, the House Committee on Appropriations
emphasized that the minerals information program was an important and appropriate
function for the Survey and that it looked forward to the findings of a review of that
program by the National Research Council, especially as they relate to the Survey’s
mineral information activities. The Committee also reiterated its position regarding
the need to enhance and expand the Survey’s coastal geology program and
augmented funding to continue developing a comprehensive multidisciplinary
program, beginning with Southeast region of the United States. The Committee
further stressed that the Survey’s highest hazards-related priority should be to
continue to upgrade its various hazards monitoring networks, to acquire quality
information on hazards, and to engage in high quality research. The Senate approved
$229.5 million for the Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes program, an
amount $15.7 above the request and $4.2 million over FY2001. Senate action
restored $5.0 million for cooperative geologic mapping and maintained funding at
the FY2001 level to continue international minerals analysis activities, global change
research, and monitoring activities at the Alaska Volcano Observatory. The FY2002
law contains $232.8 million – an increase of $19.0 million over the request and of
$7.5 million above FY2001.
In the Water Resources and Investigations activity, the Administration requested
$159.5 million – a decrease of $44.0 million from FY2001 ($203.5 million). Major
decreases were sought to discontinue USGS financial support for the Toxic
Substances Hydrology Program and to reduce funding for the National Water Quality
Assessment Program. For the former, the USGS would actively consult with the
program’s stakeholders to develop more collaborative partnerships based on
reimbursable funding. For the latter, the USGS would pursue cost-sharing from the
program’s stakeholders to maintain its current scope and schedule of data collection
and interpretation activities. The budget proposed a decrease in the Conservation
Spending Category (Title VIII) program provided in FY2001 for activities related to
stream gauging and reduced FY2002 base funding for the repair and replacement of
stream gauging equipment damaged during storms. The request also sought to
discontinue USGS support for Water Resources Research Institutes.
The House approved $205.5 million for Water Resources Investigations, an
increase of $46.0 million over the request and $2.0 million above FY2001. The
House restored all but $787,000 of a $46.8 million reduction for Water Resources
Investigations, negating all the cuts sought by the Administration for the Water
Resources Assessments & Research subactivity and reducing substantially the
proposed cuts to the Water Data Collection & Management subactivity. Funding for
Water Resources Research Institutes was restored, and the subactivity received a
$545,000 increase under levels voted by the House. In other action, the House-

approved levels restored $5.0 million in Conservation Category Spending for
streamgauges, with the proviso in the Committee report that this was no-year, one-
time money that would not remain in the base for subsequent years. Concerned about
the future of water availability for the Nation, the House Appropriations Committee
directed in report language that by Jan. 31, 2002, the Survey prepare a report
describing the scope and magnitude of the efforts needed to provide periodic
assessments of the status and trends in the availability and use of freshwater
resources. The Committee report also directed the Survey to contract with the
National Academy of Sciences to examine water resources research funded by all
federal agencies and by significant non-federal organizations that fund water
resources research, including such topics as water quality, quantity, and water use.
The Committee emphasized that it was especially interested in findings that would
address the adequacy of coordination mechanisms and the appropriateness of the
level of investment in water resources research.
The Senate approved $200.8 million for Water Resources Investigations
program – $41.3 million over the request but $2.7 million under FY2001. In concert
with House action, Senate-approved levels also restored $5.0 million in Conservation
Category Spending for streamgauges. The FY2002 law contains $205.8 million for
Water Resources Investigations, $46.3 million above the request and $2.3 million
over FY2001. With the $5.0 million restoration in Conservation Category Spending
for streamgauges, House and Senate actions on the conference agreement indicate
that the Federal streamgaging program in FY2002 would be about equal to the
FY2001 level, $15.95 million, with an increase of some $100,000 for cost-of-living
adjustments (pay raises, rent increases, etc.), bringing that FY2002 total to $16.0
million. In the joint explanatory statement, the conferees stipulated their concurrence
with the House direction to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to
examine water resources research funded by all Federal agencies and by significant
non-Federal organizations. The conferees reinforced that the primary focus of that
study should answer the question of whether the Nation is making an adequate level
of investment in water resources research.
For the Biological Research activity, the Administration requested $149.3
million – a decrease of $11.3 million below FY2001 ($160.6 million). A sizable
portion of that decrease was to discontinue funding for the National Biological
Information Infrastructure Program, for biological information management and
delivery, and for maintenance of biological information web sites. The FY2002
request also re-aligned funding from the Biological Research and Monitoring
subactivity for science that supports the wildland fire program. Beginning in
FY2002, USGS fire ecology research would be funded through the Interior
Department’s Wildland Fire Management Account.
The House approved $163.5 million for Biological Research – an increase of
$14.2 million above the request and $2.9 million over FY2001. The Senate approved
$164.4 million, $15.1 million above the request and $3.8 million over FY2001. The
FY2002 law contains $166.4 million, $17.1 million over the request and $5.8 million
above FY2001. Those spending levels would allow for continued funding of the
National Biological Information Infrastructure Program, for biological information
management and delivery, and for maintenance of biological information web sites.

Again this year, the USGS budget presentation retained two additional activity
categories in the FY2002 request: Science Support, at $81.3 million, and Facilities,
at $85.9 million. Separating out the costs associated with modernizing the
infrastructure for management and dissemination of scientific information and the
costs for maintenance and repair of facilities allows for a clearer view of the money
allocated directly for science. Science Support was the one budget activity that
showed an increase in the FY2002 request: $7.5 million above the FY2001 level of
$73.7 million, but only because the request reflected a transfer of funding for the
USGS library and other support service costs from the Facilities activity to the
Science Support activity. That transfer outweighed requested funding decreases in
USGS network efforts to deliver scientific information over the Internet, thereby
yielding the activity a net increase. Facilities funding, on the other hand, was down
$3.3 million below FY2001 ($89.2 million) because of a requested decrease in
funding for the Deferred Maintenance account and because of the transfer of funds
to the Science Support activity for the bureau’s library.
The House approved $86.3 for Science Support – an increase of $5.0 million
over the request and $12.6 million above FY2001. The Senate approved $81.3
million, matching the request but $7.6 million above FY2001. The FY2002 law
contains $86.2 million for Science Support, $4.9 million over the request and $12.5
million above FY2001.
The House approved $86.4 million for Facilities – an increase of $0.5 million
over the request but $2.8 million below FY2001 ($89.2 million). The Senate
approved $86.7 million, which was $0.8 million above the request of $85.9 million
but $2.5 million below FY2001. The FY2002 law contains $89.4 million for
Facilities, $3.5 million above the request and $0.2 million over FY2001. Out of
those funds, conferees had designated $2.2 million for construction of a Center for
Coastal Geology in St. Petersburg, Florida, as part of a cooperative effort between the
USGS and the St. Petersburg Downtown Partnership – with the Partnership providing
a 2:1 match for the costs of constructing this science facility.
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its World Wide Web
site at [http://www.usgs.gov/].
Minerals Management Service. The Minerals Management Service
(MMS) administers two programs: the Offshore Minerals Management (O.M.)
Program and the Minerals Revenue Management (MRM) Program, formerly known
as the Royalty Management Program. O.M. administers competitive leasing on outer
continental shelf lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas and other
minerals. MRM collects and disburses bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal
onshore and OCS leases and Indian mineral leases. MMS anticipates collecting
about $7.9 billion in revenues in FY2002 from offshore and onshore federal leases.
Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were collected,
the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, and various designated programs. Revenues
from the offshore leases are allocated among the coastal states, Land and Water
Conservation Fund, The Historic Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
The Administration’s FY2002 request of $258.2 million would have provided
$252.1 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management, including $125.9

million for O.M. activities and $83.3 million for MRM programs and $6.1 million
for oil spill research. Of the total, $155.5 million would derive from appropriations,
and $102.7 million from offsetting collections which MMS has been retaining from
OCS receipts since 1994. This request was $11.6 million more than the FY2001
funding ($246.6 million). Total appropriations, however, would increase by $16.3
million while the offsets would decrease by $4.7 million.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended funding MMS at the same
level as requested, except for an increase of $0.5 million to $49.6 million for the
regulatory program in Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management.
During floor debate on H.R. 2217, the House adopted two amendments. The
first, offered by Rep. Maloney (D-N.Y.), and approved by a voice vote, requires that
MMS ensure that the value of oil the government receives as royalty-in-kind (RIK),
is equal to, or greater than the revenues that the government would receive under the
royalty-in-value programs. In the past, royalties were paid by the oil industry to the
federal government amidst controversy over the industry’s valuation of the oil.
Under royalty-in-kind programs, the government receives the royalty in the form of
crude oil, not money. The amendment assures that any RIK is no less valuable than
the calculation of the royalty under guidelines for royalty-in-value. The amendment
was not controversial, but seen as codifying the current program. However, the
conference report dropped the House language concerning the value of RIK oil, and
retained less stringent Senate language. That enacted language requires that RIK oil,
“to the maximum extent practicable” be equal to or greater than the income accruing
to the government from a “comparable” royalty-in-value program.
The second House amendment that was adopted would delay by six months
Administration plans to proceed with “Lease Sale 181,” an area of the Gulf of
Mexico that lies within Alabama state boundaries, and is also 17 miles from the coast
of the Florida panhandle. The amendment passed by a wide margin (247-164), but
was proceeded by sharp debate. Supporters of the amendment cited the risk to the
shoreline and marine environment in the event of an accident. Opponents argued that
the potential addition to U.S. energy security should not be traded off against a very
small risk to the environment. The amendment, supported by several Republican
members of the Florida delegation, sparked further debate in the Senate on the floor.
The Senate however, rejected an amendment (33-67) to prohibit the use of federal
funds for oil and gas “Lease Sale 181" in the Gulf of Mexico.
The House vote on the Interior appropriations was likely a contributing cause
to the Administration’s announcement a week later, on July 2, 2001, that Lease Sale
181 would only include 1.47 million acres of the 5.9 million originally proposed. The
lease sale described by Secretary of Interior Gale Norton was a compromise worked
out between the affected States and the Administration. The Secretary also indicated
that the blocks not included in the notice of sale will not be included in the new five-
year leasing plan that will cover the years, 2002-2007. The lease sale would take
place December 5, 2001 under a proposed notice of sale issued by the MMS. As a
consequence, the House language was dropped by the conferees. On October 26,

2001, the final notice of sale was published in the Federal Register.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $151.9 million for
royalty and offshore minerals management, roughly $2 million more than the House-
approved level. Notably, the Committee added $1.8 million for outer continental
shelf leasing and environmental programs. It also recommended $6.1 million for oil
spill research, for a total of $158.1 million overall. The full Senate supported the
Committee’s recommendations.
The conferees settled upon $150.7 million for royalty and offshore minerals
management, and $6.1 million for oil spill research, for a total FY2002 appropriation
of $156.8 million. These amounts were enacted for FY2002.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its World
Wide Web site at [http://www.mms.gov/].
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87) established the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) to ensure that land
mined for coal would be returned to a condition capable of supporting its pre-mining
land use. SMCRA also created an Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) fund, with fees
levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites that pose serious health or
safety hazards. Congress intended that individual states and Indian tribes would
develop their own regulatory programs incorporating minimum standards established
by law and regulations. OSM is required to maintain oversight of state regulatory
programs.
The Administration’s request for the Office of Surface Mining for FY2002 —
at $269 million – reflected a drop of nearly $33.9 million (11%) from the level of
$302.8 million enacted for FY2001. The request would have provided $166.8
million to the AML fund in FY2002, a reduction of $35.2 million, or roughly 17%.
Major components of this reduction include a decrease of $35 million for State and
Tribal conventional AML grants, and a reduction reflecting roughly $12.5 million in
the FY2001 budget earmarked for Pennsylvania as a one-time grant.
The balance of the FY2002 request for OSM included $102.2 million in funding
for Regulation and Technology programs. The request for Regulation and
Technology programs represented an increase of roughly $1.3 million from the
FY2001 level ($100.9 million). Included in this figure was $10 million in funding
for the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2001,
and $1.5 million for the Small Operators Assistance Program (SOAP).
Several states have been pressing in recent years for increases in the AML
appropriations. The House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee restored $37
million to the AML Fund in the bill it marked up on June 7, 2001, and forwarded to
the full Committee. The full Committee was in accord, approving $203.6 million,
an increase of more than $1.6 million over the FY2001 level, and $36.8 million
above the request. The House Appropriations Committee boosted the budget for
Regulation and Technology an additional $1 million to $103.2 million to cover fixed
cost increases for both the agencies and the states. These levels were approved by the
House on June 21, 2001.

Grants to the states from annual AML appropriations are based on states’
current and historic coal production. “Minimum program states” are states with
significant AML problems, but with insufficient levels of current coal production to
generate significant fees to the AML fund. The minimum funding level for each of
these states was increased to $2 million in 1992. However, over the objection of
these states, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million to minimum program states
since FY1996. The Administration proposes to boost this figure slightly to $1.6
million for FY2002. The Bush Administration did not appear to take a particular
stand on whether or not the minimum program level should be restored to $2.0
million for the eight states expected to qualify (Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas,
Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma), noting only that these eight states are
likely to qualify for an adjustment to “bring them up to the congressionally-
authorized funding level.”¹⁴ The House Appropriations Committee recommended,
and the House agreed to a level of $1.5 million.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended, and the full Senate
agreed to, $102.4 million for Regulation and Technology, and $203.2 million for the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund – these figures are only fractionally different
from the House-passed levels. The Senate also agreed to House levels of $10 million
for ACSI, and $1.6 million for the minimum program states. The conferees made
slight alterations – $103 million for Regulation and Technology, and $203.5 million
for AML, a total of $306.5 million overall. These amounts were enacted for FY2002.
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.
BIA’s FY2001 direct appropriations are $2.19 billion (including supplemental
appropriations). For FY2002, the Administration proposed $2.20 billion, an increase
of 0.7% over FY2001. Included in the proposal were increases of 2.4% in Tribal
Priority Allocations (TPA) (to $750.5 million, including $130.2 million for self-
determination contract support costs, a 4% increase), 3.2% in BIA school operations
(to $504.02 million), and 2.6% in aid under the Tribally Controlled College or
University Assistance Act (to $39.1 million). Also included was a slight increase in
total BIA construction, from $356.6 million to $357.1 million; the proposal included
$292.5 million in education construction, almost the same as FY2001. The House
approved total BIA FY2002 appropriations of $2.21 billion, or $10.3 million more

¹⁴ U.S. Department of the Interior. Budget Justifications and Annual Performance Plan,
Fiscal Year 2002. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, p. 31.

than the request. Included in the House recommendation was $753.8 million for
TPA, an increase over the request of $3.4 million. The House-approved amounts for
contract support costs, school operations, tribal colleges, education construction, and
total construction were the same as the Administration’s proposal. The Senate
approved total BIA appropriations of $2.23 billion, $26.8 million more than the
request and $16.5 million above the House amount. The Senate approved $754.5
million for TPA ($4 million over the proposal and $0.65 million over the House),
$41.1 million for tribal colleges ($2 million more than the Administration and the
House), and $360.1 million for total BIA construction, including $295.5 million for
education construction (both construction amounts are $3 million over the
Administration and House amounts). The Senate amounts for contract support costs
and school operations were the same as the Administration and House amounts.
The FY2002 appropriations law contains $2.22 billion in total FY2002 BIA
appropriations, $19.32 million more than the Administration’s request, $9.03 million
more than the House, and $7.51 million less than the Senate. Included is $752.16
million for TPA (more than the request but less than the House and Senate
approved). Amounts enacted for contract support costs and school operations are the
same as the Administration, House, and Senate amounts; the amount enacted for
tribal colleges is the same as the Senate amount; and the amounts enacted for
education construction and total construction are the same as the request and the
House but less than the Senate.
The key issues for the BIA are the movement toward greater tribal influence on
BIA programs and expenditures (especially the role of contract support costs), the
equitable distribution of BIA funding among tribes, management of trust assets, law
enforcement in Indian country, and repair and replacement of BIA school buildings.
Provisions have also been added concerning lands for gaming for certain tribes.
Tribal Control. Greater tribal control over federal Indian programs has been
the goal of Indian policy since the 1970s. In the BIA this policy has taken three
forms: tribal contracting to run individual BIA programs under Title I of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended); tribal
compacting with the BIA to manage all or most of a tribe’s BIA programs, under the
Self-Governance program (Title IV of P.L. 93-638, as added by P.L. 103-413); and
shifting programs into a portion of the BIA budget called Tribal Priority Allocations
(TPA), in which tribes have more influence in BIA budget planning and within which
each tribe has authority to reprogram all its TPA funds. In FY2001 TPA accounted
for 42.2% of the BIA’s operation of Indian programs (including most of the BIA
funding for tribal governments’ operations, human services, courts, natural resources,
and community development) and for 34.3% of total BIA direct appropriations. The
FY2002 enacted amount for TPA is 41.8% of the recommendation for operation of
Indian programs and 33.8% of recommended total BIA appropriations.
Contract support costs, authorized under the Indian Self-determination Act, fund
the non-operational and overhead costs incurred by tribes in administering programs
under self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts, and are calculated
using a negotiated tribal cost rate (a percentage of the funding base covered by a
tribe’s contracts or compact). Issues raised by contract support costs include the
consistent shortfall in contract support cost appropriations, tribes’ claim of

entitlement to full support cost funding, identity of programs included in tribes’
funding base, and rate-setting methods.
To allow the BIA and tribes to address the contract support costs problem and
to allow GAO to study the issue, Congress for FY1999 imposed a one-year
moratorium on BIA self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts. The
GAO’s report offered four alternative methods for funding contract support costs and
recommended that BIA and the Indian Health Service develop a standard policy on
funding contract support costs (Indian Self-Determination Act: Shortfalls in Indian
Contract Support Costs Need to be Addressed, June 1999, GAO/RCED-99-150). For
FY2000 and FY2001, Congress debated continuing the moratorium but did not retain
it. Congress has not directed the BIA to put any of these GAO recommendations into
effect, nor have the BIA and IHS developed a standard policy on contract support
costs. Both the House and the conference committee urge the OMB to coordinate
BIA-IHS solutions to their disparate handling of contract support costs. The BIA
estimates that appropriations for contract support costs met 88% of reported tribal
need in FY2000 and 89% in FY2001 and will meet 88% of the need in FY2002.
Funding Distribution. 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 nationwide per capita or other
formula basis. Second, tribes’ own non-BIA resources, especially business revenues,
are not always required to be taken into account. A 1998 GAO study of TPA
distribution found 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 their revenues were inconsistent in including or excluding non-federal
revenues.
Supporters of TPA funding redistribution based on “means-testing” of tribes
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 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, and would be unfair since it is not required of state or local
governments receiving federal assistance.
Congress debated several proposals for reallocating TPA funding during its
consideration of the FY1998-FY2001 appropriation bills. For FY1998-FY1999,
Congress authorized a tribal-federal workgroup on TPA allocations and tribal needs
assessment, required that each tribe receive a certain minimum amount of funding,
and directed the BIA to develop TPA reallocation proposals. The BIA/tribal
workgroup’s report, in July 1999, concluded that variation in tribes’ circumstances
made formula distribution problematic; that TPA funding resulted from history,
geography, and policies; that current funding did not meet identified needs; and that

measures of tribal need and revenue were not fully available. The workgroup
recommended that base TPA funding should not be redistributed.
For FY2000, Congress decided to include a provision that authorized–but did
not direct–the Secretary of the Interior to redistribute TPA funds to alleviate tribal
funding inequities, but without reducing any tribe’s TPA share more than 10% except
in certain situations. Congress also directed the BIA to distribute funds to its two
post-secondary institutions based on a formula. Both of these provisions were
retained by Congress for FY2001 and FY2002. In addition, for FY2001 Congress
approved a new provision prohibiting Alaska Native tribes with fewer than 25
members from receiving TPA funds; the funds were to be transferred to each tribe’s
regional Native non-profit corporation. There is no similar provision in the FY2002
Interior appropriations law.
Trust Asset Management. The BIA has, historically, mismanaged Indian
trust funds and trust assets. Reform of trust fund management is now the
responsibility of the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (see below).
The BIA and the Office of Special Trustee together are implementing the Secretary
of the Interior’s High Level Implementation Plan for the Trust Management
Improvement Project. The project includes improvements in trust asset systems,
policies, and procedures, reduction of backlogs, and maintenance of the improved
system. Trust asset management includes real estate services, processing of
transaction (sales, leases, etc.), surveys, appraisals, probate functions, land title
records, and other functions. The BIA contracted with a private developer for a new
computerized trust asset and accounting management system (TAAMS). Critics,
including tribes, the GAO, and a court-appointed special master, have raised doubts
about whether the computerized TAAMS system is working successfully. In the
FY2000 Interior appropriations law, Congress prohibited the Secretary from
deploying TAAMS, except at a test site, until the Secretary certifies that the system
meets contract requirements and users’ needs. The test site is the BIA’s Billings
region. Congress did not include the TAAMS prohibition in the FY2001 or FY2002
Interior appropriations laws. Congress increased funding for BIA trust asset
management functions, such as real estate services, appraisals, and probate, for
FY2001and FY2002.
Law Enforcement. Because of reports of greatly increased crime rates and
inadequate law enforcement in Indian country, the Clinton Administration proposed
for FY1999 an initiative on law enforcement in Indian country. Under this initiative,
funds for Indian country flow through both the BIA and the Department of Justice
(DOJ). The funds provide additional law officers, police facilities and equipment,
jails and detention centers, drug testing and treatment, tribal youth programs, and
tribal court assistance. BIA funding goes chiefly to ongoing operation and
improvement of reservation law enforcement functions, while the DOJ funds go to
improvement grants, tribal courts, juvenile justice, and construction of detention
facilities. For FY2002, the Administration proposed an increase of $9 million (to a
total of $158.3 million) for BIA law enforcement. The House, Senate, and
conference committee agreed with the request, and this level was enacted. (Proposed
FY2002 DOJ spending for Indian-country law enforcement programs under this
initiative, in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, totals $91.9 million.)

School Construction. The BIA funds or operates 185 elementary and
secondary schools with over 2,000 education facilities. Many school facilities are old
and dilapidated, with health and safety deficiencies. BIA education construction
covers both construction of new school facilities to replace facilities that cannot be
repaired, and improvement and repair of existing facilities. The BIA currently
estimates the backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million. Education
construction funding was historically low and Congress had not accepted various
proposals for alternate funding mechanisms. For FY2000, Congress funded a 74%
increase in education facility construction (before internal transfers). For FY2001,
Congress funded an even higher increase, 119%, to $292.3 million. In addition, the
FY2001 conference report (H.Rept. 106-914) recommended funding of $7 million
for a new tribal school construction demonstration project, under which a tribe and
the BIA each pay 50% of the cost of replacing the tribe’s tribally-controlled school.
For FY2002 the Administration proposed a decrease of $13.4 million in funding for
construction of replacement schools (to $127.8 million) and an increase of $13.1
million for facilities improvement and repair (to $161.6 million), for a total (with
other programs) of $292.5 million. No separate funding was proposed for the school
construction demonstration project. The House approved the levels proposed by the
Administration. The Senate approved the same amount for facilities improvement
and repair but provided an additional $3 million under new school construction to
continue funding for the tribal school construction demonstration project (the
Senate’s total for FY2002 BIA education construction funding is $295.5 million).
The FY2002 appropriations law dropped separate funding for the school construction
demonstration project but left total education construction at $295.5 million.
Other Issues. Congress has addressed several Indian land and gaming issues
in recent Interior appropriations acts, in Kansas and California. The FY2002
appropriations law continues a provision from previous appropriations laws that
restricts the uses of the “Huron Cemetery” in Kansas City, KS, to religious and
cultural purposes (§119). The provision prevents the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma,
which claims trust ownership of the cemetery, from using it for economic
development, including gaming. The Wyandottes have pursued use of the Cemetery
or contiguous lands for gaming at the Interior Department and in the courts. The
FY2002 appropriations law includes a provision (§134) clarifying that, while the
Secretary of the Interior has authority to designate what is a reservation for gaming
purposes, gaming still may not occur on the Huron Cemetery or on contiguous lands
that have not been taken into trust. In the California case, the Senate version of the
FY2002 appropriations bill (§126) repealed §819 of P.L. 106-568; that section had
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to take certain land into trust for the benefit
of the Lytton Rancheria and had made the land eligible for gaming under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) as if it had been held in trust on the date of
IGRA's enactment. One effect of §819 was to preempt a possible assertion by the
governor of California that under IGRA his approval was needed before any gaming
could occur on the lands in question. The FY2002 appropriations law has dropped
the Senate provision and substituted a new provision (§128) that does not repeal §819
but instead makes any gaming on the lands subject to IGRA requirements for state-
tribal compacts for casinos. The effect of §128 on the governor’s power to
disapprove any use of the land for gaming is uncertain.

For further information on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, see its World Wide
Web site at [http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html].
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
CRS Report 93-793. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Judicial and Administrative
Interpretations, by M. Maureen Murphy.
Report of the Joint Tribal/BIA/DOI Advisory Task Force on Reorganization of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior and the Appropriations
Committees of the United States Congress. [Washington: The Task Force].
August 1994.
Departmental Offices.
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988
(P.L. 100-497) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of tribal bingo and other “Class II”
operations, as well as aspects of “Class III” gaming (casinos, racing, etc.). The NIGC
may receive federal appropriations but its budget authority 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.
Beginning in FY1999, all NIGC activities have been funded from fees. No
direct appropriations were made for the NIGC in FY2000 or FY2001. For FY2002,
no appropriations for the NIGC were proposed or enacted.
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 formerly were managed by the BIA, but
numerous federal, tribal, and congressional reports had shown severely inadequate
management, with probable losses to Indian tribal and individual beneficiaries. In
1996, at Congress’ direction and as authorized by P.L. 103-412, the Secretary of the
Interior transferred trust fund management from the BIA to the OST.
FY2001 funding for the Office of Special Trustee was $119.0 million, which
included $110.0 million for federal trust programs — trust systems improvements,
settlement and litigation support, and trust funds management — and $9.0 million
for the Indian land consolidation pilot project. (The purpose of the land
consolidation project is to purchase and consolidate fractionated ownerships of
allotted Indian trust lands, thereby reducing the costs of managing millions of acres

broken up into tiny fractional interests.) Included in the $110.0 million for federal
trust programs was an FY2001 emergency appropriation of $27.5 million. The
President proposed an FY2002 budget of $110.2 million for the OST, a decrease of
7.4% from the total enacted funding for FY2001, but an increase of 20.5% over the
initial FY2001 appropriation. Included in the FY2002 request were $99.2 million for
federal trust programs and $10.98 million for the Indian land consolidation pilot
project. The House and Senate agreed with the Administration’s request, as did the
FY2002 Interior appropriations law.
Indian trust funds comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal funds owned by about
315 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset value of about $2.6
billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual Indian Money (IIM)
accounts, in about 287,000 accounts with a total asset value of about $480 million.
(Figures are from the OST FY2001 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.
While a congressionally-required outside audit was 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 in federal court 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. The part of the IIM suit dealing with the failures of the trust-fund
system went to trial in June 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, and the judge on December 21, 1999, found that the government
mismanaged the IIM accounts and ordered that the system be fixed and that the
government provide quarterly reports on system improvements. The Department of
Justice appealed this ruling in January 2000 but lost the appeal in February 2001.
The next stage of the trial relates to an historical accounting for IIM funds, to
determine the amount of money owed to the plaintiffs. The FY2001 conference
report directed DOI to develop a sampling methodology for IIM accounting, as DOI
had intended to do, but required submission of the plan, with a cost-benefit analysis,
to Congress prior to implementation. Both the FY2002 House committee report and
joint explanatory statement of the conference repeat the prohibition on allocating
funds for an historical accounting before submission of the plan and report. Both
reports also state that a legislative remedy may be needed if a cost-effective
accounting methodology cannot be agreed upon. The plaintiffs in the case object to
an historical accounting methodology and, using a different methodology based on
federal and state leasing returns, estimate that they are owed at least $10 billion.
As directed by P.L. 103-412, the OST in April 1997 submitted a 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 this
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, and in July 1998 he issued a “High-
Level Implementation Plan” for this Trust Management Improvement Project.
In January 1999, the Secretary ordered a reorganization of the OST, creating a
principal deputy special trustee who would carry out policy and budget execution,
budget formulation, and day-to-day operations, and to whom would report the trust
funds management office and the new office for trust litigation support and trust
records management created by the same order. The then-Special Trustee resigned
in protest. While Congress did not then enact proposed legislation prohibiting the
implementation of the Secretary’s reorganization of the OST, the FY1999
supplemental appropriations bill’s conference report (H.Rept. 106-143) expressed
concern about the Secretary’s order and the department’s implementation of the trust
fund reform act and the High Level Implementation Plan. Both House and Senate
appropriations committees have exercised continuing oversight of the trust funds
reform effort.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to the territories, manages relations between the islands and the federal
government, and attempts to build the capacity of units of local government to handle
insular matters. Funding for the OIA consists of two parts: (1) permanent and
indefinite appropriations that do not require action by the 107^th Congress or the
Administration, and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the
appropriations process. Total budget authority for FY2001 was $325.2 million and
for FY2002, it is $351.2 million, an increase of $26 million, or 8%.
The permanent and indefinite appropriations constitute roughly 70% of the OIA
budget. For FY2002 they will total $249 million. Two elements comprise these
appropriations for FY2002:
^!$145 million total to three freely associated states formerly included
in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. This payment is set
forth in the Compacts of Free Association negotiated with
representatives of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), the¹⁵

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), and the Republic of Palau.
¹⁵ Portions of the Compact of Free Association with the FSM and the RMI expire in the fall
of 2001 and are being renegotiated. For background see: U.S. Library of Congress,
Congressional Research Service, The Marshall Islands and Micronesia: negotiations with
the United States for renewing provisions of the Compact of Free Association, by Thomas
(continued...)

^!$104 million in fiscal assistance to the Virgin Islands for estimated
rum excise and income tax collections, and to Guam for income tax
collections.
The other 30% of the OIA budget consists of discretionary and current
mandatory funds that require appropriations. Appropriations for FY2001 totaled
$96.1 million; the Bush Administration requested a 3.5% decrease in discretionary
and mandatory appropriations to $92.7 million for FY2002. The FY2002
appropriations law contains a total of $102.2 million, an increase of 6.3% over
FY2001. The law also provides funding for “Technical Assistance” that exceeds not
only the amount requested but also the levels recommended by both the House and
the Senate for the following purposes:
^!An increase in compact impact funding of $4,000,000 for Hawaii
and $1,000,000 each for Guam and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
^!$200,000 for a utility privatization study in the U.S. Virgin Islands
and full funding for payment of the amount owed by the Islands to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
^!Slight increases that total approximately $2 million to restore
funding to pre-rescission levels for the OIA, operation costs for the
High Court of American Samoa, the eradication of the brown tree
snake, a coral reef protection initiative, and insular management
controls.
Little or no significant debate has occurred in recent years on funding for the
territories and the OIA. In general, Congress continues to monitor the problems of
economic development and financial management in the territories.
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. For information on the Department of
Agriculture, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.usda.gov/].
U.S. Forest Service. The FY2002 Interior appropriations law contains $4.13
billion for the Forest Service for FY2002, $305 million less than enacted for FY2001
($4.44 billion), but $216 million more than the House allowance ($3.91 billion),
$315 million more than the Senate allowance ($3.82 billion) and $398 million more
than requested by the President for FY2002 ($3.73 billion).

¹⁵ (...continued)
Lum, CRS Report RL30749 (Washington: Dec. 1, 2000), p. 10.

The Bush Administration proposed reductions generally related to FY2001
appropriations above the “baseline” programs that were enacted in the subsequent
titles of the Interior Act for FY2001 — Title IV, Wildland Fire Emergency
Appropriations; Title V, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations; and Title VIII,
Land Conservation, Preservation, and Infrastructure Improvement. Some argue that
the reductions are only cuts in “extra” spending added for FY2001, and not cuts in
ongoing program levels. One funding increase in Title VIII — $50 million to reduce
deferred maintenance — was continued with the Administration’s FY2002 request
for another $50 million. This proposal was included in the House-passed bill, and
the Senate’s increase to $61 million was retained in the FY2002 law. That law also
retained the “extra” (Title VIII) $4 million for urban and community forestry
assistance ($36 million total funding). It further included the $30 million “extra” for
the forest legacy program (for purchasing lands or easements to prevent conversion
to non-forest uses) and another $5 million as proposed by the Senate ($65 million
total). The law also contains the Senate’s increase to economic action programs
(technical and financial assistance for depressed resource-dependent communities)
to $36 million, $15 million more than the House allowance and $7 million more than
the Administration requested.
The biggest proposed change in funding is for wildland fire management. The
Administration’s request was for $1.28 billion, $600 million below (–32%) the
FY2001 appropriation. In response to the severe wildfires in the summer of 2000,
in FY2001 Congress had appropriated $425 million for emergency fire contingencies,
and another $173 million for emergency fire rehabilitation and restoration and
community and private land fire assistance. These two appropriations essentially
account for the proposed overall $600 million decrease from FY2001 to FY2002.
The Bush Administration proposed the creation of a $5.6 billion National Emergency
Reserve Fund to cover fire emergencies and other natural disasters, but to date
Congress has not created such a fund.
The FY2002 appropriations law provides $1.56 billion for wildland fire
management, more than the Administration’s request ($1.28 billion) and the House
and Senate levels ($1.40 billion and $1.28 billion, respectively). Most of the increase
is in emergency contingency appropriations for fire suppression operations,
emergency rehabilitation, and other activities. The law contains a total of $346
million in emergency funding, including $266 million for fire suppression operations,
$10 million for fire facilities, $59 million for restoration and rehabilitation, $6
million for state fire assistance, and $5 million for fire research and development.
Other significant program funding includes:
^!Land acquisition, with the $150 million enacted level being more
than the President’s request and House allowance of $131 million
and Senate allowance of $129 million, but less than FY2001 ($151
million); and
^!Stewardship incentives (financial assistance to private landowners
for forest stewardship practices), with $3 million in the FY2002 law,
less than the House level of $8 million, but no funds had been
included by the Senate or requested by the Administration, and the
program had received no funds since FY1998.

Timber Sales. Timber sales, especially salvage timber related to forest health,
have been debated repeatedly in Forest Service budget and authorizing legislation.
The FY2002 budget request proposes modest increases in salvage sales of dead and
dying trees (from 0.424 billion board feet, or BBF, to 0.574 BBF) and in new green
(live tree) sales (from 1.526 BBF to 1.538 BBF). The proposed FY2002 sale levels
(2.112 BBF in total) also are above the FY2000 results (1.700 BBF in total). The
FY2002 law also includes Senate language directing $5 million more than the normal
allocation to the Alaska region for additional timber sale preparation.
Forest Fires and Forest Health. The summer of 2000 was a severe fire
season by nearly any standard. On September 8, 2000, the Clinton Administration
proposed a new program in Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and
the Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires, commonly
called the National Fire Plan. The proposal was to add $1.6 billion to the FY2001
request for wildfire operations ($770 million), for fuels treatment and burned area
restoration ($390 million), for fire preparedness ($340 million), and for programs to
assist local communities ($88 million). (The proposal applied to BLM lands as well
as to Forest Service lands.) As noted above, many of these increases — excluding
emergency fire contingency funds, private land fire assistance, and restoration and
rehabilitation — were continued in the Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget
request, in the House and Senate measures, and in the FY2002 law. The National
Fire Plan also proposed increased cooperation and collaboration among federal
agencies and with state, county, local, and tribal governments.
Congress responded to this proposal in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act
by increasing Forest Service and BLM wildfire management funds and by enacting
Title IV, Wildland Fire Emergency Appropriations. The total increase equaled the
Clinton Administration’s September request. Congress included other provisions in
Title IV requiring the agencies to report on “urban wildland interface” communities
and projects, directing the Forest Service to publish its Cohesive Strategy for
Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems and explain
how existing plans and initiatives are consistent with or differ from this strategy, and
providing expedited NEPA review procedures and Endangered Species Act
consultations for hazardous fuel reduction and burned area treatments. The FY2002
law includes an authorization to transfer funds to expedite ESA consultations.
Land Management Planning. Planning for management of the federal lands
has been controversial for decades. Congress enacted laws to establish and guide
land and resource management planning, but the public participatory planning
process has not led to the expected harmonious land management. Bills to improve
planning, some emphasizing forest health, have been introduced in both Houses in
several Congresses, but none have been enacted. On November 9, 2000, the Forest
Service promulgated new planning regulations with a greater emphasis on ecosystem
management and protection of biological diversity. While some interests applauded
the changes, and suggested that further changes were feasible, others objected to the
new management direction being taken. The Bush Administration has stated that it
will review the new regulations, and may propose changes. For FY2002, the Bush
Administration requested $70 million for land management planning, $8 million
below FY2001 but $20 million above FY2000. The FY2002 appropriations law
contains $70 million for land management planning, the same as the House

Appropriations Committee and $1 million less than the Senate. It also retains
language (in §327) from previous Acts that forest plans cannot be challenged solely
because the 15-year deadline in law for revising the plans had not been met.
For further information on the U.S. Forest Service, see its World Wide Web site
at [http://www.fs.fed.us/].
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the U.S.
Forest Service, see the USDA Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at
[ h ttp://www.usda.gov/ocfo /strat/index .htm].
CRS Report 95-15 ENR. Below-Cost Timber Sales: Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS20822. Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Budget Allocation
Formula, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Performance
Measures, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Department of Energy. For further information on the Department of
Energy, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.energy.gov/].
For information on the Government Performance and Results Act for the DOE
or any of its bureaus, see DOE’s Strategic Plan World Wide Web site at
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm.
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget request of $449 million for fossil fuel
research and development (R&D) is about 17% less than the amount appropriated for
FY2001 ($539.5 million), despite funding start-up of a new Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) at $150 million. The previously released Budget Outline proposed
spending $2 billion over 10 years on the CCPI. It would be a cost-sharing
industry/government program to demonstrate advanced power technologies along the
lines of the Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP), which has completed most of
its projects and has been subject to rescissions and deferrals since the mid-1990s.
Much of the funding for the CCPI comes from reductions in the Fossil R&D
Central Systems subprogram, which would be funded at $61 million, a reduction of
$138 million from the amount appropriated in FY2001. In addition, R&D on natural

gas and petroleum would be cut by more than 50%, to $21 million and $30 million
respectively, and smaller cuts are distributed throughout the other subprograms.
The CCTP, which is funded separately from the other fossil R&D programs,
would receive no additional appropriations, and would receive $82 million from
previously deferred budget authority to continue with several projects that are still
active. No funding is proposed to be deferred or rescinded in FY2002, in contrast to
the $67 million deferred in the FY2001 appropriations bill.
The $150 million for the CCPI is contemplated for “funding advance research
and development and a limited number of joint government-industry-funded
demonstrations of new technologies that can enhance the reliability and
environmental performance of coal-fired power generators.” (For more details on
clean coal technology, see CRS Report RS20877, “The Clean Coal Technology
Program: Current Prospects.
The bill reported out by the House Appropriations Committee included the $150
million for the CCPI, and also added $130 million for other fossil fuel programs, for
a total of $579 million. Included in the increase were $60.6 million more for Fuels
and Power Systems, for a total of $220.3 million; $19.3 million for Natural Gas
Technologies, for a total of $40.3 million; and $25.5 million more for Petroleum - Oil
Technology, for a total of $56 million. The full House concurred in these numbers.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations was in essential agreement with the
House that the Administration request for fossil fuel was inadequate. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $570.4 million, $8.6 million less than was
approved by the House, but still $124.1 million above the request. The full Senate
supported the Committee’s recommendations. The FY2002 Interior Appropriations
Act contains $582.8 million for fossil energy research and development plus $33.7
million by transfer, for a total of $616.5 million.
For further information on Fossil Energy, see its World Wide Web site at
[ h ttp://www.fe.doe.gov/] .
CRS Report RS20877. The Clean Coal Technology Program: Current Prospects,
by Carl E. Behrens.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The SPR, authorized by the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in late 1975, consists of caverns formed out of
naturally-occurring salt domes in Louisiana and Texas in which more than 570
million barrels of crude oil is stored. The purpose of the SPR is to provide an
emergency source of crude oil which may be tapped in the event of a presidential
finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption threatening adverse
economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the Reserve. Sharp increases in the
price of oil beginning in the spring of 1999 have spurred periodic calls for
drawdowns from the Reserve. The Clinton Administration authorized some
exchanges and swaps of oil from the SPR, and also instituted a program to accept
roughly 28 million barrels as royalty-in-kind payments for production on federal
lands. The Clinton Administration also established a regional Northeast Heating Oil

Reserve (NHOR) which houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-
ground facilities in Connecticut and New Jersey.
For FY2001, the 106^th Congress approved $165 million, adding $8 million
above the Administration request for funding the regional heating oil reserve. The
FY2002 budget request for the SPR was for $169.0 million, including $8.0 million
to continue the leasing of facilities, and the operation of the NHOR. This represented
a $4.3 million increase over FY2001. Roughly $3.3 million of the increase was to
support monitoring of the caverns for natural geothermal heating and gas intrusion.
The House Committee on Appropriations added $10 million to the budget request to
provide for the first phase of a program to continuously de-gas SPR oil at SPR sites,
bringing the total to $179 million. An amendment in committee to use the proceeds
from an SPR oil sale to establish an ethanol and biodiesel reserve was withdrawn.
The funding level recommended by the Committee was approved by the House.
The Senate agreed to the requested level of $169 million, choosing not to
include the additional $10 million approved by the House for degasification of oil in
storage. However, the FY2002 Interior Appropriations Act provided the same
amount as the House, $179 million. The conferees had stipulated that funding for the
Northeast Heating Oil Reserve is “not to exceed” $8 million, and that any savings
will be applied to the degasification project. The conferees indicated that funding for
this project should be maintained at $12 million for the next three fiscal years with
the objective of completing the project by the end of FY2005.
For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, see its World Wide
Web site at http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml.
CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
Naval Petroleum Reserves. The National Defense Authorization Act for
FY1996 (P.L. 104-106) authorized sale of the federal interest in the oil field at Elk
Hills, CA (NPR-1). On Feb. 5, 1998, Occidental Petroleum Corporation took title to
the site and wired $3.65 billion to the U.S. Treasury. P.L. 104-106 also transferred
most of two Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSR) to the Department of the Interior
(DOI); the balance of one of these was transferred to DOI in the spring of 1999. On
January 14, 2000, DOE announced that it would return the undeveloped NOSR-2 to
the Ute Indian Tribe; the FY2001 National Defense Authorization (P.L. 106-398)
provided for the transfer. The U.S. retains a 9% royalty interest in NOSR-2, those
proceeds to be applied to the costs of remediation for a uranium mill tailings site near
Moab, Utah.
This leaves in the program two small oil fields in California and Wyoming,
which will generate estimated revenue to the government of roughly $7.8 million
during FY2001, and a projected $6.8 million during FY2002. Congress appropriated
no new funds for FY2000 and $1.6 million for FY2001, funding the NPR program
from a carryover balance created when Elk Hills was sold. The budget request
proposed using the remainder of that carryover in FY2002 – $5 million – and asked
for a congressional appropriation of $17.3 million to bring the NPR program to full
funding, $22.7 million, comparable to FY2001. The House concurred on June 21,

2001; so did the Senate on July 12, 2001.

In settlement of a long-standing dispute between California and the federal
government over the state’s claim to Elk Hills as “school lands,” the California
Teachers’ Retirement Fund is to receive 9% of the sale proceeds after the costs of
sale have been deducted. The agreement between DOE and California provided for
five annual payments of $36 million beginning in FY1999, with the balance due to
be paid in equal installments in FY2004 and FY2005. The budget request for $36
million for the Elk Hills School Lands Fund for FY2002 was approved by both the
House and Senate.
The conferees and subsequent FY2002 Interior Appropriations Act concurred
with the numbers agreed upon in the House and Senate.
For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, see its
World Wide Web site at http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index.shtml.
Energy Conservation. The FY2002 budget request document states that,
“the Administration’s energy efficiency programs produce substantial benefits for the
Nation – both now and in the future – in terms of economic growth, increased
national security and a cleaner environment through the research and development
of energy efficiency and pollution prevention technologies .... These programs are a
major component of the Administration’s climate change response .... ” (Budget
Appendix, p. 410). Further, the Administration’s FY2002 budget request for Energy
Conservation programs at the Department of Energy (DOE) states, “ .... The
Department’s FY2002 request maintains core energy efficiency related research and
development (R&D) capabilities until ongoing operations can be evaluated against
the outcome and priorities that will flow from the Vice President’s National Energy
Policy Development Group.” (DOE Budget Highlights, p. 106)
The Administration’s FY2002 request (as amended on May 14, 2001) for
DOE’s Energy Efficiency Program proposed to cut funding to $755.8 million — a
decrease of $57.6 million, or 7%, below the FY2001 level of $815.4 million
(includes $2.0 million transfer from prior year carryover in biomass account). This
includes $444.8 million for R&D programs, a cut of $180.1 million, or 29%. For
grant programs, the request includes $311.0 million, an increase of $120.3 million.
All of this increase is for the Weatherization Program, which would grow from
$152.7 million to $273.0 million, a 79% addition.
The House recommended $940.8 million for Energy Efficiency, including
$629.8 million for R&D and $311.0 million for grants. The Senate approved $870.8
million, including $619.8 million for R&D and $251.0 million for grants. The Senate
level is $70.0 million lower than the House level, including $36.3 million less for
Weatherization grants, $23.7 million less for State grants, and $10.0 million less for
the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP).
The FY2002 Interior Appropriations Act provided $912.8 million, including
$637.8 million for R&D and $275.0 million for grants. Compared to the request, the
enacted level includes an increase of $157 million for R&D, $7 million more for
State grants, and $57 million more for Weatherization grants.

Compared to FY2001, the FY2002 law provides an increase of $97.4 million,
or 12%, not including a downward adjustment for inflation. This includes an
increase of $13 million, or 2%, for R&D and an increase of $84.4 million, or 44%,
for grants. Under R&D, however, this includes cuts of $2.1 million for Equipment,
under the Buildings Office; $2.8 million for Aluminum, under the Industry Office;
and $4.5 million for Vehicle Technologies, under the Transportation Office.
For further information on the Energy Conservation Budget, see the Web site
at [http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/02budget/index.htm].
For further information on Energy Conservation Programs, see the Web site
entitled Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network at
[ h ttp://www.eren.doe.gov/] .
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RS20852. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status
and Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
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 1.5 million American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) who
belong to about 561 federally recognized tribes in 34 states. Care is provided through
a system of federal, tribal, and urban Indian operated programs and facilities that
serves as the major source of health care for AI/AN. IHS provides direct health care
services in 36 hospitals, 58 health centers, 4 school health centers, 44 health stations,
and 5 residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribal groups, through contracts with
IHS, operate another 13 hospitals, 161 health centers, 3 school health centers, 249
health stations (including 170 Alaska village clinics) and 28 residential treatment
centers. IHS, tribes and tribal groups also operate 7 regional youth substance abuse
treatment centers and 2,152 units of staff quarters.
IHS funding is separated into two budget categories: Indian Health Services and
Indian Health Facilities. Included in Indian Health Services are such services as
hospital and health clinic programs, dental health, mental health, alcohol and
substance abuse programs, preventive health services, urban health projects, and
funding for Indian health professions. The Indian Health Facilities category includes
funds for construction, maintenance, and improvement of health and sanitation
facilities. The overall IHS program is funded through a combination of federal
appropriations and collections of reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, and
private insurance for services provided to eligible patients who have such insurance
coverage. For FY2002, the House, Senate, and conference versions of the FY2002
Interior Appropriations Act estimate that IHS will collect $500 million in
reimbursements, an increase of $95.4 million over FY2001.
The FY2002 Interior Appropriations Act provides $2.759 billion in IHS
appropriations, $708,000 less than the House ($2.760 billion), $7.6 million more than
the Senate ($2.751 billion), and $130.3 million more than FY2001 ($2.629 billion).

Of the total appropriation for IHS, the FY2002 law specifies that health services be
funded at $2.390 billion, $400,000 less than the House and $1 million more than the
Senate. For health facilities, the law contains $369.5 million, while the House
recommended $369.8 million and the Senate $362.9 million.
The population served by IHS has 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. Per capita health spending for IHS user population was $1,351 in
FY1999, compared to the U.S. per capita expenditure of $3,808 in that same year.
In the United States, in 1995, the rate of dying of alcoholism per 100,000 people was
6.7; for Indians, the rate was 48.7 per 100,000, which is a 727% greater chance of
dying from alcoholism.
The IHS health services budget category is divided into clinical services,
preventive health services, and other services (such as urban health projects, Indian
health professions, contract support costs, and direct operations). The FY2002
enacted amount for the total health services budget category – $2.390 billion – is a

5% increase over FY2001 ($2.266 billion). Within this services budget category,

there are differences in how the funding should be distributed. For clinical services,
the FY2002 law provides $1.892 billion, while the House had recommended $1.893
billion and the Senate $1.861 billion. The House would have allocated more funding
for hospital and clinic programs and contract care; the Senate less. For preventive
health programs, the FY2002 law contains $99.7 million. For other health services,
the law contains $398.0 million; the House had recommended $397.4 million and the
Senate $428 million (a $30.6 million difference, which the Senate had recommended
using for contract support costs and direct operations).
Clinical services include basic primary care inpatient and outpatient services at
IHS hospitals and clinics. When IHS cannot provide medical care and specific
services within its system, it contracts to purchase these services from local and
community health care providers. For these contract health services, the FY2002 law
provides $460.8 million, the same as the House and $15 million (3.3%) more than
the Senate ($445.8 million). The Senate amount was the same as the President’s
FY2002 request and the FY2001 appropriation. Conference report language
recommends that the additional funds for contract health services be distributed using
a methodology developed with tribes that took into account both needs and funding
disparities. House report language expressed a concern that the closed Keams
Canyon Hospital has left many Hopi without easy access to hospital care. The House
wanted the IHS to consider the needs for inpatient services for the Hopi next year.
The Senate mentioned no special concerns.
The FY2002 law reflects the President’s request for a preventive health services
appropriation of $99.7 million. This amount is a 4.4% increase over FY2001 ($95.7
million). The request includes funding for public health nursing ($37.8 million),
health education in schools and communities ($10.6 million), and immunizations
($1.5 million). In addition, these appropriations would fund a community health
representatives program ($50 million), a tribally administered program which,

through various community initiatives, supports community members who work to
prevent illness and disease within their communities.
The FY2002 enacted amount for other health services, $398.0 million, is slightly
higher than the House amount ($397.4 million), a 6.5% increase over the FY 2001
$373.7 million appropriation, but 6.7% below the FY2002 requested amount of
$426.4 million. The Senate recommended $427.7 million, or $30.3 million over the
House. The other health services category includes funding for contract support costs
(law and House, $268.2 million; Senate, $288 million); IHS’s direct operation
(management and administration) costs (law and House, $55.3 million; Senate, $65.3
million); scholarships to health care professionals (law and Senate, $31.2 million;
House, $30.6 million); support for health related activities in off-reservation urban
centers (law, House, and Senate, $30.9 million); costs associated with providing
tribal management grants to tribes (law, House, and Senate, $2.4 million); and
support for IHS’s administration and management of the Self-Governance
Demonstration Project, which gives tribal governments the responsibility for health
care programs (law, House, and Senate, $9.9 million).
Within the $30.9 million for urban health projects, the Senate specifically
increased funding by $1 million over the FY2001 appropriation to fund a dental
program run by First Nations Community Health Sources in cooperation with the
Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute. The Senate also mandated that $50,000 go
to each mental health professions program at the Universities of Montana and North
Dakota and $500,000 be used by the InMed program at the University of North
Dakota.
Direct contract support costs are included in the budget category that contains
funds awarded to a tribe for the administration of a program under a contract or
compact authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L. 93-638, as amended).
These funds are intended to cover the direct expenses tribes incur for unemployment
taxes, discipline-specific training, workers compensation, telephone, and postage.
Appropriation funding, however, has been insufficient to cover all tribal costs, and
IHS’s distribution of these funds among tribes has been criticized. Congress has tried
in the past to ensure that the direct contract support funds are distributed fairly.
For FY2002, Congress enacted the House recommendation of $268 million for
contract support costs and costs for self-governance, 8% over FY2001 ($248
million). The Senate had increased this funding by $40 million to $288 million in
response to the Administration’s request. The increased funding for contract support
costs reflects the fact that more tribes and tribal organizations are participating in new
and expanded self-determination contracts and self-governing compacts. However,
the House was concerned that, while both the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
IHS have similar programs, the IHS in FY2002 will pay $55 million in direct contract
support operating costs while the BIA will pay nothing. In consequence the House
inserted bill language that would have prevented IHS’s funding of any new and/or
expanded contracts or compacts. The conference committee removed that bill
language but agreed with House report language asking IHS to justify the need for
these funds in FY2003, and asking the Office of Management and Budget to establish
a single, consistent policy for payment of contract support costs between the BIA and
IHS. The Senate made no such request.

For IHS health care facilities, the FY2002 appropriations law provides $369.5
million, a 1.8% or $6.4 million increase over FY2001 ($363.1 million) and $49.7
million above the President’s request ($319.8 million). The House recommended
$369.8 million and the Senate $363 million ($6.9 million less than the House, and
slightly less, $250,000, than the FY2001 level). The House favored an increase in
support because many facilities need replacement or improvements. The House
recommended that hospitals in Winnebago, NE, and Fort Defiance, AZ, receive
funding and that clinics in Pinon, AZ, Pawnee, OK, and Sisseton, SD, receive
appropriated funds. In addition, the House recommended supporting staff quarters
(in Bethel, AK, and Zuni, NM), dental units, small ambulatory care facilities, and
joint ventures. The Senate appropriated funds for these same institutions and
programs, but distributed funding differently. In addition, the Senate included
funding for clinic infrastructure improvements at Red Mesa, AZ, and St. Paul and
Metlakatla, AK. While the House recommended the distribution of $2 million for
Zuni staff quarters, the Senate did not recommend any funding. The conference
committee agreed to funding for all these projects.
The House wanted IHS to use this health care facilities FY2002 appropriation
to address the fluctuating annual caseload of different facilities, and maintain parity
in funding among IHS areas and tribes. It also wanted funding for staff quarters
construction given a higher priority. It did not want any IHS funds used to provide
sanitation facilities for housing that could otherwise be funded under programs of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, but the agency is to use $5 million
to clean up and replace open dumps on Indian lands. The House also supported IHS’s
efforts to find innovative approaches such as cost-sharing arrangements and third-
party collections to fund needed construction and repairs to facilities. The Senate
encouraged IHS to continue to fund its Sanitation Facilities Construction Program,
specifically a new drinking water system for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the
Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho.
For further information on Department of Health and Human Services: Indian
Health Service, see its World Wide Web site at [http://www.ihs.gov/].
For information on the GAO report on Contract Support Costs, see its World
Wide Web site at [http://www.gao.gov/].
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation. The Office of Navajo and
Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) was reauthorized for FY1995-2000 by P.L. 104-
301. The 1974 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. Members of one tribe who ended up on the
other tribe’s land were to be relocated. ONHIR classifies families as relocated when
they occupy their replacement home. Most relocatees are Navajo. A large majority
of the estimated 3,477 Navajo families formerly on the land partitioned to the Hopi
have already relocated under the Act, but the House Appropriations Committee
estimates that about 300 families (almost all Navajo) have yet to complete relocation,
including about 33 Navajo families still on Hopi partitioned land (some of whom
refuse to relocate). The remaining families are not on Hopi partitioned land but are
in various stages of acquiring replacement housing.

For FY2001, ONHIR received appropriations of $15.0 million. For FY2002,
the Administration proposed $15.1 million, an increase of 1%. The FY2002
appropriations law contained the same amount.
For much of the relocation period, negotiations and litigation have proceeded
among the two tribes, the Navajo families on Hopi partitioned land, and the federal
government on a number of issues, especially regarding Hopi Tribe claims against
the United States. In 1995, the United States and the Hopi Tribe reached a proposed
settlement agreement on Hopi claims. 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 the
leases (accommodation agreements). According to ONHIR, 70 of the 73 families on
Hopi-partitioned land had signed accommodation agreements by the end of
September 1999.
The Hopi Tribe called for enforcement of relocation against Navajo families
without leases. Like the FY1997-FY2001 Interior appropriations acts, the FY2002
law forbids 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. 104-301,
however, allows the Hopi Tribe under certain circumstances to begin quiet-
possession actions against the United States after Feb. 1, 2000, if Navajo families on
Hopi partitioned land have not either relocated or entered into leases with the Hopi
Tribe. The Hopi Tribe has agreed to let the federal government pursue the matter in
court, but feels evictions should have started already.
In the past, Congress has 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 committees from time to
time have considered termination of the relocation program, but committee reports
have not discussed this option since FY1999.
Other Related Agencies. One of the perennial issues addressed by Congress
concerning 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, the National Zoo, and research
facilities throughout the U.S. and around the world. Nine of its museums and
galleries are located on the Mall between the U.S. Capitol and the Washington

Monument, and SI counted 33.5 million visits/visitors in FY2000 (The National Zoo
had 2.3 million “visits”, the Museum of Natural History had 9.4 million “visits”, and
the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) had over 9 million “visits.”)
The Smithsonian is estimated to be 70% federally funded. A federal
commitment to fund the Institution was established by legislation in 1846. Today,
in addition to receiving federal appropriations, the Smithsonian has private trust
funds, which include contributions from private sources, grants and contracts, net
investment income and business revenues from what the Smithsonian identifies as
“Business Ventures” operations (including the Smithsonian magazine, retail shops,
restaurants, concessions, catalogs, and entertainment initiatives, i.e. Resident
Associates and other entertainment programs.) In FY1999, contributions from
private sources for designated projects totaled $123.6 million. The largest single
contribution to the Smithsonian from a private donor (Steven F. Udvar-Hazy)—$60
million—was pledged for the NASM’s Dulles Center (FY1999). This fiscal year,
FY2001, the Lemelson Foundation has increased its commitment to the Smithsonian
to $40 million.
The FY2002 Bush Administration budget estimate of $494.1 million total for
the Smithsonian represented an increase of $40.2 million above FY2001 ($453.9
million). For the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), $30 million was
requested for FY2002 to complete construction of the Mall museum. Initially, the
NMAI was controversial; opponents argued that the current Smithsonian museums
needed renovation, repair, and maintenance of the collection with an estimated 141
million items, more than the public needed another museum on the Mall. Proponents
argued, however, 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 focusing on individuals, foundations, and corporations
totaled $36.7 million, representing one-third of the original cost, and the amount
required to meet the non-appropriated portion of project funding. Of this amount, an
estimated $15 million came from the Indian community directly. Based on a new
cost estimate of $186 million for the Indian museum, the Smithsonian identified a
shortfall of $76 million and plans to ask for an additional $10 million in FY 2003.
The groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI took place September 28, 1999. The
projected opening of the Museum is the end of 2003.
The SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with 7.6 million square feet of
space. Four of the Smithsonian’s buildings plus the National Zoo constitute
approximately one-third of the SI’s public space: the National Museum of Natural
History (built in 1910), the American Art and Portrait Gallery (built between 1836
and 1860), the Castle building (built in 1846), and the Arts and Industries building
(1849). The Smithsonian contends that funding for repair and renewal of SI’s
facilities has not kept pace with need, resulting in increased deterioration of the
physical plant. In fact, the report of the Commission on the Future of the
Smithsonian concluded that a total of $50 million each year for the next decade
would be necessary to "assure that present facilities are restored to the point of being
safe for people and collections;" and considering the National Zoo separately, it
would need $10 million a year for the next 5 years. The FY2002 budget request
($67.9 million) included renovation for the Patent Office Building, the National Zoo,
the National Museum of Natural History, and the Arts and Industries Building, and

routine repair in all Smithsonian facilities. Work has already begun on the National
Museum of Natural History and the Patent Office Building (the home of two
Smithsonian Museums–the National Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian Museum
of American Art–with a projected total cost estimate of $151 million.)
Two of the controversies for the Smithsonian this year involved the proposed
closing of the Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education (SCMRE)
and the Conservation and Research Center (CRC) in Front Royal, Virginia. The
SCMRE was established in 1963 to develop information to assist in the preservation
of museum objects. The CRC facility was established 26 years ago on 3,150 acres in
Front Royal to support endangered species propagation, conservation, training and
research. The Smithsonian contended that although its effort to breed endangered
species for reintroduction into the wild has been important for international
conservation and research efforts, it does not have sufficient funds to continue to
keep this property as a “world class” facility. Funds were to be redirected to public
program activity at the Zoo’s Rock Creek location. A number of biologists who
worked with the CRC objected, stating that the kind of work done at the CRC is
dependent on the natural habitat in Front Royal, Virginia. The FY2002 budget
outlined a policy that the Smithsonian “cannot continue to be the scientific, artistic,
and historic smorgasbord of past decades” and is “prepared to pare back certain
activities and programs that do not fall with the Institution’s sphere of excellence.”
On May 6, 2001, after the initial submission of the FY2002 budget, the Smithsonian,
in response to scientists, reversed its policy with regard to the CRC and will continue
to maintain it. Both the House and the Senate have indicated that a new Science
Commission should meet before any final decision is made about closing either the
CRC or the SCMRE.
Table 7. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations FY2001-2002
($ in thousands)
SmithsonianFY2001FY2002 FY2002FY2002FY2002
Institution Approp. Request House Senate Approp.
(S I) Pa ssed Pa ssed
Salaries and$386,902$396,200$396,200$401,192$399,253
Expenses
Repair,
Restoration, 57,473 67,900 67,900 67,900 67,900
and Alteration
of Facilities
Construction 9,479 30,000 30,000 25,000 30,000
SI total453,854494,100494,100494,092497,153

For FY2002, the House bill provided $396.2 million for Salaries and Expenses,
and $494.1 million for the total for SI. The Senate bill provided $494.09 million for
SI, a slight decrease from the House and a reduction from the House measure for
construction funding for the National Museum of the American Indian from $30
million to $25 million. However, the Senate measure reflected an increase in funding
for Administration, and restoration of funding for the Smithsonian Center for
Materials Research and Education (SCMRE) (to $3.3 million), the scientific research
center that was scheduled to be closed in December, 2001. Both the House and the
Senate recommended establishment of a Science Commission; and the Senate
specifically mentioned in report language that the CRC and the SCMRE remain open
until the science initiative by SI is reviewed by an independent “blue ribbon” Science
Commission. The FY2002 law concurred with the establishment of a Science
Commission.
Under the FY2002 Interior Appropriations Act, the Smithsonian would receive
$497.2 million, an increase of $43.3 million above FY2001.
For further information on the Smithsonian, see its World Wide Web site at
[ http://www.si.edu/] .
National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the
Humanities, and Institute of Museum and Library 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 constituted as the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS) with an Office of Museum Services (OMS)). The
authorizing act, the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, was last
reauthorized in 1990 and expired at the end of FY 1993, but has been operating on
temporary authority through appropriations law since that time. The 104^th Congress
established the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) under P.L. 104-208.
Among the questions Congress has considered is whether funding for the arts,
humanities, and museums is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Some
opponents of arts support 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. Other opponents 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 support for culture,
beginning as early as 1817, with congressional appropriations for works of art to
adorn the U.S. Capitol. Some 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 NEA and NEH would curtail or eliminate the programs
that have national significance and purpose (such as touring theater and dance
companies, radio and television shows, traveling museum exhibitions, etc.) The
President’s [Clinton] Committee on the Arts released a publication in 1997, Creative
America, that recommended that federal funding be restored for NEA, NEH and
IMLS to levels “adequate to fulfill their national roles.” The goal expressed was that
appropriations should have equaled $2.00 per person for arts and cultural funding by
the year 2000.

NEA’s direct grant program currently supports approximately 1,600 grants.
State arts agencies are now receiving over 40% of grant funds, with 1,000
communities participating nationwide, particularly those from under-represented
areas. The NEA account now has an additional program associated with it, the
Challenge America Arts Fund, since NEA is actually administering the program. The
Challenge America Arts Fund is a program of matching grants for arts education,
outreach and community arts activities for rural and underserved areas. A detailed
report is required to be submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, describing the use of funds for Challenge America Arts Fund.
NEH supports extensive grants for humanities education, research,
preservation and public humanities programs; grants for the creation of regional
humanities centers; and grants to help develop humanities programs under the
jurisdiction of the 56 state humanities councils. NEH also supports a Challenge
Grant program to stimulate and match private donations in support of humanities
institutions.
Within IMLS, the Office of Museum Services (OMS) supports leadership
grants, museum conservation, museum assessment, and General Operating Support
(GOS) to help over 400 museums annually to improve the quality of their services
to the public— museums are already popular, serving over 600 million visitors
annually. OMS continues to work on Museums Online, a package that will update
Internet access through the development of regional electronic networks of museums.
The goal is to bring the educational and cultural significance of museums to
communities and schools, with the potential to reach over 20 million people. OMS
support of Museum/school partnerships has helped over 200 schools, 80 museums,
and 80,000 students. As partners in the America Goes Back to School program, OMS
provides awards for integrating museum experiences particularly for at-risk youth.
Previous NEA Controversies. Some controversy over previous questionable
NEA grants seems to reappear when congressional appropriations are considered, in
spite of attempts to resolve these problems through statutory provisions. To date, no
NEA projects have been judged obscene by the courts. On November 5, 1996, a
federal appeals court upheld an earlier decision, NEA v. Finley, ruling that applying
the “general standards of decency” clause to NEA grants was “unconstitutional.”
However, in anticipation of congressional reaction to NEA’s individual grants, NEA
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 (CA9,100F.3d 671) 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.”
Congress enacted NEA reform measures in past appropriations. Among them
were increases in funding allocations from 35% to 40% to states for basic state arts
grants and for grants to under served populations. In addition, language emphasizing
arts education was included. A 15% cap was placed on NEA funds allocated to each
state, exempting only those grants with a national impact. Three Members of the
House and three Members of the Senate were added to the National Council on the

Arts, but the size of the National Council was reduced from 26 to 20. Both NEA and
NEH were given specific authority to solicit funding and to invest those funds.
On June 7^th, 2001 the House Appropriations Interior Subcommittee marked up
the Interior appropriations bill, allowing $105.2 million for NEA (including $98.2
million for NEA, plus $7 million in the bill for the Challenge America Arts Fund,
which the NEA administers), $24.9 million for OMS, and $120.5 million for the
NEH ($104.9 million plus $15.6 million in matching grants). The full House
Committee on Appropriations concurred with these amounts. During House
Committee consideration, an amendment by Rep. Dicks to increase the total
appropriation by $25 million for all three agencies was rejected (27- 37). It would
have added $18 million to NEA, $5 million to NEH, and $2 million to OMS, with
an offset through Clean Coal deferral.
During House passage of H.R. 2217, FY2002 Interior appropriations, the House
agreed to an amendment by Rep. Slaughter (221-193) that would add $10 million to
the Challenge America Arts fund administered by NEA, $3 million for NEH and $2
million for the OMS/IMLS with offsets from Interior and the National Forest System.
Subsequently, the House rejected an amendment by Rep. Stearns that would have
reduced funding for the Challenge America Arts fund and NEA by $10 million total
(returning it to level funding (i.e. $98.2 million + $7 million or $105.2 million) and
would have increased Energy Conservation programs in lieu (rejected by 145 ayes
to 264 noes (roll no. 184.)) The House-passed appropriation including the Slaughter
amendment would have provided NEA with a total of $115.2 million ($98.2 million
for NEA + $17 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund); for NEH, $123.5
million; and for OMS/IMLS $26.9 million. (See appropriations table below.)
Table 8. Arts and Humanities Funding FY2001-FY2002
($ in thousands)
Ar t s / F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2002 F Y 2002 F Y 2002
Humani ties Approp. Request House Senat e Approp.
F undi ng P assed P assed
NEA $97,785 $98,234 $98,234 $98,234 $98,234
Challenge 6,9856,98517,00017,00017,000
America Arts Fund
Subtotal NEA104,770105,219115,234115,234115,234
NEH grants and104,373104,882107,882109,882108,382
administration
NEH matching funds15,62115,62215,62215,62216,122
Subtotal NEH119,994120,504123,504125,504124,504
OMS/IM LS 24,852 24,899 26,899 26,899 26,899

The FY2002 appropriations law concurs with the Senate and House totals of
$98.2 million for NEA plus $17 million for the Challenge America Arts Fund that
NEA administers, for a total of $115.2 million. For OMS/IMLS, the law concurs
with the Senate and House bills, providing $26.9 million, $2 million above the
request. For NEH, the FY2002 law provides $124.5 million, $1 million below the
Senate level, but $1 million above the House level.
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://www.neh.gov/].
For further information on the Institute of Museum Services, see its site at
[ http://www.imls.gov/] .
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
Land Acquisition, the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
and the Conservation Spending Category: Cross-cutting
Issue
This section provides an overview of funding that involves multiple agencies
(the Land and Water Conservation Fund, (LWCF)) or multiple programs (the
Conservation Spending Category). LWCF is the primary source of monies to acquire
lands for the four principal land management agencies — the Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest Service.
The presentations about each of these agencies in this report includes a discussion of¹⁶
funding levels for their proposed land acquisition activities.
The LWCF is authorized at $900 million annually through FY2015. However,
each agency’s acquisitions are funded through annual appropriations, which have
averaged nearly half of the authorization since the inception of LWCF in 1964, but
have varied considerably from year to year and among the agencies. Through
FY2001, Congress has appropriated a total of $11.8 billion cumulatively from
LWCF, leaving an unappropriated amount of $12.7 billion. In recent years,
appropriators increased amounts from the Fund for federal land acquisition, rising
from a low of $138 million in FY1996 to $444.17 million in FY2001, then dropping
somewhat to $429 million for FY2002, according to data compiled by the
Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Budget Office. Table 9 below shows LWCF
federal land acquisition appropriations for FY2000-FY2002.

¹⁶ The LWCF also provides funds to states to acquire land and develop recreational
facilities. NPS administers this state grant program.

Table 9. LWCF Funding (Federal Land Acquisition Only):
FY2000 through FY2002
($ in millions)
FY2002FY2002
AgencyFY2000FY2001FY2002 RequestHouseSenateFY2002
PassedPassed
BLM$48$47 ^a$48$48$46$50
FWS $62$121$104$104$108$99
NPS Federal^b$141$125$107$107$123$130
Acquisitions
FS $160$151$131$131$129$150
Total $411$444$390$390$406$429
^Source:^D^a^t^a^com^pⁱ^l^e^{d by}^t^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e In}^t^e^ri^{or Bu}^dg^et^O^f^fⁱ^ce.
^{a. I}ⁿ^its^tab^l^e^oⁿ^coⁿ^s^er^v^a^tioⁿ^sp^en^dⁱⁿ^g^,^th^{e Ho}^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee r}^e^p^o^r^{ts th}^e
^B^L^{M f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e f}^o^{r f}^e^{deral lan}^d^acquⁱ^s^ition^f^o^{r FY2001 as}^{$47.3 m}ⁱ^llioⁿ^,^ex^clu^dⁱⁿ^g
^{$8.8 m}^illion^f^r^om^th^{e FY2001 C}^oⁿ^s^{olidated A}^ppropriation^s^A^c^t.
^{b. T}^h^{e NP}^{S am}^ouⁿ^t^s^{do n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e th}^e^s^t^a^t^e^gr^aⁿ^t^prog^ram^,^f^uⁿ^d^{ed at $41 m}^illionⁱⁿ
^{FY2000 an}^{d $90 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2001. For FY}^2002,^t^h^e^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^p^r^opos^ed
^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{at $450 m}^illion^;^th^{e Hou}^s^{e prov}^{ided $154 m}^illion^,^th^{e Sen}^a^{te prov}^ided
^{$164 m}^illion^,^an^{d th}^{e FY2002 In}^{terior A}^ppropriation^s^A^c^{t con}^t^ain^s^{$144 m}^illion^.
Appropriations have been increasing for several reasons. In the early and mid

1990s, funding had been constrained by efforts to address the federal budget deficit.

More recently, Congress has responded positively to numerous interests seeking
more funds for a wide variety of resource protection activities as this budget
constraint has gradually disappeared. Also, the 106^th Congress considered two
alternative approaches to provide more funding and more certain funding for resource
protection activities, including federal land acquisition. One approach was free-
standing legislation, known as CARA (Conservation and Reinvestment Act) (H.R.
701), that would have fully funded the LWCF for federal (and state) land acquisition
for 15 years. Versions of CARA would have addressed the role of the annual
appropriations process in funding federal acquisitions in different ways. Some
versions would have made LWCF funding mandatory, while other versions would
have continued the current requirement of making LWCF funding subject to annual^th
appropriations. In the 106 Congress, H.R. 701 passed the House and was reported
out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In the 107^th
Congress, the House Resources Committee marked up and ordered reported H.R. 701
on July 25, 2001.
The second approach was in the Clinton Administration’s Lands Legacy
Initiative, which consisted of requests for substantial increases in appropriations to
more than 2 dozen programs, including the Fund. While the 106^th Congress did not
enact CARA, it did provide increased funding for land acquisition as part of separate
titles for the Lands Legacy Initiative in appropriations legislation in both FY2000 and

FY2001. It also provided a framework for funding these programs for each of the
subsequent 5 years, subject to appropriations. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees included these programs in a separate category called the Conservation
Spending Category, in both Interior and Commerce appropriations laws, starting in
FY2001. For FY2002, both chambers provided $1.32 billion for FY2002 in Interior
appropriations, an increase from $1.23 billion in FY2001, but allocated the funds in
somewhat different ways, as shown in Table 12.
In some recent years, Congress appropriated funds from the LWCF for purposes
in addition to land acquisition. This first occurred when Congress provided $72
million for other purposes in the FY1998 appropriations. Funding in FY1999 was
entirely for land acquisition; funding in FY2000 included $15 million for other
purposes; and funding in FY2001 included $456 million for other purposes,
according to the DOI. The amounts listed in Table 9 include these funds for other
purposes. The appropriations for other purposes were primarily applied to other
programs funded as a part of the Lands Legacy Initiative during FY2000 and
FY2001. In FY2000, for example, included were $10 million for the Elwha River
ecosystem restoration and $5 million to address maintenance backlogs; this entire
amount was credited to the NPS. These additional uses of the Fund are important
because it means that funding levels for the LWCF are becoming less synonymous
with funding for land acquisition. (See discussion of Fish and Wildlife Service
appropriations for more detail on many of these proposals for FY2001 and FY2002.)
The Bush Administration proposed to fully fund the LWCF at $900 million in
FY2002. Fund experts at the DOI believe that this is the first time any President has
called for full funding. The request sought to divide funding equally between federal
agencies ($450 million) and the state grant program ($450 million), which may be
used by the states and localities for acquisition and development. The federal portion
for land acquisition ($390 million) would be divided among the agencies as shown
in Table 9.
Only $390 million would be used for federal land acquisition, because the FWS
requested that $60 million of its portion be earmarked for FWS’s incentive grant
program. Of the $60 million, $50 million would provide technical and financial
assistance to landowners as incentives “to help them protect and manage habitat,
while continuing to engage in traditional land use practices.” The remaining $10
million would provide stewardship grants to support individuals and groups engaged
in voluntary land and wildlife conservation efforts. This is the first time that an
administration requested in its budget submission that a portion of the LWCF
funding be used for purposes other than land acquisition; previously, non-acquisition
uses of LWCF originated in Congress or by the Administration after the
appropriations process had started.
For grants to states, the Administration proposed a distribution formula that
makes 35% of the total available equally, and the remainder based 30% on land area
and 70% on population. By contrast, in recent years, the administration’s decisions
for allocating the funds among states has not been fully known, even by the end of
the appropriations process. The proposed allocations would range from more than
$29 million for California to $4.5 million for 4 states. Neither the House nor the
Senate addressed how these funds should be distributed.

The total funding for LWCF in the House bill was $709 million, and in the
Senate bill was $730 million; both are less than the President’s $900 million request.
The House supported the $390 million that the Bush Administration requested for
federal land acquisition, with no changes to the amounts for each agency, while the
Senate bill increased the total by $16 million (to $406 million), primarily for the
National Park Service. However, both chambers reduced the “stateside” grants
request from $450 million (and in addition $60 million for certain FWS activities).
The House reduced the amount to $319 million for “state and other grants,” which
would include $154 million for NPS stateside grants, $100 million for state wildlife
grants, $5 million for competitive grants for Indian Tribes for wildlife programs, and
$60 million to the FWS for activities other than land acquisition, under the proposed
Incentive Grant Program, discussed in the Fish and Wildlife Service section.
The Senate concurred except that it provided an additional $10 million for
stateside grants and did not fund grants for Indian tribes. It also added, as part of an
en bloc Senate amendment, detailed instructions on how state wildlife grants are to
be distributed. In the same amendment, the Senate adopted a “Sense of Congress”
provision which states the intent to provide a “significant portion” of federal
revenues from offshore oil and gas to those states that have supported those activities,
but does not identify any specific program, such as the LWCF, which is funded by
offshore oil and gas revenues.
The FY2002 appropriations law contains a total of $708 million for LWCF,
significantly less than the President’s request and somewhat less than the House and
Senate levels. That figure includes $429 million for federal land acquisition—more
than the President’s request and the House and Senate levels, and $279 million for
state and other grants—less than the President’s request and the House and Senate
levels. The law retains the distribution formula for state wildlife grants that was
included by the Senate, rather than the formula proposed by the House. The law
drops the Senate language expressing the Sense of Congress regarding coastal
impact assistance. (For a complete summary of the Conservation Spending Category,
see Table 12 at the end of this report).
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106^th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 97-792. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10015. Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth:
Issues in the 107^th Congress, by Jeff Zinn.

For Additional Reading
CRS Products
Title I: Department of the Interior.
CRS Issue Brief IB10073. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The Next Chapter,
by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106^th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10072. Endangered Species: Difficult Choices, by Eugene H.
Buck and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 97-851. Federal Indian Law: Background and Current Issues, by M.
Maureen Murphy.
CRS Report 90-192. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report 93-793. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Judicial and Administrative
Interpretations, by M. Maureen Murphy.
CRS Report 97-792. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RL30310. The Mining Law Millsite Debate, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RL30528. National Monuments and the Antiquities Act: President
Clinton’s Designations and Related Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report 98-574. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10015. Protecting Natural Resources and Managing Growth:
Issues in the 107^th Congress, by Jeff Zinn.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.

Land Management Agencies Generally.
CRS Report RS20002. Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30867. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resource Management, by Carol Hardy-Vincent, Betsy A. Cody, M. Lynne
Corn, Ross W. Gorte, Sandra L. Johnson, David Whiteman, and Pamela
Baldwin.
CRS Report RL30335. Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
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.
Title II: Related Agencies.
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report 95-15. Below-Cost Timber Sales: Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS20877. The Clean Coal Technology Program: Current Prospects,
by Carl E. Behrens.
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RS20822. Forest Ecosystem Health: An Overview, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Budget Allocation
Formula, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum. Forest Service Performance
Measures, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.

CRS Report RS20852. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status
and Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
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.
[ h ttp://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
[ h ttp://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide.
[ http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]
Congressional Budget Office.
[ http://www.cbo.gov/]
General Accounting Office.
[ http://www.gao.gov]
House Republican Conference.
[ h ttp://www.gop.gov/committeecentral/docs/pubs/appropriationsroundup/]
Office of Management and Budget.
[ http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/ ]
Title I: Department of the Interior.
Department of the Interior (DOI).
[ http://www.doi.gov/]
Department of the Interior’s Office of the Budget.
[ http://www.doi.gov/budget/]
Department of the Interior’s FY2000 Annual Performance Report/FY2002 Annual
Performance Plan.
[ http://www.doi.gov/gpra/00apr02app.html]
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
[ h ttp://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html]
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index .htm]

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
[ http://www.fws.gov/]
Historic Preservation.
[ http://www2.cr.nps.gov/]
Insular Affairs.
[ http://www.doi.gov/oia/index .html]
Minerals Management Service (MMS).
[ http://www.mms.gov/]
National Park Service (NPS).
[ http://www.nps.gov/]
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.
[ http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
[ http://www.usgs .gov/]
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs.
Departments.
Agriculture, Department of (USDA).
[ http://www.usda.gov/]
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service.
[ http://www.fs.fed.us/]
USDA Strategic Plan.
[ http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/index .htm]
Energy, Department of (DOE).
[ h ttp://www.energy.gov/]
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network.
[ h ttp://www.eren.doe.gov/]
Fossil Energy.
[ h ttp://www.fe.doe.gov/]
Naval Petroleum Reserves.
http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index .shtml

Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
http://fossil.energy.gov/nposr/index .shtml
Health and Human Services, Department of (HHS).
[ http://www.dhhs.gov]
Indian Health Service (IHS).
[ http://www.ihs.gov/]
Related Agencies.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
[ h ttp://www.achp.gov]
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.
[ h ttp://www.iaiancad.org/ ]
Institute of Museum Services.
[ http://www.imls.gov/]
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
[http://Kennedy-Center.org/ ]
National Capital Planning Commission.
[ h ttp://www.ncpc.gov]
National Endowment for the Arts.
[ http://arts.endow.gov/]
National Endowment for the Humanities.
[ http://www.neh.gov/]
National Gallery of Art.
[ http://www.nga.gov/]
Smithsonian.
[ http://www.si.edu/]
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
[http://www.ushmm.org/ ]
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
[http://wwics.si.edu/]

Table 10. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations^a
($ in thousands)
^FY²⁰⁰¹^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰²
^u^{reau or Agency}^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^(P.L^{. 106-291)}^P^a^sse^d^P^a^sse^d
ⁱ^{tle I}^:^Departm^e^{nt of the I}ⁿ^terior
^reau^of^L^aⁿ^d^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^2,^147,182^1,771,538^1,872,⁴²²^1,859,084^1,871,192
^.^S^.^Fⁱ^s^h^an^{d Wi}^l^d^lⁱ^f^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹^,227,010^1,091,265^1,335,516^1,271,265^1,276,424
^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Park^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,135,²¹⁹^2,517,691^2,284,685^2,295,142^2,323,057
^.^S^.^G^e^ol^ogⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^882,800^813,376^900,489^892,474^914,002
ⁿ^e^ral^s^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^139,221^155,473^155,972^158,051^156,772
^fⁱ^{ce of}^Su^rf^{ace Min}ⁱⁿ^g^R^eclam^ation
^{d En}^f^o^rcem^en^t^302,846^268,958^306,729^305,590^306,530
^reau^of^In^di^an^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s²^,^187,613^2,203,553^2,213,⁸⁴⁸^2,230,389^2,222,876
^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^al^O^f^fⁱ^ces^352,519^345,270^341,902^361,688^364,939
^eⁿ^e^ral^Provⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^12,572^—^—^—^—
^o^tal^,^Tⁱ^tl^{e I}⁹^,386,982^9,^167,124^9,411,563^9,373,683^9,435,792
ⁱ^{tle I}^I^:^{Related Agencies}
^.^S^.^F^o^res^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e⁴^,435,³⁹¹^3,732,125^3,914,063^3,815,574^4,130,416
^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^En^erg^y^1,453,⁶⁴⁴^1,502,680^1,796,680^1,739,070^1,766,470
^l^ean^C^o^{al T}^echⁿ^o^log^y^:
^e^f^e^rral^-^67,000^—^—^—^-^40,000
^o^s^sⁱ^l^En^erg^y^R^&^D^432,464^449,000^579,000^570,390^582,790
ⁱ^{c P}^e^troleu^m^A^ccouⁿ^t
^t^r^an^s^f^er)⁽^12,000)^—^—^—^—
^l^ean^C^o^al^T^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^(by^t^r^an^s^f^er)⁽^95,000)^—^—^(33,700)^(33,700)
^lterⁿ^ativ^{e Fu}^{els P}^r^o^d^u^ctioⁿ
^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on⁾^-^1,000^-²^,000^—^-^2,000^-²^,000
^a^{l P}^e^tr^o^l^eu^m^an^d^{Oil Sh}^ale
^e^s^e^rv^es^1,596^17,371^17,371^17,371^17,371
^{Hills Sch}^o^o^l^L^aⁿ^d^{s Fu}ⁿ^d^—³⁶^,⁰⁰⁰^—³⁶^,⁰⁰⁰^—
^d^v^aⁿ^{ce A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, F}^Y²⁰⁰²^36,000^—^—^—^—
^d^v^aⁿ^{ce A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, F}^Y²⁰⁰³^—^—^—^36,000^36,000
^t^r^an^s^f^er)^—^—⁽^36,000)^—^—
^erg^y^C^oⁿ^s^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^813,442^755,805^940,805^870,805^912,805
^as^s^En^erg^y^Dev^e^lopm^en^t
^t^r^an^s^f^er)⁽^2,000)^—^—^—^—
^omⁱ^c^R^e^g^u^l^atⁱ^oⁿ¹^,996^1,996^1,996^1,996^1,996
^t^rat^e^gⁱ^{c Pet}^r^ol^eu^m^R^e^s^e^rv^{e (S}^PR⁾^160,637^169,009^179,009^169,009^179,009
^t^r^an^s^f^er)⁽^4,000)^—^—^—^—
^erg^y^In^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^75,509^75,499^78,499^75,499^78,499

^FY²⁰⁰¹^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰²
^u^{reau or Agency}^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Ena^c^t^e^d
^(P.L^{. 106-291)}^P^a^sse^d^P^a^sse^d
^di^an^H^eal^t^h^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,628,⁷⁶⁶^2,706,809^2,759,809^2,751,468^2,759,101
^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^N^a^v^a^j^o^an^{d H}^opi^In^di^an
^e^l^o^catⁱ^oⁿ^14,967^15,148^15,148^15,148^15,148
^stitu^{te o}^f^A^m^er^ican^Iⁿ^dⁱ^an^an^d^A^l^ask^a
^a^tⁱ^v^{e C}^u^l^t^u^{re an}^{d A}^r^t^s^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t⁴^,116^4,490^4,490^4,490^4,490
^ith^s^oⁿⁱ^an^In^s^titu^tion^453,854^494,100^494,100^494,092^497,153
^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^a^l^l^e^ry^of^A^r^t^75,485^80,449^83,187^83,187^83,187
^{hn F.}^K^e^nne^d^y^Ce^nt^e^r^fo^r^t^h^e
^ormⁱⁿ^g^A^r^t^s^33,925^34,000^34,000^34,000^34,000
^Wi^l^s^on^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^eⁿ^t^er
^{r S}^c^h^o^l^a^rs^12,283^7,796^7,796^7,796^7,796
^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^En^dow^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r t}^h^{e A}^r^t^s^97,785^98,234^98,234^98,234^98,234
^a^{l En}^dow^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r th}^{e Hu}^m^aⁿ^ities^119,994^120,504^123,504^125,504^124,504
^stitu^{te o}^f^Mu^seu^m^an^d^Lⁱ^b^r^ar^y
^e^rvⁱ^ces^24,852^24,899^26,899^26,899^26,899
^h^al^l^eⁿ^g^e^A^m^eri^{ca A}^r^t^s^F^uⁿ^d^6,985^6,985^17,000^17,000^17,000
^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^Fⁱⁿ^e^A^r^t^s^1,076^1,274^1,274^1,174^1,224
ⁿ^a^{l Cap}^{ital A}^r^{ts an}^d^Cu^ltu^r^a^l
^f^f^aⁱ^r^s⁶^,985^7,000^7,000^7,000^7,000
^d^vi^so^r^y^Co^uncⁱ^l^oⁿ^Hⁱ^st^o^rⁱ^c
^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ³^,182^3,310^3,400^3,310^3,400
^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^a^pi^t^a^l^Pl^anⁿⁱⁿ^g^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^6,486^7,253^7,253^7,253^7,253
^o^l^o^cau^s^t^Mem^o^ri^al^C^o^uⁿ^cⁱ^l^34,363^36,028^36,028^36,028^36,028
ⁱ^dⁱ^o^T^r^u^s^t^33,327^22,427^22,427^23,125^23,125
^o^tal^,^Tⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^:^R^e^l^a^ted^A^g^en^ci^es^9,447,466^8,905,511^9,452,292^9,290,352^9,642,428
ⁱ^{tle VI}^I^:^{United M}ⁱ^{ne Work}^ers^{of Am}^{erica Com}^b^{ined B}^e^{nefit Fund}
^ited^Min^e^W^o^r^k^er^{s o}^f^A^m^er^ica
^o^m^bⁱⁿ^{ed Ben}^e^fⁱ^t^s^F^uⁿ^d^57,872^—^—^—^—
^r^{and T}^o^{tal (Am}^o^unts^{in B}^ill)^18,892,320^18,072,635^18,863,855^18,664,035^19,078,220
^Ho^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittee.
^u^r^esⁱⁿ^{data colu}^mⁿ^on^{e ref}^l^{ect FY2001}^a^p^p^r^opriation^s^{to da}^{te. T}^h^eyⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e appropriation}^sⁱⁿ^v^a^riou^s^titles^of^P^.^L^.^106-^{291, t}^h^e
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e In}^t^e^ri^{or an}^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2001. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^dat^a^col^u^mⁿ^t^w^o^ref^l^ect^t^h^e^t^o^t^a^l^bu^dg^et
^requ^es^t^s^by^t^h^{e Bu}^s^h^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2002. F}ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^dat^a^col^u^mⁿ^s^t^h^{ree an}^{d f}^o^u^r^ref^l^ect^F^Y^{2002 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^l^e^v^e^l^s^approv^ed
^by^th^e^Hou^s^e^an^d^Sen^a^{te res}^p^ectiv^ely^.^Fig^u^r^esⁱⁿ^{data colu}^mⁿ^fⁱ^v^e^{are th}^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed in}^th^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report. T}^h^es^{e f}ⁱ^gur^e^s
^{do n}^o^{t ref}^l^{ect s}^c^orek^eepin^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^f^o^{r eith}^{er y}^{ear, w}^h^ich^{are lis}^{ted in}^Ta^ble¹¹^.

Table 11. Congressional Budget Recap
($ in thousands)
^FY^{2001 E}ⁿ^acted^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰²^Hou^s^e^FY²⁰⁰²^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰²
^(P.L^{. 106-291)}^Estⁱ^m^a^t^e^s^P^a^sse^d^P^a^sse^d^Ena^c^t^e^d
^{eeping adjus}^t^m^e^nts
^l^ean^coal^(adv^an^{ce appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ⁾^171,000^82,000^82,000^82,000^82,000
^Hills^Sch^ool^(adv^an^ce^{appropriation}^,^FY2001)^36,000^—^—^36,000^—
^Hills^Sch^{ool (adv}^an^{ce appropr}^iation^,^FY2002)^-^36,000^36,000^36,000^-^36,000^36,000
^Hills^Sch^{ool (adv}^an^{ce appropriation}^,^FY2003)^—^—^—^-^36,000^-^36,000
^{KE lan}^d^tran^s^f^er^—^—^—^—^—
^t^ew^ards^hⁱ^{p con}^t^ractⁱⁿ^g^—^—^—^1,000^1,000
^o^{ise L}^a^b^o^r^ato^r^y^Rep^l^acem^{ent A}^c^{t (}^s^ec.^xxx)^-¹^,⁰⁰⁰^—^—^—^—
^t^eⁿ^sⁱ^oⁿ^of^S^E^R^C^D^{P (s}^{ec. 336)}^1,000^—^—^—^—
^N^IL^C^A^(s^{ec. 130)}^1,000^—^—^—^—
^M^{B adj}^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r .22%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board cu}^t^-³⁴⁸^—^—^—^—
^V^A^tran^s^f^{er au}^th^ority^(FOP^{S bill, P}^.^L^.^106-⁴²⁹⁾^4,000^—^—^—^—
^Polⁱ^{ce ret}ⁱ^r^em^en^t^—^—^22,000^22,000^22,000
^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^g^eⁿ^t^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^sⁱⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^bi^l^l^—^—^—^-^235,000^—
^o^tal^,^ad^ju^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^175,652^118,000^140,000^-130,000^105,000
⁽ⁱⁿ^c^l^u^dⁱⁿ^g^ad^ju^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s⁾^19,067,972^18,190,635^19,003,⁸⁵⁵^18,534,035^19,183,220
^m^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^bi^l^l^(18,^892,320)^(18,072,635)^18,863,⁸⁵⁵^18,664,035^(19,078,220)
^c^orek^eepiⁿ^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s⁽^175,652)^(118,000)^(140,000)^(-^130,000)^(105,000)
^aⁿ^d^a^{tory an}^d^dⁱ^s^cretion^a^ry^19,067,972^18,190,635^19,003,855^18,534,035^19,183,220
^d^at^ory⁽^62,125)^(63,220)^(63,220)^(63,220)^(63,220)
ⁱ^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^(19,005,847)⁽^18,127,415)^18,940,635^18,^470,815^(19,120,000)
^Ho^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittee.

Table 12. Conservation Spending Category: Interior Appropriations^a
($ in millions)
^FY²⁰⁰²
^Subca^t^eg^o^r^y^/^Appro^p^ria^t^io^ns^FY²⁰⁰¹^b
^Account^Ena^c^t^e^d^P^{res. Request}^H^o^{use P}^a^sse^d^S^{enate Pas}^s^e^d^E^nacted
^{Federal, State and Other L}^W^{CF Program}^s
^B^L^{M Fed}^e^r^a^{l L}^aⁿ^d^A^c^q^u^isitioⁿ⁴⁷^.³⁴⁷^.⁷⁴⁷^.⁷⁴⁵^.⁷⁴⁹^.⁹
^FW^{S Federal L}^aⁿ^d^A^c^qu^is^ition^121.2^104.4^104.4^108.4^99.1
^NP^{S Federal L}^aⁿ^d^A^c^qu^is^ition^124.8^107.0^107.0^123.0^130.1
^{FS Federal L}^aⁿ^d^A^c^qu^is^ition^150.9^130.9^130.9^128.9^149.7
^Subt^o^t^a^l^{, Federal L}^aⁿ^d^444.2^390.0^390.0^406.0^428.9
^A^c^q^u^isitioⁿ
^N^P^S^S^t^at^esⁱ^d^{e G}^r^an^t^s^(an^d^A^d^mⁱⁿ⁾^90.3^450.0^154.0^164.0^144.0
^FW^{S State W}^ildlif^{e Gran}^ts^c^49.9^-^-^100.0^100.0^85.0
^Co^m^p^etitiv^{e Gr}^an^{ts f}^o^r^Iⁿ^dⁱ^an^--^--⁵^.⁰^-^-^-^-
^Trⁱ^b^e^s
^F^W^S^In^cen^tⁱ^v^{e G}^r^an^t^Prog^ram^s^-^-^60.0^60.0^60.0^50.0
^Subt^o^t^a^l^{, State an}^{d Oth}^e^{r Gran}^t^140.2^450.0^319.0^324.0^279.0
^Pr^og^r^a^m^s
^T^o^tal^L^W^C^F^584.4^900.0^709.0^730.0^707.9
^S^t^{ate an}^d^Oth^{er C}^oⁿ^s^ervati^oⁿ^Program^s
^F^W^S^C^ooperatⁱ^v^{e En}^dan^g^e^red^104.7^54.7^107.0^91.0^96.2
^Species^C^oⁿ^s^erv^a^tion
^FW^{S North}^A^m^erican^W^e^tlan^d^39.9^14.9^45.0^42.0^43.5
^Co^nse^r^va^tⁱ^oⁿ
^F^W^S^N^e^ot^ropi^cal^Mi^g^r^at^ory^Bi^rds^-^-^-^-⁵^.0^-^-^-^-
^U^S^G^S^S^t^at^{e Pl}^anⁿⁱⁿ^g^Partⁿ^e^rs^hⁱ^ps^24.9^-^-^25.0^25.0^25.0
^F^S^,^F^o^res^t^L^e^g^acy^59.9^30.1^60.0^65.0^65.0
^{FS, Stew}^ards^hⁱ^{p In}^cen^tiv^es^P^r^og^ram^-^-^-^-⁸^.0^-^-^-^-
^FS,^N^{FS P}^l^aⁿⁿⁱ^ng,^I^nve^nt^o^r^y^,^20.0^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
^Moⁿ^ito^rⁱⁿ^g
^Subt^o^t^a^l^249.4^99.7^250.0^223.0^229.7
^U^r^b^aⁿ^an^d^Hi^s^t^ori^c^Pres^ervati^oⁿ^Program^s
^N^P^S^Hⁱ^s^t^ori^c^Pres^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^F^uⁿ^d^94.1^67.1^77.0^74.0^74.5
^NP^{S Urban}^P^a^rk^s^an^{d R}^ecreation^29.9^-^-^30.0^20.0^30.0
^R^ecov^e^ry^Gran^ts
^F^S^U^r^ban^an^{d C}^o^m^m^uⁿⁱ^t^y^F^o^res^t^ry^35.6^31.8^36.0^36.0^36.0

^FY²⁰⁰²
^Subca^t^eg^o^r^y^/^Appro^p^ria^t^io^ns^FY²⁰⁰¹^b
^Account^Ena^c^t^e^d^P^{res. Request}^H^o^{use P}^a^sse^d^S^{enate Pas}^s^e^d^E^nacted
^B^L^M^Y^o^ut^{h Co}^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n Co}^r^p^s^[¹^.⁰^]¹^.⁰¹^.⁰¹^.⁰¹^.⁰
^FW^{S Y}^o^ut^{h Co}^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n Co}^r^p^s^[¹^.⁰^]²^.⁰²^.⁰²^.⁰²^.⁰
^N^P^{S Y}^o^ut^{h Co}^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n Co}^r^p^s^[²^.⁰^]²^.⁰²^.⁰²^.⁰²^.⁰
^{FS Y}^o^ut^{h Co}^nse^r^va^tⁱ^o^{n Co}^r^p^s^[²^.⁰^]²^.⁰²^.⁰²^.⁰²^.⁰
^Subt^o^t^a^l^165.7^105.9^150.0^137.0^147.5
^Pay^m^en^t^sⁱⁿ^Lⁱ^eu^of^T^a^x^e^s^,^BL^M^49.9^-^-^50.0^50.0^50.0
^Natioⁿ^a^{l W}^ild^lif^{e Ref}^u^g^e^Fuⁿ^d^,^--^--⁵^.⁰^-^-^-^-
^FW^S
^Subt^o^t^a^l^49.9^-^-^55.0^50.0^50.0
^Fed^eral^Iⁿ^fras^tru^c^tu^{re I}^m^p^r^ovem^eⁿ^t^Program^s
^B^L^M^{- M}^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^o^f^La^nd^{s &}^24.9^25.0^28.0^28.0^28.0
^R^e^s^o^u^r^ces
^F^W^S^-^R^e^s^o^u^r^{ce Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^24.9^25.0^28.0^31.0^29.0
^N^P^S^-^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^49.9^50.0^50.0^60.0^66.9
^{FS -}^Cap^{ital I}^m^p^r^o^v^em^en^{t an}^d^49.9^50.5^50.0^61.0^61.0
^Main^ten^aⁿ^c^e
^Subt^o^t^a^l^149.7^150.5^156.0^180.0^184.9
^FS^T^o^tal^318.2^245.3^286.9^294.9^313.7
^D^O^I^T^o^tal^880.8¹^,010.8¹^,033.1¹^,025.1¹^,006.3
^B^{ill T}^o^tal¹^,199.1¹^,255.7¹^,320.0¹^,320.0¹^,320.0
^e^B^a^la^nc^e^d^B^udg^e^t^a^{nd Em}^e^r^g^e^nc^y^D^e^fⁱ^c^{it C}^ontr^o^{l A}^c^t^of¹⁹⁸⁵⁽²^U^.^S.C^.⁹⁰¹⁽^c⁾⁾^a^s^a^m^e^nde^{d e}^s^ta^blis^he^{d 3 dis}^c^r^e^tiona^r^y^s^p^e^ndiⁿ^g^cat^ego^rⁱ^e^{s f}^o^r
^FY^{2002: G}^e^ne^ra^{l P}^u^rpos^e^,^Hⁱ^g^h^w^a^y^,^aⁿ^d^M^a^s^s^T^r^aⁿ^s^{it. T}^itle^V^{III of}^P^.^L^.^{106-291, the}^D^e^pa^rtm^e^{nt of}^the^Inte^{rior a}^{nd Re}^la^te^{d A}^g^e^nc^ie^s
^A^ppr^opr^ia^tions^A^c^{t f}^o^r^FY^{2001, e}^s^ta^blis^he^{d a}^f^our^{th c}^a^t^e^g^or^y^of^dis^c^r^e^tiona^r^y^s^p^e^nding^{– f}^o^r^“^c^ons^e^r^v^a^tion.”^T^h^a^t^la^w^a^l^s^o^ide^ntif^ie^{d the}^spe^cⁱ^fⁱ^c
^a^c^tiv^itie^{s tha}^t^wo^u^l^d^b^e^inc^l^ude^{d w}^{ithin the}^“^c^onse^r^v^a^{tion spe}^ndi^ng^c^a^t^e^g^ory^.^”^T^h^e^c^a^t^e^g^ory^e^sse^ntia^lly^inc^l^ude^{s those}^a^c^tiv^it^ie^{s, ide}ⁿ^tif^ie^{d by}
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^{in pa}^r^tic^ula^r^budg^e^t^a^c^c^ounts⁽^o^r^por^tions^the^r^e^o^f⁾^pr^ov^iding^a^ppr^opr^ia^tions^{to pr}^e^s^e^r^v^e^a^{nd pr}^ote^c^t^la^nds^{, ha}^bita^{t, w}^ildlif^e^,^a^{nd othe}^r
^na^tura^{l re}^s^ourc^e^s^{; to prov}^ide^re^c^r^e^a^tiona^{l opportunitie}^s^;^a^nd^f^o^r^othe^r^purpos^e^s^.^T^h^is^ta^ble^pre^s^eⁿ^ts^the^c^u^rre^{nt a}^{nd propos}^e^d^dis^t^rⁱ^{bution of}^the^s^e
^c^ons^e^r^v^a^{tion f}^unds^{. D}^a^s^h^e^s^indic^a^t^e^tha^t^the^f^unding^is^unde^r^s^{tood to be}^z^e^r^o.
^c^l^ude^s^{$8.8 m}^{illion of}^Bure^a^u^of^L^a^{nd Ma}^na^g^e^m^e^{nt (BL}^M^{) la}^nd^a^c^quis^{ition f}^unds^f^r^om²⁰⁰¹^c^ons^olida^t^e^d^a^ppropria^tions^A^c^{t; D}^e^p^a^r^tm^eⁿ^{t of}^Inte^rior
⁽^D^O^I⁾^s^c^or^e^s^G^e^olog^ic^a^l^Sur^v^e^y^f^unds^{in this}^c^a^t^e^g^or^y^{$10M hig}^h^e^r^thaⁿ^doe^s^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^Ma^na^g^e^m^e^{nt a}^{nd B}^udg^e^t⁽^O^MB⁾^.^O^M^B^inc^l^ude^s^Y^outh
^C^ons^e^r^v^a^{tion f}^unds^{in 2001 tota}^ls^.
^a^dditiona^{l $50 m}^{illion w}^a^s^a^ppropria^te^d^f^o^r^f^o^rm^ula^g^r^aⁿ^ts^th^roug^{h T}^itle^IX^of^the^FY^{2001 Com}^m^e^rc^e^A^ppropria^tions^.^Se^e^T^a^b^le^{3 f}^o^{r m}^o^re^de^ta^il
^{on f}^unding^s^our^c^e^s^f^o^r^Fis^h^a^{nd W}^ildlif^e^Se^r^v^ic^e^pr^og^r^a^m^s^.

Table 13. Historical Appropriations Data from FY1997 to FY2002
($ in thousands)
^eⁿ^c^y^o^r^B^u^r^e^a^u^F^Y¹⁹⁹⁷^FY¹⁹⁹⁸^FY¹⁹⁹⁹^FY²⁰⁰⁰^FY²⁰⁰¹^FY²⁰⁰²
^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^{of th}^{e In}^teri^or
^r^e^a^u^of^L^a^{nd Ma}^na^g^e^m^e^nt^1,195,648^1,137,852^1,183,895^1,231,⁴⁰²^2,147,182^1,871,192
^h^a^{nd W}^ildlif^e^Se^r^v^ic^e^670,596^745,387^839,804^875,⁰⁹³^1,227,010^1,276,424
^tiona^{l P}^a^r^k^Se^r^v^ic^e¹^,435,858^1,^646,926^1,764,224^1,803,⁸⁴⁷^2,135,219^2,323,057
^e^olog^ic^a^l^Sur^v^e^y^740,051^759,160^798,896^813,376^882,800^914,002
^r^a^ls^Ma^na^g^e^m^e^{nt Se}^r^v^ic^e^163,395^143,639^124,020^116,318^139,221^156,772
ⁱ^{ce o}^f^S^u^rf^{ace M}ⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g^Recl^.^an^d^Eⁿ^f^o^rce.^271,757^273,061^278,769^291,733^302,846^306,530
^r^e^a^u^of^I^ndiaⁿ^A^f^f^a^ir^s¹^,618,²⁷⁴^1,701,991^1,746,428^1,^869,052^2,187,613^2,222,876
^a^rt^m^eⁿ^t^al^Of^fⁱ^ces^a^240,020^241,195^394,199^319,869^352,519^364,939
^r^a^{l P}^r^ov^is^ions^—^—^—^—^12,572^—
^t^a^{l f}^o^r^D^e^p^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^6,335,599^6,^649,211^7,130,235^7,320,⁶⁹⁰^9,386,982^9,435,792
^a^ted^Ag^en^ci^es
^e^s^t^Se^r^v^ic^e²^,919,564^2,^506,568^2,757,464^2,819,⁹³³^4,435,391^4,130,416
^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^Ene^r^g^y^992,097^1,^048,151^1,316,878^1,226,³⁹³^1,453,644^1,766,470
ⁿ^H^e^a^{lth Se}^r^v^ic^e²^,054,000^2,098,612^2,242,287^2,390,⁷²⁸^2,628,766^2,759,101
ⁿ^Educ^a^tion^b^61,000^—^—^—^—^—
ⁱ^c^e^of^N^a^v^a^{jo a}^{nd H}^{opi I}^ndiaⁿ^R^e^loc^a^tion^19,345^15,000^13,000^8,000^14,967^15,148
^t^{. of}^A^m^e^r^{. I}^ndiaⁿ^a^{nd A}^l^a^s^k^a^C^u^ltur^e^&^A^r^ts^D^e^v^.^5,500^4,250^4,250^2,125^4,116^4,490
^iths^oniaⁿ^Ins^titution^371,342^402,258^412,254^438,130^453,854^497,153
^tiona^{l G}^a^lle^r^y^of^A^r^t^60,223^62,029^64,350^67,590^75,485^83,187
^C^e^nte^r^f^o^r^the^P^e^r^f^or^mⁱ^ng^A^r^ts^24,875^20,375^32,187^33,871^33,925^34,000
^ow^W^ils^{on I}ⁿ^te^rⁿ^a^tiona^{l C}^e^nte^r^f^o^r^Sc^hola^r^s⁵^,840^5,840^5,840^6,763^12,283^7,796
^tiona^{l Endow}^m^e^{nt f}^o^r^the^A^r^ts^99,494^98,000^98,000^97,628^97,785^98,234
^tiona^{l Endow}^m^e^{nt f}^o^{r the}^H^u^m^a^nitie^s^110,000^110,700^110,700^115,260^119,994^124,504
^of^Muse^um^a^{nd L}ⁱ^bra^r^y^Se^rv^ic^e^s^22,000^23,280^23,405^24,307^24,852^26,899
^al^l^eⁿ^g^{e A}^m^eri^{ca A}^r^t^s^F^uⁿ^d^—^—^—^—^6,985^17,000
^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^{on of}^Fine^A^r^ts⁸⁶⁷⁹⁰⁷⁸⁹⁸^1,021^1,076^1,224
^tiona^{l C}^a^pita^{l A}^r^ts^a^{nd C}^u^ltur^a^{l A}^f^f^a^ir^s⁶^,000^7,000^7,000^6,973^6,985^7,000
^vⁱ^s^o^r^y^C^ounc^{il on H}ⁱ^s^t^or^ic^P^r^e^s^e^r^v^a^tion²^,500^2,745^2,800^2,989^3,182^3,400
^tiona^{l C}^a^{pitol [}^P^la^nning^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on]^5,390^5,740^6,335^6,288^6,486^7,253
^R^M^e^mo^rⁱ^a^l^C^o^mmi^s^sⁱ^oⁿ⁵⁰⁰^—^—^—^—^—
^loc^a^u^s^t^Me^m^o^rⁱ^a^l^C^ounc^il^31,707^31,707^35,007^33,161^34,363^36,028
^s^{idio T}^r^us^t^—^—^34,913^44,300^33,327^23,125
^t^a^{l f}^o^r^R^e^la^t^e^d^A^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^6,792,244^6,443,162^7,167,568^7,325,⁴⁶⁰^9,447,466^9,642,428
^d^Total^{for Al}^l^Ag^en^ci^es^c^13,127,843^13,791,373^14,297,803^14,911,650^18,892,320^19,078,220
^gⁱ^nning^{in FY}^{1996, a}^ppr^opr^ia^tions^f^o^r^the^te^r^r^itorⁱ^e^s^a^{nd othe}^r^ins^u^la^r^a^r^e^a^s^w^e^r^e^c^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^w^{ithin the}^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^nta^l^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^s^a^c^c^{ount. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^nta^l
^Of^fⁱ^{ces al}^soⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^e^{s In}^su^l^a^{r A}^f^f^aⁱ^r^{s an}^d^Of^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^t^h^{e S}^p^eci^al^T^r^u^s^t^{ee f}^o^{r A}^m^eri^can^In^dⁱ^an^s.
^gⁱ^nning^{in FY}^{1998, I}^ndiaⁿ^Educ^a^{tion w}^a^s^f^unde^{d in the}^L^a^bor^{, H}^e^a^{lth a}^{nd H}^u^m^a^{n Se}^r^v^ic^e^s^{, a}^{nd Educ}^a^{tion A}^ppr^opr^ia^tions^.
^{1997 tota}^ls^{$13,514,435 w}^{ith f}^unding^of^$386,592^inc^l^ude^{d in the}^Em^e^r^g^e^nc^y^Supple^m^eⁿ^ta^{l A}^ppropria^tions^{bill (P}^.L^{. 105-18). FY}^{2000 inc}^l^ude^s
^{$68,000 m}^{illion f}^o^{r the}^Uⁿ^ite^{d Mine}^W^o^rk^e^r^s^a^{nd $197,500 m}^{illion f}^o^r^priority^la^{nd a}^c^quis^itions^a^{nd e}^x^c^h^aⁿ^g^e^s^.^FY^{2001 inc}^l^ude^s^{$57,872 m}^illion
^f^o^{r the}^Unite^{d Mine}^W^o^rk^e^r^s.