Appropriations for FY2005: Interior and Related Agencies

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2005:
Interior and Related Agencies
Updated March 9, 2005
Carol Hardy Vincent, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Susan Boren, Co-coordinator
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and
supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also
encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit
legislation, other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the
operation of programs and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to
constraints established in authorizing statutes. Congressional action on the budget
for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission of the President’s budget at
the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing the consideration
of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the Constitution, the
standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress
considers each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the
House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior and Related Agencies.
It summarizes the status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS
staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropr i a t i o ns / a pppa g e . s ht m l ] .

Appropriations for FY2005:
Interior and Related Agencies
Summary
The Interior and related agencies appropriations bill includes funds for the
Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for
some agencies or programs within three other departments — Agriculture, Energy,
and Health and Human Services. It also funds numerous related agencies. H.R.
4568, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY2005, was passed
by the House (334-86) on June 17, 2004. The bill contained $20.03 billion. The
Senate companion bill, S. 2804, was reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations (S.Rept. 108-341) on September 14, 2004 and would have provided
$20.26 billion. Both the House passed and Senate committee-reported bills reflected
an increase over the President’s FY2005 request ($19.69 billion), but a decrease from
the FY2004 enacted level ($20.51 billion). Both FY2005 bills included $500 million
for emergency firefighting for FY2005, with emergency funds available if certain
conditions are met.
FY2005 appropriations for Interior and related agencies ultimately were
included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447;
December 8, 2004). The law contains a total of $20.09 billion for Interior and related
agencies, including $493.1 million for emergency firefighting if certain conditions
are met. These figures reflect two across-the-board rescissions in the law, of 0.594%
and 0.80%. The FY2005 total is a decrease of $424.6 million (2%) from the FY2004
level, but an increase of $403.3 million (2%) over the FY2005 request. Also, the
FY2005 total is more than ($59.4 million, 0.3%) the House passed level, but less than
($167.3 million, 0.8%) the amount reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations. Prior to enactment of P.L. 108-447, a series of continuing
resolutions were enacted to provide temporary funding for FY2005 for Interior and
related agencies.
The House, Senate, and conference committee debated many controversial
policy issues during consideration of FY2005 funding. They included the appropriate
funding level for wildland fire fighting, land acquisition, and the arts; agency
competitive sourcing activities; agency maintenance backlogs; Indian trust fund
management; Outer Continental Shelf leasing; filling the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR); alteration of the Abandoned Mine Lands fund; snowmobiling in
Yellowstone National Park; management of wild horses and burros on federal lands;
categorical exclusions for grazing on Forest Service lands; and Missouri River
management. Other contentious provisions related to lands and resources in Alaska,
such as development of roads in the Tongass National Forest (AK); challenges to
logging projects in Alaska; and an exchange of lands in the Yukon Flats National
Wildlife Refuge (AK). Some of the controversial provisions (both general and
Alaska related) were not enacted into law.

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

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
In troduction ......................................................1
FY2004 Budget and Appropriations...................................2
FY2005 Budget and Appropriations...................................2
Current Overview..............................................2
Earlier Action on Appropriations..................................3
Major Issues..................................................4
Status of Bill.................................................7
Major Funding Trends..........................................7
Title I: Department of the Interior.....................................7
Bureau of Land Management.....................................7
Management of Lands and Resources..........................8
Wildland Fire Management..................................8
Construction ..............................................9
Land Acquisition..........................................9
Oregon and California Grant Lands...........................10
Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................11
Endangered Species Funding................................11
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement..........12
Land Acquisition.........................................12
Yukon Flats Land Exchange................................13
Wildlife Refuge Fund.....................................14
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF)...............14
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.............................15
Non-native Migratory Birds.................................16
National Park Service.........................................16
Operation of the National Park System........................17
United States Park Police (USPP)............................18
National Recreation and Preservation.........................18
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR).................19
Construction and Maintenance..............................19
Land Acquisition and State Assistance........................20
Recreation Fee Program....................................21
Historic Preservation......................................21
U.S. Geological Survey........................................23
Enterprise Information.....................................24
National Mapping Program.................................24
Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes...................25
Water Resources Investigations..............................25
Biological Research.......................................25
Science Support and Facilities...............................26
Minerals Management Service...................................27
Budget and Appropriations.................................27
Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore...............................28

Bureau of Indian Affairs.......................................31
BIA Reorganization.......................................32
BIA School System.......................................33
Departmental Offices..........................................35
Insular Affairs...........................................35
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT)....................36
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians.................36
National Indian Gaming Commission.........................39
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs..............................40
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service.........................40
Legislative Provisions.....................................40
Forest Fires and Forest Health...............................41
State and Private Forestry..................................45
Infrastructure ............................................46
Land Acquisition.........................................47
Other Accounts..........................................47
Department of Energy.........................................48
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration........48
Strategic Petroleum Reserve................................49
Naval Petroleum Reserves..................................50
Energy Conservation......................................51
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ......54
Health Services..........................................55
Facilities ................................................56
Diabetes ................................................56
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.......................58
Smithsonian Institution........................................59
FY2005 Budget..........................................59
FY2005 House-Passed Appropriations........................59
FY2005 Senate Committee-Reported Appropriations.............59
FY2005 Enacted Appropriations.............................60
Facilities Capital.........................................60
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI)..............60
Smithsonian Institution Center for Materials Research and
Education (SCMRE)..................................60
National Museum of African American History and Culture.......61
National Zoo............................................61
Trust Funds.............................................61
National Endowment for the Arts
and National Endowment for the Humanities...................62
NEA ...................................................63
NEH ...................................................63
Office of Museum Services.................................64
Cross-Cutting Topics..............................................65
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) ...................65
FY2005 Appropriations....................................66
Conservation Spending Category.................................68
Everglades Restoration........................................69
Overview of Appropriations................................70

Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation........................72
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs.........................73
Missouri River Management....................................74
For Additional Reading............................................79
Title I: Department of the Interior................................79
Land Management Agencies Generally............................80
Title II: Related Agencies......................................80
Selected Websites................................................81
Title I: Department of the Interior................................82
Title II: Related Agencies......................................82
Departments .............................................82
Agencies ................................................83
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2005........................................7
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2001 to FY2005...7
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2004-FY2005.....................10
Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2004-FY2005
...........................................................12
Table 5. Funding for FWS Land Acquisition Program, FY2004-FY2005.....14
Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund and Migratory
Bird Fund, FY2004-FY2005....................................15
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, FY2004-FY2005
...........................................................15
Table 8. Appropriations for NPS, FY2004-FY2005......................18
Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund, FY2004-FY2005
...........................................................23
Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey, FY2004-FY2005..27
Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FY2004-FY2005..32
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians, FY2004-FY2005......................................37
Table 13. National Fire Plan Funding, FY2001-FY2005..................43
Table 14. FS State & Private Forestry Funding, FY2004-FY2005...........46
Table 15. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2004-FY2005...53
Table 16. Appropriations for IHS, FY2004-FY2005 .....................57
Table 17. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2004-FY2005........62
Table 18. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2004-FY2005................65
Table 19. Appropriations from the LWCF, FY2002-FY2005..............66
Table 20. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2004-FY2005 .............................................71
Table 21. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004-FY2005 .............................................75
Table 22. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2001 to FY2005.........77

Appropriations for FY2005:
Interior and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, became the
vehicle for appropriations for Interior and related agencies. The measure was enacted
into law on December 8, 2004 (P.L. 108-447). The law contains a total of $20.09
billion for Interior and related agencies, including two across-the-board rescissions
in the law.
Introduction
The annual Interior and related agencies appropriations bill includes funding for
agencies and programs in four separate federal departments, as well as numerous
related agencies and bureaus. The bill includes funding for the Department of the
Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation (funded in Energy and Water
Development Appropriations laws), and for some agencies or programs in three other
departments — Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services. Title I of the
bill includes agencies within the Department of the Interior which manage land and
other natural resource or regulatory programs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
insular areas. Title II of the bill includes the Forest Service of the Department of
Agriculture; several activities within the Department of Energy, including research
and development programs, the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, and the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and the Indian Health Service in the Department of
Health and Human Services. In addition, Title II includes a variety of related
agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, the
National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Holocaust Memorial Council.
In this report, appropriations levels enacted for FY2005 reflect two across-the-
board rescissions contained in P.L. 108-447. In general, the term appropriations
represents total funds available, including regular annual and supplemental
appropriations, as well as rescissions, transfers, and deferrals, but excludes
permanent budget authorities. Increases and decreases generally are calculated on
comparisons between the funding levels appropriated for FY2004, requested by the
President for FY2005, and recommended and appropriated by Congress for FY2005.
The House Committee on Appropriations is the primary source of the funding figures
used throughout the report. Other sources of information include the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, agency budget justifications, and the Congressional
Record. In the tables throughout this report, some columns of funding figures do not
add to the precise totals provided due to rounding. Finally, some of the DOI websites
provided throughout the report and listed at the end have not been consistently

operational due to a court order regarding Indian trust funds litigation. Nevertheless,
they are included herein for reference when the websites are operational.
FY2004 Budget and Appropriations
For FY2004, Congress enacted a total appropriation of $20.51 billion. This total
was higher than the FY2003 funding level ($20.11 billion). It reflects an across-the-
board cut of 0.646% in the FY2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act (P.L. 108-108) and an additional across-the-board cut of 0.590% in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199). It also reflects a
supplemental appropriation of $500.0 million for urgent wildland fire suppression.
Many controversial issues arose during consideration of the FY2004 Interior and
related agencies appropriations bill. Key funding issues included the appropriate
levels of funding for wildland firefighting and land acquisition. In other
controversial areas, the FY2004 law (1) continued the automatic renewal of expiring
grazing permits and leases for FY2004 — FY2008; (2) extended the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program; (3) modified procedures for seeking judicial review of
timber sales in Alaska, primarily in the Tongass National Forest; (4) capped funds
for competitive sourcing efforts of agencies and required documentation on the
initiative; and (5) led to a stay of a court decision requiring an accounting of Indian
trust funds and trust asset transactions since 1887. However, the FY2004 law
dropped language on other contentious issues, including barring funds from being
used (1) to implement changes to BLM regulations on Recordable Disclaimers of
Interest in Land, (2) for the Klamath Fishery Management Council, and (3) for Outer
Continental Shelf leasing activities in the North Aleutian Basin planning area, which
includes Bristol Bay, Alaska. For further information on these issues and FY2004
funding generally, see CRS Report RL31806, Appropriations for FY2004: Interior
and Related Agencies, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent and Susan Boren.
FY2005 Budget and Appropriations
Current Overview
Annual appropriations for Interior and related agencies were included in P.L.
108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005. The law contains a total
of $20.09 billion for Interior and related agencies, including two across-the-board
rescissions in the law, of 0.594% and 0.80%.
The law provides $2.97 billion for wildfire protection for FY2005, under the
National Fire Plan. That plan comprises the Forest Service wildland fire program
and firefighting on DOI lands. The total includes $493.1 million for emergency
firefighting if certain conditions are met. The law also provides $255.5 million for
the Land and Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition ($164.3 million)
and grants to states ($91.2 million).

Earlier Action on Appropriations
The President’s FY2005 budget request for Interior and related agencies totaled
$19.69 billion. The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on the Interior
held a series of hearings on the FY2005 budget requests. Subsequently, on June 3,
2004, the House Subcommittee on Interior appropriations approved the draft Interior
appropriations bill and on June 9, 2004, the House Committee on Appropriations
marked up and ordered the bill reported with amendments. The Committee bill was
reported on June 15, 2004 (H.Rept. 108-542). The bill contained a total of $20.03
billion for FY2005, including $500 million for emergency wildland firefighting.
(The bill also contained $500 million for FY2004 for emergency wildland
firefighting, which was enacted subsequently in other legislation.) A full committee
amendment to the bill removed $227.0 million for the Weatherization Assistance
Program with the expectation that the funds would be added to the appropriations bill
for Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies. H.R. 4568, the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY2005, was passed by the House (334-86)
on June 17, 2004. The bill also contained $20.03 billion.
H.R. 4568 was referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations on June 21,
2004. However, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior approved
its own bill on June 23, 2004, reportedly containing $19.76 billion plus $1.0 billion
for emergency firefighting for FY2004 and FY2005 if needed. On September 14,

2004, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its bill (S. 2804, S.Rept.

108-341) with $20.26 billion, including $500 million in supplemental fire funds. The
Committee rejected a contentious amendment to strike language in the bill to change
a trigger that requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement drought
conservation measures on the Missouri River. The Committee also voted to
reauthorize collection of the fee for the Abandoned Mine Land Fund through May

31, 2005.

Both the House-passed and Senate Committee-reported bills reflected an
increase over the President’s FY2005 request ($19.69 billion), but a decrease from
the FY2004 enacted level ($20.51 billion). The FY2004 enacted level reflected $500
million in supplemental funding for emergency firefighting. Similarly, both the
House-passed and Senate Committee-reported bills included $500 million for
emergency firefighting for FY2005; emergency funds would become available if
certain conditions are met. (The House bill also contained $500 million for
emergency firefighting for FY2004, included prior to the enactment of supplemental
funds for this purpose in P.L. 108-287).
The FY2005 House-passed bill contained higher funding than the Senate
Committee-reported bill in areas including
^!Fossil Energy Research and Development, +59.3 million
^!Bureau of Indian Affairs, +$58.7 million
^!Indian Health Service, +$35.6 million
^!Clean Coal Technology, +20.0 million
^!National Endowment for the Arts, +$10.0 million
^!National Endowment for the Humanities, +6.7 million

The FY2005 House-passed bill contained lower funding as compared to the
Senate Committee-reported bill in areas including:
^!Energy Conservation, -$198.2 million
^!Federal Land Acquisition, -$168.6 million
^!National Park Service, -$92.4 million
^!U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, -$46.3 million
^!Bureau of Land Management, -$29.6 million
^!Forest Service, -$24.8 million
^!Smithsonian Institution, -$7.2 million
P.L. 108-447 provides $2.97 billion for the National Fire Plan for FY2005. The
House-passed bill contained $3.02 billion, and the Senate committee-reported bill
included $2.98 billion. These figures include $500 million for emergency fire
fighting for FY2005 that would become available if certain conditions are met
($493.1 million enacted, after rescissions). The President had requested $2.47 billion
for the National Fire Plan for FY2005, and Congress had enacted $3.27 billion for
FY2004, including supplemental funding.
For federal land acquisition and grants to states, under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, $255.5 million was enacted for FY2005. The House-passed bill
included $140.0 million. An amendment to increase funding for land acquisition was
defeated by the House Committee on Appropriations. The Senate committee-
reported bill contained significantly higher funds — $311.1 million. The President
had requested $314.0 million for FY2005.
Prior to enactment of P.L. 108-447, a series of continuing resolutions were
enacted to provide temporary funding for FY2005 for Interior and related agencies.
These resolutions were necessary because FY2005 began on October 1, 2004,
without enactment of annual appropriations for Interior and related agencies (as well
as for other departments and agencies).
Major Issues
Controversial policy and funding issues typically have been debated during
consideration of the annual Interior and related agencies appropriations bills. Debate
on FY2005 funding levels focused on a variety of issues, many of which have been
controversial in the past, including the issues listed below.
^!Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Fund, including whether, as part of
AML reauthorization, to change the program as sought by the
Administration to address state and regional concerns, including a
change to return unobligated state share balances in the fund to the
states. (For more information, see the “Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement” section in this report.)
^!Arts and Humanities, including whether funding for the arts and
humanities is an appropriate federal responsibility, and if so what
should be the proper level of federal support for cultural activities.
(For more information, see the “Smithsonian Institution” and

“National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities” sections in this report.)
^!Competitive Sourcing, namely the extent to which government
functions should be privatized, agency funds can and should be used
for such “outsourcing,” and agencies are communicating
appropriately with Congress on their outsourcing activities. (For
more information, see the section in this report on “Competitive
Sourcing of Government Jobs.”)
^!Grazing, Categorical Exclusions for, particularly to allow decisions
by the Secretary of Agriculture authorizing grazing on Forest Service
lands to be categorically excluded from documentation under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). (For more
information, see the “Forest Service” section in this report.)
^!Indian Trust Funds, especially the method by which an historical
accounting will be conducted of tribal and Individual Indian Money
(IIM) accounts to determine correct balances, and a class-action
lawsuit against the government involving tribal and IIM accounts.
(For more information, see the section in this report on the “Office
of Special Trustee for American Indians.”)
^!Land Acquisition, including the appropriate level of funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and
the state grant program, and extent to which the fund should be used
for activities not involving land acquisition. (For more information,
see “The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section in
this report.)
^!Maintenance Backlogs, primarily the adequacy of agency activities
to determine the extent of their maintenance backlogs, the priority
of the backlog relative to other agency responsibilities, and the
appropriate level of funds to reduce the backlog. (For more
information on the backlog of the National Park Service, which has
been the focus of the Bush Administration, see the “National Park
Service” section in this report.)
^!Missouri River Management, essentially over the implementation of
drought conservation measures on the Missouri River and water
levels for upper and lower Missouri River Basin states. (For more
information, see the “Missouri River Management” section in this
report.)
^!Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly the moratorium on
preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico; oil
and gas leases in offshore California; and the possibility of opening
to oil and gas development the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area,
which includes Bristol Bay, AK. (For more information, see the
“Minerals Management Service” section in this report.)

^!Roads and Timber Harvesting in the Tongass National Forest,
notably (1) whether to allow or prohibit the use of funds for roads
for timber harvesting in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, and
(2) whether to extend standards for litigating timber sales in the
Tongass. (For more information, see the “Forest Service” section in
this report.)
^!Snowmobiling in Park Units, particularly whether to allow or
prohibit the use of funds for snowmobiling in Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Memorial Parkway. (For more information, see the “National Park
Service” section in this report.)
^!Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), notably whether the SPR should
continue to be filled to capacity as ordered by President Bush. (For
more information, see the “Strategic Petroleum Reserve” section in
this report.)
^!Wild Horse and Burro Management, namely new authority for sale
of excess wild horses and burros, and removal of provisions of law
barring wild horses and burros and their remains from being sold for
processing into commercial products. (For more information, see
the “Bureau of Land Management” section in this report.)
^!Wildland Fire Fighting, involving questions about the appropriate
level of funding to fight fires on agency lands; advisability of
borrowing funds from other agency programs to fight wildfires;
implementation of a new program for wildland fire protection and
locations for fire protection treatments; and impact of environmental
analysis, public involvement, and challenges to agency decisions on
fuel reduction activities. (For more information, see the “Bureau of
Land Management” and “Forest Service” sections in this report.)
^!Yukon Flats Land Exchange, involving funds for the Fish and
Wildlife Service to acquire lands in the Yukon Flats National
Wildlife Refuge (AK) and a related conveyance of federal lands and
interests. (For more information, see the “Fish and Wildlife
Service” section in this report.)

Status of Bill
Table 1 below contains information on congressional consideration of the
FY2005 Interior appropriations bill.
Table 1. Status of Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2005
Subcom m i t t e e Conf erence
MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.Report ApprovalPublic
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t LawH ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
H.Rept. S.Rept. 11/20/04 12/08/04

108-5426/17/04108-341H.Rept.11/20/0411/20/04P.L. 108-

6/03/046/23/046/15/04(334-86)9/14/04 — 108-792(344-51)(65-30)447
Major Funding Trends
During the 10-year period from FY1996 to FY2005, Interior and related
agencies appropriations increased by 60% in current dollars, from $12.54 billion to
$20.09 billion. See Table 2 below. During the most recent five years, from FY2001
to FY2005, the rate of increase was much more modest — from $18.89 billion to
$20.09 billion, or 6% in current dollars. The single biggest increase during the
decade occurred from FY2000 to FY2001, when the total appropriation rose 27% in
current dollars, from $14.91 billion to $18.89 billion. Much of the increase was
provided to land management agencies for land conservation and wildland fire
management. See Table 22 below for a budgetary history of each agency, bureau,
and program from FY2001 to FY2005.
Table 2. Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2001
to FY2005
(budget authority in billions of current dollars)
F Y 2001 F Y 2002 F Y 2003 F Y 2004 F Y 2005
$18.89 $19.16 $20.11 $20.51 $20.09
^No^te:^T^h^{ese f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{es ex}^clu^d^{e p}^e^r^m^an^en^{t b}^u^d^g^{et au}^th^o^r^{ities, an}^d^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly^d^oⁿ^o^{t r}^e^f^l^{ect sco}^r^ek^eepⁱⁿ^g
^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^.^H^o^w^e^v^e^{r, t}^h^ey^{do ref}^l^ect^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^an^{d s}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^o^dat^e^.
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 261 million
acres of public land for diverse, and, at times, conflicting uses, such as energy and
minerals development, livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency
also is responsible for about 700 million acres of federal subsurface mineral
resources throughout the nation, and supervises the mineral operations on an
estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. Another key BLM function is

wildland fire management on about 370 million acres of DOI, other federal, and
certain non-federal land.
For FY2005, Congress enacted $1.82 billion for the BLM, an increase of $57.6
million (3%) over the President’s FY2005 request. The enacted level is a decrease
of $76.3 million (4%) from the FY2004 enacted level, $59.5 million (3%) from the
Senate committee-reported level, and $16.4 million (1%) from the House-passed
level. See Table 3 below.
Management of Lands and Resources. For Management of Lands and
Resources, Congress enacted $836.8 million for FY2005. This is a decrease from the
FY2004 enacted level, and the levels requested by the President, passed by the
House, and recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee for FY2005.
This line item funds an array of BLM land programs, including protection,
recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM
administration. Some programs would receive increased funds over FY2004,
including management of wild horses and burros and management of wildlife.
Others would decrease from FY2004, including range management; recreation; and
transportation and facilities maintenance, which includes deferred maintenance. Still
other programs would be funded at relatively flat levels, including energy and
minerals (including Alaska minerals).
The FY2005 law would continue to bar funds from being used for energy
leasing activities within the boundaries of national monuments, as they were on
January 20, 2001, except where allowed by the presidential proclamations that
created the monuments. The law also continues the moratorium on accepting and
processing applications for patents for mining and mill site claims on federal lands.
However, applications meeting certain requirements that were filed on or before
September 30, 1994, would be allowed to proceed, and third party contractors would
be authorized to process the mineral examinations on those applications.
The FY2005 law includes changes to wild horse and burro management on
federal lands. It provides new authority for agencies to sell excess animals or their
remains, and removes provisions of law that had barred wild horses and burros and
their remains from being sold for processing into commercial products. Also, the law
does not expressly prohibit BLM from slaughtering healthy wild horses and burros,
as had past appropriations laws apparently starting in FY1988. These changes have
been controversial.
Wildland Fire Management. For Wildland Fire Management for FY2005,
Congress enacted $831.3 million, including $98.6 million for emergency firefighting
during FY2005 that would become available if certain conditions are met. These
contingent funds are intended to preclude borrowing from other BLM programs to
fight wildfires; such borrowing has been typical in recent years. The FY2005 enacted
level is an increase over the Administration’s FY2005 request, but less than enacted
for FY2004 and passed by the House and recommended by the Senate Appropriations
Committee for FY2005.
For FY2005, Congress enacted a $17.5 million (10%) increase over FY2004 for
BLM fuels reduction, particularly in the wildland-urban interface. The

Administration, House, and Senate Appropriations Committee had all supported an
increase in FY2005 to reduce fuel loads. In its report on the bill, the House
Appropriations Committee required the BLM to report on the methods used to
prioritize fuel projects, which are to be in common with the Forest Service, to ensure
that funds are used for the highest priorities. (For additional information on wildland
fires, see the “Forest Service” section in this report.)
For FY2005, Congress enacted a decrease in funds for preparing for fires and
for suppressing fires, relative to FY2004 levels. Conferees, in report language,
expressed a need to control the cost of suppressing fires. They directed the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to report to Congress by June 30, 2005, on
performance measures planned to be used on an interagency basis to improve
reporting on fire suppression costs. In earlier action, in its report on the bill, the
House Committee on Appropriations expressed concern that fire funding for
preparedness and suppression may not maintain the level of readiness needed for
public safety that existed in FY2002 and FY2003 (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 17). The
Committee directed the BLM to analyze current readiness levels, and adjust the level
of funds for preparedness and suppression if the agency determines that maintaining
preparedness funding at no less than the FY2003 level will result in lower overall
firefighting costs.
The wildland fire funds appropriated to BLM are used for fire fighting on all
Interior Department lands. Interior appropriations laws also provide funds for
wildland fire management to the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) for fire
programs primarily on its lands. A focus of both departments is implementation of
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and the National Fire
Plan, which emphasize reducing hazardous fuels which can contribute to catastrophic
fires, among other provisions.
Construction. Congress enacted $11.3 million for BLM construction for
FY2005. This level is less than enacted for FY2004 and passed by the House for
FY2005, but more than requested by the Administration and recommended by the
Senate Committee on Appropriations for FY2005. In their report on the bill,
conferees expressed concern about the low level of funding for BLM construction
relative to other agencies. They urged the Administration to put more emphasis on
funding for deferred maintenance construction projects on BLM lands.
Land Acquisition. For Land Acquisition for FY2005, Congress enacted
$11.2 million. Ten acquisition projects would be funded through this appropriation
and use of $10.0 million of unobligated balances. In earlier action, the House had not
supported funding new acquisitions. Similarly, the House Appropriations Committee
did not earmark funds for acquisitions, in contrast to past practice, calling new
acquisitions a “low priority” (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 5). By contrast, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations had recommended $22.9 million for land acquisition,
primarily for 11 earmarked acquisitions. The FY2005 enacted level was a decrease
from the President’s FY2005 request and the FY2004 enacted level. The FY2004
enacted level of $18.4 million for land acquisition was itself a reduction of the
FY2003 level of $33.2 million, due to “the unfocused direction” in agency land
acquisition, according to the House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 108-195, p.

10). Money for land acquisition is appropriated from the Land and Water

Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF)” section in this report.)
Oregon and California Grant Lands. For the (O&C) Grant Lands, which
include highly productive timber lands, Congress enacted $107.5 million, an increase
over FY2004, but a decrease from the FY2005 requested, House-passed, and Senate
committee-reported levels. This activity funds programs related to revested Oregon
and California Railroad grant lands and related areas, including for land
improvements and managing, protecting, and developing resources on these lands.
Table 3. Appropriations for BLM, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005FY2005
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 House Senat e F Y 2005
Bureau of Land ManagementApprop.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Management of Lands and Resources $839.8$837.5$840.4$855.7$836.8
Wildland Fire Management 883.6^b743.1843.1^c843.1831.3
Central Hazardous Materials Fund9.99.99.99.99.9 ^d
Construction 13.8 6.5 15.0 9.0 11.3
Land Acquisition 18.424.04.522.911.2
Oregon and California Grant Lands 105.4116.1111.6113.6107.5
Range Improvements10.010.010.010.010.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and^a0.00.00.00.00.0
Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Trust Funds 12.412.412.412.412.4
Total appropriations1,893.2^b1,759.41,846.8 ^c1,876.4 ^c1,816.9 ^e
^{a. T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^of^“⁰^{” are a res}^u^{lt of}^an^{appropriation}^m^a^tch^e^{d by}^of^f^s^ettin^g^f^ees^.
^{b. In}^clu^d^es^{$98.4 m}^illion^{to replace m}^oni^e^s^b^o^r^r^o^w^e^d^f^r^om^oth^e^{r accou}ⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^{FY2003 f}^o^{r f}ⁱ^{re f}ⁱ^g^h^tin^g^,^an^{d $100.0}
^m^illion^f^o^{r em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^tin^g^en^{acted in}^P^.^L^.^108-^287.
^{c. In}^clu^d^es^{$100.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^tin^gⁱⁿ^FY2005.
^d^.^A^r^e^scissioⁿ^o^f^$^-¹³^.⁵^m^illioⁿ^{is n}^o^{t r}^e^f^l^ected^{, b}^u^{t is in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e co}^lu^mⁿ^to^tal.
^{e. In}^clu^d^es^{$98.6 m}^illion^f^o^{r em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^tin^gⁱⁿ^{FY2005, an}^{d a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^$-^{13.5 m}^illi^oⁿ^fo^r^th^{e C}^eⁿ^t^ral
^Hazardou^s^Materials^Fuⁿ^d.
For further information on the Department of the Interior, see its website at
[ http://www.doi.gov] .
For further information on the Bureau of Land Management, see its website at
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index .htm].
CRS Report RS21402, Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,”and R.S. 2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau
of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL32315. Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Public Lands,
by Marc Humphries.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
Fish and Wildlife Service
For FY2005, Congress approved $1.332 billion for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), slightly more than the Administration requested ($1.326 billion) and
more than enacted for FY2004 ($1.308 billion). By far the largest portion of the
FWS annual appropriation is for the Resources Management account. The
President’s FY2005 request was $951.0 million, a slight decrease from the FY2004
level of $956.5 million. Congress enacted $962.9 million for FY2005. Among the
programs included in Resources Management are the Endangered Species program,
the Refuge System, and Law Enforcement.
Endangered Species Funding. Funding for the Endangered Species
program is one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The
Administration proposed to reduce the program from $137.0 million in FY2004 to
$129.4 million in FY2005. Congress enacted $143.2 million for FY2005. See Table

4 below.

A number of related programs also benefit conservation of species that are
listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. The Landowner
Incentive Program decreased from $29.6 million in FY2004 to $21.7 million for
FY2005. Stewardship Grants fell from $7.4 million in FY2004 to $6.9 million for
FY2005. The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (for grants to
states and territories to conserve threatened and endangered species) declined from
$81.6 million in FY2004 to $80.5 million for FY2005. (See Table 4.)
Under the President’s request, overall FY2005 funding for the endangered
species program and related programs would have increased from FY2004 by $23.8
million (9%). As enacted, FY2005 funding for these programs as a group fell $3.4
million (1%).
While certain changes affecting endangered species were supported by some
interest groups, they apparently were not offered as amendments during consideration
of FY2005 Interior appropriations legislation. These changes reportedly related to
species recovery and an exemption for pesticide use, according to the Center for
Biological Diversity.

Table 4. Funding for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2005
Approp. Request Approp.
Endangered Species Program
— Candidate Conservation$9,808$8,610$9,255
— Listing12,13517,22615,960
— Consultation47,14645,45048,129
— Recovery67,90758,15469,870
Subtotal, Endangered Species Program136,996129,440143,214
Related Programs
— Landowner Incentive Program 29,63050,00021,694
— Stewardship Grants 7,40810,0006,903
— Cooperative Endangered Species^a81,59690,00080,462
Conservation Fund
Subtotal, Related Programs118,634150,000109,059
Total appropriations255,630279,440252,273
^{a. In}^F^Y^2004,^{$50 m}^illioⁿ^o^f^th^{is f}^uⁿ^d^w^a^{s d}^e^rⁱ^v^e^d^f^r^o^m^th^{e L}^aⁿ^d^an^d^W^a^ter^Coⁿ^s^er^v^a^tioⁿ^Fuⁿ^d
^(L^WC^F⁾^{. T}^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^F^Y^{2005 bu}^dg^et^req^u^e^s^t^cal^l^e^{d f}^o^{r t}^h^{e en}^tⁱ^r^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^t^o^{be deri}^v^e^d
^f^r^o^m^L^W^{CF. T}^h^e^Ho^u^s^e^an^d^th^{e Sen}^a^{te A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee k}^e^p^t^th^{e L}^W^{CF p}^o^r^tioⁿ^to
^{$50 m}^illion^.^T^h^{e FY2005 law}^lim^{ited th}^{e L}^W^C^F^portion^{to $49.4 m}^illion^.
National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement. On March
14, 2003, the Nation observed the centennial of the creation by President Theodore
Roosevelt of the first National Wildlife Refuge on Pelican Island in Florida.
Accordingly, Congress appropriated funding in FY2003 and FY2004 for various
renovations, improvements, and activities to celebrate the centennial; it included all
of this funding under operations and maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS). For operations and maintenance in FY2005, the President
proposed $387.7 million, a decrease from $391.5 million in FY2004. Of this
amount, $66.5 million was earmarked for deferred maintenance in FY2004, which
the President also proposed for FY2005. Congress enacted $381.0 million for
FY2005; the law contained no earmark for deferred maintenance.
The President proposed $51.3 million for Law Enforcement — a decrease of
$2.4 million from the FY2004 level ($53.7 million). Congress enacted $55.6 million
for FY2005.
Land Acquisition. For FY2005, the Administration proposed $45.0 million
for Land Acquisition, a 5% increase from the FY2004 level of $43.1 million. The
House approved significantly less — $12.5 million. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations would have provided a higher level of funds — $49.9 million. In the
end, Congress cut the program to $37.0 million for FY2005. This program is funded

from appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In the past, the
bulk of this FWS program has been for acquisition of federal refuge land, but a
portion is used for closely-related functions such as acquisition management, land
exchanges, emergency acquisitions, purchase of inholdings, general overhead (“Cost
Allocation Methodology”). Recently, less of the funding has been reserved for
traditional land acquisition; the House bill continued this trend by allocating no funds
for federal refuge lands. In contrast, the Senate committee-reported bill would have
provided equal or greater funding for these programs, as well as allocating $34.7
million for federal refuge lands. The FY2005 law appropriated $22.6 million for the
core acquisition program. (See Table 5; for more information, see “Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF)” below.)
Yukon Flats Land Exchange. The appropriation for Land Acquisition
provides funds to FWS for acquisition of lands for waterfowl habitat in the Yukon
Flats National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and the related conveyance of federal lands
and interests in the Refuge to Doyon, Limited, an Alaska Native Corporation. The
FY2005 law also gives the federal government a right to a portion of the proceeds
from any resources leased or discovered on land after the exchange has occurred, a
feature that is unusual in federal land trades. Revenues to the federal government
from any oil and/or gas production from the lands and interests acquired by Doyon,
Limited will be deposited in a special Treasury account, and available without further
appropriation to FWS for specified purposes. Supporters held that the provision
expedites the completion of the Yukon Flats land exchange, facilitates energy
production, and provides federal protection for key waterfowl habitat. Opponents
argued that the exchange was arranged without public input, will result in a loss to
the government of potentially oil rich lands, will allow energy development in areas
that provide important wildlife habitat, and might be viewed as setting a precedent
for land trades in potentially oil-rich areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Table 5. Funding for FWS Land Acquisition Program,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 F Y 2005
Approp. RequestApprop.
Acquisitions — Federal Refuge$29,700$29,176$22,593
Lands
Inholdings 1,481 2,500 1,479
Emergencies & Hardships9882,000986
Exchange s 494 1,000 1,726
Acquisition Management8,3958,3658,249
Cost Allocation Methodology2,0322,0001,972
Total 43,091^a 45,041 37,005
^{a. In}^F^Y^{2004, a t}^r^an^s^f^{er of}^{$4,968,000 w}^a^s^m^a^{de t}^o^t^h^{e Bu}^reau^of^In^di^an^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^f^o^r^pu^rch^a^s^e^of^a
^coⁿ^s^er^v^a^tioⁿ^easem^eⁿ^t^oⁿ^th^{e Qu}ⁱⁿ^au^{lt r}^e^ser^v^atioⁿⁱⁿ^W^a^s^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^s^t^{ate. T}^h^is^tran^s^f^{er is}ⁿ^o^t
^ref^l^{ected in}^th^{e table.}
Wildlife Refuge Fund. The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (also called the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund) compensates counties for the presence of the non-
taxable federal lands of the NWRS. A portion of the fund is supported by the
permanent appropriation of receipts from various activities carried out on the NWRS.
However, these receipts are not sufficient for full funding of authorized amounts, and
county governments have long urged additional appropriations to make up the
difference. Congress generally provides additional funding. The Administration,
House, and Senate Committee supported $14.4 million for FY2005. However, with
rescissions, the FY2005 law matched the FY2004 level of $14.2 million. When
combined with the estimated receipts, the FY2005 appropriation level would cover

46% of the authorized full payment, down marginally from the FY2004 level of 47%.

Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF). The MSCF has
generated considerable constituent interest despite the small size of the program. It
benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, and great apes. The
President’s budget again proposes to move funding for the Neotropical Migratory
Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCF) into the MSCF. Congress rejected the proposed
transfer annually from FY2002 to FY2005. For FY2005, the President proposed $9.5
million for the MSCF (including the proposed transfer of the NMBCF to this
program). The proposal included cuts in programs for great apes and African and
Asian elephants, in contrast to increases in programs for rhinos, tigers, and
neotropical migratory birds. The House approved $100,000 in increases over the
President’s request for each of these subprograms, and Senate Committee levels
generally were between these two. The enacted levels for FY2005 represent modest
cuts in all of the programs except that for tigers and rhinos. See Table 6 below.

Table 6. Funding for Multinational Species Conservation Fund
and Migratory Bird Fund, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
Multinational Species ConservationFY2004FY2005FY2005
F und Approp. Request Approp.
African elephant$1,383$1,350$1,381
Tiger and Rhinos1,3831,4501,477
Asian elephant1,3831,3501,381
Great Apes1,3831,3501,381
Marine turtles99
(Neotropical Migratory Birds)(3,951)(4,000)(3,944)
Total appropriations5,5325,5005,719
^No^te:^T^h^{e N}^e^ot^ropi^cal^Mi^g^r^at^ory^Bi^{rd prog}^ram^w^a^s^fⁱ^rs^t^au^t^h^ori^{zed i}ⁿ^F^Y^{2002, an}^{d i}^sⁿ^o^t^part^of
^t^h^e^M^S^CF,^a^l^t^h^o^{ugh t}^h^e^t^r^aⁿ^sfe^r^w^a^{s p}^r^opos^e^dⁱⁿ^t^h^e^P^r^esⁱ^d^en^t^’^s^bu^dg^et^s^f^o^r^F^Y^2002-^F^Y^2005.
^Coⁿ^g^r^{ess h}^a^{s r}^e^j^ected^th^{e tr}^an^sf^er^f^o^u^r^tim^{es, an}^d^th^{e p}^r^o^g^r^a^m^{is n}^o^{t in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e co}^lu^mⁿ^to^tals.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
program helps fund efforts to conserve species (including non-game species) of
concern to states and tribes. The program was created in the FY2001 Interior
appropriations law (P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior
appropriations bills. It lacks any other authorizing statute. Funds may be used to
develop conservation plans as well as support specific practical conservation
projects. A portion of the funding is set aside for competitive grants to tribal
governments or tribal wildlife agencies. The remaining state portion is for matching
grants to states. A state’s allocation is determined on a formula basis. The President
proposed $80.0 million, an increase from $69.1 million in FY2004. The House bill
would have cut the program to $67.5 million, while the Senate committee approved
an increase smaller than that requested by the President. The final FY2005
appropriation is $69.0 billion. See Table 7 below.
Table 7. Appropriations for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
State and Tribal WildlifeFY2004 FY2005 FY2005^a
Gr a n t s Approp. Request Approp.
State Grants$61.1$71.6$63.0
Tribal Grants5.96.06.0
Admi nistration 2.1 2.4^a
Total appropriations69.180.069.0
^{a. T}^h^{e FY2005 law}^,^lik^{e th}^{e bill reported by}^th^{e Sen}^a^te^A^ppropriation^s^C^o^m^m^{ittee, did n}^o^{t earm}^a^rk
^{a s}^p^ecifⁱ^{c am}^ouⁿ^t^f^o^{r adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,^oth^e^r^th^an^requ^irin^g^th^{at adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^rativ^{e ex}^pen^s^es^{are to}^be
^d^e^d^u^cted^oⁿ^ly^af^ter^th^{e $}⁶^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^set-^asid^{e f}^o^r^tr^ib^{al g}^r^an^ts.

Non-native Migratory Birds. Mute swans were introduced to Chesapeake
Bay decades ago. Their population is now suspected of causing various types of
ecological harm to the Bay, its aquatic plants, and other species of birds. Actions to
reduce the population have been restricted on the grounds that the species is protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), even though it is not native to North^th
America. Attempts were made in the 108 Congress to enact legislation to exclude
non-native species from protections of the MBTA, but were not successful as the
second session was drawing to a close. Advocates of control of this species of swan,
who also did not wish to see the MBTA’s protections afforded to other non-native
species, amended the MBTA by adding §143 (Title I) to the FY2005 law, defining
the term “native to the United States”, directing the FWS to publish a list of those
bird species which are not native, and specifying that the MBTA applies only to
native species.¹ Since enactment, various animal welfare groups have objected to the²
provision and asked for its repeal.
For further information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at
[ http://www.fws.gov/] .
CRS Issue Brief IB10144. Endangered Species Act in the 109^th Congress:
Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn,
Pervaze Sheikh, Pamela Baldwin, and Robert Meltz.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for the National Park System,
currently comprising 388 separate and diverse units with more than 84 million acres.
The NPS protects, interprets, and administers the park system’s diversity of natural
and historic areas representing the cultural identity of the American people. The park
system uses some 20 types of designations, including national park, to classify sites,
and visits to these areas total close to 280 million annually. The NPS also supports
some land conservation activities outside the park system.
The FY2005 NPS appropriations total $2.37 billion, $5.1 million more than the
President’s budget request ($2.36 billion), and $107.1 million above the FY2004
enacted level ($2.26 billion). The House-passed NPS total was $2.27 billion, while
the Senate committee-reported bill matched the President’s request ($2.36 billion).
See Table 8 below.
Several amendments affecting the NPS, but not tied to specific funding
accounts, were considered. The law included a provision directing the NPS to

¹ For more information, see [http://fire.mountain-prairie.fws.gov/pressrel/dc501.htm],
viewed on Feb. 15, 2005.
² For example, see
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55677-2005Feb1.html], viewed on Feb.

15, 2005.

implement recently-issued winter use rules for snowmobiles in Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks. The provision applies only to the 2004-2005 winter use
season and was designed to prevent lawsuits from blocking snowmobile use this
winter. Earlier, the House had rejected an amendment to reinstate a Clinton-era rule
that would phase out use of private snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks and on the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway which links
them. The Bush Administration has sought to overturn the rule.
Another enacted provision adjusts the boundaries of the Cumberland Island
Wilderness allowing use of an existing road through the wilderness portions of the
Cumberland Island National Seashore and authorizing concession tours of the island.
Operation of the National Park System. The park operations line item
accounts for more than two-thirds of the total NPS budget. It covers resource
protection, visitors’ services, facility operations, facility maintenance, and park
support programs. The FY2005 enacted level for NPS operations is $1.68 billion,
$5.4 million less than the Senate committee recommended, and $2.5 million less than
the House-passed level and the President’s request, but $74.0 million (5%) more than
was appropriated for FY2004.
In its report on the bill, the House Appropriations Committee expressed
concerns about the erosion of operating funds for core programs, attributed to
“unbudgeted costs,” including cost-of-living increases, storm damage, anti-terrorism
activities, and management initiatives (e.g., competitive sourcing). The conference
report also acknowledged budget shortfalls in recent years in core operating programs
and visitor services across the park system, suggesting congressional intent to provide
park base programmatic increases. For FY2005, Park advocacy groups estimate that
the national parks operate, on average, with two-thirds of needed funding. As a
visible symbol of the federal government and environmental protection, the
condition, care, and operation of the national parks is considered politically potent.

Table 8. Appropriations for NPS, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005FY2005
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 House Senat e F Y 2005
National Park Service Approp.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Operation of the National Park System$1,609.6$1,686.1$1,686.1$1,689.0$1,683.6
U.S. Park Police77.981.281.281.280.1
National Recreation and Preservation 61.837.753.963.061.0
Urban Park and Recreation Fund0.30.00.00.00.0
Historic Preservation Fund73.677.571.571.371.7
Construction 329.9 329.9 297.6 330.0 353.0
Land and Water Conservation Fund^a-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
— Assistance to States93.893.891.594.091.2
— NPS Acquisition41.884.316.061.855.1
Subtotal, Land Acquisition and State135.6178.1107.5155.8146.3
Assistance
Total appropriations2,258.62,360.52,267.82,360.22,365.7
^{a. Fig}^u^r^es^ref^l^{ect a res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^con^t^{ract au}^th^ority^.

United States Park Police (USPP). This budget item supports law
enforcement programs of the U.S. Park Police, primarily in the urban park areas of
New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. Core responsibilities include
protecting historic monuments and memorials, maintaining order during special
events and demonstrations, and providing presidential security and dignitary escort.
The USPP also provides investigative, forensic, and other services to support law-
enforcement trained and commissioned rangers working in park units system-wide.
The FY2004 conference agreement was critical of USPP’s failure to implement 2001
recommendations by the National Academy of Public Administration to address
problems of budget accountability, management issues, and overtime. Language in
the report on the House-passed FY2005 bill urges the NPS and DOI to resolve
ongoing USPP fiscal and management problems before the end of the calendar year
2004. For FY2005, the Administration focused on terrorist threat preparedness, and
the budget request included $1.0 million for non-recurring costs associated with the

2005 Presidential Inauguration and $2.0 million for enhanced security and anti-

terrorism efforts. The House-passed bill and the Senate committee-reported bill
matched the request ($81.2 million), $3.3 million above FY2004. The enacted level
is $80.1 million, $2.2 million above FY2004. In a recent dispute, the former USPP
Chief was suspended from duty in December 2003, and officially fired in July 2004,
for talking to the press about agency funding issues. Rulings on this case by the U.S.
Merit System Protection Board (a quasi-judicial agency that protects federal workers
from management abuse) are reported to be under appeal.
National Recreation and Preservation. This line item funds a variety of
park recreation and resource protection programs, as well as programs connected

with state and local community efforts to preserve cultural and national heritage
resources. The FY2005 law provides $61.0 million, a decrease of $0.8 million from
FY2004 and of $2.0 million from the Senate committee recommendation, and an
increase of $7.1 million over the House-passed level and of $23.2 million over the
FY2005 request. The Administration had proposed a substantial reduction to (1)
discontinue statutory aid programs, and (2) curtail heritage area funding (from $14.3
million in FY2004 to $2.5 million in FY2005). In recent years, the Administration’s
requests for heritage areas have been significantly lower than the previous year’s
appropriation, but Congress has consistently restored or increased heritage area
funding. The enacted level for the Heritage partnership program is $14.6 million for
National Heritage Areas, between the House-passed level ($15.1 million) and the
Senate committee recommended level ($14.3 million), and substantially above the
$2.5 million requested by the Administration. Provisions in the FY2005
appropriations law created three new heritage areas. For Statutory or Contractual
Aid, the enacted level is $11.2 million, $7.4 million more than the House-passed bill
($3.8 million), $0.9 million less than the Senate committee recommendation ($12.1
million), and $1.6 million below the FY2004 enacted level ($12.8 million). The
Administration requested no funds for this program for FY2005.
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR). This matching grant
program, created in 1978, was intended to help low-income inner city neighborhoods
rehabilitate existing recreational facilities. Funding for new program grants was
problematic (about $2 million annually) until the Conservation Spending Category
(CSC) was created in the FY2001 Interior Appropriations Act, with $30.0 million for
UPARR. In FY2001 and FY2002, Congress appropriated $30.0 million for UPARR.
For FY2003, appropriations were $298,000 for program administrative costs, and the
FY2004 appropriation was $301,000 to administer previously awarded grants. For
FY2005, as in the preceding three budgets, the President requested no funds for
UPARR and asked Congress to eliminate the separate UPARR line item and return
program grant administration for previously awarded grants to the National
Recreation and Preservation line item. The House-passed bill followed the request,
with no funding for UPARR and allowing $316,000 under National Recreation and
Preservation for urban park grant administration. The Senate committee also
recommended eliminating the UPARR line item and transferring limited UPARR
grant administration funding to the National Recreation and Preservation. The
FY2005 law provides no funding for UPARR and is silent on grant administration.
Construction and Maintenance. The construction line item funds new
construction, as well as rehabilitation and replacement of park facilities. For
FY2005, the enacted level for NPS construction is $353.0 million, including $50.8
million in emergency funding for disaster response. This total is $23.0 million above
the Senate committee recommendation ($330.0 million), $55.4 million above the
House-passed bill ($297.6 million), and $23.1 million above the request and the
FY2004 level ($329.9 million).
The FY2005 appropriations law includes $582.7 million for maintenance (in
Operation of the National Park System line item, discussed above). This is $3.4
million less than the Administration’s request, but is more than the House-passed
level ($573.2 million), the Senate committee recommendation ($577.3 million), and

the FY2004 appropriation ($559.2 million). In previous years, maintenance under
NPS Operations was separated into facility operation and facility maintenance.
Total FY2005 NPS construction and maintenance funding is $935.7 million.
This is more than the Senate committee recommendation ($907.4 million), the
House-passed total ($870.8 million), the Administration’s request ($916.0 million),
and the FY2004 appropriations ($889.1 million). The Administration asserted that
its total request for construction and facility maintenance ($724.7 million) would
address the backlog of deferred maintenance, and with $78 million from recreation
fees and $310 million from the Highway Trust Fund, total spending to reduce the
maintenance backlog in FY2005 would be more than $1.1 billion. However, the
estimate of deferred maintenance for the NPS is between $4.52 billion and $9.69
billion, with a mid-range figure of $7.11 billion. Further, other DOI sources estimate
the FY2004 appropriation for deferred maintenance at $319.3 million, and the
FY2005 request at $332.5 million. These figures may cause some to raise questions
about the magnitude and effectiveness of funding for construction and facility
maintenance in reducing the backlog.
The FY2005 law prohibits NPS funds in the law from being used for partnership
construction projects (those undertaken by friends groups or corporate or foundation
sponsorship) in excess of $5.0 million without the advance approval of the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees. The joint explanatory statement of the
conference report expressed concerns about the management of NPS partnership
construction projects, and directed the NPS to provide a status report on such
projects. Recently, the NPS developed interim guidance to govern such projects. In
earlier action, the House-passed bill had sought to impose a temporary moratorium
on partnership construction projects in excess of $5 million, unless approved by the
Appropriations Committees. These provisions resulted from an effort to control
relatively low priority, expensive construction projects outside the regular budget
process that increase needs for operations and maintenance funding, thus possibly
compounding operational shortfalls and delaying backlog projects and other service
priorities. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not impose a blanket
moratorium on partnership projects.
Land Acquisition and State Assistance. For FY2005, appropriations
under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) total $146.3 million, with
$55.1 million for federal land acquisition and $91.2 million for state assistance. The
state assistance is for park land acquisition and recreation planning and development
by the states. The funds provided to the states are allocated through a formula, with
states determining their spending priorities. The enacted level is slightly lower than
(within 3% of) the House-passed level, the Senate committee-recommended level,
the requested level, and the FY2004 appropriation.
Federal land acquisition — funds to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for
inclusion within the National Park System — has been more controversial. FY2005
funding for acquisition management ($10.4 million) is between the House-passed
($10.0 million) and Senate committee-recommended and requested level ($10.5
million), and nearly matches FY2004 funding. However, acquisition funding (for
purchases, emergencies, and inholdings) has differed widely. The enacted level is
$44.8 million. This is below the Senate committee recommendation ($51.3 million)

and the Administration’s request ($73.8 million), but above the House-passed level
($6.0 million) and the FY2004 appropriation ($31.4 million).
Recreation Fee Program. The FY2005 appropriations law established a
new 10-year recreation fee program to replace the recreational fee demonstration
program. The law authorizes the four major federal land management agencies, plus
the Bureau of Reclamation, to retain and spend receipts from entrance and user fees
without further appropriation, primarily at the site where the fees are collected. A
portion of fee receipts is distributed to other agency sites. The NPS estimates fee
receipts of $124.7 million for FY2004 and $122.8 million for FY2005. The former
program had been created and extended in appropriations laws, and had been
controversial.
For further information on the National Park Service, see its website at
[ http://www.nps.gov/] .
CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered
by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid to states (primarily through State Historic
Preservation Offices), certified local governments, and territories and the Federated
States of Micronesia for activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act.
These activities include protecting cultural resources and enhancing economic
development by restoring historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant
in American history and culture. Preservation grants are normally funded on a 60%
federal/40% state matching share basis. In addition, the Historic Preservation Fund
provides funding for cultural heritage projects for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and
Native Hawaiians.
For FY2005, Congress provided $71.7 million for the Historic Preservation
Fund, a slight increase from the House-passed ($71.5 million) and Senate committee-
reported bills ($71.3 million). However, the enacted level is a decrease of 7% from
the Administration’s FY2005 request ($77.5 million) and of 3% from the FY2004
level ($73.6 million). See Table 9 below.
A major issue that often reappears during the appropriations process is whether
historic preservation programs should be funded by private money rather than the
federal government. Congress eliminated permanent federal funding for the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, but has provided appropriations under Save
America’s Treasures to preserve nationally significant intellectual and cultural
artifacts and historic structures. Due to concerns that the program did not reflect
geographic diversity, appropriations law now requires that project recommendations
be subject to approval by the Appropriations Committees prior to distribution of
funds. The FY2005 law allows the National Endowment for the Arts to award Save
America’s Treasures grants through the Save America’s Treasures grants selection
panel. The law provides $29.6 million for Save America’s Treasures, 1% less than
the FY2005 request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate committee-reported bill
(all $30.0 million) and a decrease of 9% from the FY2004 level ($32.6 million). The
FY2005 appropriation did not include funding for the Administration’s initiative for

“Preserve America” grants. These grants-in-aid, recommended by the President for
funding at $10.0 million, would have supplemented Save America’s Treasures in
supporting community efforts to develop resource management strategies and to
encourage heritage tourism. Preserve America grants were to be competitively
awarded on a 50/50 matching basis, as one-time seed money grants.
In the past, the Historic Preservation Fund included funds for the preservation
and restoration of historic buildings and structures on Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU) campuses. An appropriation in FY2001 of $7.2 million
represented the unused authorization remaining under law. There was no funding for
HBCUs under HPF for FY2002 or FY2003, although in FY2004 funding of $3.0
million was provided with competitive grants administered by the NPS. The FY2005
law provides $3.5 million for HBCUs, slightly less than the House-passed bill ($4.0
million). The Senate committee-reported bill did not include funding for HBCUs.
There is no longer federal funding for the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, previously funded as part of the Historic Preservation Fund Account.
The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 to “protect and preserve”
historic American sites significant to our cultural heritage. It is technically a private
non-profit corporation, but it received permanent federal funding until FY1998.
Since that time, the National Trust generally has not received federal funding in
keeping with Congress’s plan to make it self-supporting. However, relatively small
appropriations were provided in FY2003 and FY2004, with $0.5 million in FY2004
for the National Trust’s Endowment Fund for the care and maintenance of the most
endangered historic places. The final FY2005 appropriation did not include funding
for the National Trust’s endowment fund.

Table 9. Appropriations for the Historic Preservation Fund, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005FY2005
FY2004FY2005 HouseSenateFY2005
Historic PreservationApprop.RequestPassed Comm.Approp.
Grants-in-Aid to States and^a$34,569$34,570$34,570$38,000$35,500
Territories
Tribal Grants2,9632,9632,9633,2503,205
Save America’s Treasures32,59430,00030,00030,00029,583
Preserve America Grants-In-Aid — 10,000 — — —
HBCU’s2,963 — 4,000 — 3,451
National Historic Trust
Endowment Grant/Historic Sites494 — — — —
Fund
Total appropriations73,58377,53371,53371,25071,739
^{a. T}^h^{e term}^“^G^ran^t^s^-ⁱⁿ^-Ai^d^{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
^prog^ram^as^Gran^ts^-ⁱⁿ^-^Aⁱ^{d to State His}^t^{oric P}^r^es^erv^a^tion^Of^fⁱ^ces^.
For further information on Historic Preservation, see its website at
[ http://www2.cr.nps.gov/] .
CRS Report 96-123, Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the nation’s premier science agency in
providing physical and biological 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. In 2004, the^th
USGS celebrated the 125 anniversary of its creation.
Funds for the USGS are provided under the heading Surveys, Investigations, and
Research, with six activities falling under that heading: the National Mapping
Program; Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes; Water Resources
Investigations; Biological Research; Science Support; and Facilities. For FY2005,
total USGS appropriations are $936.5 million, $3.0 million less than the Senate
committee-reported bill ($939.5 million), $8.0 million less than the House-passed bill
($944.5 million), $1.5 million less than FY2004 ($938.0 million), but $16.7 million
more than the Administration’s request ($919.8 million). See Table 10 below. The
FY2005 appropriations law, following the House-passed and Senate committee-
reported bills and the Administration’s request, would create a new line item in the
USGS budget called Enterprise Information, yet with different funding amounts.
(See below for details.) In its report on the FY2005 bill, the Senate Appropriations
Committee directed reinstatement for most of the individual projects targeted for

elimination in the Administration’s request, and stated that there should be a stronger
emphasis placed on the core programs of the USGS.
The enacted appropriations, as with both the Senate committee-reported and the
House-passed bill and the Administration’s request for FY2005, provides less
funding in five of the six activities traditionally conducted by the USGS compared
to the FY2004 enacted levels. The decreases are roughly offset by funding for
Enterprise Information.
Enterprise Information. The Administration proposed a new line item for
funding within the USGS for FY2005 — Enterprise Information — to consolidate
funding of all USGS information needs including information technology, security,
services, and resources management, as well as capital asset planning. Funding for
these functions previously was distributed among several different USGS offices and
budget sub-activities. The House-passed bill included this new line item and provide
$44.1 million, $1.0 million less than requested. The Senate-reported bill included
$45.2 million for this line item. The FY2005 enacted appropriations are $44.4
million, between the House and Senate levels.
There are three primary programs within Enterprise Information: (1) Enterprise
Information Security and Technology, which supports management and operations
of USGS telecommunications (e.g., computing infrastructure and email); (2)
Enterprise Information Resources, which provides policy support, information
management, and oversight over information services; and (3) Federal Geographic
Data Coordination, which provides operational support and management for the
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The FGDC is an interagency,
intergovernmental committee that encourages collaboration to make geospatial data
available to state, local and tribal governments, as well as communities.
National Mapping Program. The National Mapping Program aims to
provide access to high quality geospatial data and information to the public. The
FY2005 appropriations are $118.8 million, $4.0 million less than the House-passed
level ($122.8 million) and $1.1 million less than the Senate committee-reported bill
($119.8 million). The largest decrease within this program from FY2004 is for the
Cooperative Topographic Mapping Program, with appropriations of $71.4 million
— a decrease of $9.5 million from FY2004. The Land Remote Sensing and
Geographic Analysis and Monitoring sub-activities would be funded at $32.7 million
and $14.6 million, respectively, which are slightly less than the Administration’s
request and the FY2004 enacted levels.
In its report on the FY2005 bill, the House Appropriations Committee stated
that no solutions to degraded satellite imagery in the Landsat 7 program have been
proposed and that the Committee would not increase or reprogram funding for that
program. In its report on the bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee also stated
its concern about the program and that the USGS has no clear guidance on how to
proceed. Landsat 7 is a satellite that takes remotely-sensed images of the Earth’s
land surface and surrounding coastal areas primarily for environmental monitoring.
Last year, approximately 25% of the data from the Landsat 7 Satellite began showing
signs of degradation. Nevertheless, an interagency panel concluded that the Landsat

7 Satellite data “continues to provide a unique, cost-effective solution to operational

and scientific problems.”³ The House committee also stated that it supports the
acquisition of long-term satellite data and that the USGS should collaborate with
other agencies to place the next generation Landsat sensors in orbit. The Senate
Appropriations Committee also has stated that the USGS is responsible for satellite
operations and data collecting, and that the USGS, DOI, and “administration officials
at a higher policy level” should work towards a resolution on this issue (S.Rept. 108-

341, p. 30).

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes. For Geologic Hazards,
Resources, and Processes activities, FY2005 appropriations are $229.2 million,
between the House-passed level ($230.9 million) and the Senate committee-reported
level ($228.2 million), and $8.5 million more than the Administration’s request
($220.8 million). This line item covers programs in three activities: Hazard
Assessments, Landscape and Coastal Assessments, and Resource Assessments.
The House-passed bill and the Senate-reported bill would have provided $21.6
million for the mineral resources program, $6.5 million more than the requested
$15.1 million. This program conducts inquiries into the conditions affecting mining
and materials processing industries. The FY2005 law provides $15.3 million, and
the joint explanatory statement states that the funding level for this program will no
longer be specified in committee reports.
Water Resources Investigations. For the Water Resources Investigations
heading, FY2005 appropriations are $211.2 million, nearly matching the House-
passed bill, $1.7 million less than the Senate committee-reported bill ($212.9
million), $8.5 million above the Administration’s request ($202.7 million), and $4.5
million less than the FY2004 enacted level ($215.7 million).
All three programs within this line item received less funding for FY2005 than
in FY2004. The appropriations for FY2005 are $142.5 million for the Hydrologic
Monitoring, Assessments and Research activity; $62.3 million for the Cooperative
Water Program; and $6.4 million for Water Resources Research Institutes.
As with the Bush Administration’s FY2002-FY2004 budget requests, the
FY2005 request had sought to discontinue USGS support for Water Resources
Research Institutes because, it alleged, most institutes have succeeded in leveraging
sufficient funding for program activities from non-USGS sources. Congress has
restored funding for the institutes from FY2002 to FY2005.
Biological Research. For FY2005, appropriations are $171.7 million for
Biological Research, $0.3 million less than the House-passed level ($172.0), $1.1
million less than the Senate Committee-recommended level ($172.8 million), $4.1
million above the Administration’s request ($167.6 million), and $2.8 million below
the FY2004 enacted level ($174.5 million).

³ U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Budget Justification and Performance
Information: Fiscal Year 2005 (Reston, VA: 2004).

The House Appropriations Committee expressed concern in its report on the bill
about the growth of the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), citing
that the number of planned regional and thematic nodes is too high and not
adequately justified. The Committee directed the USGS to locate all new “thematic”
nodes in the same location as regional nodes to consolidate operational expenses.
The NBII is a collaborative program that aims to provide increased access to data and
information on the nation’s biological resources. The Committee also directed the
USGS to develop a long-term plan to address the number and location of new units
in the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Program. The Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Program is a partnership between federal and state governments
and academia to provide research, management, and technical assistance to maintain
DOI managed lands and waters.
For FY2005, the Administration and the House-passed bill proposed to continue
work on reducing harmful invasive species and wildlife diseases. The conference
agreement includes language to maintain this work. The USGS expects to complete
an assessment of invasive species threats in the National Wildlife Refuge System and
to continue to research and map “hotspots” of invasive species impacts throughout
the United States.
Science Support and Facilities. Science Support focuses on those costs
associated with modernizing the infrastructure for management and dissemination
of scientific information. For FY2005, appropriations are $65.6 million, $1.9 million
less than the House-passed bill ($67.5 million), $0.1 million more than the Senate
committee-reported bill ($65.4 million), $3.1 million less than the Administration’s
request ($68.7 million). All are significantly less than the $90.8 million enacted in
FY2004. The Administration justified its proposed reduction by noting that funds
historically provided in this account would be used for the Enterprise Information
Program, which is expected to provide information support that previously was done
by Science Support. Facilities focuses on the costs for maintenance and repair of
facilities. FY2005 appropriations are $94.6 million, $1.3 million less than the
House-passed bill and the Administration’s request ($95.9 million), $0.4 million less
than the Senate committee-reported bill($95.0 million), and $1.6 million more than
the FY2004 level ($93.0 million). In addition, USGS was appropriated $1.0 million
in emergency funds for disaster recovery in P.L. 108-324.

Table 10. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005FY2005
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 House Senat e F Y 2005
U.S. Geological SurveyApprop.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Enterprise Information$0.0$45.1$44.1$45.2$44.4
National Mapping129.8118.9122.8119.8118.8
Program
Geologic Hazards,234.2220.8230.9228.2229.2
Resources, and Processes
Water Resources215.7202.7211.2212.9211.2
Investigations
Biological Research174.5167.6172.0172.8171.7
Science Support90.868.767.565.465.6
Facilities 93.0 95.9 95.9 95.0 94.6
Emerge ncy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Appropriations
Total appropriations938.0919.8944.5939.5936.5
For further information on the U.S. Geological Survey, see its website at
[ http://www.usgs .gov/] .
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) administers two programs: the
Offshore Minerals Management (OMM) Program and the Minerals Revenue
Management (MRM) Program. OMM administers competitive leasing on outer
continental shelf lands and oversees production of offshore oil, gas, and other
minerals. MRM collects and disburses bonuses, rents, and royalties paid on federal
onshore and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases and Indian mineral leases.
Revenues from onshore leases are distributed to states in which they were collected,
the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, and designated programs. Revenues from the
offshore leases are allocated among the coastal states, Land and Water Conservation
Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and the U.S. Treasury.
Budget and Appropriations. The Administration’s FY2005 budget request
for MMS was $282.4 million. This included $7.1 million for Oil Spill Research,
$275.3 million for Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management (comprised of $146.1
million for OMM, $81.9 million for MRM, and $47.3 million for General
Administration). Of this total, $178.7 million would have derived from
appropriations and $103.7 million from offsetting collections which MMS has been
retaining from collections since 1994. The total FY2005 budget request was 4% over
the $270.5 million provided for FY2004, with the appropriation increasing by 5%.
For FY2005, Congress enacted overall funding for MMS of $277.6 million. Of that
amount, $7.0 million is for oil spill research, $270.6 for Royalty and Offshore
Minerals Management. Offsetting collections of $103.7 million are equal to the

budget request. Congress enacted a total appropriation of $173.8 million for
FY2005.
The MMS estimates that it collects and disburses over $6 billion in revenue
annually. This amount fluctuates based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas.
Over the past decade, royalties from natural gas production have accounted for 40%
to 45% of annual MMS receipts, while oil royalties accounted for not more than

25%.

Oil and Gas Leasing Offshore. Issues not directly tied to specific funding
accounts were considered as part of the FY2005 appropriations process, as they were
for FY2004. The FY2004 appropriations law continued the moratorium on
preleasing and leasing activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Sales in the
Eastern GOM have been especially controversial. Industry groups contend that the
sales are too limited, given what they say is an enormous resource potential, while
environmental groups and some state officials argue that the risks to the environment
and local economies are too great. The FY2004 law continued leasing moratoria in
other areas, including the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.
However, in a controversial development, the law (P.L. 108-108) omitted
language that would have prohibited funding for preleasing and leasing activity in the
North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, currently under a leasing moratorium. There
is some interest in eventually opening the area to oil and gas development as an offset
to the depressed fishing industry in the Bristol Bay area. Environmentalists and
others oppose this effort. The North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, containing
Bristol Bay, is not in the MMS current five-year (2002-2007) leasing plan. Under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. §1331), the
Secretary of the Interior submits five-year leasing programs that specify the time,
location, and size of lease sales to be held during that period.
The FY2005 law continues to support the moratoria on leasing and preleasing
activity in certain sections of the OCS, including the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and
the Eastern GOM. However, like the FY2004 law, it does not prohibit funding for
preleasing and leasing activity in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area.
Controversy over MMS oil and gas leases in offshore California has drawn
congressional interest. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
§1451), development of federal offshore leases must be consistent with state coastal
zone management plans. In 1999, MMS extended 36 out of the 40 leases at issue in
offshore California by granting lease suspensions, but the State of California
contended that it should have first reviewed the suspensions for consistency with the
state’s coastal zone management plan. In June 2001 the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of California agreed with the State of California and struck down the MMS
suspensions.
The Bush Administration appealed this decision January 9, 2002, to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, after the state rejected a more limited lease
development plan that involved 20 leases using existing drilling platforms. However,
on December 2, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the District

Court decision.⁴ The Department of the Interior did not appeal this decision and is
currently working with lessees to resolve the issue. The breach-of-contract lawsuit
that was filed against MMS by nine oil companies seeking $1.2 billion in
compensation for their undeveloped leases is pending further action.
Several oil and gas lessees submitted a new round of suspension requests. The
MMS has prepared six Environmental Assessments and found “no significant
impact” for processing the applications for Suspension of Production or Operations.
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, a consistency review by the state will
occur before a decision is made to grant or deny the requests.
For further information on the Minerals Management Service, see its website
at [http://www.mms.gov].
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L. 95-

87) established the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)

to ensure that land mined for coal would be returned to a condition capable of
supporting its pre-mining land use. SMCRA also established an Abandoned Mine
Lands (AML) fund, with fees levied on coal production, to reclaim abandoned sites
that pose serious health or safety hazards. Congress’s intention was that individual
states and Indian tribes would develop their own regulatory programs incorporating
minimum standards established by law and regulations. Fee collections have been
broken up into “federal” and “state” shares. Grants are awarded to the states after
applying a distribution formula to the annual appropriation and drawing upon both
the federal and state shares. In instances where states have no approved program,
OSM directs reclamation in the state.
Several states have been pressing in recent years for increases in the AML
appropriations, with a particular eye on the unappropriated balances in the state share
accounts that now exceed $1 billion. The total unappropriated balance — including
both federal and state share accounts in the AML fund — was nearly $1.7 billion by
the end of FY2004. Western states are additionally critical of the program because,
as coal production has shifted westward, these states are paying more into the fund.
They argue that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the reclamation
burden as more of the sites requiring remediation are in the East.
The Administration submitted legislation in the 108^th Congress that would have
reauthorized fee collections and made a number of changes to the program to address
state and regional concerns. Other legislative proposals for reauthorization of AML
collections were introduced in the House and Senate. The 108^th Congress was unable
to reach a resolution of the issues surrounding the structure of the program. In light
of the narrowing prospects that a bill would be enacted, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations added a short-term extension to May 31, 2005 during its markup of
the Interior appropriations bill. The House version of the bill had no comparable

⁴ For further information, see Platts Inside Energy, December 16, 2002, p.7 (Washington,
DC: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2002).

language. Before adjourning, authorization for collection of AML fees was extended
nine months to the end of June 2005 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for

2005 (P.L. 108-447).

A significant feature in the Administration reauthorization proposal with
significant bearing on the budget request was a ten-year plan to return the unobligated
state share balances to the states. The Administration asked for $53.0 million to
carry out the plan in the first year. Consequently, the Administration’s request for
AML was $243.9 million, a large increase (28%) above the $190.6 million enacted
in FY2004. Neither the House nor Senate Committees on Appropriations embraced
the Administration’s plan and the requested $53.0 million increase. The House
committee recommended an appropriation of $194.1 million for the AML fund —
$49.8 million less than the Administration request but $3.5 million above the
FY2004 appropriation. The full House concurred with the Committee’s
recommendation. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $190.9
million for AML grants distributions — a reduction of $3.2 million from the House
level, and $53.0 million from the President’s request. For FY2005, Congress enacted
an appropriation of $188.2 from the AML fund.
“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. Currently, grants to the states from the AML fund are based on states’ current
and historic coal production. The minimum funding level for each of these states was
increased to $2.0 million in 1992. However, over the objection of those states who
would have preferred the full authorization, Congress has appropriated $1.5 million
to minimum program states since FY1996. As part of its reauthorization plan, the
Administration proposed to assure $2.0 million annually to minimum program states,
but Congress maintained the $1.5 million level.
The other component of the OSM budget is for Regulation and Technology
programs. For Regulation and Technology, Congress provided $105.4 million in
FY2004, and the Administration requested $108.9 million for FY2005. Included in
the FY2005 request was $10.0 million in funding for the Appalachian Clean Streams
Initiative (ACSI), the same level as in FY2002-2004, and $10.0 million for the Small
Operators Assistance Program (SOAP). The House Appropriations Committee and
the full House agreed to these requested levels. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations added $1.0 million to the House level for the Regulation and
Technology budget, with instruction to OSM to contract with the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a study of coal reserves
and current technologies in mining. For these programs, Congress enacted $108.4
million for FY2005.
In total, the Administration requested $352.8 million for OSM, a 19% increase
over the FY2004 level of $296.0 million. As detailed above, the House agreed to a
total spending level of $303.0 million, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations
supported $300.8 million. The FY2005 enacted level is $296.6 million for OSM
programs and activities.
CRS Report RL32373. Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected
Issues, by Robert L. Bamberger.

For further information on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, see its website at [http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm].
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides a variety of services to federally-
recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and
historically has been the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs
provided or funded through the BIA include government operations, courts, law
enforcement, fire protection, social programs, education, roads, economic
development, employment assistance, housing repair, dams, Indian rights protection,
implementation of land and water settlements, management of trust assets (real estate
and natural resources), and partial gaming oversight.
BIA’s FY2004 direct appropriations were $2.301 billion. For FY2005, the
Administration proposed $2.25 billion, a decrease of $47.0 million (-2%) below
FY2004. The House approved $2.33 billion for FY2005, an increase of $34.0
million (1%) over FY2004 and $81.1 million (4%) over the Administration’s request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.28 billion, or $24.7 million
(-1%) below FY2004 and $22.3 million (1%) above the request. The conference
recommendation, enacted by Congress for FY2005, is $2.30 billion, or $5.1 million
(0.2%) below FY2004 and $41.9 million (2%) above the request. For the BIA, its
major budget components, and selected BIA programs (shown in italics), Table 11
below presents FY2004 appropriations; FY2005 figures for the Administration’s
proposal, the House-passed bill, the Senate Committee recommendations, and the
enacted level; and the percentages of change from FY2004 to the enacted FY2005
amounts. Decreases are shown with minuses.
Key issues for the BIA, discussed below, include the reorganization of the
Bureau, especially its trust asset management functions, and problems in the BIA
school system.

Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
^FY^2005:
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Percent
^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵^C^h^an^{ge From}
^Appro^p^.^Request^P^a^sse^d^C^o^mm.^Appro^p^.^FY²⁰⁰⁴
^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^of^In^di^an^Prog^ram^s
^{— T}^rⁱ^bal^Prⁱ^o^rⁱ^t^y^Al^l^o^catⁱ^ons^$770,637^$775,631^$775,631^$780,631^$769,543^-<^1%
^——C^ont^r^a^ct^Suppor^t^C^o^s^t^s^133,648^133,314^133,314^136,314^134,420^1%
^{— O}^t^her^Recur^rⁱ^{ng Pr}^ogr^am^s^614,136^600,611^612,103^616,340^612,919^-<^1%
^{—— School}^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^522,003^522,368^527,310^522,368^517,647^-1%
^——T^rⁱ^bal^l^y^-C^ont^r^o^l^l^e^{d C}^o^l^l^e^ges^48,600^43,390^43,390^55,890^53,141^9%
^{— N}^on-Recur^rⁱ^{ng Pr}^ogr^am^s^75,641^73,011^73,161^77,403^75,985^<¹^%
^{— C}^e^nt^r^a^l^O^f^fⁱ^{ce O}^p^er^atⁱ^ons^88,506^134,444^145,021^123,444^140,021^58%
^——O^f^fⁱ^{ce of}^Feder^a^l^1,350^1,307^1,307^1,307^N^/^A^N^/^A
^Acknow^l^e^dgm^ent
^——T^r^u^s^t^Ser^vⁱ^ces^5,252^19,340^19,340^19,340^19,071^263%
^——^Inf^o^r^m^atⁱ^{on Res}^our^ces^38,233^67,205^59,910^57,205^58,092^52%
^T^echnol^ogy
^{— Regional Office Oper}^ati^ons^63,686^62,523^41,946^62,523^41,362^-35%
^{— Speci}^al^Pr^ogr^am^s^{and Pool}^ed^280,100^283,257^287,171^291,457^286,261^2%
^O^ver^head
^——Publⁱ^c^Saf^et^{y and Jus}^tⁱ^c^e^172,495^182,600^182,600^182,600^180,063^4%
^S^u^bt^ot^al^{, O}^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^of^In^di^an^1,892,706^1,929,477^1,935,⁰³³^1,951,798^1,926,091^2%
^Pr^og^r^a^m^s
^C^oⁿ^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^346,825^283,126^348,626^283,126^319,129^-⁸^%
^{— Educat}ⁱ^{on C}^ons^t^r^uctⁱ^oⁿ^294,954^229,083^294,583^229,083^263,372^-11%
^L^aⁿ^d^an^d^W^a^ter^Claim^Settlem^eⁿ^t^s^54,866^34,771^44,771^34,771^44,150^-^20%
^an^{d Mis}^cellan^e^ou^s^P^a^y^m^en^ts
^In^di^an^G^u^aran^t^{eed L}^o^an^Prog^ram⁶^,417^6,421^6,421^6,421^6,332^-^<^1%
^T^o^tal^ap^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^2,300,814^2,^253,795^2,334,851^2,276,116^2,295,702^-<^1%
BIA Reorganization. In April 2003, Secretary of the Interior Norton began
implementing a reorganization of the BIA, the office of Assistant Secretary-Indian
Affairs (AS-IA), and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) in the
Office of the Interior Secretary (see “Office of Special Trustee” section below). The
reorganization arises from issues and events related to trust funds and trust assets
management, and is integrally related to the reform and improvement of trust
management. Historically, the BIA has been responsible for managing Indian tribes’
and individuals’ trust funds and trust assets. Trust assets include trust lands and the
lands’ surface and subsurface economic resources (e.g., timber, grazing lands, or
minerals), and cover about 45 million acres of tribal trust land and 10 million acres
of individual Indian trust land. Trust assets management includes real estate services,
processing of transactions (e.g., sales and leases), surveys, appraisals, probate
functions, land title records activities, and other functions.

The BIA, however, has been frequently charged with mismanaging Indian trust
funds and trust assets. Investigations and audits in the 1980s and after supported
these criticisms, especially in the areas of accounting, linkage of owners to assets,
and retention of records. This led to a trust reform act in 1994 and the filing of an
extensive court case in 1996 (see “Office of Special Trustee” section below). The
1994 act created the OST, assigning it responsibility for oversight of trust
management reform. In 1996 trust fund management was transferred to the OST
from the BIA, but the BIA retained management of trust assets.
Unsuccessful efforts at trust management reform in the 1990s led DOI to
contract in 2001 with a management-consultant firm. The firm’s recommendations
included both improvements in trust management and reorganization of the DOI
agencies carrying out trust management and improvement. Following nearly a year
of DOI consultation on reorganization with Indian tribes and individuals, DOI
announced the reorganization in December 2002, even though the department and
tribal leaders had not reached agreement on all aspects of reorganization. DOI,
however, faced a deadline in the court case to file a plan for overall trust management
reform, and reorganization was part of DOI’s plan.
The current reorganization plan of BIA, AS-IA, and OST chiefly involves trust
management structures and functions. Under the plan, the BIA’s trust operations at
regional and agency levels will remain in those offices but be split off from other BIA
services. The OST will add trust officers to BIA regional and agency offices to
oversee trust management and provide information to Indian trust beneficiaries.
Certain tribes, however, that had been operating trust management reform pilot
projects with their regional BIA offices under self-governance compacts were
excluded from the reorganization, under the FY2004 appropriations act. The BIA,
OST, and AS-IA, together with the Office of Historical Trust Accounting in the
Secretary’s office, also are implementing a separate trust management improvement
project, announced in March 2003, which includes improvements in trust asset
systems, policies, and procedures, historical accounting for trust accounts, reduction
of backlogs, modernization of computer technology (the court case led in 2001 to a
continuing shutdown of BIA’s World-Wide-Web connections), and maintenance of
the improved system.
Many Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and the plaintiffs in the court case,
have been critical of the new reorganization and have urgently asked that it be
suspended. Tribes argue that the reorganization is premature, because new trust
procedures and policies are still being developed; that it insufficiently defines new
OST duties; and that other major BIA service programs are being limited or cut to
pay for the reorganization. For FY2005, Congress responded to tribal concerns by
continuing the FY2004 provision (dropped in the Administration’s proposal) that
excludes from BIA reorganization certain tribes that have been operating trust
management reform pilot projects with their regional BIA offices. Congress did not,
however, suspend or stop the reorganization.
BIA School System. The BIA funds 185 elementary and secondary schools
and peripheral dormitories, with over 2,000 structures, educating about 48,000
students in 23 states. Tribes and tribal organizations, under self-determination
contracts and other grants, operate 120 of these institutions; the BIA operates the

remainder. BIA-funded schools’ key problems are low student achievement and,
especially, a large number of inadequate school facilities.
Some observers feel tribal operation of schools will improve student
achievement. To encourage tribal boards to take over operation of current BIA-
operated schools, for FY2004, Congress created an administrative cost fund of $2.9
million to pay tribal school boards’ start-up administrative costs. The Administration
proposal deleted this fund for FY2005, arguing that tribes were showing insufficient
interest in operating BIA-funded schools. Congress retained the fund but reduced its
appropriation to $1 million.
Many BIA school facilities are old and dilapidated, with health and safety
deficiencies. BIA education construction covers both construction of new school
facilities to replace facilities that cannot be repaired, and improvement and repair of
existing facilities. Schools are replaced or repaired according to priority lists. The
BIA has estimated the current backlog in education facility repairs at $942 million,
but this figure changes as new repair needs appear each year. Table 11 above shows
FY2004 and FY2005 education construction appropriations. The Administration
proposed reducing FY2005 appropriations for replacement-school construction by
$61.0 million, because a number of school replacement projects funded in previous
years are still under construction. The Administration also proposed adding
appropriations language authorizing the BIA to reassume management of school
construction projects that are under tribal self-determination contracts if the
construction does not begin within 18 months of funding availability, arguing that
some projects under self-determination contracts have been too slow in commencing.
Congress appropriated $263.4 million in total education construction funds for
FY2005 — $31.6 million (11%) below FY2004 and $34.3 million (15%) over the
request — and enacted the language authorizing BIA reassumption of construction
projects.
Because construction appropriations are, in some tribes’ view, not reducing
construction needs fast enough, Indian tribes have urged Congress to explore
additional sources of construction financing. In the FY2001-FY2004 Interior
appropriations acts, Congress authorized a demonstration program that allows tribes
to help fund construction of BIA-funded, tribally-controlled schools. The
Administration proposed increasing the funding for this program by $4.0 million in
FY2005, to a total of $9.9 million. Congress increased the funding even further, to
$12.3 million, but earmarked all the funding for three projects.
For further information on education programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
see its website at [http://www.oiep.bia.edu].

Departmental Offices
Insular Affairs. The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) provides financial
assistance to four insular areas (Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), as well as three former insular
areas (Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Federated States of Micronesia
(FSM), and Palau) formerly included in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
OIA staff also manages relations between these jurisdictions and the federal
government and works to build the fiscal and government capacity of units of local
government. Funding for the OIA consists of two parts: (1) permanent and indefinite
appropriations and (2) discretionary and current mandatory funding subject to the
appropriations process.
Permanent and indefinite appropriations historically constitute roughly 70% to
80% of the OIA budget and consist of two parts. For FY2005 the Administration
estimated that a total of roughly $305 million would be available, as follows:
^!$196 million to three freely associated states (RMI, FSM, and Palau)
under conditions set forth in the respective Compacts of Free
Association;⁵ and
^!$109 million in fiscal assistance, divided between the U.S. Virgin
Islands for estimated rum excise and income tax collections and
Guam for income tax collections.
These funding levels represent a slight increase over FY2004 levels.
Discretionary and current mandatory funds that require annual appropriations
constitute the balance (roughly 20% to 30%) of the OIA budget. Two accounts —
Assistance to Territories (AT) and the Compact of Free Association (CFA) —
comprise discretionary and current mandatory funding. Discretionary funding for
FY2004 was set at $82.1 million, with AT funded at $75.7 million and CFA at $6.4
million. This constituted a 15% decrease from the amount appropriated for such
payments in FY2003 ($96.8 million). The FY2005 request would have reduced AT
funding to $73.0 million, and CFA assistance to $5.9 million, for a total of $78.9
million. The appropriation for AT in FY2005 ($75.6 million) exceeded the
Administration proposal by about $2.6 million. The FY2005 appropriation for CFA
($5.5 million) was lower than that requested. In total, OIA discretionary funding for
FY2005 is $81.0 million, a 1% decrease from FY2004.
Little debate has occurred in recent years on funding for the territories and the
OIA. In general, Congress continues to monitor economic development and fiscal
management by government officials in the insular areas. For example, the recently

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

negotiated compacts with the FSM and RMI include accountability measures and
performance review requirements.
For further information on Insular Affairs, see its website at
[ http://www.doi.gov/oia/index .html] .
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT). For FY2005, Congress
enacted $226.8 million for PILT, a $2.1 million (1%) increase over FY2004, and a
$0.8 million (0.4%) increase over the Administration’s FY2005 request.
For FY2005, the Administration had proposed to fund the PILT program at
$226.0 million, nearly level funding with the $224.7 million appropriated in FY2004.
The House agreed with the President’s request. A House floor amendment to add
$15.0 million to PILT was defeated. Supporters of the amendment claimed that rural
western areas need additional PILT funds to provide the kinds of services that
counties with more private land are able to provide. Opposition to the amendment
centered on proposed reductions in funding for the Smithsonian Institution and the
National Endowment for the Humanities to offset the increase for PILT. The Senate
committee-reported bill contained $230.0 million for PILT, an increase of $5.3
million over the FY2004 enacted level and $4.0 million over the Administration’s
request and House-passed level.
The PILT program compensates local governments for federal land within their
jurisdictions because federally owned land is not taxed. Since the beginning of the
program in 1976, payments of more than $3 billion have been made. However, the
program has been controversial because in recent years appropriations have been
substantially less than authorized amounts.
Beginning in FY2004, the Administration proposed, and Congress agreed, to
shift the program from the BLM budget to Departmental Management in DOI
because PILT payments are made for lands of the Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, and Forest Service, and certain other federal lands, in addition to BLM
lands.
For further information on the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, see the BLM
website at [http://www.blm.gov/pilt/].
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. The Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians, in the Secretary of the Interior’s office, was authorized
by Title III of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994
(P.L. 103-412). The Office of Special Trustee (OST) generally oversees the reform
of Interior Department management of Indian trust assets, the direct management of
Indian trust funds, establishment of an adequate trust fund management system, and
support of department claims settlement activities related to the trust funds. Indian
trust funds formerly were managed by the BIA, but in 1996, at Congress’s direction
and as authorized by P.L. 103-412, the Secretary of the Interior transferred trust fund
management from the BIA to the OST. (See “Bureau of Indian Affairs” section
above.)

Indian trust funds managed by the OST comprise two sets of funds: (1) tribal
funds owned by about 300 tribes in approximately 1,400 accounts, with a total asset
value of about $2.9 billion; and (2) individual Indians’ funds, known as Individual
Indian Money (IIM) accounts, in about 260,000 accounts with a current total asset
value of about $400 million. (Figures are from the OST FY2005 budget
justifications.) The funds include monies received from claims awards, land or water
rights settlements, and other one-time payments, and from income from land-based
trust assets (e.g., land, timber, minerals), as well as from investment income.
The FY2005 budget proposal requested $317.7 million for the OST, $108.7
million (52%) over FY2004. The House approved $238.3 million for OST for
FY2005, 14% over FY2004 but 25% below the Administration’s proposal. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $246.3 million, 18% over FY2004
but 22% below the Administration proposal. The conference committee
recommendation, enacted by Congress, was $228.1 million, or $19.0 million (9%)
over FY2004 and $89.6 million (28%) below the request. Table 12 below presents
figures for FY2004 and FY2005 for the OST.
Key issues for the OST are its current reorganization, an historical accounting
for tribal and IIM accounts, and litigation involving tribal and IIM accounts.
Table 12. Appropriations for the Office of Special Trustee for American
Indians, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005:
Percent
F Y 2005 F Y 2005 Change
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 House Senat e F Y 2005 From
Approp. Request P assed Comm. Approp. F Y 2004
Federal Trust Programs$187,305$247,666$196,267$196,267$193,5403%
— Historical Accounting44,446109,40058,00058,00057,19429%
Indian Land Consolidation21,70970,00042,00050,00034,51459%
Total appropriations$209,014$317,666$238,267$246,267$228,0549%
Reorganization. Both OST and BIA began a reorganization in 2003 (see
“Bureau of Indian Affairs” section above), one aspect of which is the creation of OST
field operations. OST is installing fiduciary trust officers and administrators at the
level of BIA agency and regional offices. Many Indian tribes disagree with parts of
the OST and BIA reorganization and have asked Congress to put it on hold so that
OST and BIA can conduct further consultation with the tribes.
Historical Accounting. The historical accounting effort seeks to assign
correct balances to all tribal and IIM accounts, especially because of litigation.
Because of the long historical period to be covered (some accounts may date from
the 19^th century), the large number of IIM accounts, and the large number of missing
account documents, an historical accounting based on actual account transactions is
expected to be large and time-consuming. The Interior Department has proposed an
extensive, five-year, $335 million project to reconcile IIM accounts. Most of the

increase that the Administration proposed for the OST for FY2005 was for historical
accounting, which would have increased from $44.4 million in FY2004 to $109.4
million in FY2005. Of the proposed $109.4 million total for historical accounting,
$80.0 million was for IIM accounts and $29.4 million for tribal accounts. The House
and the Senate Appropriations Committee increased funds for historical accounting
but capped the amount at $58.0 million in appropriations language. For FY2005,
Congress approved the $58-million cap, which after rescissions in the law is $57.2
million, or $12.7 million (29%) over FY2004 and $52.2 million (48%) below the
request. The House Appropriations Committee, in its report on the FY2005 bill,
explained that the cap was related to ongoing mediation and settlement discussions
in the trust-funds litigation and to the possibility of large future appropriations if
these efforts failed.
Litigation. An IIM trust funds class-action lawsuit (Cobell v. Norton) was
filed in 1996, in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, against the⁶
federal government by IIM account holders. Many OST activities are related to the
Cobell case, including litigation support activities, but the most significant issue for
appropriations concerns the method by which the historical accounting will be
conducted to estimate IIM accounts’ proper balances. The DOI’s proposed method
was estimated by the Department to cost $335 million over five years and produce
a relatively low total owed to IIM accounts; the plaintiffs’ method, whose procedural
cost is uncertain, was estimated to produce a figure of $176 billion owed to IIM
accounts.
In 2003, the court conducted a lengthy trial to decide which historical
accounting method to use in estimating the IIM accounts’ proper balances.
Previously, in the first phase of the Cobell case, in 1999 the court had found that DOI
and the Treasury Department had breached trust duties regarding the necessary
document retention and data gathering needed for an accounting, and regarding the
business systems and staffing to fix trust management. The lawsuit’s final phase will
determine the amount of money owed to the plaintiffs, based on the historical
accounting method chosen.
Congress has, for several years, been concerned about the current and potential
costs of the Cobell lawsuit, although it has eliminated proposed appropriations
language directing settlement of the case. The Appropriations Committees have
expressed concern that the IIM lawsuit was jeopardizing DOI trust reform
implementation and have required reports from DOI on the costs and benefits of
historical accounting methods, including statistical sampling.
The court’s decision on historical accounting was delivered on September 25,
2003. The court rejected both the plaintiffs’ and DOI’s proposed historical
accounting plans and instead ordered DOI to account for all trust fund and asset
transactions since 1887, without using statistical sampling. The Interior Department
estimated that the court’s choice for historical accounting would cost $6-12 billion.

⁶ Cobell v. Norton (Civil No. 96-1285) (D.D.C.). Updated information is available on the
websites of the plaintiffs at [http://www.indiantrust.com], the DOI at [http://www.doi.gov/
indiantrust/], and the Justice Department at [http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/cobell/
index.htm].

The FY2004 Interior appropriations conference report added a controversial new
provision aimed at the court’s September 25, 2003, decision. The provision directed
that no statute or trust law principle should be construed to require the Interior
Department to conduct the historical accounting until either Congress had delineated
the department’s specific historical accounting obligations or December 31, 2004,
whichever was earlier. The conferees asserted in the conference committee report
that the court-ordered historical accounting was too expensive, beyond the intent of
the 1994 Act, and likely to be appealed, and that Congress needed time to resolve the
historical accounting question or settle the suit. Opponents in the House and Senate
argued that the provision was of doubtful constitutionality, since it directed courts’
interpretation of law and effectively suspended a court order in an ongoing case, and
further was unjust to the plaintiffs and might undermine the Interior Department’s
incentives to negotiate a settlement.
The FY2004 conference report with this provision passed both the Senate and,
narrowly, the House, and was enacted on November 10, 2003. Based on this
provision, the DOI on the same day appealed the court’s September 25, 2003, order.
On November 12, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
temporarily stayed the September 25 order. During the stay, on April 5, 2004, the
IIM plaintiffs and the federal government announced agreement on two mediators in
their case.⁷ The House Appropriations Committee’s report on the FY2005
appropriations bill expressed encouragement at the mediation and at commitments
by the House and Senate authorizing committees to develop a legislative solution.
On December 10, 2004, the Appeals Court overturned much of the September 25
order, finding among other things that the congressional provision prevented the
district court from requiring DOI to follow its directions for a historical accounting.
The Appeals Court noted that the provision expired on December 31, 2004, but did
not discuss the district court’s possible reissue of the order. Meanwhile, no bill was
introduced in the 108^th Congress to delineate the government’s historical accounting
obligation, the mediation discussions continued, and the district court has not
reissued an order on historical accounting.
For further information on the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians,
see its website at [http://www.ost.doi.gov/].
CRS Report RS21738. The Indian Trust Fund Litigation: An Overview of Cobell v.
Norton, by Nathan Brooks.
National Indian Gaming Commission. The National Indian Gaming
Commission (NIGC) was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)
of 1988 (P.L. 100-497, as amended) to oversee Indian tribal regulation of tribal bingo
and other “Class II” operations, as well as aspects of “Class III” gaming (e.g., casinos
and racing). The chief appropriations issue for NIGC is whether its funding is
adequate for its regulatory responsibilities.

⁷ For more information, see the joint press release of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
and the House Committee on Resources at [http://indian.senate.gov/108press/040504.htm].

The NIGC is authorized to receive annual appropriations of $2 million, but its
budget authority consists chiefly of annual fees assessed on tribes’ Class II and III
operations. IGRA currently caps NIGC fees at $8 million per year. The NIGC in
recent years has requested additional funding because it has experienced increased
demand for its oversight resources, especially audits and field investigations.
Congress, in the FY2003-FY2004 appropriations acts, increased the NIGC’s fee
ceiling to $12 million, but only for FY2004-FY2005.
In the FY2005 budget, the Administration proposed language amending IGRA
to create an adjustable, formula-based ceiling for fees instead of the current fixed
ceiling. The Administration argued that a formula-based fee ceiling would allow
NIGC funding to grow as the Indian gaming industry grows. Gaming tribes did not
support the increased fee ceiling or the proposed amendment of IGRA’s fee ceiling,
arguing that NIGC’s budget should first be reviewed in the context of extensive tribal
and state expenditures on regulation of Indian gaming, and that changes in NIGC’s
fees should be developed in consultation with tribes. The House bill, the Senate
Committee recommendation, and the FY2005 law did not include the
Administration’s proposed amendment to IGRA and instead extended to FY2006 the
increase in the NIGC fee ceiling to $12 million. Language in the Senate Committee
report allowed the NIGC to use negotiated rulemaking with tribes in developing
regulations.
During FY1999-FY2004, all NIGC activities were funded from fees, with no
direct appropriations. The Administration proposed no direct appropriations for the
NIGC for FY2005, and the House, the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the
FY2005 law did likewise.
Title II: Related Agencies and Programs
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
The FY2005 appropriations for the Forest Service total $4.75 billion — $4.63
billion in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (including $394.4 million in
emergency FS wildfire funding that would become available if certain conditions are
met), plus $113.1 million in P.L. 108-324 for emergency funding to address damages
from natural disasters. This amount is $75.0 million (2%) more than recommended
by the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended ($4.67 billion, including
$400.0 million in emergency wildfire funding), and $99.8 million (2%) more than the
House-passed level ($4.65 billion, including $400.0 million in emergency wildfire
funding). The FY2005 funding is $508.1 million (12%) more than the President’s
request of $4.24 billion (with no emergency wildfire funding), and $193.7 million
(4%) less than FY2004 appropriations of $4.98 billion (including supplemental
funds).
Legislative Provisions. Various legislative provisions relating to the FS
were discussed during consideration of Interior appropriations legislation, some of
which were enacted. One provision included in the FY2005 law could affect timber
harvesting in the Tongass National Forest. It extends a provision in the FY2004

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-108) providing standards
for timber sale litigation for an additional year’s timber sale decisions.
Another provision in the FY2005 law pertains to categorical exclusions for
grazing. For FY2005 through FY2007, decisions by the Secretary of Agriculture
authorizing grazing on FS lands would be categorically excluded from
documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), under
certain circumstances. Supporters of the language contend that it makes the
environmental review process more efficient by reducing the documentation and
expense required for reviewing grazing allotments where the level of complexity of
environmental issues is relatively low. Opponents are concerned that the provision
could eliminate NEPA-associated opportunities for public comment and continue
grazing at levels that damage the environment.
A third provision included in the law pertains to the forest land enhancement
program (FLEP). The program was enacted in the 2002 Farm Bill (P.L. 107-171,
§8002) with $100.0 million in mandatory spending for financial assistance to private
landowners for forestry practices. FY2003 funds of $20.0 million were spent on the
program. Then, in the summer of 2003, the Administration borrowed $50.0 million
of FLEP funds for firefighting, and $10.0 million was repaid in the FY2004 Interior
Appropriations Act. For FY2005, the Administration had proposed cancelling the
remaining $40.0 million (after the $20.0 million spent and $40.0 million borrowed
and not repaid). The House and Senate Appropriations Committees had included
language in their bills as reported to cancel the remaining $40.0 million of FLEP, but
the provision was removed on the House floor on a point of order. The FY2005 law
includes a provision cancelling $20.0 million of FLEP funding, leaving $20.0 million
available for FLEP funding through FY2006.
Other provisions were considered but not enacted. The House had agreed to the
Chabot amendment to prohibit funding for forest development roads to remove
timber from the Tongass National Forest (AK). This amendment would have
prevented new timber harvesting roads paid by taxpayers, but would not have
prevented road building by private timber companies or by the government for other
purposes. It would likely have constrained timber harvesting in the Tongass during
FY2005, but would not have prevented maintenance of existing roads. The Senate
committee-reported bill and the FY2005 law do not include such a provision.
In addition, the House rejected a Udall amendment to prevent completion of
new NFMA planning regulations. The amendment was supported because the draft
regulations would eliminate the NEPA analysis of plans, end population viability
standards for native species, and otherwise alter existing planning processes and
standards. Opponents contended that the 1982 regulations are outdated and
cumbersome and the 2000 Clinton regulations (which have not been implemented)
are unworkable. The Bush Administration has since issued new NFMA planning
regulations (70 Fed. Reg. 1023, Jan. 5, 2005).
Forest Fires and Forest Health. Fire funding and fire protection programs
have been controversial. The ongoing discussion includes questions about funding
levels and locations for various fire protection treatments, such as thinning and
prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and clearing around structures to protect them

during fires. Another focus is whether, and to what extent, environmental analysis,
public involvement, and challenges to decisions hinder fuel reduction activities. (For
historical background and descriptions of funded activities, see CRS Report
RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.)
The National Fire Plan comprises the FS wildland fire program (including fire
programs funded under other line items) and fire fighting on DOI lands; the DOI
wildland fire monies are appropriated to the BLM. Congress does not fund the
National Fire Plan in any one place in Interior appropriations acts. The total can be
derived by combining the several accounts which the agencies identify as National
Fire Plan funding. This shows FY2005 appropriations of $2.97 billion, $14.4 million
(0.5%) less than recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee and $51.2
million (2%) less that the House provided. The amount is $500.3 million (20%)
above the FY2005 budget request, and $325.3 million (10%) less than FY2004
appropriations. See Table 13 below.
The BLM appropriations are $831.3 million for FY2005, $11.8 million (1%)
less that the Senate committee recommendation and the House-passed level, $88.2
million (12%) more than the request, and $52.3 million (6%) less than the FY2004
appropriation. The FS level is $2.14 billion, $2.6 million (0.1%) less than the Senate
Committee recommended, $39.4 million (2%) less than the House-passed level,
$412.1 million (24%) more than the request, and $273.0 million (11%) less than
FY2004 funding.

Table 13. National Fire Plan Funding, FY2001-FY2005
($ in millions)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵^e
^FY²⁰⁰¹^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰³^b^FY²⁰⁰⁴^c^FY²⁰⁰⁵^d^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Appro^p^.^Appro^p^.^Appro^p^.^Appro^p^.^Request^P^a^sse^d^C^o^mm.^Appro^p^.
^Fores^{t Service}
^{— W}ⁱ^l^d^fⁱ^r^{e Suppr}^es^sⁱ^on^$319.3^$255.³^$418.0^$597.1^$685.4^$658.0^$658.4^$648.9
^{— Em}^er^{gency Fundi}^ng^a^425.1^266.0^919.0^748.9⁰^.0^400.0^400.0^395.5
^{— Pr}^epar^ednes^s^611.1^622.6^612.0^671.6^666.2^693.6^686.0^676.5
^{— O}^t^her^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^557.2^446.8^371.5^392.6^373.6^425.1^395.5^416.5
^S^u^bt^ot^al^{, F}^o^res^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹^,912.7¹^,590.7²^,320.5²^,410.3¹^,725.2²^,176.7²^,139.9²^,137.3
^BL^M
^{— W}ⁱ^l^d^fⁱ^r^{e Suppr}^es^sⁱ^on^153.1^127.4^159.3^192.9^221.5^221.5^221.5^218.4
^{— Em}^er^{gency Fundi}^ng^a^199.6^54.0^225.0^198.4⁰^.0^100.0^100.0^98.6
^{— Pr}^epar^ednes^s^314.7^280.8^275.4^274.3^283.0^262.6^262.6^258.9
^{— O}^t^her^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^309.7^216.2^215.4^218.0^238.6^258.9^258.9^255.3
^S^u^bt^ot^al^{, BL}^M^977.1^678.4^875.2^883.6^743.1^843.1^843.1^831.3
^T^o^tal^N^a^ti^on^al^Fi^{re Pl}^an
^{— W}ⁱ^l^d^fⁱ^r^{e Suppr}^es^sⁱ^on^472.4^382.7^577.3^790.0^906.9^879.5^879.9^867.3
^{— Em}^er^{gency Fundi}^ng^a^624.6^320.0¹^,144.0^947.3⁰^.0^500.0^500.0^494.1
^{— Pr}^epar^ednes^s^925.9^903.4^887.4^945.9^949.2^956.3^948.6^935.4
^{— O}^t^her^O^p^er^atⁱ^ons^866.9^663.0^586.9^610.6^612.2^684.0^654.4^671.8
^T^o^tal^ap^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^2,889.8²^,269.1³^,^195.6³^,293.9²^,468.3³^,^019.8²^,983.0²^,968.6
^No^tes:^In^clu^d^es^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^B^L^{M an}^{d FS W}^ildlan^d^{Fire Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^accouⁿ^t^s^,^f^r^om^{FS State an}^{d P}^r^iv^{ate Fores}^t^ry
^(C^ooperativ^e^Fⁱ^re^P^r^otection⁾^,^an^{d f}^o^{r F}^Y^{2005, f}^r^om^F^S^Nation^a^l^F^o^res^t^S^y^s^t^em^(Hazardou^s^F^u^els^R^e^du^ction⁾^.^Ex^clu^d^es^$30.0
^m^illion^of^{FY2005 f}^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r f}^u^{el redu}^ction^,^h^{azard m}^itig^ation^,^an^{d reh}^a^bilitationⁱⁿ^th^{e San}^B^e^rn^ardin^o^(C^A⁾^Nation^a^l^Fores^t^an^d
^{$10.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r a w}^ildfⁱ^{re train}ⁱⁿ^g^f^acilityⁱⁿ^San^B^e^rn^ardin^o^C^o^uⁿ^t^y^,^C^A^{, tran}^s^f^{erred to th}^{e Fores}^t^Serv^ice^uⁿ^d^er^P^.^L^.^108-²^87.
^T^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^{e di}^f^f^e^rs^f^r^om^t^h^e^m^o^re^det^aⁱ^l^e^d^t^a^bl^esⁱⁿ^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^S^21544,^Wⁱ^l^d^fⁱ^r^{e Pr}^ot^ectⁱ^{on Fundi}^ng^{, by}^R^o^s^s^W^.^{Gorte, becau}^s^e
^t^h^a^t^r^e^p^o^r^t^r^e^a^r^r^a^nge^s^d^a^t^a^t^o^dⁱ^stⁱ^ngui^sh^fundⁱ^{ng fo}^r^p^r^o^t^e^c^tⁱ^{ng fe}^d^e^r^a^l^l^a^nd^s,^fo^r^a^ssi^stⁱ^{ng i}ⁿ^no^nfe^d^e^r^a^l^l^a^nd^p^r^o^t^e^c^tⁱ^o^n,^a^nd^fo^r
^fⁱ^r^e^r^e^sear^ch^an^d^o^t^h^e^r^activ^ities.
^{a. Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal an}^{d con}^tin^g^eⁿ^t^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^ar^{e in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^ag^en^cy^to^tals.
^{b. In}^clu^d^es^s^u^pplem^en^{tal of}^{$636.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS an}^{d $189.0}^m^illion^f^o^r^th^e^B^L^M^($825.0^m^illion^total)ⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-⁷^an^d
^of^{$283.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS an}^{d $36.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^L^{M ($319.0 m}^illion^{total) in}^P^.^L^.^108-^83.
^c.^In^clu^d^es^repay^m^en^{t of}^{$299.2 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS an}^{d $98.4}^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^L^{M ($397.6}^m^illioⁿ^{total) of}^{earlier borrow}ⁱⁿ^g^s
^f^o^{r f}ⁱ^{re s}^u^ppres^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{108, an}^{d a s}^u^pplem^en^{tal of}^$49.^{7 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^e^FSⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{199. A}^l^s^oⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^{$400.0 m}ⁱ^l^lioⁿ
^f^o^{r th}^{e FS an}^{d $100.0 m}^illion^f^o^r^th^e^B^L^M^($500.0^m^illion^total),ⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed in}^th^{e Departm}^eⁿ^t^of^Def^eⁿ^s^{e A}^ppropriation^s^A^c^t^f^o^r
^F^Y^{2005 (P.L}^{. 108-}^{287), f}^o^{r em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^tⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^F^Y^2004.
^d^.^Fir^e^r^e^sear^ch^an^d^f^u^{el r}^e^d^u^ctioⁿ^f^uⁿ^d^{s ar}^{e in}^clu^d^ed^uⁿ^d^er^Oth^e^r^Op^er^atioⁿ^s^.^T^h^e^B^L^M^tr^ad^itioⁿ^a^lly^h^a^{s in}^clu^d^ed^fⁱ^r^e^r^e^sear^c^h
^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^uⁿ^d^{er Preparedn}^e^s^s^,^an^{d t}^h^{e F}^S^propos^{ed t}^o^m^o^v^e^fⁱ^{re res}^earch^f^r^om^O^t^{her O}^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^o^Preparedn^e^s^sⁱⁿⁱ^t^s^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵
^bu^dg^et^requ^es^t^.^T^h^{e F}^S^al^s^o^propos^{ed t}^o^m^o^v^e^f^u^el^redu^ctⁱ^oⁿ^f^uⁿ^d^s^f^r^om^O^t^h^e^{r O}^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^o^t^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^F^o^res^t^S^y^s^t^em^.
^{e. In}^clu^d^es^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^{$1.03 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e FS in}^P^.^L^.^108-^324.
The FS and BLM wildland fire line items include funds for fire suppression
(fighting fires), preparedness (equipment, training, baseline personnel, prevention,

and detection), and other operations (rehabilitation, fuel reduction, research, and state
and private assistance). For more information on these activities, see CRS Report
RS21544, Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
The FY2005 appropriations for wildfire suppression are $867.3 million, $12.6
million (1%) less than the Senate committee recommended, $12.2 million (1%) less
than the House provided, $39.6 million (4%) less than the budget request, and $77.3
million (10%) more than FY2004 appropriations. The increase above FY2004 is
slightly greater for the BLM (13%) than for the FS (9%). The request was based on
an average fire year, and contained no contingent or emergency funding ($947.3
million enacted for FY2004). If the fire season is worse than average, the agencies
have the authority to borrow unobligated funds from any other account to pay for
firefighting. Such borrowings typically are repaid in subsequent appropriations
(commonly emergency appropriations bills), although to date, FY2003 borrowings
have not been fully repaid. Supplemental emergency firefighting funds for FY2004
were enacted in the FY2005 DOD appropriations (P.L. 108-287). In their FY2005
bills, the House had included, and the Senate committee had recommended, $500.0
million in emergency funding ($100.0 million for the BLM and $400.0 million for
the FS), if needed, for FY2005, to preclude borrowing from other accounts to fight
wildfires. P.L. 108-324 included $1.0 million of emergency FY2005 FS funds for
disaster recovery. The FY2005 appropriations law includes $493.1 million in
emergency funding ($98.6 million for the BLM and $394.4 million for the FS), if
needed.
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act includes $935.4 million for fire
preparedness, $13.2 million (1%) less than the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended, $20.9 million (2%) less than the House, $13.8 million (1%) less than
the request, and $10.5 million (1%) less than FY2004.
FY2005 funding for other fire operations totals $671.8 million, $17.4 million
(3%) more than the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended, and $12.2
million (2%) less than the House-passed level. Other fire operations include fuel
reduction funding under the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148), and other authorities. FY2005 fuel
reduction funding totals $463.9 million, $6.6 million (1%) less than the Senate
Committee recommended, $11.6 million (2%) less than the House-passed level and
the FY2005 request, and $46.6 million (11%) more than in FY2004. The increase
from FY2004 is slightly greater for the FS (12%) than for the BLM (10%). In
addition, §8098 of P.L. 108-287, the FY2005 DOD appropriations act, transferred
$30.0 million of DOD funds to the FS for fuel reduction, hazard mitigation, and
rehabilitation in the San Bernardino NF (CA) and $10.0 million for a wildfire
training facility in San Bernardino County (CA).
Finally, the House directed $8.0 million from two State and Private Forestry
accounts (discussed below) — $5.0 million from state fire assistance and $3.0
million from forest stewardship — to be used to support community wildfire
protection planning. The Senate Committee and conference reports are silent on the
issue.

State and Private Forestry. While funding for wildfires has been the center
of debate, many changes have occurred in State and Private Forestry (S&PF) —
programs that provide financial and technical assistance to states and to private forest
owners. Total S&PF funding enacted in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations
Act is $292.5 million (excluding $49.1 million enacted for disaster recovery in P.L.
108-324). This is $1.3 million (0.5%) more than recommended by the Senate
Appropriations Committee, $10.1 million (4%) more than the House passed, $1.8
million (1%) less than the budget request, and $11.8 million (4%) less than FY2004
appropriations (excluding $24.9 million of emergency S&PF funding included under
National Fire Plan emergency funding, above). Large shifts in funding within S&PF
— in forest health management, in cooperative fire assistance, in cooperative
forestry, and in international programs — were proposed and some were included in
the FY2005 law.
The FY2005 law includes $101.9 million for forest health management (insect
and disease control on federal and cooperative [nonfederal] lands), $20.6 million
(25%) more than recommended by the Senate committee and requested by the
Administration, $1.1 million (1%) less than the House passed, and $3.3 million (3%)
more than FY2004 appropriations. The President proposed $10.0 million for a new
Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund to rapidly address invasive species problems,
although similar proposals in the previous two budget requests have been rejected by
Congress. The House, Senate committee, and FY2005 law again rejected this
proposal. In addition, funds for forest health management are included in National
Fire Plan Other Operations (see above). For FY2005, these funds total $24.6 million,
$12.0 million (95%) more than the Senate Committee recommended and the
Administration requested, $0.3 million (1%) less than the House passed, and $39,000
less than FY2004.
For S&PF Cooperative Fire Assistance to states and volunteer fire departments,
the FY2005 law includes $38.8 million, $2.8 million (8%) more than the Senate
Committee recommended, $3.0 million (7%) less than the House passed, $8.7
million (29%) more than the FY2005 request, and $0.4 million (1%) more than
FY2004 (excluding the $24.9 million of FY2004 emergency S&PF funding included
under National Fire Plan Emergency Funding, above). In addition, funds for
cooperative fire assistance are included in National Fire Plan Other Operations (see
above). Enacted FY2005 funding for such programs total $48.1 million, $0.7 million
(2%) less than the Senate committee recommended, $0.1 million (0.1%) more than
the House passed, $5.8 million (14%) more than the FY2005 budget request, and
$11.1 million (19%) less than FY2004 funding.
The FY2005 law contains $145.4 million for Cooperative Forestry programs
(assistance for forestry activities on state and private lands). This is $22.0 million
(13%) less than the Senate committee recommended, $14.3 million (11%) more than
the House passed, $32.3 million (18%) less than the FY2005 budget request, and
$16.0 million (10%) more than FY2004. Most of the differences are in two
programs: Forest Legacy, for purchasing title or easements for lands threatened with
conversion to nonforest uses, such as for residences; and Economic Action Programs
(EAP), for rural community assistance, wood recycling, and Pacific Northwest
economic assistance. The enacted level for Forest Legacy is $57.1 million, $14.0
million (33%) more than the House, $19.2 million (25%) less than the Senate

Committee recommended, and substantially ($42.9 million, 43%) below the $100.0
million proposed by the Administration for FY2005. The enacted level for EAP is
$19.0 million, $0.9 million (5%) less than the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended, nearly double the House-passed level of $10.0 million, and down $6.6
million (26%) from FY2004. The Administration again proposed to terminate
funding for this program. Other program changes are more modest.
For international programs (technical forestry assistance to other nations),
FY2005 appropriations total $6.4 million, slightly ($91,000) less than the Senate
committee recommended and the House passed, $1.1 million (20%) more than the
FY2005 request, and $0.5 million (8%) more than FY2004 appropriations.
In addition, P.L. 108-324 contained $49.1 million in emergency appropriations
for FS assistance to private landowners for recovery from natural resource disasters.
Table 14. FS State & Private Forestry Funding, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005FY2005
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 House Senat e F Y 2005
Approp. Request P assed Comm. Approp.
Forest Health Management$98.6$81.2$103.0$81.2$101.9
— Federal Lands ^a53.846.055.046.054.2
— Cooperative Lands ^a44.725.248.035.247.6
— Emerging Pests & Pathogens Fund0.010.00.00.00.0
Cooperative Fire Assistance ^a38.430.141.836.038.8
— State Assistance ^a ^b 33.425.136.430.032.9
— Volunteer Asst. ^a5.05.05.46.05.9
Cooperative Forestry ^a161.4177.7131.1167.4145.4
— Forest Stewardship31.940.737.033.032.3
— Forest Legacy64.1100.043.176.357.1
— Urban & Community Forestry34.932.032.033.132.0
— Economic Action ^a25.60.010.020.019.0
— Forest Resource Info. & Analysis4.95.09.05.05.0
International Programs5.95.46.56.56.4
Emergency Appropriations0.00.00.00.049.1
Total State & Private Forestry304.3 ^b294.4282.4291.2341.6
^{a. Ex}^clu^d^es^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^prov^{ided u}ⁿ^d^{er th}^{e W}^ildlan^d^{Fire Man}^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^accouⁿ^t^.
^{b. T}^h^{e FY2004 f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e ex}^clu^d^es^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^$24.9^m^illion^,^en^actedⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{199, an}^{d s}^h^owⁿⁱⁿ^Nation^a^l
^Fi^r^e^P^l^aⁿ^fundⁱ^ng,^a^b^o^v^e^.
Infrastructure. The FY2005 law includes $514.7 million for FS Capital
Improvement and Maintenance, and P.L. 108-324 added $50.8 million in
infrastructure funding for disaster recovery. Thus, total FY2005 funding for FS

Capital Improvement and Maintenance is $565.5 million. This is $49.3 million
(10%) more than the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended, $42.6 million
(8%) more than the House passed, $64.5 million (13%) more than requested, and
$10.3 million (2%) more than FY2004. The FY2005 funding levels for facilities
($198.8 million), roads ($226.4 million), and trails ($75.7 million) are generally
similar to (within 5% of) the requested, House-passed, and Senate committee-
recommended levels. The largest differences are for disaster recovery ($50.8 million
enacted) and for deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvement. The latter
account is to reduce the agency’s backlog of deferred maintenance, estimated at
$6.54 billion. The FY2005 law includes $13.8 million, $3.8 million (38%) more than
recommended by the Senate committee and requested by the Administration, $8.1
million (37%) less than the House-passed level, and $17.8 million (56%) less than
FY2004 funding.
Land Acquisition. The FY2005 law includes $61.0 million for FS Land
Acquisition from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, with $12.8 million for
acquisition management and $48.2 million for land purchases. This is significantly
less ($21.5 million, 26%) than the $82.5 million recommended by the Senate
Appropriations Committee, but substantially more ($45.5 million, 294%) than the
House-passed level of $15.5 million. It is $5.9 million (9%) less than requested and
$5.4 million (8%) less than FY2004 appropriations. The differences are almost
entirely for land purchases, with modest differences for acquisition management.
Other Accounts. FY2005 appropriations for FS research are $276.4 million,
$3.5 million (1%) less than the Senate committee recommended, $4.3 million (2%)
less than the House-passed level and the budget request, and $10.0 million (4%)
above FY2004. National Forest System (NFS) appropriations are $1.39 billion
(including $12.2 million in P.L. 108-324 for disaster recovery), $5.8 million (0.4%)
more than the Senate committee recommended, $6.6 million (0.5%) less than the
House-passed level, $3.4 million (0.2%) more than the request — excluding the
proposed transfer of fuel reduction from wildfire management to NFS — and $27.1
million (2%) more than FY2004. (Fuel reduction funding is discussed under the
National Fire Plan, above.) The House also included $10.0 million for a Centennial
of Service Challenge to fund cost-share projects in celebration of the agency’s 100^th
birthday in February 2005; the FY2005 law provided $9.9 million.
For information on the Department of Agriculture, see its website at
[ http://www.usda.gov/] .
For further information on the U.S. Forest Service, see its website at
[ http://www.fs.fed.us/] .
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests, by Ross W.
Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.

CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS22024. Wildfire Protection in the 108^th Congress, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS21880. Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by Ross
W. Gorte.
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. The
Bush Administration’s FY2005 budget request of $635.8 million for fossil energy
research and development was 5% less than the amount enacted for FY2004 ($672.8
million) but 2% higher than the enacted amount for FY2003 ($620.8 million). Major
funding categories and amounts included Coal and Other Power Systems ($470.0
million), Natural Gas Technologies ($26.0 million), Petroleum Technology ($15.0
million), and Program Direction and Management Support ($106.0 million).
The FY2005 appropriations law which funded fossil energy R&D programs at
$571.9 million has significant differences with the Administration’s request. For
example, within the category of Coal and Other Power Systems, the FY2005 law
supported FutureGen at $17.8 million versus $237.0 million contained in the budget
request. The FY2005 law supported increases in Advanced Systems, Fuels, and Fuel
Cells research over the Administration’s request. Natural Gas ($44.8 million) and
Petroleum Technologies ($33.9 million) also were funded at higher levels than the
Administration’s request. A key difference for Natural Gas programs was in
infrastructure projects. The Administration sought zero funding in FY2005, while
the FY2005 law includes $8.4 million in infrastructure funding. In the Petroleum
programs, the Administration sought $3.0 million in Petroleum Exploration and
Production while the FY2005 law provides $18.7 million. The Administration’s
request also would have reduced funding for the fuels program by nearly half,
providing $16.0 million for transportation fuels and chemicals and zero funding for
solid and advanced fuels research. For FY2005, Congress enacted funding of $32.1
million for these programs, higher than FY2004 funding of $31.2 million.
The Administration requested $287.0 million for the Clean Coal Power
Initiative (CCPI) for FY2005, as part of a $2 billion, 10-year commitment. The
program is designed for “funding advanced research and development and a limited
number of joint government-industry-funded demonstrations of new technologies
that can enhance the reliability and environmental performance of coal-fired power
generators,” according to DOE. The Administration wanted to incorporate the
FutureGen program within the CCPI and would fund it at $237.0 million. Other
CCPI programs would have received $50.0 million. The FutureGen project is a Bush
Administration initiative designed to establish the feasibility of producing electricity
and hydrogen from a coal-fired plant yielding no emissions. The CCPI is along the
lines of the Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP), which has completed most of
its projects and has been subject to rescissions and deferrals since the mid-1990s.
The Administration sought $237.0 million in rescissions in the CCTP program for
FY2005, which would have offset the request for FutureGen. The FY2005 law
deferred spending $257.0 million of remaining Clean Coal Technology funds,
previously appropriated, rather than rescind the money as requested by the

Administration. The CCTP eventually will be phased out. In addition to the $17.8
million for FutureGen, the FY2005 law provides $49.3 million for the CCPI.
Earlier, the House had not supported FutureGen as a separate account or the
amount requested, but rather supported it using $18.0 million of previously
appropriated CCTP money for FutureGen in FY2005. The House also deferred
$237.0 million of CCTP funds for future FutureGen requirements. In its report on
the FY2005 bill, the House Appropriations Committee expressed disappointment
with the emphasis of the request on funding major, new, long-term energy research
efforts, such as FutureGen, at the expense of ongoing energy programs that are
expected to yield energy savings and emissions reductions over the next decade
(H.Rept. 108-542, p. 7). The House approved $105.0 million for the CCPI. In its
report, the House Appropriations Committee recommended restoring many of the
proposed reductions for research to improve fossil energy technologies. The House
Committee stated that it would be “fiscally irresponsible” to discontinue research in
which major investments have been made before that research is concluded (H.Rept.

108-542, p. 8).

The Senate Appropriations Committee agreed with the House in its level of
funding for Future Gen ($18.0 million), while providing a separate line item for that
purpose. The Committee also deferred (rather than rescinded) $257.0 million for
CCTP. The Senate Committee did agree with the Administration in supporting $50.0
million for the CCPI.
For further information on the Department of Energy (DOE), see its website at
[ h ttp://www.doe.gov/engi ne/content.do] .
For further information on Fossil Energy, see its website at
[ h ttp://www.fe.doe.gov/] .
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR),
authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163) in late 1975,
consists of caverns formed out of naturally occurring salt domes in Louisiana and
Texas in which more than 650 million barrels of crude oil are stored. The purpose
of the SPR is to provide an emergency source of crude oil which may be tapped in
the event of a presidential finding that an interruption in oil supply, or an interruption
threatening adverse economic effects, warrants a drawdown from the reserve.
In mid-November 2001, President Bush ordered that the SPR be filled to
capacity (700 million barrels) using royalty-in-kind (RIK) oil. This is oil turned over
to the federal government as payment for production from federal leases. Acquiring
oil for the SPR by RIK avoids the necessity for Congress to make outlays to finance
direct purchase of oil; however, it also means a loss of revenues to the Treasury in
so far as the royalties are paid in wet barrels rather than in cash. Deliveries of RIK
oil began in the spring of 2002 and in early 2005 were scheduled to continue through
April. Additional deliveries are highly likely until the SPR is filled.
Deliveries that were scheduled for late 2002 and the first months of 2003 were
delayed due to tightness in world oil markets. Some policymakers in the 108^th
Congress urged the Administration to suspend RIK deliveries once again so that RIK

oil could be released to tight markets. The administration argued that the 100,000-
200,000 barrels per day of deliveries to the SPR are marginal volumes too small to
have any discernible effect on crude and product prices.
There were three attempts during the second session of the 108^th Congress to
temporarily suspend deliveries of RIK oil to the SPR. On March 11, 2004, during
debate on the FY2005 budget resolution, the Senate agreed to another suspension of
deliveries of RIK oil, and sale of this oil instead. Several members of the House also
have voiced support for deferral of deliveries. During House floor debate on the
Interior appropriations bill, Representative Sanders offered an amendment to suspend
RIK deliveries and forbid the expenditure of funds in the bill to maintain the SPR
above 647 million barrels, the level at which the SPR was when the Senate passed
its budget resolution. The amendment was rejected. The most recent attempt to
suspend fill occurred on September 14, 2004, during debate on H.R. 4567, the
FY2005 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Senator Byrd
proposed suspension of RIK fill in order to provide $470 million in additional
funding for homeland security purposes. The amendment fell on a point of order.
The current program costs for the SPR are almost exclusively dedicated to
maintaining SPR facilities and keeping the SPR in readiness should it be needed.
The costs of transporting RIK oil to SPR sites are now borne by the contractors, so
no new money was requested for the SPR petroleum account beginning with
FY2004.
The request for SPR for FY2005 was $177.1 million — $172.1 million for the
SPR and $5.0 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR).
Congress agreed to a funding level of $175.9 million for the program in FY2004,
including $4.9 million for the NHOR. The NHOR, established by the Clinton
Administration, houses 2 million barrels of home heating oil in above-ground
facilities in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The House agreed to the
requested levels, as did the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The enacted
appropriation for FY2005, including the NHOR, is $174.6 million.
Comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 6) reported from conference during the
108^th Congress would have permanently authorized the SPR and NHOR, and would
have required that the SPR be filled to its authorized capacity of 1 billion barrels (its
current capacity is roughly 700 million barrels) as soon as practicable. The legislation
was not enacted.
For further information on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, see its website at
[http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/res erves/spr/].
CRS Issue Brief IB87050, The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
Naval Petroleum Reserves. The National Defense Authorization Act for
FY1996 (P.L. 104-106) authorized sale of the federal interest in the oil field at Elk
Hills, CA (Naval Petroleum Reserve -1 (NPR-1)). On February 5, 1998, Occidental
Petroleum Corporation took title to the site and wired $3.65 billion to the U.S.
Treasury. P.L. 104-106 also transferred most of two Naval Oil Shale Reserves
(NOSR) to DOI; the balance of the second was transferred to DOI in the spring of

1999. On January 14, 2000, the Department of Energy (DOE) returned the
undeveloped Naval Oil Shale Reserve-2 (NOSR-2) to the Ute Indian Tribe; the
FY2001 National Defense Authorization (P.L. 106-398) provided for the transfer.
The United States retains a 9% royalty interest in NOSR-2, with any proceeds to be
applied to the costs of remediating a uranium mill tailings site near Moab, UT. In

1999, NOSR-3 was transferred to the Department of the Interior in 1999).

Conditions of the transfer of NOSR-3 — and the prior sale of the Elk Hills field —
were that DOE remained responsible for environmental remediation activities.
This leaves in the Naval Petroleum Reserves program two small oil fields in
California and Wyoming, which were estimated to generate revenue to the
government of roughly $7.2 million during FY2005. Congress provided $18.0
million to maintain the Naval Petroleum Reserves (NPR) during FY2004. Similarly,
the House agreed to the Administration’s recommendation to maintain spending at
$18.0 million in FY2005. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended
the same level. The final appropriation for FY2005 is $17.8 million.
In settlement of a long-standing dispute between California and the federal
government over the state’s claim to Elk Hills as “school lands,” the California
Teachers’ Retirement Fund (CTRF) is to receive 9% of the Elk Hills sale proceeds
after the costs of sale have been deducted. The agreement between DOE and
California provided for five annual payments of $36.0 million beginning in FY1999,
with the balance due to be paid in equal installments in FY2004 and FY2005. The
FY2004 budget provided $72.0 million, including an advance appropriation of $36.0
million for the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, to be paid on October 1 of the following
fiscal year. For FY2005, the Administration also requested $72.0 million, and the
House agreed to $72.0 million pending a final determination of how much additional
money is due to the CTRF. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also
recommended $72.0 million, including an advance appropriation of $36.0 million,
payable on October 1, 2005. The FY2005 enacted level is $71.5 million, consisting
of a $35.5 million advance appropriation from previous years and a $36.0 million
advance appropriation for FY2006.
For further information on Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, see its
website at [http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/].
Energy Conservation. The FY2005 budget request (Budget Appendix, p.
397) notes that the “Administration’s energy efficiency programs have the potential
to produce substantial benefits for the Nation — both now and in the future — in
terms of economic growth, increased energy security and a cleaner environment.”
In particular, the request “continues the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to accelerate the
worldwide availability and affordability of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles.”
The Administration’s request sought $875.9 million ($584.7 million, excluding
Weatherization) for energy efficiency, which is $2.1 million, or 0.2%, less than the
FY2004 appropriation. Compared with the FY2004 appropriation, the request would
have cut R&D funding from $606.9 million to $543.9 million, a decrease of $62.9
million, or 10%. The request originally included $291.2 million for Weatherization,
which is $64.0 million more than the FY2004 appropriation. See Table 15 below.

The House Appropriations Committee’s report (p. 123) stated that “the
jurisdiction for the Weatherization Program has been moved to the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHE), which
has jurisdiction for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
that also includes funding for weatherization.” The House-passed LHE bill (H.R.
5006, H.Rept. 108-636) had $238.0 million for Weatherization, which included $11.0
million added by H.Amdt. 721. This is $10.8 million more than the FY2004
appropriation and is $53.2 million less than the DOE request. Also, the report (p.
128) “encourages” DOE to conduct “an up-to-date assessment” of the Weatherization
program comparable to the benefit-cost evaluation conducted by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in 1994.
In the Interior bill, the House approved $656.1 million for DOE energy
conservation funding in FY2005, excluding the Weatherization program. Combined
with $238.0 million for Weatherization funding in the LHE bill, the House approved
a total of $894.0 million for FY2005. Thus, compared with the Administration’s
request, the House sought an increase of $18.1 million, or 2%. This is comprised of
$67.1 million more for R&D and $48.9 million less for grants.

Table 15. Appropriations for DOE Energy Conservation, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005:
Percent
F Y 2005 F Y 2005 Change
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 House Senat e F Y 2005 From
DOE Energy ConservationApprop.RequestPassedComm.Approp.FY2004
Vehicle Technologies $178.0$156.7167.4168.5166.9-6%
Fuel Cell Technologies65.277.571.075.074.915%
Intergovernmental 308.6 72.9 84.7 310.4 81.5 -74%
— Weatherization Grants^a227.2——230.0——
Distrib. Energy Resources61.053.162.558.160.6-1%
Building Technologies59.958.364.967.367.112%
Industrial Technologies93.158.184.966.975.3-19%
Biomass/Biorefinery 7.5 8.7 12.7 7.7 7.6 1%
Federal Energy Management19.717.917.918.918.1-8%
Program Management85.0 81.7 90.281.787.9 3%
R&D Subtotal606.9543.9 611.0580.5593.6-2%
Grants Subtotal271.140.845.1273.846.5-83%
Total appropriations ^a$878.0$584.7$656.1$854.3$640.1-27%
^{a. Dif}^f^e^r^eⁿ^{ces in}^co^lu^mⁿ^to^{tals ar}^{e lar}^g^ely^attr^ib^u^t^ab^le^to^a^ch^an^g^eⁱⁿ^j^u^rⁱ^sd^ictioⁿ^o^v^er^th^{e W}^eath^e^rⁱ^zatioⁿ^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^.^Fo^r
^th^{e W}^eath^e^rization^prog^ram^,^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^origⁱⁿ^ally^requ^es^{ted $291.2}^m^illion^uⁿ^d^er^In^{terior A}^ppropriation^s^{. T}^h^e
^Hou^s^e^propos^{ed, an}^{d th}^{e con}^f^eren^{ce com}^m^{ittee approv}^{ed, m}^o^vⁱⁿ^g^th^{e j}^u^ris^d^iction^f^o^{r th}^{e W}^eath^e^rization^P^r^og^ram^to
^th^{e L}^a^b^o^r^{, Health}^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Ser^v^ic^e^s^,^E^d^u^catioⁿ^,^an^d^Related^A^g^en^{cies (}^L^HE)^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^{ill. I}ⁿ^th^{e L}^H^E
^a^p^p^r^o^p^r^ia^tio^{n b}^{ill (}^H^.^R^.^5006,^H^.^R^e^pt^.^108-^{636), th}^{e Hou}^s^{e approv}^{ed $238.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r W}^eath^e^rization⁽ⁱⁿ^c^lu^din^g^$11.0
^m^illion^added^by^H.A^m^{dt. 721), an}^{d th}^{e FY}^{2005 law}^prov^ided^$228.2^m^illion^.
The House Appropriations Committee’s report (p. 7) noted “disappointment”
that the request emphasized funding for “long-term” efforts such as FreedomCAR,
at the expense of ongoing programs that will yield energy and emissions savings
“over the next ten years.” Thus, the report recommended (p. 8) “restoring many of
the reductions proposed in the budget request for energy conservation research ...
[because] it would be fiscally irresponsible to discontinue research in which we have
made major investments without bringing that research to a logical conclusion.”
Also, the report explained (p. 7) that R&D funding needs to be higher than the
request to “... achieve the goals of energy independence, dramatically lower energy
consumption, and significantly reduced emissions.” To this end, the House
Committee recommended, and the House approved, an R&D increase of $67.0
million over the request. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10020,
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues,
by Fred Sissine.)
The House Appropriations Committee’s report contained a number of
provisions affecting energy conservation. They are: (1) DOE should implement all
recommendations by the National Academy for Public Administration to eliminate
positions and achieve administrative cost savings; (2) the DOE budget document for
FY2006 should include sub-activities in the program table; (3) DOE should invest
more in stationary fuel cells; (4) research on fuel cell start-ups in freezing weather
should get “sufficient” funding; (5) DOE should do a new solicitation for off-
highway research; (6) the Vulcan Beam Line shall receive a $1.0 million earmark;

(7) performance assessments should be conducted for the Building America program;
(8) staffing and program funding for Industries of the Future should not be reduced
further; (9) competitive grants for the metal casting industry should go to consortia
focused on small business participation; (10) DOE should supplement funding for the
State Technologies Advancement Collaborative (STAC) program; (11) the
Cooperative Program with States should be closely coordinated with DOE’s Fossil
Energy Program; (12) funding for the review of programs by the National Academy
of Science should be fixed as a permanent annual expense line; and (13) DOE is
encouraged to contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to perform another in-
depth evaluation of the Weatherization Program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the FY2005 Interior
Appropriations bill with $854.3 million for DOE’s Energy Efficiency Program. It
included $580.5 million for R&D, which is $30.4 million less than the House bill.
Also, the Senate committee-reported bill includes $230.0 million for Weatherization
grants, which is $8.0 million less than the House approved in the LHE bill. (For more
information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil
Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.)
Congress enacted $640.1 million for DOE’s Energy Efficiency Program.
Compared with the FY2004 appropriation, the FY2005 law has $13.3 million less for
R&D. This difference includes $17.7 million less for Industrial Technologies and
$11.1 million less for Vehicle Technologies, but also $9.8 million more for Fuel
Cells and $7.3 million more for Buildings. The LHE appropriation law has $228.2
million for Weatherization grants, which is $1.0 million more than the FY2004
appropriation. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy
Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred
Sissine.)
For further information on energy conservation, see the DOE website at
[ h ttp://www.eere.energy.gov/] .
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RS21442. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Report RL32543. Energy Saving Performance Contracts, by Anthony
Andrews.
Department of Health and Human Services:
Indian Health Service
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is responsible for providing comprehensive
medical and environmental health services for approximately 1.5 million to 1.7
million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to 562 federally
recognized tribes located in 35 states. Health care is provided through a system of
federal, tribal, and urban Indian-operated programs and facilities. IHS provides
direct health care services through 36 hospitals, 59 health centers, 2 school health

centers, 49 health stations, and 5 residential treatment centers. Tribes and tribal
groups, through IHS contracts and compacts, operate another 13 hospitals, 172 health
centers, 3 school health centers, 260 health stations (including 176 Alaska Native
village clinics), and 28 residential treatment centers. IHS, tribes, and tribal groups
also operate 9 regional youth substance abuse treatment centers and 2,252 units of
residential quarters for staff working in the clinics.
IHS funding is separated into two Indian Health budget categories: Health
Services, and Facilities. The enacted IHS appropriation for FY2005 is $2.99 billion,
$17.8 million or 0.6% increase from the President’s FY2005 request for $2.97
billion, and a 2% increase from the FY2004 final appropriation of $2.92 billion. The
IHS FY2005 appropriation is 2% below the House-passed total of $3.03 billion, and
0.4% below from the Senate Appropriations Committee reported amount of $3.0
billion (see Table 16 below). Of the total IHS appropriation enacted for FY2005,

87% will be used for health services and 13% for the health facilities program.

Health Services. IHS Health Services are funded not only through
congressional appropriations, but also from money reimbursed from private health
insurance and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The final estimated total reimbursement in
FY2005 is $598.7 million, an increase of about $31.0 million or 5% over the FY2004
estimate of $567.6 million.
The IHS Health Services appropriation for FY2005 is $2.60 billion, 0.6% below
the President’s request of $2.61 billion, but 3% above the FY2004 final appropriation
of $2.53 billion. The Services budget has several subcategories: clinical services,
preventive health services, and other services.
The Clinical Services budget includes by far the most program funding. The
enacted Clinical Services budget of $2.09 billion is $9.7 million less than the
requested budget of $2.10 billion, but $65.6 million over the FY2004 appropriation
of $2.02 billion. Clinical Services include primary care at IHS and tribally run
hospitals and clinics. Hospital and health clinic programs make up the bulk or 62%
of the Clinical Services budget. For FY2005, the hospitals and clinic programs will
receive $1.29 billion, about 0.5% less than the President’s request but 3% more than
the appropriation of $1.25 billion for FY2004. For other programs within Clinical
Services, dental programs will get $108.7 million, mental health programs $55.0
million, alcohol and substance abuse programs $139.7 million, and the catastrophic
emergency fund $17.8 million. Contract care, another Clinical Services budget item,
refers to health services purchased from local and community health care providers
when IHS cannot provide medical care and specific services through its own system.
The enacted appropriation for FY2005 for contract care is $480.3 million, up $1.2
million from FY2004 and the President’s request of $479.1 million.
For Preventive Health Services, the final FY2005 appropriation is $110.6
million, a reduction of $1.6 million from the President’s request of $112.2 million,
but an increase of $3.7 million, or 3%, from the $106.9 million appropriated in
FY2004. Funding for each program within preventive health services will increase
over FY2004 levels. Program totals will be $44.9 million for public health nursing,
$12.5 million for health education in schools and communities, $1.6 million for

immunizations in Alaska, and $51.7 million for the tribally administered community
health representatives program that supports tribal community members who work
to prevent illness and disease in their communities.
For other health services, the enacted appropriation for FY2005 is $395.4
million, a decrease of $3.1 million from the FY2004 appropriation of $398.5 million.
Programs with decreased appropriations include $30.4 million for scholarships to
health care professionals (down $399,000), $2.3 million for tribal management grants
to tribes (down $33,000), and $263.7 million for contract support costs (down $3.7
million). Contract support costs are awarded to tribes for administering programs
under contracts or compacts authorized by the Indian Self-Determination Act (P.L.

93-638, as amended). They pay for costs tribes incur for financial management,

accounting, training, and program start up. Most tribes and tribal organizations are
participating in new and expanded self-determination contracts and self-governing
compacts. The appropriation increased slightly ($340,000) to $32.0 million for
health-related activities in off-reservation urban health projects from an FY2004 total
of $31.6 million. Funding for IHS administration and management costs for
programs IHS operates directly increased by $714,000 to $61.4 million. According
to IHS, the increase is to pay for IHS headquarters staffing because staff decreases
over the past several years have hampered the agency’s capability to perform
oversight and outreach activities. The final appropriation includes $5.6 million for
self-governance, the same as in FY2004.
Facilities. The IHS’s Facilities category includes money for the construction,
maintenance, and improvement of both health and sanitation facilities. The total
FY2005 appropriation is $388.6 million, an increase of $34.1 million (10%) over the
President’s request of $354.4 million, but a $2.8 million (0.7%) decrease from the
FY2004 appropriation of $391.4 million.
Diabetes. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), Congress
created two programs for diabetes: the IHS Special Diabetes Program for Indians,
and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Special Research Program for Type 1
Diabetes. The law required that the SCHIP appropriation for FY1998 through
FY2002 be reduced by $60 million each year, with $30 million going to the NIH
Type 1 research program and $30 million allocated to the IHS diabetes program. In
2000, the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (part of P.L. 106-534) increased
funding for each of these diabetes programs and extended authority for grants to be
made under both. For each grant program, total funding was increased to $100
million for FY2001, FY2002, and FY2003. For FY2001 and FY2002, $30 million
of the $100 million came from the SCHIP program appropriation and $70 million
came from the general Treasury. In FY2003, the whole $100 million was drawn
from the general Treasury out of funds not otherwise appropriated.
In December 2002, Congress extended the funding for these special diabetes
programs, through amendments to the Public Health Service Act (P.L. 107-360),
authorizing $150 million for each of the programs each year for FY2004 through
FY2008. This funding from the general Treasury is separate from regular IHS and
NIH appropriations.

Table 16. Appropriations for IHS, FY2004-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005FY2005
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 House Senat e F Y 2005
Indian Health ServiceApprop.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Indian Health Services
Clinical Services
— Hospital and Health$1,249.8$1,295.4$1,310.4$1,303.7$1,288.9
Clinic Programs
— Dental Health104.5110.3110.3110.3108.7
— Mental Health53.355.855.855.855.0
— Alcohol and Substance138.3141.7141.7141.7139.7
Abuse
— Contract Care479.1479.1479.1491.1480.3
— Catastrophic Health — 18.018.018.017.8
Emergency Fund
Subtotal, Clinical Services2,024.92,100.22,115.22,120.52,090.5
Preventive Health Services
— Public Health Nursing42.645.645.645.644.9
— Health Education11.812.612.612.612.5
— Community Health Reps.51.052.452.452.451.7
— Immunization (Alaska)1.61.61.61.61.6
Subtotal, Preventive Health106.9112.2112.2112.2110.6
Other Services
— Urban Health Projects31.632.432.432.432.0
— Indian Health Professions30.830.830.830.830.4
— Tribal Management2.42.42.42.42.3
— Direct Operations60.761.862.362.361.4
— Self-Governance5.65.75.75.75.6
— Contract Support Costs 267.4267.4267.4267.4263.7
Subtotal, Other Services398.5400.5401.0401.0395.4
Subtotal, Indian Health2,530.42,612.82,628.32,633.62,596.5
Services
Indian Health Facilities
— Maintenance and48.948.950.948.949.2
Improvement
— Sanitation Facilities93.0103.293.299.291.9
— Construction Facilities94.641.799.355.488.6
— Facilities and
Environmental Health137.8143.6143.6143.6141.6
Support
— Equipment17.117.118.117.117.3
Subtotal, Indian Health391.4354.4405.0364.1388.6

Facilities

FY2005FY2005
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 House Senat e F Y 2005
Indian Health ServiceApprop.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Total appropriations2,921.72,967.33,033.42,997.82,985.1
Medicare/Medicaid (567.6) (598.7) (598.7) (598.7) (598.7)
Reimbursements
Special Diabetes Program for^a150.0150.0150.0150.0150.0
Indians
^{a. T}^h^{e Special Diabetes}^P^r^og^ram^f^o^{r In}^dian^s^h^a^s^an^au^th^orization^of^{$150 m}^illion^f^o^r^each^of^th^{e f}ⁱ^s^{cal y}^ears^FY2004
^t^h^r^o^{ugh FY}^{2008 (P.L}^{. 107-}^{360) bu}^t^t^h^{e prog}^ramⁱ^s^f^uⁿ^d^{ed t}^h^ro^{ugh t}^h^e^G^e^ne^r^a^l^T^r^e^a^s^ur^y^,^no^t^t^h^r^o^{ugh t}^h^e^IH^S
^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.
For further information on the Indian Health Service, see its website at
[ http://www.ihs.gov/] .
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR) and its predecessor
were created pursuant to a 1974 act (P.L. 93-531, as amended) to resolve a lengthy
dispute between the Hopi and Navajo tribes involving lands originally set aside by
the federal government for a reservation in 1882. Pursuant to the 1974 act, the lands
were partitioned between the two tribes. Members of one tribe living on land
partitioned to the other tribe were to be relocated and provided new homes, and
bonuses, at federal expense. Relocation is to be voluntary.
ONHIR’s chief activities consist of land acquisition, housing acquisition or
construction, infrastructure construction, and post-move support, all for families
being relocated, as well as certification of families’ eligibility for relocation benefits.
Congress has been concerned, at times, about the speed of the relocation process and
about avoiding forced relocations or evictions.
For FY2004, ONHIR received an appropriation of $13.4 million. For FY2005,
the Administration proposed $11.0 million, an 18% decrease, to which the House
agreed. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $5 million, a reduction
of 63% from the FY2004 appropriation, arguing that carryover funds from previous
fiscal years would offset the reduction. The conference committee agreed with the
Senate, so the FY2005 appropriation for ONHIR was $4.9 million, a 63% reduction
from FY2004.
Relocation began in 1977 and is not yet complete. ONHIR has a backlog of
relocatees who are approved for replacement homes but have not yet received them.
Most families subject to relocation were Navajo — an estimated 3,485 Navajo
families had resided on land partitioned (or judicially confirmed) to the Hopi, while

27 Hopi families had lived on Navajo partitioned land, according to ONHIR data.

While 95% of the Navajo families have been relocated to replacement homes,
ONHIR estimates that 163 Navajo families as of the end of FY2003 have yet to
complete relocation. Most of these remaining 163 Navajo families are not currently
living on Hopi partitioned land, but a majority have not reached the stage of seeking
a replacement home. Fourteen of the 163 Navajo families are still residing on Hopi
partitioned land, according to ONHIR, and some of them refuse to relocate. All but

one of the 27 Hopi families on Navajo partitioned land had completed relocation by
the end of FY2003, according to ONHIR.
ONHIR estimated in its FY2004 strategic plan that it would complete relocation
moves by the end of FY2006 and post-move assistance by the end of FY2008, but
stated that this schedule depended on infrastructure needs and relocatees’ decisions.
Congressional committees have in the past expressed impatience with the speed of
relocation but have not recently criticized the current pace.
A long-standing proviso in ONHIR appropriations language, retained in the
FY2005 act, prohibits ONHIR from evicting any Navajo family from Hopi
partitioned lands unless a replacement home were provided. This language appears
to prevent ONHIR from forcibly relocating Navajo families in the near future,
because of ONHIR’s backlog of approved relocatees awaiting replacement homes.
As the backlog is reduced, however, forced eviction may become an issue, if any
remaining Navajo families refuse relocation and if the Hopi Tribe were to exercise
a right under P.L. 104-301 (a 1996 settlement of related Hopi-U.S. issues) to begin
legal action against the United States for failure to give the Hopi “quiet possession”
of all Hopi partitioned lands.
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is a museum, education, and research complex
of 17 museums and galleries, the National Zoo, and research facilities throughout the
United States and around the world. Nine of its museums and galleries are located
on the National Mall between the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument. The
SI is responsible for over 400 buildings with approximately 8 million square feet of
space. It is estimated to be 70% federally funded, and also is supported by various
types of trust funds. A federal commitment to fund the Smithsonian Institution had
been established by legislation in 1846.
FY2005 Budget. The Bush Administration proposed $628.0 million for the
Smithsonian, a 5.0% increase over the enacted FY2004 level ($596.3 million). See
Table 17 below. For Salaries and Expenses, the Smithsonian would have received
$499.1 million, a 2.0% increase over the FY2004 amount of $488.7 million. Salaries
and Expenses cover administration of all of the museums and research institutions
that are part of the Smithsonian Institution. In addition, it includes program support
and outreach, and facilities services (security and maintenance).
FY2005 House-Passed Appropriations. The House-passed appropriation
for the Smithsonian ($619.8 million) reflected a 4% increase over the FY2004 law
with a 1% decrease from the Administration’s request. The Smithsonian Institution’s
Salaries and Expenses account would have received $496.9 million, an increase of
$8.3 million over the FY2004 law but a decrease of $2.2 million from the
Administration’s request.
FY2005 Senate Committee-Reported Appropriations. The Senate
committee-reported appropriations bill for the Smithsonian Institutions (627.0
million) reflected an increase of $7.2 million over the House level and of $30.7
million over the FY2004 level. The Smithsonian’s Salaries and Expenses account

would received $490.1 million, a decrease of $9.0 million from the Administration’s
request and a decrease of $6.8 million from the House-passed level.
FY2005 Enacted Appropriations. The FY2005 final appropriation
provides $615.2 million for the Smithsonian, reflecting a decrease of $4.7 million
from the House-passed bill and $11.9 million from the Senate committee-reported
bill. The Smithsonian’s Salaries and Expenses account will receive $489.0 million,
a $1.1 million decrease from the Senate committee-reported bill, and a $7.9 million
decrease from the House-passed bill.
Facilities Capital. Beginning in FY2004, a new account title — Facilities
Capital — “ is being used; it is comprised of revitalization, construction, and
facilities planning and design. The FY2004 law provided $107.6 million and the
FY2005 budget would have provided $128.9 million for Facilities Capital. The
House-passed FY2005 bill would have provided $122.9 million, and the Senate
committee reported bill would have provided $136.9 million for Facilities Capital.
For FY2005, Congress enacted $126.1 million for Facilities Capital, $110.4 million
for revitalization, $7.9 million for construction, and $7.9 million for facilities
planning and design. Revitalization funds are for addressing advanced deterioration
in SI buildings, helping with routine maintenance and repair in Smithsonian
Institution facilities, and making critical repairs.
National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). The Administration
request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate committee-reported bill would have
provided $32.2 million for operating expenses for the NMAI, a decrease from the
FY2004 law of $38.1 million. For FY2005, Congress enacted $31.7 million for
NMAI. In the past the NMAI was controversial. Opponents of constructing a new
museum argued that the current Smithsonian Institution museums needed renovation,
repair, and maintenance more than the public needed another museum on the
National Mall. Proponents argued that there had been too long a delay in providing
a museum in Washington to house the Indian collection. Based on an estimate of
$219.3 million for construction of the Indian museum, the Smithsonian Institution
indicated that some of its trust funds in addition to SI’s Salaries and Expenses funds
could be used to cover opening costs. The groundbreaking ceremony for the NMAI
took place September 28, 1999 and the grand opening ceremony was September 21,

2004, beginning with a celebration called the “First Americans Festival.”

Smithsonian Institution Center for Materials Research and
Education (SCMRE). The direction of SI’s research priorities is of concern to
Congress. A past controversy involved the proposed closing of the Smithsonian
Institution Center for Materials Research and Education (SCMRE), which the
Smithsonian Institution decided to retain. The FY2002 Interior Appropriations law
provided that an independent, “blue ribbon” science commission be established to
deal with this and other decisions. The commission’s report of January 2003 noted
that science programs of the Smithsonian Institution have eroded over time due to a
“long-term trend in declining support for mandatory annual salary increases.” Of the
76 recommendations in the Science Commission report, according to the SI, more
than three quarters of them have been addressed in their attempts to revitalize
science. The FY2004 law provided $3.5 million for the SCMRE, and the FY2005
appropriation provides $3.5 million.

National Museum of African American History and Culture. A new
National Museum of African American History and culture (NMAAHC) has been
established within the Smithsonian Institution through P.L.108-184. The museum
will collect, preserve, study and exhibit African American historical and cultural
material and will focus on periods of history including the time of slavery,
Reconstruction, the Harlem Renaissance, and the civil rights movement. The
FY2005 budget and the Senate committee-reported bill would have provided $5.0
million whereas the House-passed bill would have provided $4.0 million for the
NMAAHC for selection of personnel for planning, site selection, and capital fund
raising. The FY2005 appropriation provides $3.9 million for the NMAAHC. The
opening of the National Museum of the American Indian brings with it the question
of space left on the Mall for the NMAAHC, and whether or not another space will
be offered and approved by the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the
Commission of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Memorial Commission.
National Zoo. The FY2005 request, the House-passed bill, and the Senate
committee-reported bill would have provided $17.8 million for salaries and expenses
at the National Zoo. The final FY2005 appropriation provides $17.6 million for the
National Zoo. Recently, Congress and the public have been concerned about the
National Zoo’s facilities and the care and health of its animals. The Smithsonian
Institution has a plan to revitalize the zoo, making the facilities safer for the public
and healthier for the animals. The Administration’s request specified an estimated
$19 million (under the Facilities Capital account) to begin the National Zoo’s
revitalization, to include construction of a new elephant facility to be completed by
2007. According to SI, the National Zoo is 110 years old and the physical
environment is deteriorating — many of the largest animals (e.g., lions, tigers, and
elephants) are housed in the oldest areas. Space is a major health concern. The new
construction, designed to provide ample space for elephants and other animals, will
put the National Zoo in compliance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
American Zoo and Aquarium Association standards, and will help to correct the
“infrastructure deficiencies” found throughout the National Zoo. The estimated total
cost of the National Zoo revitalization is $68.3 million, including future years’
funding for completing construction in FY2006. This figure does not include an
estimated $12 million expected to be raised from private funds.
Trust Funds. In addition to federal appropriations, the Smithsonian
Institution receives income from trust funds to expand its programs. The SI trust
fund includes general trust funds, contributions from private sources, and government
grants and contracts from other agencies. General trust funds include investment
income and revenue from “business ventures” such as the Smithsonian magazine, and
retail shops. There are also trust funds that are private donor-designated funds that
specify and direct the purpose of funds. Finally, government grants and contracts are
provided by various government agencies for projects specific to the Smithsonian
Institution, and they were estimated to total $104.1 million in FY2004.
Of concern to Congress is the extent to which the Smithsonian Institution has
control when donor and sponsor designated funds put restrictions on the use of that
funding. Designated funds in FY2004 were estimated to total $84.5 million. There
is concern that donor designated funding may require a building to be renamed for
that individual or corporate donor, even if an appropriate name is already being used.

In addition, there is debate over whether companies who are allowed to advertise at
cultural events might in some way compromise the integrity of the Smithsonian
Institution. The Congress has been considering these issues as part of the fiscal year
appropriations debates for the past few years in order to help maintain the strength
of the Smithsonian Institution.
Table 17. Smithsonian Institution Appropriations, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
FY2005FY2005
F Y 2004 F Y 2005 House Senat e F Y 2005
Smithsonian Institution (SI)Approp.RequestPassedComm.Approp.
Salaries and Expenses$488,653$499,125$496,925$490,125$489,035
Facilities Capital
— Revitalization89,553111,910106,910119,910110,355
— Construction9,876 8,9907,9908,9907,879
— Facilities Planning and Design8,1978,0008,0008,0007,888
Subtotal, Facilities Capital107,626128,900122,900136,900126,122
Total appropriations596,279628,025619,825627,025615,157
For further information on the Smithsonian Institution, see its website at
[ http://www.si.edu/] .
National Endowment for the Arts
and National Endowment for the Humanities
One of the primary vehicles for federal support for the arts and the humanities
is the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities (NFAH), 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 NEA and NEH authorization expired at the end of FY1993,
but they have been operating on temporary authority through appropriations law. The
Institute of Museum and Library Services and the Office of Museum Services were
created by P.L. 104-208, and reauthorized by P.L. 108-81.
Among the questions Congress continually considers is whether funding for the
arts and humanities is an appropriate federal role and responsibility. Some opponents
of federal arts funding argue that NEA and NEH should be abolished altogether.
Other opponents argue that culture can and does flourish on its own through private
support. Proponents of federal support for arts and humanities contend that the
federal government has a long tradition of support for culture and that abolishing
NEA and NEH could curtail or eliminate programs that have national significance
and purpose (such as national touring theater and dance companies.) Some
representatives of the private sector say that they are unable to make up the gap that
would be left by the loss of federal funds for the arts.

NEA. NEA’s direct grant program for the arts currently supports approximately
1,600 grants. State arts agencies are now receiving over 40% of grant funds, with
1,000 communities participating nationwide, particularly from under-represented
areas that lack cultural facilities and programs.
For FY2005, Congress enacted $121.3 million for NEA, $9.7 million less than
the House-passed bill ($131.0 million), slightly higher than the Senate committee-
reported bill and FY2004 appropriation ($121.0 million), but a decrease of 13% from
the Administration’s budget ($139.4 million). See Table 18 below. The FY2005
House-passed bill contained a floor amendment that added $10.0 million to the
American Masterpieces program for NEA and $3.5 million to NEH’s We the People
program, while offsetting these amounts through cuts to DOI’s departmental
management. The FY2005 budget had proposed the American Masterpieces program
to be funded under NEA grants and state partnerships. This national initiative would
include touring programs, local presentations and arts education in the fields of
dance, visual, arts and music. The Senate committee-reported bill did not provide
additional funds for the American Masterpieces program, although the Committee,
stated that the program “has merit”(S.Rept. 108-341, p. 77). During consideration
of the bill in committee, some members of the Senate Appropriations Committee
urged that when the bill went to the floor or to conference, that the House-passed
level for NEA be accepted — $131.0 million. For FY2005, Congress enacted $2.0
million for American Masterpieces and $121.3 million for NEA.
The FY2005 law provides $21.4 million to the Challenge America Arts fund,
a program of matching grants for arts education, outreach, and community arts
activities for rural and under-served areas. The NEA is required to submit a detailed
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees describing the use of
funds for the Challenge America program.
Although there appears to be an increase in congressional support for the NEA,
debate often recurs on previous questionable NEA grants when appropriations are
considered.⁸ Congress continues to restate the language of NEA reforms in
appropriations laws. For example, both the FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations laws
retain language on funding priorities and restrictions on grants, including that no
grant may be used generally for seasonal support to a group, and no grants may be for
individuals except for literature fellowships, National Heritage fellowships, or
American Jazz Master fellowships.
NEH. The NEH generally supports grants for humanities education, research,
preservation and public humanities programs; the creation of regional humanities
centers; and development of humanities programs under the jurisdiction of the 56

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

state humanities councils. NEH also supports a Challenge Grant program to
stimulate and match private donations in support of humanities institutions.
For FY2005, Congress enacted $138.1 million for NEH, a decrease of (3%)
from the House-passed bill ($142.0 million) and of 15% from the FY2005 budget
($162.0 million), but an increase of 2% over the FY2004 appropriation and the
Senate committee-reported bill (both $135.3 million). The FY2005 appropriation
includes $15.9 million for NEH matching grants and $122.2 million for grants and
administration. A floor amendment to the House-passed bill increased funding for
the We the People initiative. The final appropriation for FY2005 provides $11.2
million for the We the People initiative, an increase over the FY2004 appropriation
and Senate committee-reported amount of $9.9 million, but a significant decrease
(66%) from the Administration’s request of $33.0 million. These grants include
model curriculum projects for schools to improve course offerings in the humanities
— American history, culture, and civics.
Office of Museum Services. The Office of Museum Services provides
grants-in-aid to museums in the form of leadership grants, museum conservation,
conservation project support, museum assessment, and General Operating Support
(GOS) to help over 400 museums annually to improve the quality of their services
to the public. Effective with FY2003, the appropriation for the Office of Museum
Services (OMS) was moved from the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill
to the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies. For further information on FY2005
appropriations, see CRS Report RL32303, Appropriations for FY2005: Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, by Paul M. Irwin.

Table 18. Arts and Humanities Funding, FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Art^s^/H^um^aⁿ^it^{ies F}^unding^a^Appro^p^.^Request^P^a^sse^d^C^o^mm.^Appro^p^.
^NEA
^{— C}^hal^l^e^{nge Am}^erⁱ^c^{a Ar}^t^s^Fund^b^$21,729^$22,000^$21,729^$21,729^$21,427
^{— N}^a^{tional Initiative: Amer}^ican^b^—^15,000^10,000^—^1,972
^Mas^t^er^pieces
^S^u^bt^ot^al^G^r^an^t^s^99,297^115,535^109,297^99,297^99,452
^Prog^ram^s^u^pport¹^,288^1,515^1,288^1,288^1,270
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^20,387^22,350^20,387^20,387^20,542
^T^o^t^a^l^,^N^E^A^120,972^139,400^130,972^120,972^121,264
^NEH
^{— N}^E^H^G^r^ant^s^{and Adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^r^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^119,386^145,878^125,877^119,386^122,156
^{— N}^E^H^M^a^t^c^hi^{ng G}^r^ant^s^15,924^16,122^16,122^15,924^15,898
^T^o^t^a^l^,^N^E^H^135,310^162,000^141,999^135,310^138,054
^T^o^tal^ap^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^N^F^A^H^256,282^301,400^272,971^256,282^259,318
^a.^B^e^gⁱⁿⁿⁱⁿ^g^w^ith^FY2003,^th^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^Mu^s^e^u^m^Serv^ices^as^{part of}^IML^S^isⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed in}^th^e^{appropriation}^s^bill^f^o^r^th^e
^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^s^of^L^a^bor-^H^H^S^-^E^{d an}^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^.
^b^.^Iⁿ^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e NEA}^to^tal.
For further information on the National Endowment for the Arts, see its website
at [http://arts.endow.gov/].
For further information on the National Endowment for the Humanities, see its
website at [http://www.neh.gov/].
For further information on the Institute of Museum and Library Services, see its
website at [http://www.imls.gov/].
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by
Susan Boren.
Cross-Cutting Topics
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
The LWCF is authorized at $900 million annually through FY2015. However,
these funds may not be spent without an appropriation. The LWCF is used for three
purposes. First, the four principal federal land management agencies — Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Forest
Service — draw primarily on the LWCF to acquire lands. The sections on those
agencies earlier in this report identify funding levels for their land acquisition
activities. Second, the LWCF funds acquisition and recreational development by
state and local governments through a grant program administered by the NPS.
Third, Presidents have requested, and Congress has appropriated, money from the

LWCF to fund some related activities that do not involve land acquisition. This third
use is a recent addition, starting with the FY1998 appropriation. Programs funded
have varied from year to year. Most of the appropriations for federal acquisitions
generally are earmarked to management units, such as a specific National Wildlife
Refuge, while the state grant program rarely is earmarked.
Through FY2005, the total authorized amount that could have been appropriated
from the LWCF since its inception was $28.1 billion. Actual appropriations have
been $14.2 billion. Table 19 shows appropriations since FY2002 and the
Administration request and congressional actions for FY2005. For the five years
ending in FY2001, appropriators had provided generally increasing amounts from the
fund for federal land acquisition. The total had more than quadrupled, rising from
a low of $138.0 million in FY1996 to $453.2 million in FY2001. However, since
then appropriations have declined significantly.
Table 19. Appropriations from the LWCF, FY2002-FY2005
($ in millions)
FY2005FY2005
FY2002FY2003 FY2004FY2005HouseSenateFY2005
Agency Approp. Approp. Approp. Re que s t P assed Comm. Approp.
Federal Acquisition
— BLM$49.9$33.2$18.4$24.0$4.5$22.9$11.2
— FWS 99.172.943.145.012.549.937.0
— NPS 130.174.041.884.316.061.855.1
— FS 149.7132.966.466.915.582.561.0
Subtotal, Federal428.8313.0169.7220.248.5217.1164.3
Acquisition
Grants to States144.097.493.893.891.594.091.2
Other Programs110.0166.5433.2586.292.5237.8203.4
Tot a l 682.8 576.9 696.7 900.2 232.5 549.0 458.9
appropriations
^Source:^D^a^t^a^f^o^{r F}^Y^2001com^pi^l^e^{d by}^t^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e In}^t^e^ri^{or Bu}^dg^et^O^f^fⁱ^ce;^dat^a^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2002 f}^r^om
^In^t^e^ri^{or A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^C^oⁿ^f^eren^{ce R}^e^port^(H^.R^ept^.^107-^234);^dat^a^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2003 -}^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^f^r^om^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^C^o^m^m^ittees^’^docu^m^en^ts^.
Reductions of the magnitude that occurred in FY2003 and again in FY2004 for
federal land acquisition and state grants were last seen in the early and mid 1990s as
part of efforts to address the federal budget deficit. Not only did the total for federal
land acquisition and grants to states (excluding other programs) decline in FY2003
and again in FY2004, but each of the five component accounts also declined each
year. Currently, the federal budget deficit has drawn increased attention, as it did
during the early and mid 1990s. Also, there has been enhanced interest in funding
other priorities, mostly tied to the war on terrorism.
FY2005 Appropriations. The Administration requested a total of $900.2
million for FY2005, of which a total of $314.0 million would have gone to federal
land acquisition and state grants. The remainder, $586.2 million, was the largest
amount requested in the program’s history for purposes other than land acquisition

and stateside grants. The programs and amounts, listed on page DH-48 of the
FY2005 Interior Budget in Brief, included Forest Service’s Forest Stewardship
Program ($40.7 million), Forest Legacy Program ($100.0 million), and Urban and
Community Forestry Program ($32.0 million); and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ($80.0 million), Landowner Incentive Grants ($50.0
million), Private Stewardship Grants ($10.0 million), Cooperative Endangered
Species Grants ($90.0 million), and North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
Grants ($54.0 million).
The House-passed legislation provided no new funding for earmarked
acquisitions. The report of the House Committee on Appropriations characterizes
these acquisitions as “a low priority” (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 5). Funds in the House
bill either mirrored, or were reductions from, the Administration’s request and would
have gone largely to acquisition management. State grants would have remained
almost unchanged from FY2004. The largest change was that the House-passed bill
would have provided $92.5 million for only two other programs — the Forest Legacy
Program and the Habitat Conservation Program portion of the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund. This was nearly $500 million less than the
Administration’s request for funding for other programs. In the minority views
attached to the report, Representatives Obey and Dicks stated that they “disagree with
the illogically-driven opposition to land acquisition,” but did not comment on LWCF
funding for other programs (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 180).
The total for LWCF in Senate legislation was $549.0 million, which would
have been less of a reduction from funding in past years than the House-passed bill.
This legislation provided almost the same total as the Administration requested for
federal land acquisition, although the amount for the NPS was more than $22 million
less than the request, while the amount for the FS more than $15 million than the
Administration request. More specifically, the Senate legislation earmarked $17.9
million for 11 BLM sites, $34.7 million for 36 FWS sites, $45.3 million for 19 NPS
sites, and $66.5 million for 37 FS sites. State grants were almost the same as the
House bill. The Senate bill provided more than $237 million to 5 other programs, 4
of which are administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The FY2005 law provides more than the House had allocated, but less than the
Senate for each of the four federal land management agencies for acquisition. The
total for state grants is little changed from the request and the amounts in the House
and Senate bills. The FY2005 appropriation for other purposes totals $203.4 million
for four FWS programs and one FS program, which is less than half the
Administration request but more than double the amount that the House bill would
have provided. The enacted levels and overall consideration of LWCF funding
appeared to be somewhat less contentious this year.

Conservation Spending Category
Congress created the Conservation Spending Category (CSC), as an amendment
to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, in the FY2001
Interior appropriations law. The CSC, which is also being called the Conservation
Trust Fund by some, combines funding for more than two dozen resource protection
programs including the LWCF. (It also includes some coastal and marine programs
funded through Commerce appropriations). This action was in response to both the
Clinton Administration request for substantial funding increases in these programs
under its Lands Legacy Initiative, and congressional interest in increasing
conservation funding through legislation known as the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (CARA), which passed the House in the 106^th Congress. The
FY2001 Interior appropriations law authorized that total spending for CSC would
grow each year by $160.0 million, from $1.6 billion in FY2001 (of which $1.2 billion
would be through Interior Appropriations laws) to $2.4 billion in FY2006. All CSC
funding is subject to the appropriations process. (Also, how programs are
categorized, or “scored,” matters — the Administration and the Appropriations
Committees disagree on whether all or portions of funding for some programs should
be credited to the CSC.) The appropriations history through FY2005 is as follows.
^!The FY2001 laws exceeded the target of $1.6 billion by
appropriating a total of $1.68 billion; $1.20 billion for Interior
appropriations programs and $0.48 billion for Commerce
appropriations programs. (Totals for Interior and Commerce
funding were both increases from the preceding year of $566 and
$160 million, respectively.)
^!The FY2002 request totaled $1.54 billion for this group of programs,
and Congress appropriated $1.75 billion, thus almost reaching the
target of $1.76 billion. The appropriation for the Interior portion
was $1.32 billion, reaching the authorized target amount.
^!The FY2003 request totaled $1.67 billion for this group of programs,
a decrease from FY2002 funding, and below the target of $1.92
billion. Congress appropriated a total of $1.51 billion. For the
Interior portion, Congress provided $1.03 billion, about $410 million
less than the authorized target of $1.44 billion.
^!The FY2004 request totaled $1.33 billion, according to estimates
compiled by Interior and Commerce Appropriations subcommittee
staffs. This amount is below the target of $2.08 billion. For the
Interior portion, the request was $1.00 billion, and the target is $1.56
billion. (The Administration had an alternative estimate that
increases the total FY2004 request to $1.22 billion for Interior
programs, but it is based on some different assumptions about which
programs to include.) The total appropriated is not specified in
congressional documents.
^!The FY2005 request from the Department of the Interior included
$1.05 billion for the CSC, an increase of $140 million over the

FY2004 appropriation for the same group of programs, according to
the Department. However, this total did not include requests from
the Forest Service or Department of Commerce. Neither the Forest
Service nor the Department of Commerce used the CSC as a
structure for organizing or tabulating their requests. In any case,
these requests, in total, are likely to be well below the target of $2.24
billion. The total appropriated is unclear.
None of the FY2005 bills or accompanying committee reports identified funding
levels for the CSC, with one exception. The House Appropriations Committee’s
report accompanying the FY2005 House-passed bill mentions the CSC only in the
minority views, where Representatives Obey and Dicks state that the bill would fund
the CSC at $850 million below the $1.7 billion target for FY2005. The report does
not include other funding levels or broader discussions of the CSC. The Senate
Appropriations Committee’s report accompanying the FY2005 appropriations bill did
not mention the CSC by name in a discussion of conservation funding (S.Rept. 108-
341, p.5). It stated that the committee “remains concerned” about proposals to create
“direct entitlement funding” for selected conservation programs, thereby removing
them from the annual oversight of the appropriations process. It noted that the
Committee continues to provide funding for many of these programs.
CRS Report RL30444. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and
a Related Initiative in the 106^th Congress, by Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey Zinn.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn.
Everglades Restoration
The alterations of the natural flow of water by a series of canals, levees, and
pumping stations, combined with agricultural and urban development, are thought
to be the leading causes of environmental deterioration in the South Florida
ecosystem. In 1996, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to create
a comprehensive plan to restore, protect, and preserve the entire South Florida
ecosystem, which includes the Everglades (P.L. 104-303). A portion of this plan, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), completed in 1999, provides
for federal involvement in the restoration of the ecosystem. Congress authorized the
Corps to implement CERP in Title IV of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (WRDA 2000, P.L. 106-541). While restoration activities in the South Florida
ecosystem are conducted under several federal laws, WRDA 2000 is considered the
seminal law for Everglades restoration.
Based on CERP and other previously authorized restoration projects, the
federal government, along with state, local, and tribal entities, is currently engaged
in a collaborative effort to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The principal
objective of CERP is to redirect and store “excess” freshwater currently being
discharged to the ocean via canals, and use it to restore the natural hydrological

functions of the South Florida ecosystem. CERP seeks to deliver sufficient water to
the natural system without impinging on the water needs of agricultural and urban
areas. The federal government is responsible for half the cost of implementing
CERP, and the other half is borne by the State of Florida, and to a lesser extent, local
tribes and other stakeholders. CERP consists of 68 projects that are expected to be
implemented over approximately 36 years, with an estimated total cost of $7.8
billion; the total federal share is estimated at $3.9 billion.⁹
Overview of Appropriations.Appropriations for restoration projects in the
South Florida ecosystem have been provided as part of several annual appropriations
bills. The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations laws have
provided funds to several DOI agencies for restoration projects. Specifically, DOI
conducts CERP and non-CERP activities in Southern Florida through the National
Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau
of Indian Affairs.
Appropriations for other restoration projects in the South Florida ecosystem
have been provided to the Corps (Energy and Water Development Appropriations);
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations);
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (VA, HUD, and Related Agencies
Appropriations); and U.S. Department of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and
Related Agencies Appropriations). (For information on other Everglades funding,
see CRS Report RS22048 Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter).
From FY1993 to FY2004, federal appropriations for projects and services
related to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem exceeded $2.3 billion
dollars, and state funding topped $3.6 billion.¹⁰ The average annual federal cost for
restoration activities in Southern Florida in the next 10 years is expected to be
approximately $286 million per year.¹¹ For FY2005, the Administration requested
$231.0 million for the Department of the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers
for restoration efforts in the Everglades. Of this total, $67.0 million was for the
implementation of CERP.
FY2005 Appropriations to DOI. For FY2005, the DOI was appropriated
$65.5 million for CERP and non-CERP restoration activities, over $40 million less
than the requested amount of $105.9 million, and $3.6 million less than the enacted
level of $69.1 million in FY2004. For the implementation of CERP, the DOI was
appropriated $8.5 million. See Table 20.

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

Of the FY2005 enacted funding level of $65.5 million, the NPS received $45.1
million for land acquisition, construction, and research activities; the FWS received
$12.1 million for land acquisition, refuges, ecological services, and other activities;
the USGS received $7.7 million for research, planning, and modeling; and the BIA
received $0.5 million for water projects and restoration on tribal lands. See Table

20 below.

Table 20. Appropriations for Everglades Restoration in the DOI Budget,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
Agencies Requesting Funding forFY2004FY2005FY2005
Everglades RestorationApprop.RequestApprop.
National Park Service
— CERP$5,463$5,463$5,213
— Park Operations ^a 23,99124,78025,266
— Land Acquisition-5,000^b40,0000
— Everglades Acquisitions Management1,8001,8001,500
— Modified Water Delivery12,8308,0777,965
— Everglades Research3,9373,9373,882
— South Florida Ecosystem Task Force1,3081,3081,290
Subtotal, NPS 44,32985,36545,116
Fish and Wildlife Service
— CERP3,3093,3513,304
— Land Acquisition0750740
— Ecological Services2,5232,5542,518
— Refuges and Wildlife9,7844,9064,787
— Law Enforcement628636627
— Fisheries9810099
Subtotal, FWS 16,34212,29712,075
U.S. Geological Survey
— Research, Planning and Coordination 7,8477,8477,738
Subtotal, USGS 7,8477,8477,738
Bureau of Indian Affairs
— Seminole, Miccosukee Tribe Water539396536
Studies and Restoration.
Subtotal, BIA539396536
Total appropriations69,057105,90565,465
^Source:^U^.^S^.^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e In}^t^e^ri^or,^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar²⁰^{06, T}^h^{e Int}^e^rⁱ^or^Budgetⁱⁿ^Brⁱ^e^f^,
^(Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^{, D}^C^:^F^e^bru^a^ry^{2005) an}^{d C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^2005.
^{a. T}^h^{is in}^clu^d^{es to}^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^p^a^r^k^o^p^e^r^a^tioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^Ev^er^g^l^ad^es^Natioⁿ^a^l^P^a^r^k^{, Dr}^y^T^o^r^t^u^g^a^{s Natio}ⁿ^a^l
^P^a^r^k^{, B}ⁱ^scayⁿ^e^Natioⁿ^a^{l P}^a^r^k^{, an}^d^Bⁱ^g^Cy^p^r^{ess Natio}ⁿ^a^{l P}^r^eser^v^e^.
^b^.^T^h^{is r}^e^f^l^{ects a tr}^an^sf^er^o^f^$⁵^.⁰^m^illioⁿ^to^FW^{S f}^o^r^w^a^ter^q^u^ality^m^oⁿ^ito^rⁱⁿ^g^an^d^m^itig^atin^gⁱⁿ^v^a^siv^e
^s^p^ecies^.
The FY2005 enacted level of funding was less than the FY2005
Administration’s request due to the omission of one proposed land acquisition project
under the NPS. The request for $40.0 million to acquire mineral rights underlying
Big Cypress National Preserve was not granted. The Collier Resources Company has
mineral rights in the preserve and reached an agreement in principle to sell them to

the DOI.¹² Forty million dollars would have covered a portion of the cost of the
mineral rights, estimated at $120 million. Appropriators did not include this funding
in FY2004 appropriations because the agreement had not been formally approved and
a DOI inquiry assessing the value of the mineral rights had been initiated.¹³ The
House-passed and the Senate committee-reported bills do not explicitly provide funds
for these mineral rights.
In its report on the FY2005 bill, the House Appropriations Committee expressed
concerns over the coordination and research towards restoring the South Florida
ecosystem. The House Committee directed DOI to submit, by November 2004, a
report describing the research projects to be funded by the NPS and USGS with
FY2005 appropriations. Further, the Committee directed DOI to submit a report
describing how it is implementing recommendations made by the General
Accounting Office and National Academy of Sciences regarding coordination and
management of Everglades research. The Senate committee report did not explicitly
state this concern. However, a provision in the Senate committee bill provided that
NPS construction funds for implementation of modified water deliveries to ENP are
to be spent in accordance with the FY2004 Interior Appropriations law, which placed
conditions on appropriations based on the monitoring of phosphorus pollution. This
provision was enacted; see below for details.
Concerns Over Phosphorus Mitigation. The enacted FY2005
appropriations provides $8.0 million for the Modified Water Deliveries Project,¹⁴
which is $4.8 million below the FY2004 enacted level of $12.8 million. According
to the FY2005 law, funds appropriated in this act and any prior acts for this project
will be provided unless administrators of four federal departments/agencies
(Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of the Army, Administrator of the EPA, and the
Attorney General) indicate in their joint report (to be filed annually until December
31, 2006) that water entering the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and
Everglades National Park do not meet state water quality standards, and the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations respond in writing disapproving the
further expenditure of funds. These provisions also were included in the House-
passed and Senate committee-reported bills for FY2005 appropriations.
These provisions were enacted based on concerns regarding a Florida State Law
(Chapter 2003-12, enacted on May 20, 2003) that amended the Everglades Forever
Act of 1994 (Florida Statutes §373.4592) by authorizing a new plan to mitigate
phosphorus pollution in the Everglades. Phosphorus is one of the primary water
pollutants in the Everglades and a primary cause for ecosystem alteration in the
Everglades. Provisions conditioning funds on the achievement of water quality

¹² The Collier family is the primary holder of mineral rights under the Big Cypress Preserve,
and their mineral rights were established before the creation of the preserve. It is estimated
that there are 40 million barrels of recoverable oil under the Big Cypress Preserve.
¹³ J. Eskovitz, “Everglades Mineral Assets,” Naples Daily News, Jan. 31, 2004.
¹⁴ The Modified Water Deliveries Project was authorized by the Everglades National Park
Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-229; 16 U.S.C. 410) to improve water
deliveries to Everglades National Park and, to the extent possible, restore the natural
hydrological conditions within the Park.

standards were not requested in the Administration’s budget for FY2005. (For more
information see CRS Report RL32131, Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by
Pervaze Sheikh and Barbara Johnson.)
For further information on Everglades Restoration, see the website of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Program at [http://www.sfrestore.org] and the website
of the Corps of Engineers at [http://www.evergladesplan.org/].
CRS Report RS22048 Everglades Restoration: The Federal Role, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter
CRS Report RL31621. Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze
A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze A.
Sheikh and Barbara A. Johnson.
Competitive Sourcing of Government Jobs
The Bush Administration’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative would subject
diverse commercial activities to public-private competition. The goal of this
government-wide effort, first outlined in 2001, is to save money through competition
between government and private businesses in areas where private businesses might
provide better commercial services, for instance, law enforcement, maintenance, and
administration. The initiative has been controversial, with concerns including
whether it would save the government money and whether the private sector could
provide the same quality of service in certain areas.
For agencies funded by the Interior appropriations bill, concern has centered on
the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and agencies and activities in the
Department of Energy (DOE) that are funded through the bill. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2005 placed spending limits on DOI and DOE competitive
sourcing studies during FY2005, unless Congress approves the reprogramming of
additional funds under revised reprogramming guidelines printed in H.Rept. 108-330.
For DOI, the cap is $3.25 million, and DOE agencies in the bill are limited to $0.5
million. Forest Service spending is limited to no more than $2.0 million. The law
also specifies that agencies include, in any reports to Congress on competitive
sourcing, information on the full costs associated with sourcing studies and related
activities. The FY2005 House-passed bill sought to require the Secretaries of DOI,
DOE, and Agriculture (for the Forest Service) to report annually to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees on competitive sourcing activities during the
previous year. This language was not enacted.

The FY2004 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 108-108) also contained spending
limits for competitive sourcing studies of agencies and required agencies to report
annually to Congress on their competitive sourcing activities. These reporting
requirements were repealed by P.L. 108-447. P.L. 108-108 further required agencies
to specify in their annual budget submissions the level of funding requested for such
studies. In adopting the language, conferees expressed support for the “underlying
principle” of the Administration’s initiative, but concern that the effort was being
conducted too fast for its costs and implications to be understood and “in violation”
of guidelines on reprogramming funds. In particular, there was concern that the
Forest Service was reprogramming money without approval. Language in the
FY2004 House-passed bill sought to bar agencies from using funds in the bill to
begin new competitive sourcing studies. The President threatened to veto the bill if
this language was included, and it was not enacted. (For more information on
competitive sourcing generally, see CRS Report RL32017, Circular A-76 Revision
2003: Selected Issues, by L. Elaine Halchin, and CRS Report RL32079, Federal
Contracting of Commercial Activities: Competitive Sourcing Targets, by L. Elaine
Halchin.)
Missouri River Management
An ongoing controversy over conflicting water levels for upper and lower
Missouri River Basin states was an issue during the markup of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations of the FY2005 Interior appropriations bill. A provision to change
a trigger that requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement
drought conservation measures on the Missouri River remained in S. 2804 after a
debate to have it removed during committee markup, but was not enacted into law.
No similar language had been included in the House-passed bill.
The drought conservation measures would suspend navigational releases from
Missouri River reservoirs if storage at the reservoirs falls below a defined level. For
the last few years, upper basin reservoirs have experienced low water levels during
an ongoing drought in the basin, and navigation has continued in the lower basin
although at a minimum service level and with a shortened navigation season. The
current trigger to implement drought conservation measures established by the Corps’
2004 Missouri River Master Water Control Manual is 31 million acre-feet (MAF) of
storage at a March 15 storage check.¹⁵ The trigger in S. 2804 was for the suspension
of navigation if the system storage level was at or below 40 MAF at any time during
the year (not just on March 15). The current storage level is 35.7 MAF; storage on
March 15, 2005 is estimated to be between 34.9 MAF and 36.5 MAF. For more
information on the Missouri River management debate, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10120, Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program: Issues for the 109^th
Congress, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze A. Sheikh.

¹⁵ The manual is available at
[http://www.nwd-mr.usace.army.mil/rcc/reports/mmanual/MasterManual.pdf]. Even when
drought conservation measures are in effect, the Corps is required to maintain releases for
other lower basin purposes, such as water intakes for drinking water and thermal power
plant cooling water.

Table 21. Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004-FY2005
($ in thousands)
^FY²⁰⁰⁴^c^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY^{2005 Hou}^s^e-^FY^{2005 S}^eⁿ^a^te^FY²⁰⁰⁵^f
^B^u^{reau or Agency}^Appro^p^.^Request^pa^sse^d^C^o^mm.^Appro^p^.
^:^Departm^e^{nt of the I}ⁿ^terior
^of^L^aⁿ^d^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^$1,^893,233^$1,759,355^$1,833,³¹⁷^$1,876,432^$1,816,910
^.^Fⁱ^s^h^an^{d Wi}^l^d^lⁱ^f^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹^,308,405^1,326,053^1,263,204^1,309,479^1,332,591
ⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Park^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,258,⁵⁸¹^2,360,544^2,267,809^2,360,242^2,365,683
^.^G^e^ol^ogⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^937,985^919,788^944,498^939,486^936,464
^e^ral^s^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^170,297^178,680^178,680^178,280^173,826
ⁱ^{ce of}^Su^rf^{ace Min}ⁱⁿ^g^295,975^352,768^303,011^300,768^296,573
^ation^an^{d En}^f^o^rcem^en^t
^of^In^di^an^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s²^,^300,814^2,253,795^2,334,⁸⁵¹^2,276,116^2,295,702
^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^ces^a^682,674^820,316^719,081^734,501^726,379
^,^Tⁱ^tl^{e I}⁹^,847,964^9,^971,299^9,844,451^9,975,304^9,944,128
^I^:^{Related Agencies}
^.^F^o^res^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e⁴^,939,⁸⁹⁹^4,238,103^4,646,398^4,671,185^4,746,207
^m^eⁿ^t^of^En^erg^y
^l^{ean C}^oal^T^echnol^ogy^-^185,000^-237,000^-237,000^-257,000^-257,000
^sⁱ^l^Ener^{gy R &}^D^672,770^635,799^601,875^542,529^571,852
^a^val^Pet^r^ol^eum^{and O}ⁱ^l^Shal^e^17,995^18,000^18,000^18,000^17,750
^rv^e^s
^{School Lands}^Fund^72,000^72,000^72,000^72,000^71,500
^{gy C}^ons^er^vatⁱ^oⁿ^877,985^584,733^656,071^854,299^640,076
ⁱ^c^Regul^atⁱ^oⁿ¹^,034^—^—^—^—
^r^a^t^e^gi^{c Pet}^r^ol^eum^Res^e^r^v^e^170,949^172,100^172,100^172,100^169,710
^r^ol^eum^Account^—^—^—^—^—
^o^r^t^heas^t^H^o^m^e^H^e^atⁱ^{ng O}ⁱ^l^4,939^5,000^5,000^5,000^4,930
^rv^e
^erg^y^Iⁿ^fo^rma^tioⁿ^81,100^85,000^85,000^84,000^83,819
ⁱ^stra^tioⁿ
^ot^al^{, D}^O^E^1,713,772^1,335,⁶³²^1,373,046^1,490,928^1,302,637
^an^H^eal^t^h^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,921,⁷¹⁵^2,967,272^3,033,370^2,997,772^2,985,065
ⁱ^{ce of}^N^a^v^a^j^o^an^{d H}^opi^In^di^an^13,366^11,000^11,000^5,000^4,930
^catioⁿ
^{te o}^f^A^m^er^ican^Iⁿ^dⁱ^an^an^d
^a^Nativ^{e Cu}^ltu^r^e^an^d^A^r^ts^6,173^6,000^6,000^6,000^5,916
^e^l^opm^en^t
^ith^s^oⁿⁱ^an^In^s^titu^tion^596,279^628,025^619,825^627,025^615,157
ⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^a^l^l^e^ry^of^A^r^t^98,225^104,100^104,100^103,119^102,653
^K^e^nne^d^y^Ce^nt^e^r^fo^r^t^h^e^32,159^33,486^27,152^33,486^33,021
^f^o^r^mⁱ^{ng A}^r^t^s
^Wi^l^s^on^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^8,498^8,987^8,987^8,987^8,863
^e^r^fo^r^Sc^ho^l^a^r^s
ⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^En^dow^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r t}^h^{e A}^r^t^s^120,972^139,400^130,972^120,972^121,264

^FY²⁰⁰⁴^c^FY²⁰⁰⁵^FY^{2005 Hou}^s^e-^FY^{2005 S}^eⁿ^a^te^FY²⁰⁰⁵^f
^B^u^{reau or Agency}^Appro^p^.^Request^pa^sse^d^C^o^mm.^Appro^p^.
ⁿ^a^{l En}^d^o^w^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^r^th^e^135,310^162,000^141,999^135,310^138,054
^m^aⁿ^ities
^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^Fⁱⁿ^e^A^r^t^s^1,405^1,793^1,793^1,793^1,768
ⁿ^a^{l Cap}^{ital A}^r^{ts an}^d^Cu^ltu^r^a^l^6,914^5,000^7,000^6,000^6,902
ⁱ^r^s
^vi^so^r^y^Co^uncⁱ^l^oⁿ^Hⁱ^st^o^rⁱ^c^3,951^4,600^4,600^4,600^4,536
^erv^a^tion
ⁿ^a^{l Cap}^{ital P}^l^anⁿⁱⁿ^g^7,635^8,155^7,999^8,000^7,888
^s^sⁱ^oⁿ
^.^H^o^l^o^cau^s^t^Mem^o^ri^al^Mu^s^e^u^m^39,505^41,433^41,433^41,433^40,858
ⁱ^dⁱ^o^T^r^u^s^t^20,445^20,000^20,000^20,000^19,722
^,^Tⁱ^tl^{e I}^I^:^R^e^l^a^ted^A^g^en^ci^es^10,666,223^9,714,986^10,185,674^10,281,610^10,145,441
^a^{nd To}^t^a^{l (}ⁱ^{n B}^ill)^b^20,514,187^19,686,285^20,030,125^d^20,256,914^d^20,089,569^e
^Ho^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee an}^d^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^.
^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^cesⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^In^s^u^{lar A}^f^f^a^irs^,^th^{e P}^a^y^m^en^tsⁱⁿ^Lⁱ^eu^of^T^a^x^e^s^P^r^og^ram^(P^IL^T⁾^,^an^d^th^e^Of^fⁱ^ce^of^th^e^Special^Tr^u^s^t^e^e
^m^erican^In^dian^s^.
^u^r^es^{do n}^o^{t ref}^l^{ect s}^c^orek^eepin^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^.
ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board cu}^t^of^0.646%ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2004 In}^t^e^ri^{or an}^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^(P.L^{. 108-}^{108) an}^d
^s^-^th^e-^{board cut}^o^f⁰^.⁵⁹^%ⁱⁿ^th^{e C}^oⁿ^s^{olidated A}^ppropriation^s^A^c^{t of}²⁰⁰⁴^(P^.L^{. 108-}^{199). T}^h^eyⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e $500.0 m}^illion^f^o^r
^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^tⁱⁿ^g^con^t^aiⁿ^e^{d i}ⁿ^P.L^.^108-^287.
^o^lu^mⁿ^{total ref}^l^ects^{$500.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^tin^g^th^{at w}^o^u^l^{d becom}^e^av^ailable^if^certain^con^d^ition^s^{are m}^e^t.^Specifⁱ^cally^,
^L^{M portion}^is^{$100.0 m}^illion^an^{d th}^{e FS portion}^is^{$400.0 m}^illion^.
^lu^mⁿ^to^talⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^m^oⁿ^e^y^f^o^r^em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^r^e^fⁱ^g^h^tin^g^th^{at w}^o^u^l^d^b^eco^m^e^av^ailab^l^{e if}^cer^tain^coⁿ^d^itioⁿ^s^ar^{e m}^e^{t. Sp}^ecifⁱ^c^ally^{, th}^e
^is^{$98.6 m}^illion^an^{d th}^{e FS portion}^is^{$394.4 m}^illion^.
ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^t^w^{o acros}^s^-^t^h^e-^{board cu}^t^s^{, of}^0.594%^an^{d 0.80%}^{, i}ⁿ^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^r^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^(P.L^.¹⁰⁸^-^447).

Table 22. Historical Appropriations Data, from FY2001 to FY2005
($ in thousands)
^A^g^en^{cy or Bu}^reau^F^Y²⁰⁰¹^FY²⁰⁰²^FY²⁰⁰³^FY²⁰⁰⁴^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^e^{nt of the I}ⁿ^terior
^reau^of^L^aⁿ^d^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^$2,^147,182^$1,872,597^$1,877,⁸⁹²^$1,893,233^1,816,910
^.^Fⁱ^s^h^an^{d Wi}^l^d^lⁱ^f^{e S}^e^rvⁱ^c^e¹^,227,010^1,276,424^1,248,533^1,308,405^1,332,591
^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^Park^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,135,²¹⁹^2,380,074^2,239,430^2,258,581^2,365,683
^.^G^e^ol^ogⁱ^cal^S^u^rv^ey^882,800^914,002^919,272^937,985^936,464
ⁿ^e^ral^s^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e^139,221^156,772^170,312^170,297^173,826
^fⁱ^{ce of}^Su^rf^{ace Min}ⁱⁿ^g^R^eclam^ation^&^302,846^306,530^295,179^295,975^296,573
^f^o^rcem^en^t
^reau^of^In^di^an^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s²^,^187,613^2,212,876^2,257,²⁴³^2,300,814^2,295,702
^eⁿ^t^{al Of}^fⁱ^ces^a^352,519^367,144^624,609^682,674^726,379
ⁿ^e^ral^Provⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^12,572^—^—^—^—
^tal^{for D}^e^p^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^9,386,982^9,486,419^9,632,470^9,847,964^9,944,128
^.^F^o^res^t^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e⁴^,435,³⁹¹^4,130,416^4,869,839^4,979,899^4,746,207
^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^En^erg^y^1,453,⁶⁴⁴^1,766,470^1,740,532^1,713,772^1,302,637
^an^H^eal^t^h^S^e^rvⁱ^c^e²^,628,⁷⁶⁶^2,759,101^2,849,661^2,921,715^2,985,065
^fⁱ^{ce of}^N^a^v^a^j^o^an^{d H}^opi^In^di^an^14,967^15,148^14,397^13,366^4,930
^catioⁿ
^{te o}^f^A^m^er^ican^Iⁿ^dⁱ^an^an^d^A^l^ask^a^4,116^4,490^5,454^6,173^5,916
^ltu^r^e^&^A^r^{ts Dev}^e^lo^p^m^en^t
^ith^s^oⁿⁱ^an^In^s^titu^tion^453,854^518,860^544,875^596,279^615,157
^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^G^a^l^l^e^ry^of^A^r^t^75,485^85,335^92,842^98,225^102,653
^C^eⁿ^t^{er f}^o^{r t}^h^{e Perf}^ormⁱⁿ^g^A^r^t^s^33,925^38,310^33,690^32,159^33,021
^Wi^l^s^on^In^t^e^rn^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^eⁿ^t^{er f}^o^r^12,283^7,796^8,433^8,498^8,863
^lar^s
^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^En^dow^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r t}^h^{e A}^r^t^s^97,785^98,234^115,732^120,972^121,264
^a^{l En}^dow^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r th}^{e Hu}^m^aⁿ^ities^119,994^124,504^124,936^135,310^138,054
^{te o}^f^Mu^seu^m^an^d^Lⁱ^b^r^ar^y^Ser^v^ices²⁴^,⁸⁵²²⁶^,⁸⁹⁹^bb^b
^al^l^eⁿ^g^e^A^m^eri^{ca A}^r^t^s^F^uⁿ^d^6,985^17,000^c^c^c
^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^of^Fⁱⁿ^e^A^r^t^s^1,076^1,224^1,216^1,405^1,768
^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^a^pi^t^a^l^A^r^t^s^an^{d C}^u^l^t^u^ral^A^f^f^aⁱ^r^s⁶^,985^7,000^6,954^6,914^6,902
^vⁱ^s^o^ry^C^o^uⁿ^cⁱ^l^on^Hⁱ^s^t^ori^c^Pres^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ³^,182^3,400^3,643^3,951^4,536
^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^C^a^pi^t^o^l^Pl^anⁿⁱⁿ^g^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^6,486^8,011^7,206^7,635^7,888
^l^o^cau^s^t^Mem^o^ri^al^Mu^s^e^u^m^34,363^36,028^38,412^39,505^40,858
ⁱ^dⁱ^o^T^r^u^s^t^33,327^23,125^21,188^20,445^19,722
^tal^{for rel}^ated^agen^cⁱ^e^s⁹^,^447,466^9,671,351^10,479,⁰¹⁰^10,706,223^10,145,441
^an^d^total^{for al}^l^agen^cⁱ^e^s^18,892,320^19,157,770^20,111,480^d^20,554,187^e^20,089,569^f
^Ho^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^{ittee an}^d^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^.
^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^al^O^f^fⁱ^cesⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^es^In^s^u^l^a^{r A}^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^,^t^h^{e Pay}^m^en^t^sⁱⁿ^Lⁱ^eu^of^T^a^x^e^s^Prog^ram^(PIL^T⁾^f^o^r^F^Y²⁰⁰³^an^d^F^Y^2004,^an^d^O^f^fⁱ^ce
^{e S}^p^eci^al^T^r^u^s^t^{ee f}^o^{r A}^m^eri^can^In^di^an^s^.^F^o^{r F}^Y^2000-^F^Y^{2002, PIL}^T^m^oⁿⁱ^es^{are con}^t^aiⁿ^e^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^{e BL}^{M appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.

^e^gⁱⁿⁿⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^{FY2003, th}^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^Mu^s^e^u^m^Serv^ices^as^{part of}^th^{e IML}^S^isⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed in}^th^{e appropriation}^s^{bill f}^o^{r th}^{e Depar}^tm^en^ts
^a^bor-^H^H^S^-^E^du^catⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^.
ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^Ch^allen^g^e^A^m^er^{ica A}^r^{ts Fu}ⁿ^d^{is in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e to}^{tal f}ⁱ^g^u^r^{e f}^o^r^th^{e Natio}ⁿ^a^{l En}^d^o^w^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^r^th^{e A}^r^ts.
ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^col^u^mⁿ^ref^l^ect^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board cu}^t^of^0.65%ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰³^con^s^olⁱ^d^at^ed^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^a^w^(P.L^.^108-^7).^T^h^{e to}^tal
ⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^{$825.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r w}^ildlan^d^fⁱ^{re em}^erg^eⁿ^c^ies^,^c^o^nsⁱ^s^tⁱⁿ^g^of^{$189.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r B}^L^{M an}^{d $636.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e For}^es^t
^ice.^T^h^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^{are to repay}^am^ouⁿ^t^s^tran^s^f^{erred f}^r^om^oth^e^r^accouⁿ^t^s^f^o^r^fⁱ^{re f}ⁱ^g^h^tin^gⁱⁿ^F^Y^{2002. T}^h^{e total appropriation}^f^o^{r F}^Y²⁰⁰³
^d^es^an^FY2003^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^Su^pplem^en^{tal A}^ppropriation^(P^.L^{. 108-}^{83) addin}^g^{$36.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r B}^L^{M, $5.0 m}^illion^f^o^{r FW}^{S, an}^d
^illion^f^o^{r FS.}
ⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^col^u^mⁿ^ref^l^ect^an^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board cu}^t^of^0.646%ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2004 In}^t^e^ri^{or an}^{d R}^e^l^a^t^e^{d A}^g^en^ci^es^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^Ac^t⁽^P^.^L^.
^{108) an}^{d an}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^b^o^a^r^d^c^u^t^o^f⁰^.⁵⁹^%ⁱⁿ^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^of^{2004 (P.L}^{. 108-}^{199). T}^h^eyⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e $500.}⁰
^f^o^{r em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^refⁱ^g^h^tin^g^con^t^ain^e^{d in}^P^.^L^.^108-^287.
ⁱ^g^u^r^es^ref^l^ect^t^w^{o acros}^s^-^t^h^e-^{board cu}^t^s^{, of}^0.594%^an^{d 0.80%}^,ⁱⁿ^t^h^e^C^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^ed^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2005 (P.L}^{. 108}^-^447).
^alsoⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e f}^uⁿ^d^{s f}^o^r^em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^fⁱ^r^e^fⁱ^g^h^tin^g^th^{at w}^o^u^l^d^b^eco^m^e^av^ailab^l^{e if}^cer^tain^coⁿ^d^itioⁿ^s^ar^{e m}^e^{t. Sp}^ecifⁱ^cal^l^y^,^t^h^{e B}^L^M
^is^{$98.6 m}^illion^an^{d th}^{e FS portion}^is^{$394.4 m}^illion^.

For Additional Reading
Title I: Department of the Interior
CRS Report RL32373. Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization: Selected
Issues. By Robert L. Bamberger.
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 RS21331. Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project,
by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS21402. Federal Lands, “Disclaimers of Interest,”and R.S. 2477, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RL31621. Florida Everglades Restoration: Background on
Implementation and Early Lessons, by Pervaze Sheikh.
CRS Report RL32244. Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes by the Bureau
of Land Management, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report 96-123. Historic Preservation: Background and Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Report RS21503. Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and
Issues, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Issue Brief IB89130. Mining on Federal Lands, by Marc Humphries.
CRS Report RS21157. Multinational Species Conservation Fund, by M. Lynne Corn
and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
CRS Report RS20902. National Monument Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Issue Brief IB10145, National Park Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109^th Congress,
coordinated by Nicole Carter and Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL31392. PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by
M. Lynne Corn.
CRS Report RS20702. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, by Nicole T. Carter and Pervaze
A. Sheikh.

Land Management Agencies Generally
CRS Report RS20471. The Conservation Spending Category: Funding for Natural
Resource Protection, by Jeffrey A. Zinn.
CRS Report RS20002. Federal Land and Resource Management: A Primer, by Ross
W. Gorte.
CRS Report RL32393. Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land
and Resources Management, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
CRS Report RL30335. Federal Land Management Agencies’ Permanently
Appropriated Accounts, by Ross W. Gorte, M. Lynne Corn, and Carol Hardy
Vincent.
CRS Report RL30126. Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority; the
History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention; and Current Acquisition and
Disposal Authorities, by Ross W. Gorte and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Issue Brief IB10076. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National
Forests, by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent, coordinators.
CRS Report RL32131. Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades, by Pervaze Sheikh
and Barbara Johnson.
Title II: Related Agencies
CRS Report RS20287. Arts and Humanities: Background on Funding, by Susan
Boren.
CRS Issue Brief IB10020. Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RL30755. Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Ross W. Gorte.
CRS Report RS21442. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Report RL30647. The National Forest System Roadless Areas Initiative, by
Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RS20852. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Status
and Issues, by Brent D. Yacobucci.
CRS Issue Brief IB87050. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Robert Bamberger.
CRS Report RS21544. Wildfire Protection Funding, by Ross W. Gorte.

Selected Websites
Information regarding the budget, supporting documents, and related
departments, agencies and programs is available at the following web or gopher sites.
House Committee on Appropriations
[ http://appropriations.house.gov/]
Senate Committee on Appropriations
[http://appropriations.senat e.gov/]
CRS Appropriations Products Guide
[ http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml]
Congressional Budget Office
[ http://www.cbo.gov/]
General Accounting Office
[ http://www.gao.gov]
House Democratic Caucus
[ http://www.dems.gov/]
House Republican Conference
[ http://www.gop.gov/]
Office of Management and Budget
[ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/]
Senate Democratic Conference
[ h ttp://www.democrats.senate.gov/]
Senate Republican Policy Committee
[http://rpc.senat e.gov/]

Title I: Department of the Interior¹⁶
Department of the Interior (DOI)
[ http://www.doi.gov/]
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/index .htm]
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
[ http://www.fws.gov/]
Historic Preservation
[ http://www2.cr.nps.gov/]
Insular Affairs
[ http://www.doi.gov/oia/index .html]
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
[ http://www.mms.gov/]
National Park Service (NPS)
[ http://www.nps.gov/]
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
[http://www.osmre.gov/osm.htm]
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians
[ http://www.ost.doi.gov/]
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
[ http://www.usgs .gov/]
Title II: Related Agencies
Departments.
Agriculture, Department of (USDA)
[ http://www.usda.gov/]
Department of Agriculture: U.S. Forest Service
[ http://www.fs.fed.us/]
Energy, Department of (DOE)
[ h ttp://www.doe.gov/engi ne/content.do]

¹⁶ Some of the DOI websites may not be operational due to a court order regarding Indian
trust funds litigation. Nevertheless, they are included herein for reference when the websites
are operational.

Energy Budget
[ http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/05budget/]
Energy Conservation Programs
[ h ttp://www.eere.energy.gov/]
Fossil Energy
[ h ttp://www.fe.doe.gov/]
Naval Petroleum Reserves
[http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/res erves/npr/]
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
[http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/res erves/spr/]
Health and Human Services, Department of (HHS)
[ http://www.dhhs.gov/]
Indian Health Service (IHS)
[ http://www.ihs.gov/]
Agencies.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
[ h ttp://www.achp.gov]
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development
[ h ttp://www.iaiancad.org/ ]
Institute of Museum and Library Services
[ http://www.imls.gov/]
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
[http://Kennedy-Center.org/ ]
National Capital Planning Commission
[ h ttp://www.ncpc.gov]
National Endowment for the Arts
[ http://arts.endow.gov/]
National Endowment for the Humanities
[ http://www.neh.gov/]
National Gallery of Art
[ http://www.nga.gov/]
Smithsonian Institution
[ http://www.si.edu/]

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
[http://www.ushmm.org/ ]
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
[http://wwics.si.edu/]