Order Code RL30444
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Resource Protection:
A Comparison of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and Three
Other Senate Bills (S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181)
with Current Law
Updated June 12, 2000
Jeffrey Zinn and M. Lynne Corn
Senior Analyst and Specialist in Natural Resource Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

ABSTRACT
Legislation to allocate revenues from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas activities for
federal and state resource acquisition and protection, urban recreation, wildlife protection, and
related purposes has passed the House and may be considered by the Senate. This report
compares bills addressing these topics in a side-by-side format, including : (a) H.R. 701,
which passed the House (amended) on May 11, 2000 and an identical Senate bill (S. 2567);
(b) S. 2123, a bill that is identical to H.R. 701 as reported by the House Resources
Committee; (c) S. 25 and S. 2181, two other Senate bills that also may receive further
consideration; and (d) current law. Some provisions in these bills are also elements in the
Clinton Administration’s “Lands Legacy Initiative,” proposed in its FY2000 and FY2001
budget submissions. Opponents worry that enacting these bills could increase pressure to
expand development in the OCS, increase the rate at which the federal government acquires
private lands, or remove significant funding decisions from the annual appropriations process.
Supporters believe that more dependable federal funding in larger amounts for diverse
resource protection purposes is long overdue, and argue that the revenues generated by
depletion of one resource (development of offshore oil and gas) should be used to augment
efforts to conserve other resources. This report may be updated as relevant bills move
through the legislative process.

---

Resource Protection : A Comparison of
H.R. 701/S.2567 and Three Other Senate Bills
(S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181) with Current Law
Summary
This report compares H.R. 701, as passed by the House on May 11, 2000, by a
vote of 315-102 (and identical legislation subsequently introduced in the Senate, S.
2567), and S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181 with current law in a side-by-side format.
These bills would fund, largely without further appropriation, various land and
resource acquisition and protection activities. With passage in the House, supporters
are pressing the Senate to act. (To track the legislative process on these bills and
related issues in more detail, see CRS Issue Brief IB10015, Conserving Land
Resources: Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress.)
These bills originated, in part, from efforts to provide higher and more certain
funding for resource protection programs, from desires to fund the state grant portion
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and to fund the entire LWCF each
year, and from an interest in dedicating a large portion of offshore oil and gas
revenues to resource protection. Support for this legislation has grown and
diversified as: (a) the budget deficit has been replaced with a surplus; (b) protecting
natural resources has become viewed as part of efforts to address sprawl; (c) local
pressure has expanded to secure federal funding for resource protection; and (d)
efforts have strengthened to increase funding levels for an expanding list of federal
resource protection programs. A key feature of these bills is to provide secure
funding by bypassing the appropriations process. While strongly supported by the
bills’ advocates, this feature is opposed by those who hold other priorities for federal
spending, want to limit overall federal spending, or believe such funding should be
sought through the annual appropriations process. Opposition has also been raised
by advocates of private property rights who fear that additional funding will lead to
accelerated public acquisition of private lands.
The bills address numerous topics. All the bills would provide funds to coastal
states and communities to mitigate impacts associated with offshore energy
development, fund an urban program to develop recreation facilities, and provide
funds for wildlife protection and restoration. All would fund the state grant portion
of the LWCF at a guaranteed level, but only S. 25, and S. 2181 would also fund the
federal LWCF at a guaranteed level. S. 25 is limited to the various several purposes,
while S. 2181 funds two dozen programs. All funding for the proposals would come
from revenues derived from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas activities,
which now go into the federal treasury where they fund the general functions of the
federal government. Some environmental interests worry that support for more
funding could increase pressure to expand OCS activities into areas where moratoria
are currently in place; each bill includes provisions to blunt such incentives.
The Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative, which was first proposed in
January 1999, is not included in this comparison, since it was never developed as
legislation. This initiative is being implemented primarily within the annual
appropriations process. S. 2181 is most like the Lands Legacy proposals.

---

Key CRS Staff
Name
Area(s) of Expertise
Phone
Pamela Baldwin
Legal Issues
7-8597
Eugene Buck
Marine Wildlife Conservation and
7-7262
Restoration Programs
M. Lynne Corn
Terrestrial Wildlife Conservation,
7-7267
Restoration Programs, Payment in
Lieu of Taxes, Refuge Revenue
Sharing Fund
David Koitz
Social Security
7-7322
Larry Kumins
OCS Oil and Gas Activities
7-7250
Sandy Streeter
Federal Budget Process
7-8653
David Whiteman
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery,
7-7786
Historic Preservation Programs
Jeffrey Zinn
Land and Water Conservation Fund,
7-7257
Coastal Management, Easements
Acronyms
BLM
Bureau of Land Management, an agency in DOI
CARA Fund
Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund, created under H.R. 701/S. 2123
CRRRF
Coral Reef Resources Restoration Fund, created under S. 2123
CZMA
Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. et. seq.)
DOI
Department of the Interior
E.O.
Executive Order
ESA
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1530, et. seq.)
FACA
Federal Advisory Committee Act ( 5 U.S.C. App.)
FPP
Farmland Protection Program (16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.)
FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency in DOI
LWCF Act
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et. seq.)
LWCF
Land and Water Conservation Fund
NFS
National Forest Service, an agency in USDA
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service, an agency in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce
NPS
National Park Service, an agency in DOI
NWRS
National Wildlife Refuge System
OCCF
Ocean and Coast Conservation Fund, created under S. 2123
OCS
Outer Continental Shelf
OCSLA
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1331
et. seq.)
OCSIAF
Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assistance Fund, created under S. 25 and
S.2123
P-R
Pittman Robertson Act, more properly titled Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act of Sept. 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669 et. seq.)
PILT
Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program (16 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.)
SRA
Species Recovery Agreements, created under H.R. 701/S. 2123
RRSF
Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (16 U.S.C. 715s)
UPARR
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (16 U.S.C. 2501 et. seq.)
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
WCRP
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program, created under H.R. 701/S.
2123

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Coverage of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Other Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Forces Behind these Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fully Funding the LWCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Backlog of Pending Land Acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Increasing Overall Resource Protection Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Funding State Programs For Non-Game Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Increasing Federal Payments to Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Expanding the Ways That LWCF Funds Can Be Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Offshore Energy Development and Coastal Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Growing OCS Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Funding the Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Where the Funds Would Go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Federal Budget Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Debt Reduction, Social Security, and Medicare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Dual Funding for LWCF under H.R. 701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Federal LWCF: Permanent or Not? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Farmland Protection Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Sunset Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
OCS Leasing and Moratoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Funding for County Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Other Amendments to H.R. 701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Side by Side Comparison -- Provisions in H.R. 701 (as passed)/S. 2567, S. 25, S. 2123
and S. 2181 with Current Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation (Coastal Assistance) – Overview
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) – Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) – Overview . . . 45
Historic Preservation Fund – Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Federal and Indian Lands Restoration (Land Restoration) – Overview . . . 49
Conservation Easements – Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery (Species Recovery) – Overview
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (RRSF)–
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Protection of Social Security and Medicare Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Other Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

---

Resource Protection:
A Comparison of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and Three
Other Senate Bills (S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181)
with Current Law
Introduction
Omnibus bills to greatly expand federal financial support for various land and
resource protection, acquisition, and restoration programs have been introduced in
the 106th Congress. In recent congressional sessions, legislation with multiple
components and proposals for significant additional federal expenditures might have
been less likely to receive serious consideration because of the budget deficit and the
difficulty of offsetting any new spending with reductions elsewhere. But with the
emergence of a budget surplus, endorsement (at least in concept) by a broad political
constituency, and an apparent groundswell of grassroots support, these proposals are
receiving greater congressional attention.
The House passed H.R. 701 on May 11, after 2 days of debate during which it
considered 24 amendments and adopted 7 of them. H.R. 701 was cosponsored by
more than 300 members and passed the House by a vote of 315-102. Passage was
supported by a majority of both the Republicans and Democrats. The amendments
and the technical corrections made after the bill was approved by the House
Resources Committee change the bill in several potentially significant ways, which
are discussed below in the text and identified in the side-by-side using a different font.
With completion of action in the House, supporters of the legislation are pressing the
Senate to act quickly so that the legislative process can be completed before the 106th
Congress ends. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing
on these proposals on May 24, at which it heard from 15 witnesses, including 7
Senators and Representatives.
Coverage of Report
This report compares existing law with H.R. 701, as passed by the House and
an identical bill, S. 2567 that was subsequently introduced by Senator Boxer; S. 25,
sponsored by Senator Landrieu; S. 2123, sponsored by Senator Landrieu and identical
to H.R. 701 as reported by the House Resources Committee; and S. 2181, sponsored
by Senator Bingaman. Each of these bills would create a new coastal energy impact
assistance program, amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(LWCF Act), fund the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program, and increase

---

CRS-2
funding for wildlife conservation.1 Some of the bills would fund different
combinations of additional programs to protect natural and cultural resources, as well
as permit an increase of payments to counties due to the presence of federal lands.
How these bills equate with each other is shown in the table below.
Table 1. Relationship between Identical House and Senate Bills
House:
H.R. 701
H.R. 701
H.R. 701
-----
-----
(as introduced)
(as reported)
(as passed)
Senate:

-----
S. 2123
S. 2567
S. 25
S. 2181
These programs would be funded using revenue from Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) oil and gas activities in federal waters. Funding requirements for H.R. 701/S.
2567 and S. 2123 are estimated to be $2.85 billion annually, and the state in which the
largest amount would be spent is California.2 It is estimated that S. 25 would provide
$1.4 billion, based on hypothetical OCS annual receipts of $2.8 billion, and the state
in which the largest amount would be spent is Louisiana.3 Funding requirements for
S. 2181 are estimated to be approximately $2.9 billion annually, and the state in which
the largest amount would be spent is California.
Other Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress
Several other closely-related bills are not discussed further in this report. Two
of these bills, S. 446, sponsored by Senator Boxer, and H.R. 798, sponsored by
Representative George Miller, are identical. Their provisions draw on many
components of the Clinton Administration “Lands Legacy Initiative,” announced in
January 1999 and submitted to Congress in the Administration’s FY2000 and FY2001
budget requests.4 However, Rep. Miller has cosponsored and voted for H.R. 701 and
Sen. Boxer introduced one of the other bills compared in this report.5
Two other bills, H.R. 452 and S. 532, also have been introduced. H.R. 452,
sponsored by Representative Campbell, would only amend the LWCF. This bill
would take the LWCF off-budget, and would exempt this fund from any general
1See the list of acronyms, which follows the summary, for fuller citations of the laws
discussed in this report.
2Based on cost estimates posted on the Committee on Resources web site
(www.house.gov/resources).
3Cost estimates prepared by Representative Miller’s staff based on data provided by the
Department of the Interior, February 23, 1999.
4See Budget of the United States; Fiscal Year 2000, Wash. D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. p.
189-190. The Administration has not submitted actual legislation to authorize many of these
proposals.
5Most recently, Senator Boxer stated at the May 24, 2000 hearing that she had introduced S.
2567 because she believes it would be the fastest way to pass legislation and was concerned
that the legislative calender for this Congress was growing short. She also commented that
she did not necessarily endorse all the provisions in H.R. 701, as passed. Representative
Miller strongly supports H.R. 701

---

CRS-3
budget limitation. Also, it would require that at least half the annual LWCF funding
be provided to the states. Current law requires that at least 40% go to federal
agencies.
S. 532 is sponsored by Senator Feinstein. She described S. 532 as a “moderate
alternative” to S. 446, which she supports. It would amend the LWCF Act and the
Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). It would permanently
appropriate the entire annual authorized amount, $900 million. It also would allocate
50% of this amount to federal agencies, 40% to states, and 10% to local governments
through UPARR. This bill also would amend UPARR in several ways.
Forces Behind these Proposals
Widespread interest in and support of aspects of these legislative proposals may
reflect the confluence of several interrelated factors. Various interests and
combinations of interests have proposed changes in current laws and programs: (1)
to fully fund the LWCF; (2) to address the increased backlog of pending federal land
acquisitions that the LWCF addresses; (3) to increase overall resource protection
funding; (4) to fund state programs for species that are not hunted, fished, threatened,
or endangered; (5) to reduce the chronic underfunding of federal land payment
programs to local governments; (6 ) to expand the ways that LWCF funds can be
spent; (7) to address resource management needs in coastal areas, especially those
affected by offshore energy development, and; (8) to allow states and counties to
draw further on OCS revenues, which grew during the 1990s. The bills respond to
each of these forces in different ways; some of the bills do not address some of the
forces at all. Each of these elements are discussed below.
The Clinton Administration supports the general concepts behind these
legislative proposals through its Lands Legacy Initiative. This initiative was first
proposed with the FY2000 budget, and has been reintroduced with the FY2001
submission. As this initiative is proposed with the budget, the Administration must
resubmit it each year within the budget requests for the Departments of the Interior,
Commerce, and Agriculture. The FY 2001 proposal calls for almost a doubling of
funding, to $1.4 billion for the more than 20 programs included in this initiative. The
legislative proposals reviewed in this report include various combinations of the
programs in the initiative.6
Overall support for these bills is widespread, and comes out of a large and
diverse coalition of many interests. Members favoring the legislation frequently point
out that more than 4,500 groups, from conservation organizations to governors and
other public entities have expressed support for this legislation. Opponents counter
that almost all of these groups would directly benefit if this legislation were enacted.
While some probably want the overall legislation enacted, most interests benefit from
one or more titles or programs rather than the entire bill.
6For more information on this initiative, see CRS Issue Brief IB10015, Conserving Land
Resources: Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress, and for information on the funding
levels for programs in the initiative, see CRS Report RS20471, The Administration’s Lands
Legacy Initiative in the FY2001 Budget Proposal – A Fact Sheet.

---

CRS-4
Fully Funding the LWCF. A growing number in Congress are advocating
fully and predictably funding the LWCF.7 Under current law, $900 million is
authorized to be appropriated annually through FY2015. Unappropriated balances
are available to be appropriated in subsequent years. Appropriations during the 1990s
have averaged less than one third of the authorized level. Since the fund started in
1965, its accumulated authorization is more than $22.7 billion (through FY1999).
However, only $10.4 billion has been appropriated, leaving a cumulative balance of
$12.3 billion that was authorized but not appropriated. Since the early 1980s, OCS
revenues have gone into the General Treasury and been used for other government
functions.
All four bills guarantee the availability (and predictability) of funding without
further appropriations for the various programs in the bills, with the exception of
restrictions contained in (a) §5(g) of H.R. 701/S. 2567 regarding Social Security,
Medicare and debt reduction, and (b) H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123 for the federal
portion of LWCF. The goal of this language, which varies among the bills, is to
enable programs to avoid the annual appropriations process. However, the
procedural hurdles can be formidable.8 Providing funding without further
appropriations is already used for some natural resource programs such as sport fish
and game restoration, acquisition of migratory bird habitat, reforestation, and some
soil conservation programs. The language used in these bills and its possible effects
are discussed in detail in the section below titled “Federal Budget Implications.”
The current LWCF provides money for five purposes; one is the grant program
for states for acquisition and development of recreation sites (administered by the
National Park Service), and the others are for acquisitions for the National Forest
System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Park System, and areas
authorized for recreation by the Secretary of the Interior (including lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management). The lack of funding for the state grant program
starting in FY1995 led to hearings in the Senate and House in 1997. As pressure has
increased to fund the state grants, it has also grown to fund two other federal
programs; the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program and the Historic
Preservation Act programs. The Historic Preservation Act, like the LWCF, is funded
with OCS revenues, and has a significant unappropriated balance.
Backlog of Pending Land Acquisitions. Fully funding the LWCF would allow
federal agencies to address a growing backlog of potential acquisitions. Resource
protection advocates believe that the pressure to make additional acquisitions
increases with growing population and expanding development, so limited funding has
contributed to the expanding gap between available funds and possible acquisitions.
Proponents of these proposals have cited federal agency data that the estimated
backlog for acquisition is more than $10 billion. Opponents counter that the federal
government should not be acquiring more land, that many of the places federal
7For general background on the LWCF, see CRS Report 97-792 ENR, Land and Water
Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues, last updated on November 29, 1999.
8For more information, see CRS Report 97-684 GOV, The Congressional Appropriations
Process: an Introduction, or CRS Report 97-947 GOV, The Appropriations Process and
the Congressional Budget Act.

---

CRS-5
agencies are considering or already own do not have the values that warrant federal
ownership, or that more funds should be devoted to maintenance or better
management of lands already in federal ownership rather than additional purchases.
The maintenance backlog has been estimated to be as high as more then $20 billion,
according to material submitted during the FY2001 appropriations process by the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, and has been growing.
Increasing Overall Resource Protection Funding. Various organizations
supporting conservation have initiated campaigns to increase resource protection
funding for programs that have received little or no funding in recent years. These
campaigns seek to increase funding for non-game species that are not threatened or
endangered (discussed below), farmland, and coastal resources, among others. These
efforts have been pursued independently in appropriations and authorizing legislation,
and have met with little success in recent years, especially when they have
encountered arguments that the federal budget deficit needs to be reduced.
Funding State Programs For Non-Game Species. Funds for game and fished
species already are provided through matching grants to support state programs under
the Wildlife Restoration Program (also known as the Pittman-Robertson program)
and the Sport Fish Restoration Program (also known as the Dingell-Johnson or
Wallop-Breaux program). Both are permanently appropriated to the extent of
receipts. More limited grants are also available for programs to conserve species listed
as threatened and endangered under the ESA.
No similar program exists to support state conservation efforts for the vast
majority of species, i.e., those which are not hunted, fished, threatened, or
endangered. For at least 20 years, Congress has considered such support, but lack of
funding has always been the major obstacle. Recent efforts, particularly a lobbying
effort called “Teaming with Wildlife”, led by the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, have focused on enacting a tax on certain outdoor equipment to
fund grants to states for conservation of non-game species. Congressional reluctance
to create any new taxes has caused most of the wildlife interest groups to shift their
efforts to seeking funding through these legislative proposals.
Increasing Federal Payments to Local Governments. Local governments
have complained that federal payment programs that compensate them for the
presence of federal land are inadequate. Lands owned by the federal government
cannot be taxed by state and local governments. In some jurisdictions, federal lands
are a significant fraction of total property, and therefore local governments have
claimed financial harm as a result of their inability to collect property taxes on this
portion of the land base. The lands of all four major federal land managing agencies,
as well as of some smaller federal landowners, are subject to one or more payment
programs to provide some measure of federal government compensation to local
governments for the presence of their lands. Two of these payment programs are not
permanently appropriated: (a) the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), affecting 11
categories of federally owned land, though the program is administered entirely by the

---

CRS-6
Bureau of Land Management; and (b) the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (RRSF),
entirely for the National Wildlife Refuge System.9
Annual appropriations for both of these programs have fallen consistently below
the amounts specified in the two laws’ formulas. Counties now receive about 41%
of the formula amounts for PILT and about 60% for RRSF. As a result of these
shortfalls, local governments have repeatedly called on Congress to fund these
programs at the full authorization levels, and these legislative proposals provide
additional opportunities to make up this shortfall.
Expanding the Ways That LWCF Funds Can Be Spent. Federal agencies
may use these funds only for land acquisition under current law. Federal agencies
now identify an acquisition backlog exceeding $10 billion.10 At the same time, some
interests have sought to expand the purposes for which LWCF funds can be spent to
address the growing backlog of maintenance and restoration needs on federally-
owned lands. This backlog is estimated to be as high as $15 billion, and continues to
grow. Supporters of broadening the uses of the fund argue that protecting and
maintaining the resources already in federal ownership should be a higher priority than
adding to the federal estate. Others argue that states and localities also should have
greater flexibility in spending their state grants from the LWCF, such as also being
able to use these funds to maintain or restore facilities, and point out that the
Administration sought to provide strong guidance on how the FY2000 allocations
could be spent.
LWCF funds also could provide more wide-spread resource protection,
according to some, if they could be used to apply a range of policy tools that are less
expensive alternatives to full-fee land acquisition (purchasing land outright). Two
decades ago, it was widely believed that the only way to protect land or a resource
adequately was to acquire full-fee title, and that federal acquisition would provide a
more certain level of protection than ownership by other entities. Today, many forms
of protection that are less than full-fee ownership, such as easements or alternatives
to public ownership, are widely accepted under some circumstances, and most of the
legislative proposals fund some of these forms under some circumstances. Also,
ownership at state and local levels, and by private organizations such as land trusts,
is more widely viewed as an effective protection option.
Offshore Energy Development and Coastal Effects. Interests in some coastal
states, especially Louisiana, have increased the pressure to return a portion of the
money currently paid to the federal government by private companies who lease and
develop oil and gas resources on the OCS to states. These funds would be used to
9RRSF is funded without further appropriations to the extent of receipts, but receipts are
insufficient to fund the amounts in the formula. Thus, annual appropriation levels determine
whether the full authorized formula is paid. For further information on RRSF, see CRS Rept.
90-192ENR, Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local Governments. For further
information on PILT, see CRS Rept. 98-574ENR, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT):
Somewhat Simplified.
10Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request for
the Department of the Interior. Hearing, March 2, 1999. p. 31.

---

CRS-7
address the adverse onshore effects of these energy activities. Currently, adjacent
states and communities do not directly receive any revenue from offshore oil and gas
activities in federal waters. A program of loans and grants to coastal states to help
them address impacts from offshore and coastal energy activities was briefly
implemented through the federal coastal zone management program during the energy
crisis in the late 1970s; however, it was ended when the crisis had passed.
Supporters of a payment program associated with OCS oil and gas activities
point out that, in contrast, revenue from onshore energy production on federal lands
is shared with most states as follows; 50% is allocated to the state in which the lease
is located, 40% is earmarked for the Reclamation Fund, and 10% goes to the federal
treasury.11 In addition, state and local governments currently receive shared revenues
from many activities, such as logging, grazing, and some mining, on the Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service lands. The
amount and percentage of the shares depends on the history of the land and the type
of activities generating the revenues. Others may counter that some coastal states will
have a large influx of new federal funds, and that provisions in bills are insufficient to
insure that these funds are spent only for projects that are compatible with long-term
management of coastal resources.
Growing OCS Revenues. The resource protection proposals in the bills would
be funded from income derived from OCS energy activities, which averaged about
$2.5 billion annually in the early 1990s, then increased rapidly to a record $5.1 billion
in FY1997. Currently, those portions of OCS revenues that are not spent on LWCF
are used for the general spending of the federal government. To the extent that they
would be redirected under these proposals, they would no longer be available to fund
other federal programs.
Advocates for these bills view the increase in OCS revenues through FY1997,
combined with the change from federal budget deficit to surplus, as an opportunity
to dedicate more money to the activities contained in these bills. However, OCS
revenues subsequently declined to an estimated $3.3 billion in FY1999. This decline
reflected record low prices for oil, affecting royalties and bonus bids for newly-leased
tracts during the 1997-1999 period. Three questions about these proposals, if
enacted, would arise if OCS revenues decline substantially: (1) How would program
funding be reduced?; (2) Could other sources of funding to offset such reductions be
located? and; (3) Could pressures to expand offshore leasing to increase revenues
result, and if so, could they be contained?
Future OCS revenue levels are as uncertain as the future price of crude oil.
Department of the Interior projections made internally to support its FY2001 budget
submission are based on a much lower price scenario than the $30 per barrel world
market price prevailing at the start of 2000 might suggest. For FY2000, the
Department currently projects revenues of $3.55 billion; the FY2001 figure of $5.08
billion includes about $1.8 billion held in escrow from settlement of a border dispute
11One exception is Alaska, where the state receives 90%, with 10% deposited in the federal
treasury. The Reclamation Fund supports the Bureau of Reclamation’s water resources
projects.

---

CRS-8
with Alaska. In subsequent years, steadily declining revenues are forecast, reflecting
lower prices and gradual depletion of OCS hydrocarbon fields. FY2002 is estimated
to yield $3.33 billion, and this figure will fall to $2.01 billion in FY2010.12 Analysts
do not agree on either how fast or how far revenues will fall in the future.
Total OCS revenues may give an inaccurate impression of the amounts that will
be available to fund these proposals. All the bills limit the source of revenues to fund
these proposals to specified portions of the OCS that are currently producing in order
to discourage expanding OCS activities to fund these programs. Many of the fields
which will be sources of revenue to fund this suite of programs have been in
production for decades, and the amounts extracted from some of these fields may
start to decline. Over time, revenues generated from the segment of the OCS that will
fund these programs may become a declining portion of the total revenue generated
from all OCS production.
Funding the Proposals
All these bills would use revenues from offshore oil and gas fields under federal
waters to fund the proposals. Section 3(12) of H.R. 701/ S. 2567 and S. 2123, §102
of S. 25, and §202(a) of S. 2181 would define qualified revenues to include all OCS
revenues (royalty, rental, and bonus revenues) from oil and gas leases where the
center of the lease lies within 200 miles of a state’s coastline. All these bills would
exclude monies paid to states that are derived from leases of deposits that lie in both
state and federal lands offshore. The law that governs how these deposits are to be
treated is in §8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).
Section 5 of H.R. 701/ S. 2567 and S. 2123 would establish the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act Fund (CARA Fund). The CARA Fund would receive a
maximum of $2.825 billion annually from qualifying OCS revenues and previously
undispersed funds, to be distributed in specified amounts among 7 programs. S. 25
would allocate funds for its programs as a percentage of OCS revenues; with 27% of
these revenues being placed in a new coastal impact assistance fund, 16% (up to a
ceiling of $900 million) being placed in the LWCF (including UPARR); and 7% being
spent on wildlife conservation and restoration. S. 2181 allocates a total estimated at
$2.9 billion annually from qualified OCS revenues, to be distributed among 24
different funds. Section 5(c) of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123 would require that
funding be reduced proportionately for each program if less than $ 2.825 billion is
deposited, while S. 25 would not provide for a minimum level of funding. Section 5
(e) of H.R. 701/ S. 2567 and S. 2123 would require that any necessary OCS royalty
refunds would be paid proportionately from the Fund. S. 25 has a similar provision
in §203(a)(3), while S. 2181 does not address this possibility.
The CARA Fund would also generate additional revenue through interest earned,
as described in §5(d), so that the total amount available to the fund is actually
estimated to be slightly more than $3 billion annually. Interest would be earned by
12Personal communication with Mineral Management Service budget staff, February 22,
2000.

---

CRS-9
depositing OCS revenues into the fund during a fiscal year, investing them
appropriately, and paying them out the following year. Interest income, up to $200
million annually, would be dedicated to funding two federal programs that make
payments to local governments, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) and
the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (RRSF), and interest earned on revenues dedicated
to Title III (on wildlife) would go to implement the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act.13
A potential major impediment to all these proposals has been how they would
be treated under the budget caps. If Congress were required to offset these funds
with savings elsewhere, enactment would be more difficult, as those who support the
programs that would be reduced might oppose this legislation. Since most of the
current OCS revenues are currently available to fund any federal government activity,
opposition to these bills from those with concerns about the budget is likely to be
significant. The Congressional Budget Office informed Resources Committee Chair
Don Young in a letter that it believes that the Office of Management and Budget,
which would make the final determination, would not “choose to adjust the caps”
(require an offset) if H.R. 701/S. 2567 or S. 2123 were enacted “because creating
new direct spending authority does not constitute a change in budgetary concepts or
definitions.”14 H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123 would still be subject to enforcement
provisions of the Budget Act by creating new mandatory spending. However, the rule
(House Res. 497) for House consideration of H.R. 701 waived these procedural
safeguards.
Where the Funds Would Go
Funds would be distributed among the recipient programs based on amounts and
formulas in existing law or as specified in each bill. Table 2, on the next page, shows
how the funds would be distributed by activity, and table 3, on the following page,
shows the total funding that is forecast to be distributed, by state. These projections
were affected, in some cases, by subsequent amendments; some of the amendments
may have altered the allocation formulas or total revenues from the OCS.
H.R. 701/S. 2567, S. 2123, and S. 2181 would provide just over twice as much
annually as S. 25, under the scenarios used to make these estimates. However, the
patterns of distribution would vary, so that while monies flowing into some states
would be about twice the amount under the larger bills as under the other, in others
it would not. For example, $312 million would be spent in Louisiana under H.R.
701/S. 2567 and S. 2123, and more than two thirds of that amount (and the most of
any state), $217 million, under S. 25, but only $77 million would be spent there under
S. 2181. Under H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123, $324 million would be spent in
California and $322 million would be spent in California under S. 2183. However,
only $109 million would be spent there under S. 25. The states where the next largest
amounts would be spent under each of the bills would be Texas, Alaska, and Florida.
13Interest earned on Pittman-Robertson funds is currently directed to the North American
Wetlands Conservation Program
14Letter to Rep. Don Young from Dan Crippen, Director of CBO, October 14, 1999.

---

CRS-10
Table 1. Funding by Topic or Program under each Proposal ($ in millions)
Topic or Program
H.R. 701/S.
S. 25a
S.2181
2567/ S. 2123
Land and Water Conservation Fund–Federal
$450b
$405
$450
Land and Water Conservation Fund–State
$450
$405
$450
Non-Federal Lands of Regional or National
$125
Interest
Coastal Impact Assistance
$1,000
27% of
$100
OCS
revenues
Coastal Stewardship Program
$250
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration
$350
7% of OCS
$350
revenues
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
$125
$90
$75
Historic Preservation Fund
$100
$135
HPF – Battlefield Protection
$15
Land Restoration
$200
$150
Conservation Easements – Farm Land
$100
$50
Conservation Easements – Ranch Land
$50
Endangered Species Recovery
$50
$50
PILT & Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund
$200 or less
$300(variable);
PILT only
Marine Enforcement Grants
$25
Fisheries Research and Management Grants
$75
Coral Reef Conservation
$30 (2 programs)
Urban and Community Forestry Assistance
$50
Forest Legacy Program
$50
Youth Conservation Corps
$60
Forest Service Rural Community Assistance
$50 (2 programs)
a. Amounts will vary under S. 25 since they are percentages of qualified OCS receipts, although the
two LWCF accounts and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program can not exceed the
amounts shown in the table.
b. H.R. 701/S. 2567 would provide larger amounts for federal and state LWCF, as explained in the
section titled Overall Funding Levels for LWCF, below.

---

CRS-11
Table 2. Estimated Distribution of Funding, by State ($ in millions)
State
H.R.
S. 25b
S.2181c
State
H.R.
S. 25
S.2181
701/S.
701/S.
2567 and
2567 and
S. 2123a
S. 2123
Alabama
53
36
43
Nebraska
16
9
27
Alaska
193
93
146
Nevada
51
8
54
Arizona
52
10
70
New Hampshire
16
8
33
Arkansas
21
6
25
New Jersey
60
30
64
California
324
109
322
New Mexico
39
8
62
Colorado
44
10
65
New York
101
51
89
Connecticut
24
11
32
North Carolina
47
20
53
Delaware
14
7
24
North Dakota
14
5
20
Florida
142
80
124
Ohio
55
24
59
Georgia
40
17
46
Oklahoma
17
7
25
Hawaii
32
10
56
Oregon
52
15
58
Idaho
39
8
50
Pennsylvania
50
21
65
Illinois
56
23
56
Rhode Island
17
8
25
Indiana
32
14
37
South Carolina
27
13
32
Iowa
15
6
20
South Dakota
17
6
26
Kansas
14
7
21
Tennessee
27
9
34
Kentucky
21
7
29
Texas
236
152
140
Louisiana
312
217
77
Utah
39
7
65
Maine
36
19
38
Vermont
9
3
21
Maryland
37
19
40
Virginia
51
19
59
Massachusetts
48
24
60
Washington
55
21
79
Michigan
60
27
55
West Virginia
20
9
26
Minnesota
36
17
41
Wisconsin
28
13
35
Mississippi
78
50
35
Wyoming
30
7
48
Missouri
32
14
39
Otherd
172
37
74
Montana
48
10
62
U.S. Total
3,021
1,400
2,887
a Amendments to H.R. 701 on the floor change these estimates for H.R. 701/S. 2567, but no
revisions have been posted. Estimates are from a table published by the Resources Committee
on November 16, 1999, and available at the Committee website, www.house.gov/resources.
b Data prepared by staff of Representative George Miller from data provided by the Department of
the Interior dated February 23, 1999.
c Data published by Senate Energy Committee minority staff, and available at the minority
committee website, www.senate.gov/~energy.
d Includes funding for Territories, Native Americans, and the District of Columbia. In H.R. 701,
also includes $100 million under Title VII for conservation easements.

---

CRS-12
Major Issues
A number of themes have become apparent in the controversies over the
proposals encompassed in these bills: federal budget implications, property rights and
federal ownership, OCS leasing moratoria, and federal land payments. Each of these
issues is described below, emphasizing how they are addressed in the bills. The views
of major interests also are identified.
Federal Budget Implications
All four bills guarantee the availability (and predictability) of funding without
further appropriations for the various programs in the bills, with the exception of
restrictions contained in (a) §5(g) of H.R. 701/S. 2567 regarding Social Security,
Medicare and debt reduction, and (b) H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123 for the federal
portion of LWCF. This feature of permanent appropriation is already enjoyed by
some existing natural resource programs, e.g., sport fish and game restoration,
acquisition of migratory bird habitat, reforestation, and some soil conservation
programs. Providing funds without further appropriations enables programs to avoid
the annual appropriations process. To accomplish this, legislation typically contains
the phrase “without further appropriation”, or a similar phrase, thereby making
available annually whatever amount is specified. Traditionally, appropriations and
budget committees, as well as Members who strongly support congressional oversight
of all spending, have strongly opposed this approach to funding. Moreover,
procedural hurdles to passage of such proposals can be formidable. Some of the bills
contain provisions which amend LWCF, leaving major portions intact, as well as
supplementing its funding under annual CARA appropriations. All but one of the bills
also contain sunset provisions, so that funding would cease in FY2016 unless
Congress acted to extend the programs.
Debt Reduction, Social Security, and Medicare. Two provisions addressing
these topics were added to H.R. 701 during consideration by the House. A new
Section 5(g) of this bill contains a provision precluding the transfer of funds to the
CARA Fund in any fiscal year unless a number of conditions are met. This provision,
a floor amendment offered by Representative Shadegg, passed the House by 216-208
on Roll Call vote 163 on May 10. The CBO director must certify that enough “on-
budget” surplus has been reserved to cause elimination of the publicly-held federal
debt by 2013, and that there is not an “on budget” deficit for that year (“on-budget”
refers to federal budget totals excluding the financial operations of Social Security and
the postal service). In addition, the Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance
(HI) trustees must certify that outlays from their respective trust funds will not exceed
their revenues during the five fiscal-year period following each year of transfer. Since
the most recent trustees’ reports for the two programs (issued in March 2000) project
that outlays will exceed the revenues in both programs at some point during the next
20 years, it is possible that this provision will preclude the transfer of funds to the
CARA Fund during the latter part of the period in which it would be in effect.
However, if the term “revenues” (as used in the bill) refers only to the tax
receipts of the programs (and not to the interest credited to the trust funds semi-
annually), the trustees’ reports suggest that outlays from the Social Security Disability
Insurance (DI) Trust Fund would exceed its revenues somewhat earlier, in or around

---

CRS-13
FY 2007. For the HI Trust Fund, the same is projected to occur in FY 2009, and for
the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, it would
happen sometime between 2015 and 2020.
Thus, at least in principle, Congress would not decide annually whether the
CARA-supported programs would be funded in competition with all other
discretionary spending. Rather, other discretionary spending would first become law
in appropriations bills, and the results would then be measured against the goals in
§5(g) for reducing the debt and protecting Social Security and Medicare. If the goals
are met, the CARA programs would be funded automatically.15 Based on current
projections for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and barring major
changes in economic conditions or enactment of legislation inhibiting achieving the
goals of §5(g), it would appear that the CARA programs initially would be funded as
proposed, but would begin to be at risk in roughly a decade, depending on the
meaning of the term “revenues” in the bill.
A new Title VIII of H.R. 701was added as a floor amendment, proposed by
Representative DeFazio and adopted by a recorded vote of 413-3 just before final
passage. This title provides that no funds can be expended under the Act if doing so
would diminish Social Security or Medicare benefit obligations. Representative
Defazio characterized his amendment as an effort to strengthen the Shadegg
amendment. This amendment appears to be a general safeguard only. As passed by
the House, there are no explicit provisions in the bill altering Social Security or
Medicare benefits, and none of the expenditures authorized under the bill would
interact with the benefit calculations or administration of the Social Security or
Medicare program as now provided under the Social Security Act. As a result,
CARA expenditures are unlikely to be affected by this title.
Dual Funding for LWCF under H.R. 701. As approved by the House, the
LWCF appears to provide potentially more, rather than less money, for federal land
acquisition. Section 202 of H. R. 701/S/ 2567 amends §2(c) of the LWCF to provide
$450 million annually for federal acquisition from the CARA fund. These funds
would be subject to annual appropriations because language (§7) exempting these
funds from the budget process was deleted as part of the technical corrections made
after committee approval but prior to floor action. The annual appropriations process
would apply as it does today.

In addition, §203 of this bill amends §3 of the LWCF to provide up to $900
million, under existing law16, which is not repealed, subject to annual appropriations.
As amended, $450 million of this total would be available for federal land acquisition,
as §204 of the bill amends the LWCF Act to state that half the total will be available
for federal purposes, and the other half will be provided to states as grants. This state
competitive grants program in, §206(d), would allow states to submit proposals for
projects of national or regional significance involving one or more states. This bill also
adds a number of new controls limiting how any federal funds (whether through
15The portion of CARA allocated to federal LWCF would continue to require action in annual
appropriations bills, however.
16Current provisions of LWCF make it clear that $900 million goes from OCS revenues to the
fund, but are somewhat vague about how much is authorized to be taken from it.

---

CRS-14
CARA or the LWCF as amended by CARA) can be spent and increases the role of
Congress in making these decisions. These controls are discussed in the section titled
Property Rights, below, and in the discussion on permancy of appropriations that
follows.
Federal LWCF: Permanent or Not? As noted, one significant exception to
mandatory spending is the funding for the federal portion of LWCF in S. 2123 and
in H.R. 701/S.2567. S. 2123 will be discussed first, followed by H.R. 701/S. 2567,
and finally S. 2181. The S. 2123 LWCF provisions first make $450 million from
CARA17 available “without further appropriation” for federal LWCF and then place
several limits on spending. (See discussion on property rights, above.) How likely
is it that the specified amount will actually be available, and how does that likelihood
compare to the current situation? While many external factors (e.g., deficits or
surpluses, the state of the economy, tax cuts, interest rates, changes in federal land
acquisition policy, etc.) could affect whether Congress would actually appropriate
funds for federal land acquisition, three provisions of S. 2123 are particularly
important to federal LWCF: §7; §203; and §205.18
In S. 2123, § 7 states that spending under CARA will not count as “new budget
authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus” for the President’s budget request,
for the congressional budget, or for the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1995, and is exempt from other specified limits on outlays. Section
203 makes CARA funds transferred to LWCF available “without further
appropriation.” Section 205 amends LWCF to require that the federal portion of
CARA ($450 million) and any additional funding potentially added from LWCF alone
“may not be obligated or expended by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Agriculture for any acquisition except those specifically referred to, and approved
by Congress, in an Act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior or
the Department of Agriculture, respectively.” On their faces, §203 and §205 appear
to contradict each other, with one requiring permanency, and the other requiring
annual congressional action. While §205 does make the federal funds subject to
annual appropriations, §7 greatly reduces any fiscal incentives to withhold the
funding, since CARA spending would not count against the committee’s total
spending. This interpretation must be understood in the context of current processes.
Each appropriations subcommittee currently is allocated a fixed cap for spending
under §302(b) of the Budget Act. Therefore, to the extent that the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittees now allocate less spending to LWCF, more is
available for any other program within their jurisdiction. (The fact that LWCF funds
nominally come from OCS revenues is irrelevant to §302(b).) Also, at least since the
early 1980s, the reports accompanying the appropriations acts have usually placed
earmarks on the great majority of money spent for federal land acquisition under the
17It also permanently appropriates current payments into LWCF from the sale of assets and
from a motorboat fuels tax. Under current law, these funds, like all OCS funds, require
annual appropriations. In FY1998, the combined total from these two sources of revenue was
$2.02 million.
18The federal LWCF portion of these bills is much more likely to be influenced by such factors
as budget deficits or surpluses than other parts of these bills since it would be considered
discretionary spending, while the rest of the bill would be considered mandatory spending.

---

CRS-15
LWCF. While agencies are not necessarily bound by the report language that is not
incorporated into the funding law, they may be constrained politically in what parcels
they purchase.
If S. 2123 were to become law, §7 would separate all CARA funding from the
Interior Subcommittee’s §302(b) allocation. Any federal LWCF funding derived from
CARA, from zero to $450 million, would have no effect on the Committee’s funding
for other programs. Thus, a major factor – perhaps the major factor – constraining
current LWCF spending would not be present for CARA federal funds.19 Since the
Congress (and the Subcommittee) would still need to approve the acquisitions, it
could continue to allocate funding according to its own priorities or requests from the
Administration or other Members. Requests for increased federal land acquisition
from Members might grow, since no other spending programs in the Subcommittees’
jurisdiction would decrease if these requests were granted. The appropriations
committees would retain the final choice over federal agency acquisitions.
In contrast, in H.R. 701/S. 2567, §7 was deleted. Given that the bill retains the
requirement for approval by Congress, federal LWCF funding would be treated as it
is now: it would be considered discretionary spending, and would count against the
Interior Subcommittee’s annual over all spending ceiling (the §302(b) allocation under
the Budget Act).20 It would continue to be subject to annual appropriations, and
would likely vary from year to year, as it does under current law.21 For federal
LWCF, the chief budgetary differences between H.R. 701/S. 2567 and current law
and practice are the following:
! Under current practice, the annual LWCF appropriation, both state and federal
combined, has been limited to $900 million, plus the accumulated authorized
but unappropriated balance, though actual funding levels have been
substantially below $900 million for over a decade. Annual appropriations are
also required under H.R. 701/S.2567 and are limited to $450 million from
CARA. Potentially, another $450 million could be added. See the section
above titled Dual Funding for Federal LWCF under H.R. 701.
! Currently, total federal LWCF spending is approved for all four agencies in the
annual Interior appropriations bill, while “earmarks” are usually contained in
the accompanying joint statement of managers (which is not usually made part
of the law). Under H.R. 701/S 2567, both the agency totals and the earmarks
would be in the appropriations bill itself, and hence clearly in law. While
agencies currently may be politically constrained from moving funding from
one project to another when projects are earmarked only in appropriations
19If Congress chose to appropriate any funds under the pre-existing (non-CARA) provisions
of LWCF, it could continue to do so, but such spending would be constrained by the §302(b)
allocation.
20Personal communication with Deborah Reis, budget analyst, Congressional Budget Office,
May 9, 2000.
21The new §5(g) affects funding not only for this portion of the bill but for the entire bill. For
more on the effects of §5(g) see Debt Reduction, Social Security, and Medicare above. With
the addition of §5(g), other factors besides budget and appropriations committee procedures
could limit funding, not only for federal LWCF but for the entire bill.

---

CRS-16
reports, their freedom to do so would be eliminated if the earmarks were
enacted in law.
Finally, the third Senate bill, S. 2181, takes a very different approach. For many
of the programs that it funds without further appropriations – including federal LWCF
– it requires that the Administration submit a list of priority projects to be funded with
each year’s budget submission to Congress. That list would be funded automatically
15 days after the congressional session adjourns, unless Congress enacts a different
list of priorities. If Congress does enact a different list and those projects would cost
less than the authorized amount, the difference would be automatically expended on
the Administration’s list of projects in order of priority. Under this system, specific
funding levels are assured, and Congress could specify individual federal acquisitions
if it chose to do so.
Farmland Protection Grants. Conservation easement provisions in all the bills
except S. 25 would make certain private non-profit or charitable organizations eligible
to compete with state and local governments for federal funds to purchase easements.
These provisions would provide the first opportunity for organizations who meet
these qualifications to compete directly with units of government for federal funds to
protect resources. Competition between public and private organizations for federal
grant funds occurs in some programs in other sectors, such as social programs, but
has not existed in natural resource protection programs.
Sunset Provisions. H.R. 701 /S. 2567, S. 2123 and S. 25 sunset the entire Act
on September 30, 2015. This is also the date on which authorization for placing
additional OCS revenues in the LWCF would sunset under current law. S. 2181, by
contrast, does not include a sunset date.
Property Rights
Advocates of private property owners’ rights have raised concerns that the
availability of additional funds will increase pressure to acquire more federal land, and
that further acquisition is likely to center on areas where federal ownership is already
concentrated. Section 10 of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and §11 of S. 2123 state that property
rights will be respected, that property may not be taken without compensation, and
that land uses on private land may not be regulated by federal agencies prior to
acquisition unless authorized by Congress. The committee report indicates that
regulation of private property must be “specifically authorized” by Congress.22 S.
2181 includes no provisions to protect private property rights beyond the protections
already in current law.
H.R. 701/S. 2567 contains several provisions in Title II that may respond to
concerns about federal land acquisition and property rights. One change, made as a
technical correction prior to House consideration and mentioned above, would retain
the requirement that the federal portion of the LWCF be subject to annual
appropriations. Current law and other changes in the various bills include:
22 It is not likely that exemption from regulation under the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air
Act, for example, is intended, but the meaning of the provision is unclear.

---

CRS-17
! Under current law, each agency transmits a list of proposed acquisitions in its
budget justification; the acquisitions directed in the congressional earmarks
may or may not closely resemble agency priorities. Under §205 of H.R. 701/S.
2567, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior must submit a joint priority
list, and Congress may change this list (in the appropriations bill). S. 2123 has
similar provisions.
! Section 205 (d)(2) of H.R. 701/S. 2567 requires that property be acquired
from willing sellers or be specifically approved by Congress. Current law does
not prohibit use of federal LWCF funds in condemnation actions, though,
reportedly, this practice is very rare. S. 25 forbids the use of the federal
portion of LWCF funding for condemnation of private property.
! Section 205(e)(2)(B) of H.R. 701/S. 2567 directs the two Secretaries, in
preparing their lists of proposed acquisitions, to: identify opportunities for
consolidating holdings; identify opportunities for land exchanges and
permanent easements as options to acquisitions; request permission to use
adverse condemnation; and establish acquisition priorities based on several
considerations.
! Section 205(e)(2)(C) of H.R. 701/S. 2567 requires both Secretaries to submit
a list of lands eligible for disposal in appropriate land management plans, when
they submit their acquisition priorities to Congress. The list of disposable
lands would have to be updated as land management plans are updated. This
provision, offered by Representative Doolittle as an amendment during
committee markup, provides an annual opportunity to partially offset a higher
rate of acquisition by requiring that federal agencies produce a list of lands
under their control for which there is “no demonstrated compelling program
need” that could be traded or sold. No such list is currently required.
H.R. 701/S. 2567, S. 2123 and S. 25 contain numerous other provisions that
allow federal agencies using CARA funds to acquire land only after environmental
analyses, public participation, specified notifications, and other processes. S. 25 also
includes a provision in §203(b)(1) that requires federal agencies to spend two thirds
of the LWCF monies they receive east of the 100th meridian. Nonetheless, these
provisions have not assuaged property rights advocates, who are continuing to voice
their concerns. In sum, H.R. 701/S. 2567 offers a package of protections to property
owners that exceed those available in current law. These protections might be offset
by authorizing more funds for federal acquisitions under the LWCF, but funding levels
would still be controlled through the annual appropriations process.
OCS Leasing and Moratoria
Some environmental interests fear that this legislation would provide incentives
to expand OCS activities. Much of the OCS total acreage is currently subject to a ban
on new leasing and production because of concerns that sensitive marine and coastal
environments could be damaged by OCS-related activities. With these bans in place,
leases currently can be offered only in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico and
a few areas off Alaska. Three separate restrictions on leasing in environmentally
sensitive areas currently exist:

---

CRS-18
! Legislative Moratoria. Starting in FY1982, Congress has included language
in each annual Interior appropriations bill prohibiting the expenditure of funds
for pre-leasing or leasing activity in designated environmentally sensitive
areas.23 In general, Congress has expanded the size of areas affected by this
language from year to year.
! Administrative Directive. In 1990, President Bush barred the executive
branch from conducting leasing or preleasing work on lands under legislative
moratoria until 2000: in 1998, President Clinton extended that ban until 2012.
! Interior Department 5-Year Leasing Plan. The Minerals Management
Service designates all tracts that may be offered for lease in 5 year plans. Each
plan includes a schedule for each anticipated lease and a description of areas
proposed for leasing; the current plan runs through 2002. The planning
process, while not an actual ban, is used to decide where leasing will occur.

H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123 would address the moratorium issue in §3(12),
by defining “qualified Outer Continental Shelf revenues” so as to exclude revenues
from tracts in areas subject to a moratorium on January 1, 1999, unless the lease was
issued before the moratorium was established and was in production on January 1,
1999. S. 2181 adopts a similar approach, but requires production to begin before
January 1, 2000. S. 25 would address the moratorium in a new §701(12) to be added
to the OCSLA, which states that this title, called the Coastal Conservation and Impact
Assistance Act of 1998, is not to be interpreted “to repeal or modify any existing
moratoria” or “to encourage the development of Federal OCS resources” into new
areas.
A central concern is that these bills might undermine support for offshore
moratoria by creating a constituency that desires or becomes accustomed to receiving
OCS moneys. Were the OCS revenue stream subsequently to decline to the point that
the authorized activities could not be fully funded, those accustomed to receiving
funding might seek replenishment by supporting leasing of tracts that had been off-
limits to development. Supporters of the underfunded programs and projects could
come together as new pro-leasing constituencies.24 They would have had such an
opportunity periodically under §101(b)(2) of H.R. 701/S. 2123, which provided that
the state shares for impact assistance be recalculated every 5 years. The House
23Preleasing involves all the planning activities and analysis that are conducted prior to the
actual sale of leases. These activities, which can take several years, are such a large
commitment of resources that some believe that it would be difficult for the government to
halt the lease process by the time that the sale is scheduled to occur, or to halt development
after the sale. This has been a central issue in numerous court cases and administrative
appeals under the Coastal Zone Management Act’s federal consistency provision, which
requires that all federal actions in or affecting the coastal zone of a state with a federally-
approved program be consistent with that program.
24Analogous situations have occurred in rural communities that are dependent on mining or
timber activities.

---

CRS-19
approved an amendment, sponsored by Representative Boehlert, deleting this
provision.25
Some hold that the three approaches to moratoria already provide ample
protection against leasing environmentally sensitive tracts. It is also asserted that
producers’ interest in OCS tracts is limited to those that can be economically
developed; for would-be producers, environmental opposition is an economic
drawback as well as a political and public relations liability. Others counter that the
moratoria, while occurring in three places, are only temporary, having no permanent
basis in law, and a new Administration or Congressional makeup could lead to
change.
Funding for County Payments
As passed by the House, §5(d) of H.R. 701 (S. 2567) provides that PILT
matching funds from CARA are available if the annual appropriation for PILT under
the regular appropriations bill exceeds $100 million.26 Thus, if Congress appropriates
$99 million for PILT, no CARA funds are spent; if it appropriates $135 million for
PILT, then an additional $135 million would be spent from CARA for PILT matching.
For RRSF, CARA matching funds are available only if funds from other sources
exceed $15 million.27 If the total from the other sources were $15 million, CARA
would provide an additional $15 million in matching money. However, the CARA
add-on cannot bring the total spending on either program above the authorization
level for that program. These levels were $301 million for PILT and $28 million for
RRSF in FY1999. If the CARA add-on would provide more funding than authorized
under either RRSF or PILT for that year, the excess funds would be available, first
for the other program (RRSF or PILT), and second for other CARA programs. The
entire $200 million available under §5(d) is not likely to be sufficient to provide for
the full payment for these two programs in the future, if amounts made available in
annual appropriations bills remain at current levels. This insufficiency would be
exacerbated because PILT requires annual adjustments in its formula to compensate
for inflation. Table 4 shows the result that would have occurred in FY1999 (the most
recent fiscal year for which full data are available for both programs) had this version
of §5(d) been in effect. As shown in the table, RRSF would have been funded at
100% of the formula, and PILT would have been funded at 84.8% of its formula.
25 The Boehlert amendment also added language requiring that the state plans used as a basis
for describing how coastal impact funds would be spent should describe both how the plan
will address environmental concerns, and how the state will evaluate the plan’s effectiveness.
26The FY2000 appropriation was $135 million. Full funding for PILT would have required
$303.7 million in FY1999 (the most recent year for which an estimate is available).
27Total annual and permanent appropriations under existing law for RRSF were $16.5 million
in FY2000. Full funding for RRSF would have required $27.9 million in FY2000 (the most
recent year for which an estimate is available).

---

CRS-20
Table 4. Amounts that would have been added under H.R. 701 (as passed by
the House) to the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (RRSF) and Payments in Lieu
of Taxes (PILT). ($ in thousands)
Program
FY1999
FY1999
Amount
Unfunded
appropriation
authorization
that would
authorization
have been
added by
H.R. 701
RRSF
16,664
28,000
11,336a
0
PILT
125,000
301,182
130,328b
45,854
a. CARA could match the $16,664,000, but only $11,336,000 is needed to bring RRSF to full
funding of the amount authorized in the formula. The additional $5,328,000 is therefore made
available to the PILT portion of the CARA Fund match.
b. CARA provides a direct match of $125 million. Since this results in $250 million (still less
than the full authorized amount in the formula), then the surplus of $5,328,000 from RRSF
is transferred to PILT. The total ($255,328,000) would have left PILT funded at 84.8% of
the authorized amount for FY1999, rather than at 41.0% as actually occurred.
S. 2123 would increase federal payments to local governments in jurisdictions
where the federal government owns lands. Like H.R.701 as passed, §5(d) would use
the interest on monies in the CARA Fund to create a matching fund for any
appropriations that result from the annual appropriations process28, up to a combined
ceiling of $200 million for the two programs. But unlike that version, S. 2123 would
have no required floor below which it would not operate. It is difficult to predict
what effect this proposal may have on total PILT payments. Like the previous bill,
it could encourage Congress to appropriate greater funds for PILT and RRSF, since
each dollar would be matched by funds from this interest on CARA funds. However,
Congress might respond by cutting the existing appropriations for these two programs
(and using the savings in other programs under the jurisdiction of the same
appropriations subcommittees), arguing that matching payments from CARA could
make up the shortfall.
S. 25 contains no provisions concerning PILT or RRSF. S. 2181 has no
provisions concerning RRSF, but it permanently appropriates from qualified OCS
revenues such sums as may be necessary, to provide for full funding of PILT in Title
X. In FY2001, this would be roughly $300 to $350 million.
28In the case of RRSF, from the existing small permanent appropriation as well.

---

CRS-21
Other Amendments to H.R. 701
The House approved four amendments to H.R. 701(and which appear in S.
2567) in addition to those mentioned above.
! An amendment offered by Representative Souder and approved by voice vote
was inserted as a new §5(f) specifying that funds provided by this bill should
supplement rather than “detract from” annual appropriations to the National
Park Service.
! An amendment offered by Representative Regula and approved by voice vote
was inserted as a new paragraph at the end of §206(b)(2) which limits access
to LWCF side grants to states with a “dedicated land acquisition fund” funded
through its budget process; funds for ineligible states will be reapportioned
among the other states.
! An amendment offered by Representative Rick Hill and approved by voice vote
was inserted as a new §211 that requires the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture to jointly issue a plan that will consolidate private and federal
public lands in Montana, while insuring that any overall increase in federal
holdings in the state is minimal.
! An amendment to Title VII offered by Representative Mark Udall, approved
by recorded vote, added the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance
Program to the list of federal programs eligible to receive funds under this title.

The House rejected the following amendments, which are described below as
characterized by their sponsors:
! An amendment offered by Representative Regula to revise the coastal impact
formula so that states allowing offshore drilling would receive most of the
assistance;
! An amendment offered by Representative Radanovich to require the Fund to
fully fund the PILT and refuge revenue sharing programs;
! An amendment offered by Representatives Tancredo and Pombo to eliminate
the federal side of the LWCF and distribute those funds among other specified
programs funded by this legislation;
! An amendment offered by Representative Chenoweth-Hage to prohibit using
CARA funds to establish or manage any national monument designated after
1995 under the Antiquities Act of 1906;
! An amendment offered by Representative Pombo to ensure that private
property owners would not be adversely affected if they became neighbors to
the federal government because of this bill;
! An amendment offered by Representative John Peterson to require that all
federal land purchases funded by CARA be located within established federal
boundaries.
! An amendment offered by Representative Chambliss to make spending under
this legislation discretionary rather than mandatory through FY2006 (the
length of the current budget resolution);

---

CRS-22
! An amendment offered by Representative Chenoweth-Hage to delete a
provision specifying impact aid to a specific California county;
! An amendment offered by Representatives Hastings and Regula to require that
half the federal land acquisition money be used to maintain and manage land
already owned by the federal government;
! An amendment offered by Representatives Sweeney and McHugh to allow
local governments to object to federal and state projects funded by LWCF;
! An amendment offered by Representatives Simpson and Walden requiring that
the federal government either dispose of an equal area of land or obtain state
approval before acquiring land in states where the federal government owns
more than 50% of the area.;
! An amendment offered by Representative Calvert to prohibit adverse
condemnation for projects funded by impact assistance grants in Title I;
! An amendment offered by Representative Buyer to prohibit non-profit
organizations from using federal funds to buy conservation easements;
! An amendment offered by Representative Chenoweth-Hage to block funding
to private organizations and non-profit groups;
! An amendment offered by Representative Gibbons to allow BLM to auction
land that it has identified for disposal;
! An amendment offered by Representative Ose to restrict funds to incorporated
urban areas and areas that exceed a minimum population level; and
! An amendment offered by Representative Thornberry that combined elements
of several amendments that had been considered separately and rejected.
General Provisions
The initial 11 sections of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and 12 sections of S. 2123 contain
general provisions. S. 25 and S. 2181 do not have a similar set of sections with
general provisions, although some comparable provisions are scattered throughout
both bills. Section 3 of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123 would define 14 terms; in S.
25 and S. 2181, many identical or very similar definitions are found in the sections in
which they apply. S. 25 would define 13 terms in its coastal impact assistance title,
while S. 2181 would define 2 terms in the comparable section, for example. These
definitions are discussed in the relevant portions of the side-by-side analysis, which
follows.
Section 4 of H.R. 701/ S. 2567 and S. 2123 would require each state to submit
an annual report describing all funded projects and activities to the Secretary of
Agriculture or Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate, by June 15. The Secretary
of the Interior, in conjunction with the Secretary of Agriculture, would submit a
report to Congress each January 1 summarizing those reports and documenting how
all moneys from the CARA Fund have been spent. S. 25 and S. 2181 have reporting
requirements in some titles, which are identified in the side-by-side analysis.
Section 5 of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123 would create the CARA Fund. As
discussed earlier, this Fund would receive up to $2.825 billion each year from OCS
revenues starting in FY2001. If the total deposits would be less than $2.825 billion,

---

CRS-23
the amounts transferred to each of the 7 funded programs would be reduced
proportionately. The only variation in funding is that H.R. 701/S. 2567 provide $100
million to the Secretary of Agriculture and $50 million to the Secretary of the Interior
under Title VII, while S. 2123 provides all $150 million under that title to the
Secretary of the Interior. Interest accrued by the CARA Fund, up to $200 million
annually, would provide additional funds to supplement current annual appropriations
for 3 existing programs: Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT); Refuge Revenue Sharing
Fund (RRSF); and the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. Any interest
earned beyond that limit would be placed in the Fund. For PILT and RRSF, the
language provides a matching fund for any other appropriations that may be provided
for these programs, discussed above. Under H.R.701/S. 2567, this match would be
available only if appropriations for each from other sources exceed specified minimum
levels. (For more discussion, see Funding for County Payments, above.)This section
also specifies that refunds of royalties to entities that hold offshore leases would be
paid out of the CARA Fund. S. 25 addresses reductions in payments due to royalty
refunds in each title of the bill. The refund subsection in H.R. 701/S. 2567 includes
the National Park Service appropriations and social security and medicare solvency
language (the Souder and Shadegg amendments, respectively), discussed above. S.
2181 does not address federal refunds.
Section 6 of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123 would limit administrative expenses
to no more than 2% of the amount made available for each program. No money from
the Fund could be used to administer the wildlife provisions in Title III; the law which
this title amends already provides funding for administration.
Section 7 of S. 2123 states that the receipts and disbursements of the CARA
Fund, or any portion of it, would “not be counted” as new budget authority, outlays,
receipts, or deficit or surplus, under the President’s budget, the congressional budget,
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The receipts
and disbursements would also be exempt from any general budget limitation. It was
deleted from H.R. 701/S. 2567, and the effects of deleting it are discussed above, in
Federal Budget Implications.
Section 7 of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and § 8 of S. 2123 would assign the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the lead in establishing
record- keeping and auditing rules for state and local governments as they receive and
spend these funds.
Section 8 of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and § 9 of S. 2123 would prohibit any state or
local government from receiving funds under this Act if its expenditures for these
programs decline from the preceding year, unless that reduction is the result of an
across-the-board reduction that affects all State agencies. Funding provided to state
and local governments would be used to supplement, and where ever possible, to
increase the level of non-federal dollars that are committed to the programs. State or
local governments would treat all CARA Fund monies as federal funds, and could not
use these monies as their non-federal match for other federal programs. Under
provisions added to H.R. 701/S. 2567, the Secretary would make this determination

---

CRS-24
by comparing proposed expenditures to expenditures from the second preceding fiscal
year.
Section 9 of H.R. 701/S/ 2567 and § 10 of S. 2123 would terminate this law on
September 30, 2015, which is the same date for the LWCF sunset under current law.
Section 10 of H.R. 701/S/ 2567 and § 11 of S. 2123 contain the private property
provisions, discussed earlier.
Section 11 of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and § 12 of S. 2123 states that a beneficiary of
federal assistance under the CARA Fund must recognize that assistance on a sign
erected at an entrance or public focal point. The Secretary of the Interior would
develop standards and guidelines for such signs.
The remainder of the report is a side-by-side comparison. H.R. 701/S. 2567 are
listed together with S. 2123 in the first column, although H.R. 701 was amended in
several ways before being approved by the House. The changes which make H.R.
701/S. 2567 different from S. 2123 are noted in a different font at the end of the
appropriate entries. Some of these provisions have been described in more detail
above.

---

CRS-25
Side by Side Comparison -- Provisions in H.R. 701 (as passed)/S. 2567, S. 25, S. 2123
and S. 2181 with Current Law
(Amendments to H.R. 701 appear in this font.)
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation (Coastal Assistance) – Overview
Provides permanently appropriated monies
Amends the OCSLA by adding a new Title
Provides permanently appropriated monies
No similar provisions in
from the CARA Fund to coastal states to
VII.. Lists 12 findings that argue the merits
to coastal states for coastal impact
law
address 11 specified resource conservation
of a coastal impact assistance program.
assistance using the Outer Continental
purposes as laid out in their federally-
Creates the Outer Continental Shelf Impact
Shelf Impact Assistance Fund (OCSIAF)
approved Coastal State Conservation and
Assistance Fund (OCSIAF) and specifies 6
administered by the Sec. of the Interior,
Impact Assistance Plan, which they are
broad purposes for which these funds can be
and for four purposes related to coastal
required to prepare to be eligible.
spent.
and marine resource protection using the
Ocean and Coast Conservation Fund
(OCCF) administered by the Sec. of
Commerce.
Coastal Assistance – Definition of Terms
Some of the key terms that are defined are
Terms and definitions are generally
Terms that are defined and added to §2 of
Many of the definitions
“coastal state”, “coastal population”,
identical, or almost identical. Major
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
are taken from current
“coastal political
differences are in the definitions of
include “coastline”,”coastal state”,
law, including OSCLA
subdivision”,“coastline”, “leased tract”,
“producing states”, which is defined by
“leased tract”, “producing coastal state”,
and CZMA.
“outer continental shelf”, “political
maximum distance from a leased tract in
and “qualified Outer Continental Shelf
subdivision”, and “producing state” (§3).
H.R. 701, and by pipeline transport to an
revenues.” Qualified OCS revenues is a
onshore processing facility in this bill and
lengthy definition for all tracts within 200
the distinction between “eligible political
miles of a state’s coastline. Producing
subdivisions” in this bill and “coastal
coastal state definition is nearly identical
political subdivisions” in H.R. 701 (§702
with the definition of “producing state” in
and §703(c)(3)).
H.R. 701; impact assistance is only
available to producing coastal states
(§202).

---

CRS-26
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Coastal Assistance – Funding Source and Amount
Permanently appropriates $1 billion
Creates the OCSIAF (§703(a)(1)) and
Creates the OCSIAF and permanently
No similar provisions in
annually from the CARA Fund through
permanently appropriates 27% of revenues
appropriates $100 million of qualified
law
FY2015 for impact assistance and coastal
annually from OCS activities, as defined, to
OCS revenues to it annually. Creates the
conservation (§5(b)(1)).
it (§703(a)).
OCCF and permanently appropriates
$365 million of qualified OCS revenues to
it annually. Money in both funds remain
available until spent. The OCCF provides
$250 million for coastal stewardship
grants, $25 million for cooperative
enforcement of marine laws, $75 million
for fisheries research and management
grants, and $15 million for coral reef
protection. Each budget submission will
include a list of proposals that will be
funded 15 days after Congress adjourns,
unless it approves an alternative list; if
that list is less than the authorized amount,
the remainder will be spent on the
proposals from the Administration
(§202(b)).
Coastal Assistance – Moratorium
Tracts are ineligible for leasing if they are
One of the findings states that this title will
Same has H.R. 701, except that tracts had
See discussion of
in an area that was subject to a
not repeal or modify any existing
to be in production before Jan. 1, 2000 for
legislative moratoria,
moratorium on January 1, 1999, unless
moratorium nor should it be interpreted as
the OCCF and Jan. 1, 1999 for the
administrative directives,
they were leased earlier and were in
an incentive to encourage OCS development
OCSIAF (§202(b)).
and Interior Department 5
production before Jan. 1, 1999
where it is not currently occurring
year Leasing Plan in the
(§101(b)(2)).
(§701(12)).
section of this report
titled Funding the
Proposals, above.

---

CRS-27
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Coastal Assistance – Allocation Among States
Allocation among states is based: 50% on
The OCSIAF allocation formula and
The OCSIAF allocation formula is the
No similar provisions in
production within 200 miles of the state
minimum state shares are the same as H.R.
same as in H.R. 701, but limited to
law.
from the center of each leased tract; 25%
701 (§703(c)). State shares will be
producing coastal states. Each state’s
on the relative length of the shoreline, and
determined the same way, but periodic
share is inversely proportional to the
25% on the relative coastal population
recalculation is not mentioned.
distance between the center of each leased
(§101(b)(1)). Production will be
When royalty payments are refunded, 27%
tract and the nearest port. Each producing
recalculated every 5 years, and each
of the refunds would be drawn from this
state will receive at least $2 million
state’s share will be determined based on
fund (§705(d)).
annually. Allocation of the coastal
the inverse relationship between the
Every “producing state”, defined as states
stewardship portion of the OCCF among
closest point of the state coastline and the
producing hydrocarbons offshore that were
states is based: 50% on demonstrated
center of each tract (§101(b)(2)). All
transported by pipeline to a processing
conservation and protection needs; 25%
states with approved coastal zone
facility in the state in FY1998, would have
on the relative length of shoreline; and
management programs or making
to receive at least as much as the largest
25% on the relative coastal population.
satisfactory progress toward approval will
allocation for a non-producing state
receive at least 0.5% of the total amount,
(§703(c)(3)).
and others will receive at least 0.25% of
the amount. (Note: The only eligible
states or territories currently without
approved programs are Illinois and
Indiana.) If a state receives an increase
because its plan is approved or
progressing satisfactorily, all other states
will be reduced proportionally
(§101(b)(3)). Payments will be made by
Dec. 31 from revenues received the
preceding year (§101(d)). Under H.R.
701 as passed, the provision to recalculate
production every 5 years is deleted. (See
discussion of OCS Leasing and
Moratoria.)

---

CRS-28
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Coastal Assistance–Allocation Within States
Half the allocation to each state shall be
Allocation is: 40% to the state; 40% to
No similar provisions.
No similar provisions in
allocated among coastal political
eligible political subdivisions; and 20% to
law
subdivisions. Subdivisions having an oil
other political subdivisions that have been
refinery shall be treated as political
determined by the Governor to be affected
subdivisions located 50 miles from the
by OCS-related activities and are included
center of leased tracts (and are therefore
in the state’s plan.
eligible to receive more) (§101(c)).
The 40% share to eligible political
subdivisions would be allocated by formula:
50% based on the percentage of acreage
within the state’s coastal zone; 25% based
on the relative proportion of coastal
population; and 25% based on the distance
to the center of the nearest leased OCS tract
(§703(d)).

---

CRS-29
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Coastal Assistance– State Plans
Funds provided to states with an approved
Requires states within 1 year of enactment
For the OCSIAF, producing coastal states
No similar provisions in
Coastal State Conservation and Impact
to develop plans to show how they will use
are required to submit a plan which
law
Assistance Plan (§101(a)(1)). Funds for
these funds. Plans are to be amended at
ensures that funds will be used only as
states without approved plans are either
least once every 5 years (§705(a)). A
permitted to the Sec. of the Interior each
retained in the CARA Fund or held in
process for political subdivisions to receive
fiscal year prior to receiving any funds;
escrow if a state is appealing the
approval for projects from the governor
the Sec. will consult with the Sec. of
disapproval of a plan (§101(a)(2)). Each
before the funds are allocated will be in the
Commerce . For the OCCF, the Sec. of
participating state will submit a plan to
plan (§705(a)).
Commerce must fully approve a state plan
the Sec. of the Interior, including plans of
which details how coastal stewardship
coastal political subdivisions in producing
funds will be spent, certifies that these
states, by April 1 of the year following
expenditures will comply with relevant
enactment. (Note: Penalty for not
federal and state laws, and considers ways
completing a plan is not stated, but
to assist local governments, non profit
presumably is the loss of funds.) All
organizations, and public institutions to
plans must demonstrate public
use these funds. States become eligible to
participation (§102 (a)). Four required
receive funds when they submit an
plan elements are listed, as are schedules
application as part of their plan (§202(b)).
for submission, revision, and amendment

(§102 (b)). Under H.R. 701 as passed,
the required contents of the plans are
altered to add a discussion of how
environmental concerns will be
addressed.

---

CRS-30
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Coastal Assistance – Specified Uses of Fund
Authorized uses of funds include: (1) data
Authorized uses of funds include: (1) air and
OCSIAF may be used only to mitigate
No similar provisions in
collection about coastal living marine
water quality, fish and wildlife, wetlands,
“adverse environmental impacts directly
law.
resources; (2) conservation, restoration,
outdoor recreation, coastal and estuarine
attributable” to OCS oil and gas
enhancement or creation of coastal
activities (including shoreline protection and
development. Under the OCCF, the Sec.
habitats; (3) enforcement of marine
coastal restoration); (2) activities associated
of Commerce will give priority to
resource management laws; (4) fishery
with coastal management or pollution
activities consistent with: (1) protecting
observer programs; (5) identification and
control; (3) planning assistance and
estuarine and marine sanctuaries, coastal
control of exotic species; (6) cooperative
administrative costs to implement this title;
management, and coastal and marine fish
fisheries planning between states; (7)
(4) uses related to the OCSLA, including
habitat programs; (2) promoting coastal
preparing and implementing fishery or
mitigating the impacts of activities on the
conservation, restoration, or water quality
marine mammal management plans
OCS; and (5) depositing these funds into a
protection; or (3) addressing conservation
required by international agreement; (8)
state or political subdivision trust fund
needs created by seasonal population
measuring tides and currents; (9)
dedicated to uses consistent with this section
fluctuations. States may use these grants
implementing federally-approved
(§704(a)).
only to: (1) conserve coastal and marine
comprehensive conservation and
habitats; (2) remove marine debris that
management plans; (10) mitigating
adversely affects habitats; (3) monitor or
offshore and coastal impacts of OCS
reduce coastal pollution; (4) protect
activities; and (11) initiating projects that
watersheds; (5) inventory and research
promote education and training about
habitats; (6) address conservation needs
coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources
associated with transient populations; and
(§102(c)).
(7) establish and study protected marine
areas. (§202(b)).

---

CRS-31
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Coastal Assistance – Monitoring Activities
States must agree to account for how the
Requires each state to issue an annual report
State reporting requirements same as S.
No similar provisions in
funds are spent, including fiscal controls,
to the Sec. of the Interior and Congress by
25 for both funds, except that OCSIAF
law.
to be eligible to receive them (§101(a)(1)),
June 15 describing all projects and activities
reports are submitted to the Sec. of
and must report annually how these funds
undertaken the previous fiscal year
Commerce in addition to the Sec. of the
were spent (§4(a)). The Sec. of the
(§705(c)). Each Governor shall submit a
Interior, and the OCCF reports are
Interior will use annual reports (§5) and
report to the Sec. of the Interior and
submitted to the Secretary of Commerce
audits to determine if all funds are being
Congress describing all projects and
(§202(b)).
spent for the 11 specified purposes. If an
activities funded under this program
expenditure is inconsistent, the recipient
(§705(c). Political subdivisions receiving
will not receive further grants until that
funds would be required to certify to the
amount is repaid to the CARA Fund
governor how they used those funds and the
(§102 (d)).
status of each project and activity within 60
days of the end of each fiscal year
(§705(b)).
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) – Overview
Authorizes appropriations from the
Similar.
Similar, but it also adds a new matching
Allocates appropriated
CARA Fund to fund the LWCF, and to
state grant program, funded at $125
funds, up to $900 million
allocate those monies among federal
million a year, to conduct conservation
annually, to federal
agencies, states, and other eligible
projects on lands of regional or national
agencies to acquire lands
recipients. Funds from CARA for federal
interest.
for LWCF purposes and
agencies would require annual
to states to acquire and
appropriation actions; all other money
develop lands for LWCF
from the Fund would be permanently
purposes.
appropriated. In addition, funding under
the LWCF Act, up to $900 million
annually, would remain available and
could be appropriated.

---

CRS-32
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
LWCF – Funding Source and Amount
Authorizes appropriations of up to $900
Permanently appropriates 16% of the OCS
Permanently appropriates not less than
§2(c)(1) of the LWCFA
million annually from the CARA Fund
revenues (including 16% of any royalty
$900 million annually from qualified OCS
of 1965 authorizes $900
through FY2015 (§5(b)(2)). Also allows
refunds) annually through FY2015 into the
revenues (§102(b)). Deletes the LWCF
million per year from the
appropriations of up to an additional $900
LWCF. Provides $900 million annually as
sunset date of FY2015 (§102(a)). Each
fund through FY2015.
million under existing law. OCS revenues
a permanent appropriation (§203(b)) and
budget submission will include a list of
§2(c)(2) authorizes using
will be used to equal the total amount
requires appropriations only for those funds
proposals that will be funded 15 days
OCS revenues to fully
needed for the Fund portion after proceeds
in excess of $900 million (§203(c)).
after Congress adjourns, unless Congress
fund the LWCF, but §3
from surplus property sales and motorboat
approves an alternative list; if that list is
requires that funds must
fuel tax are deposited (§202).
less than the authorized amount, the
be appropriated annually.
remainder will be spent on the
Administration’s proposals (§102(e)).

---

CRS-33
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
LWCF – Funding for Federal Purposes
Allocates 50% of the funds for federal
Allocates 45% for federal purposes. Of that
Allocates 50% for federal purposes
§5 allocates not less than
purposes (§204). The Secs. of the Interior
total, 25% goes to the Sec. of Agriculture to
(§102(c)). At least $5 million will be
40% of the appropriated
and Agriculture must submit proposed
acquire property within the exterior
provided annually to purchase easements
funds for federal
acquisitions with the annual budget
boundaries of areas in the National Forest
for non-motorized access to public lands
programs. §7, which
submission. Considerations in preparing
System (which includes national forests,
(§102(e)).
allows acquisition within
the list include consolidating federal
national grasslands, and other designations)
the exterior boundaries of
holdings, using land exchanges and
and certain other areas. The remaining 75%
the National Park System,
easements instead of acquisition, factors
goes to the Sec. of the Interior to acquire
inholdings within the
used to establish priorities, and identifying
property within the exterior boundaries of
boundaries of national
properties owned by willing sellers who
areas in the National Park or National
forests, and for National
request adverse condemnation. Both
Refuge System, or other land management
Wildlife Refuge System
Departments also must submit a list of
units established by Congress.
units, endangered species,
surplus lands for which there remains no
and other wildlife areas,
need. Each proposed acquisition is to
is not affected by these
include a statutory cite and an explanation
bills. §7(b) limits
of why this parcel was selected.
acquisition to authorized
Acquisition must be approved in
purchases, except under
appropriations legislation (§205). Under
limited circumstances.
H.R. 701 as passed, the list of surplus
lands is to be updated as land
management plans are altered. A new
section requires the Secs. of the Interior
and Agriculture to issue a plan for the
consolidation of public and private lands
in Montana (§211).

---

CRS-34
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
LWCF – Geographic Restrictions
No provisions.
Requires that at least two thirds of these
No provisions.
§7(a)(1) requires that not
funds must be spent east of the 100th
more than 15% of the
meridian (§203(d)).
land acquired for the
National Forest System
annually be west of the
100th meridian, unless
specifically authorized.

---

CRS-35
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
LWCF – Restrictions on Federal Spending
The federal portion may only be spent on
§203(d) prohibits the use of federal funds
No provisions.
No limitations in current
projects that are specifically approved in
for condemnation.
law; however, each
an annual appropriations act. Property
agency has regulations
may only be acquired from a willing seller
governing acquisitions
or if acquisition is specifically approved
using LWCF monies.
by Congress. (Note: congressional
approval would make condemnation
available under 40 U.S.C. 257.) Funds
may only be spent after the Secs. provide
written notice of the proposal within 30
days of the submission of the list to each
affected Member of Congress, Governor,
and political subdivision, and to a widely-
distributed newspaper. Where acquisition
has not been specifically authorized in
federal law, land may not be acquired with
CARA Funds until all required actions,
including any environmental documents,
have been completed and the specified
notices provided (§205). H.R. 701as
passed drops the provision exempting all
CARA spending from Budget Act
restrictions that was §7. It now requires
annual appropriations, making federal
LWCF spending discretionary rather than
mandatory, and continues budget
procedures that may be obstacles to
appropriations. (See discussion titled
Federal LWCF: Permanent or Not?)

---

CRS-36
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
LWCF – Cost Limitations for Federal Acquisitions
No provisions.
A new provision is added to §7 that
No provision.
No limitations in current
prohibits any federal land acquisition
law.
exceeding $5 million unless Congress
recognizes it in the agency appropriations
report, and the House Resources and Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committees
approve it by resolution. (Note: This may
be of questionable constitutionality.)
(§203(m)).
LWCF – Funding for State and Local Purposes
Allocates 50% of the funds to states
Allocates 45% to states under a formula
Allocates 50% to states (§102(c)).
§5 allocates not less than
(§204). These grants are apportioned
apportioning 60% equally, 20% based on
Allocates 80% of that total under a
40% of the appropriated
30% equally, and 70% based on
total population, and 20% based on urban
formula apportioning 60% equally, 20%
funds for federal
population. No state can receive more
population (§203(d)). Allows states to use
based on total population, and 20% based
programs. §6(a), (b), and
than 10% of the total. All funds that are
funds for facility rehabilitation (§203(e)).
on urban population (§102(d)). §102 adds
(c) apportion funds
not awarded within 3 years will be
Requires each state to make at least 50% of
a new §14 to the LWCF establishing a
among the states for
reapportioned among the remaining states,
its apportionment available to local
fund of $125 million annually to provide
outdoor recreation
and the 10% limit on the maximum that
governments, unless it annually documents a
matching grants to states for conservation
planning, acquisition, and
any state can receive will be waived for
compelling justification (§203(g)).
projects. Grants will be awarded
development. No state
this reapportionment. Each state will
competitively, with priority given to
may receive more than
make 50% of its annual grant, or an
projects that protect ecosystems, involve
10%.
equivalent amount, available to local
collaboration with other entities, or
governments unless it documents to the
complement programs on federal lands
Sec. a compelling justification to do
(§102).
otherwise each year (§206). Under H. R.
701 as passed, states must have a
“dedicated land acquisition fund” funded
through the state budget process; any
funding intended for ineligible states will
be reapportioned among other states
(§206(b)(2)).

---

CRS-37
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
LWCF – Areas that Constitute a State
The District of Columbia would be treated
No provisions.
No provisions.
The District of Columbia,
as 1 state. Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa
Islands, Guam, American
together would be treated as 1 state and
Samoa, and the
would subdivide their share equally
Commonwealth of the
(§206). (Note: Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana
Northern Marianas is not made eligible.)
Islands, together, are
Under H.R. 701 as passed, any amounts
treated as 1 state
appropriated under the existing LWCF
(§6(b)(5)). A portion of
for state grants will be allocated under a
the funds are allocated
competitive grant program for state
equally among states, and
projects with defined environmental
the remainder based on
benefits of national or regional
relative efficiency
significance (§206(d)).
(§6(b)(1,2, and 3)).
LWCF – Tribes and Alaska Native Village Corporations Funding
All federally-recognized Indian tribes and
Almost identical (§203(f)).
No provisions.
No similar provisions in
Alaska Native Village Corporations,
law.
combined, are treated as 1 state. Annual
allocations are to be awarded through
competitive grants. No single tribe or
corporation may receive more than 10% of
the total. Funds may be used only for
planning and development (§206(b)).

---

CRS-38
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
LWCF – Administrative Costs
Not more than 2% of the funds provided
Not more than 2% of the fund may be used
No provisions.
No similar provisions in
for an activity may be used to pay
to pay administrative expenses, and any
law.
administrative expenses associated with
funds set aside for administrative expenses
that activity (§6). (Note: This provision
but not used by the end of the next fiscal
applies to all programs supported by the
year are to be apportioned among federal,
CARA Fund.)
state and local recipients using the same
distribution formula (§203(d)).

---

CRS-39
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
LWCF – State Plans
States must develop Action Plans, which
Requires each participant to develop a State
No provisions.
§6(d) requires states to
assess the strategic needs and identify
Action Agenda that sets out that state’s
develop and maintain
specific actions and priorities. Public
determination of needs, priorities, and
comprehensive outdoor
input is required. The agenda must be
criteria for projects. Each plan must be
recreation plans to be
developed within 5 years of enactment,
updated at least once every 4 years, include
eligible to receive grants.
identify actions over the next 4 years, and
a wetlands priority plan, and incorporate
Plans must have “ample”
be updated at least once every 4 years.
urban recovery action plans developed for
public participation and
The governor must certify that preparation
UPARR (§203(i)). Allows state plans
address wetlands. The
of the Plan includes an active public
already developed under LWCF to be used
Secretary of the Interior
participation process. Plans shall consider
for up to 5 years after enactment (§203(j)).
decides whether a state
all conservation and recreation providers
plan is adequate. §6(f)
and be correlated with other relevant
lists the requirements for
plans, including recovery action programs
federal approval of state
for urban areas. Current state plans
projects. Federal funding
developed under LWCF will remain in
is available to develop
effect until an action plan has been
and maintain the plan.
adopted or up to 5 years from the date of
§6(d) and §6(e) describe
enactment (§207). States may use these
eligible acquisition and
funds for incidental costs related to
development projects.
acquisition, and for shelters where public
safety is a concern (§208). Under H.R.
701 as passed, the agenda must be
updated at least once every 5 years.

---

CRS-40
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
LWCF – Conversion of Properties to Other Uses
Properties that are no longer viable for
Nearly identical (§203(l)).
No provisions.
§6(f)(3) states properties
recreation or conservation facility use
on which LWCF funds
because of changing demographics or
have been spent may be
contamination may be converted if a state
converted to non-
can show that no reasonable or prudent
recreation uses if the Sec.
alternative exists and substitute property
agrees the change is in
of equal value or usefulness can be
accord with the state plan
provided. Certain wetlands can be
and that the substituted
considered as reasonable equivalents
property is of at least
(§209).
equal fair market value
and equivalent usefulness
and location. Wetlands
are usually considered
suitable replacement
properties.
LWCF – Water Rights
Protects existing water law and rights,
No provisions.
No provisions.
No similar provisions in
including interstate compacts, the rights of
law.
states to any apportioned share of water,
laws protecting water quality or disposal,
or conferring of federal rights to water to
any non-federal entity (§210).

---

CRS-41
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Overview
Amends the Pittman-Robertson Act, also
Title III is similar.
Title III is similar.
P -R provides formula
known as the P-R or Federal Aid in
grants to states and
Wildlife Restoration, to create a new
territories from
subprogram, the Wildlife Conservation
permanently appropriated
and Restoration Program (WCRP). This
taxes on hunting
program provides state grants for any
equipment. Program
wildlife species, whether game or non-
benefits restricted to
game, using permanently appropriated
game species.
CARA funds.
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Species Benefitted
“Wildlife” includes all fauna (animals);
Identical (§304(d)).
Identical (§304(d)).
Game species only. (This
thus, invertebrates (e.g, crayfish, snails,
program would continue
butterflies, etc.) could benefit. (Note:
unaltered.)
Plants are excluded from benefits by this
definition, while non-native animals and
captive indigenous animals raised for
reintroduction are not excluded.)
(§302(d)).
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Funding Source and Amount
Permanently appropriates $350 million
Permanently appropriates 7% of OCS
Identical to H.R. 701, except no time limit
Taxes on certain hunting
annually through FY2015 from the CARA
revenues as defined (§305, and §304(e)).
(§304).
equipment, guns, and
Fund. (§5(b)(3)) and (§302 (1)).
archery equipment are
permanently
appropriated. (This
program would continue
unaltered.)

---

CRS-42
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Eligible Entities
States, the District, all 5 territories
Identical (§306).
Identical (§306).
States. For the major
(§304(a)).
portion of the P-R
program, Guam,
Northern Mariana
Islands, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa and
Puerto Rico are also
eligible. For the P-R
subprogram on hunter
safety, Puerto Rico is
the only ineligible
territory. District of
Columbia is not eligible
for any part of P-R.
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Matching Requirements
Federal share not to exceed 75% of
Federal share may reach up to 90% of cost
Identical to S. 25 (§306).
Federal share of plans
estimated cost of the projects or programs
of developing program and implementing its
and projects not to exceed
(§304(a)).
segments in initial 5 years after enactment,
75%. (This program
and up to 75% thereafter (§306).
would continue
unaltered.)

---

CRS-43
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Apportionment Among Eligible Entities
Puerto Rico and the District: up to 0.5%
Identical (§306).
Identical (§306).
Complex formula based
each; Guam, American Samoa, Northern
on population, state
Marianas, and Virgin Islands, up to
proportion of total land
0.1667% each; of the remainder, 1/3 in
area of U.S., and state
proportion to land area and 2/3 in
proportion of national
proportion to human population. No state
hunting licenses; formula
may receive more than 5%, nor less than
specifies upper and lower
0.5% of the available amount (§304(a)).
limits for state and
No specific portion is allocated to tribes
territorial shares.
and Alaska Native Corporations. Under
H.R. 701 as passed, cooperation of state
agencies with tribes and Native
Corporations is added as a purpose to
the program.
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Preventing Diversion of State Funds
States cannot receive federal matching
Identical, except date is 1/1/1998 (§308).
Identical to S. 25 (§309).
License fees paid by
funds if they divert any revenues available
hunters in that state may
for the conservation of wildlife as of
be used only for
1/1/1999 from the designated state agency
administration of that
(§306).
state’s fish and game
department.

---

CRS-44
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – State Planning Requirements
To be eligible, states must develop a
Similar, but no limitation on recreation
Similar for planning of a WCRP, but no
States may apply to FWS
WCRP and may use WCRP funds to plan
(§306).
limit on spending on recreation (§306).
for funding for individual
the program. Required program features,
Also, WCRP must contain provision for a
projects or develop a
including public participation, are
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS).
comprehensive plan for
specified. Limits federal share for
WCS to be developed within 5 yr of first
multiple projects. (This
developing and implementing state
apportionment; Secretary approves WCS
program would continue
programs and their individual elements to
if it meets 7 specified standards
unaltered.)
75%; limits each state to 10% allocation
concerning use of best available data,
for wildlife-associated recreation
integrates data on declining species;
(§304(a)).
identifies habitat types, threats to species,
and research; determines needed
conservation actions; provides for species
monitoring; provides for review and
revision of WCS; provides for
coordination with other land managers and
other parties; among other features.
Consequences of failure to develop WCS
is unclear.
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Law Enforcement
No specific provision, therefore appears to
Allows funding for state law enforcement,
Similar to S. 25, except limit is 5%
P-R does not permit
follow provision in current law forbidding
up to 10% of funding (§306).
(§308).
funding for state law
use of funds for law enforcement.
enforcement programs.
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Wildlife Conservation Education
Makes wildlife conservation education
Similar, but there is no exception for
Similar to S. 25 (§305).
No similar provisions in
eligible for funding; except that education
education that might encourage opposition
law.
programs “that promote or encourage
to hunting, trapping, or fishing (§306).
opposition” to hunting, trapping, or
fishing are ineligible (§305).

---

CRS-45
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
Exempts federal agency coordination with
Essentially identical (§304(b)).
Identical to S. 25 (§307).
Advisory groups under
state fish and wildlife agencies from
these laws are currently
FACA for all aspects of P-R and the
subject to FACA
similar Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration. Provision affects the existing
programs under these 2 laws, as well as
new P-R provisions in this amendment
(§304(b)).
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) – Overview
Provides permanently appropriated funds
Identical.
Similar.
Identical.
to assist local governments in revitalizing
and maintaining their park and recreation
systems.
UPARR – Definitions and Eligibility
Adds acquisition for and development of
Adds new definitions to §1004 of the Urban
No provisions.
The Urban Park and
new recreation areas and facilities to the
Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978
Recreation Recovery Act
purposes for the program (§404). Adds
for “development grants” and “acquisition
of 1978 defines terms,
new definition to §1004 of the Urban Park
grants.” (§204(a)). Amends §1005(a) by
including “rehabilitation
and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 for
specifying four types of eligible urban areas
grants,” “innovation
“development grants” (§405). Amends
based on amount of urbanization and
grants,” “at-risk youth
§1005(a) by specifying three types of
concentration of population (difference with
recreation grants,” and
eligible urban areas based on amount of
H.R. 701 is that S. 25 includes all central
“recovery action program
urbanization and concentration of
cities as defined in the most recent census)
grants.”in §1004. §1005
population; current law does not define
(§204(b)).
defines established areas
eligible areas by population concentration
and establishes project
(§406).
priority criteria.

---

CRS-46
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
UPARR – Funding Source and Amount
Permanently appropriates $125 million
Directs 10% of LWCF ($90 million) to be
Permanently appropriates $75 million
§1013 authorized
annually through the CARA Fund
permanently appropriated to UPARR (§203
annually from qualified OCS revenues, to
appropriations through
(§5(b)(4)). Any funds not paid or
(d)).
be available until spent. Includes same
FY1983, but the program
obligated in 3 years shall be reapportioned
percentage limits on grant categories and
received funding through
among grant recipients. Limits
grants to states as H.R. 701 (§701).
FY1995.
development grants to 3% of the total;
innovation grants to 10% of the total; and
grants to any state to 15% of total.
Requires Sec. to limit portion of grant that
can be used for administration (§403).
UPARR – Conversion of Properties
Amends §1010 of UPARR to define in
Nearly identical (§204(e)).
No provisions.
§1010 requires
greater detail the circumstances under
Secretarial approval
which a property improved with funds
before permitting
under this Act can be converted to non-
conversion of property to
recreational uses (§410).
non-recreational uses
where UPARR funds
were used.

---

CRS-47
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
UPARR – Grants
Expands §1006 of UPARR to add
Similar, but expands grant purpose further
No provisions.
§1006 provides grants for
development as a purpose for using 70%
to add acquisition as well as development
rehabilitation and
matching grants and to be able to transfer
(§204(c)).
innovation, and advanced
these grants to other agencies and private
payments.
non profit organizations who can provide
assurances that recreation opportunities
will be maintained. Only projects
approved by the Sec. are eligible to
receive payments (§408). Provisions for
advanced payments would be deleted
(§407).
UPARR –Local and State Participation
Amends §1008 of UPARR to make these
Identical (§204 (d))
No provisions.
§1007(a) requires local
provisions consistent with proposed
governments to articulate
changes in LWCF terminology and
their commitment to
planning requirements, and to allow
improving and
greater local flexibility and control of
maintaining their park
local programs (§409).
and recreation systems.
§1008 provides additional
matching funds as an
incentive for state
participation.
UPARR – Repeal of Existing Law
Repeals §1015 of UPARR (§411).
Repeals §1014 (§204(f)).
No provisions.
§1015 contains sunset
and reporting provisions.
§1014 prohibits using
these funds to acquire
property.

---

CRS-48
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Historic Preservation Fund – Allocation
Permanently appropriates $100 million
No similar provisions.
Permanently appropriates $150 million
§108 of the National
annually from the CARA Fund through
annually from qualified OCS revenues, to
Historic Preservation Act
2015. At least half these funds are to be
be available until spent. At least $75
provides funding through
spent for preserving historic properties,
million will fund existing historic
1997, and does not
with priority given to endangered historic
preservation programs, $15 million will
specify a priority for any
properties (§501).
fund a new battlefield protection program,
of the funding activities.
and the remainder (up to $60 million) will
American Battlefield
fund the state matching grant program,
Protection Program
giving priority to preserving endangered
authorized in §604 of
historic properties.
P.L. 104-333.
Historic Preservation Fund – Use of Funds
Expands the permitted uses to include
No similar provisions.
Each budget request is to include a list of
§114 lists the purposes
national heritage areas or corridors that
proposals that will be funded 15 days after
for which states can
support historic preservation planning and
Congress adjourns unless it approves an
spend these funds.
development (§502).
alternative list; if that list is less than the
authorized amount, the remainder will be
spent on the Administration’s proposals.
Priority for any additional spending for
state, local and tribal programs
recommended by the administration will
be preservation of endangered historic
properties (§501).

---

CRS-49
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Historic Preservation Fund --Battlefield Protection
No provisions.
No provisions.
Priority financial assistance for Civil War
§604 of P.L. 104-333
battlefield sites will be given to sites
enacted the American
identified as Priority 1 in the Civil War
Battlefield Protection
Sites Advisory Commission Report. New
Program to provide
funding authority, at $15 million a year
federal assistance at
without further appropriation, is added
historic battlefields on
(§502).
American soil. Funding is
authorized at $3 million
annually for 10 years.
Unobligated funds are
returned to the U.S.
Treasury.
Federal and Indian Lands Restoration (Land Restoration) – Overview
Provides permanently appropriated funds
No similar provisions.
Provides permanently appropriated funds
A variety of existing
on federal and Indian lands for restoration,
to National Park System units that are
programs may overlap
protection of threatened resources, and
threatened by activities within or outside
these purposes, but are
protection of public health and safety
the park boundaries, or need restoration or
not permanently
(§601).
stabilization.
appropriated.
Land Restoration – Funding Source and Amount
Permanently appropriates $200 million
No similar provisions.
Permanently appropriates $150 million
No similar provisions in
annually from the CARA Fund through
annually of qualified OCS revenues, to be
law.
2015 (§5(b)(6)).
available until spent (§601(a) and (b)).

---

CRS-50
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Land Restoration – Allocation of Appropriation
60% to DOI for lands within NPS,
No similar provisions.
All funds to National Park Service are to
No similar provisions in
NWRS, and public lands under BLM
be used in the National Park System.
law. (Any current
(allocation between agencies not
Each budget proposal is to include a list of
funding for these
specified); 30% to USDA for NFS; 10%
proposals that will be funded 15 days after
purposes is appropriated
to DOI for competitive grants for Indian
Congress adjourns, unless it approves an
annually.)
tribes (§602(b)(2)).
alternative list; if that list is less than the
authorized amount, the remainder will be
spent on the Administration’s proposals.
No funds may be used for land
acquisition, employee salaries, road or
visitor center construction, routine
maintenance, or projects funded by the fee
demo program (§601(b)).
Land Restoration – Priority of Projects
DOI and USDA prepare priority lists for
No provisions.
Priority projects are identified in the park
No similar provisions in
use of funds, based on protection of
unit’s general management plan, are
law.
significant resources, severity of damage
authorized environmental restoration
or threats to resources, and protection of
projects, or are identified as being needed
public health and safety. Projects must be
to prevent immediate damage to park
consistent with any applicable federal
resources (§601(b)(5)(B).
land management plans (§603(c) and (d)).
Land Restoration – Competitive Grants to Indian Tribes
DOI to administer grant program for
No provisions.
No provisions.
No similar provisions in
tribes based on same priorities as above;
law.
no single tribe may receive more than 10%
of the total grants for tribes in any fiscal
year (§603(b)).

---

CRS-51
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Land Restoration – Tracking Progress of Activities
By the end of the first fiscal year that
No provisions.
No provisions.
No similar provisions in
funds are available, DOI and USDA must
law.
establish a joint program to track activities
funded by the title, and the extent of
demonstrable results (§603(e)).
Conservation Easements – Overview
Provides a dedicated funding source for
No provisions.
Provides permanently appropriated funds
While easements may be
purchase of permanent easements to the
to purchase easements on farmland and
purchased under many
DOI to maintain traditional uses and
ranch land (§802 and §803).
statutes, only the
prevent loss to public due to development
Migratory Bird Treaty
inconsistent with these uses (Title VII,
Act has a permanent
Subtitle A). H.R. 701 as passed, amends
appropriation. The FPP
the Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
provides grants to state
enacted in §388 of the Federal
and local governments
Agricultural Improvement and Reform
that are implementing
Act of 1996.
programs to purchase
easements on farmland
(§388 of P.L. 104-127).

---

CRS-52
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Conservation Easements – Funding Source and Amount
Permanently appropriates $100 million
No similar provisions.
Permanently appropriates $50 million
The FPP authorizes $35
annually to purchase easements from the
annually to the Sec. of Agriculture to
million to purchase
CARA Fund through FY2015
implement the FPP, and $50 million
easements on between
(§5(b)(7)(A). H.R. 701 as passed,
annually to the Sec. of the Interior for the
170,000 acres and
permanently appropriates $100 million
Ranchland Protection Fund from qualified
340,000 acres (§388(a
annually to implement the FPP, Forest
OCS revenues; these funds remain
and c)). The Forest
Legacy, and Urban and Community
available until spent (§802 and §803).
Legacy and Urban and
Forestry Assistance Programs The
Community Forestry
acreage cap for the FPP is deleted.
Assistance Programs are
permanently authorized
with no appropriations
ceilings.
Conservation Easements – Grant Program Eligibility
DOI to provide grants to eligible
No provisions.
Ranch land includes private or tribally
The FPP allows funds to
participants to purchase conservation
owned range land, pasture land, grazed
be used by state or local
easements on land with prime, unique, or
forest land, and hay land. Grants are
governments to purchase
other productive uses (§704(a)).
made to state and local government
partial or full easements
Eligible participants are states, local
agencies, tribes, and appropriate non
on land that is subject to
governments, Indian tribes, and
profits for the federal share of purchasing
pending offers from a
conservation organizations meeting any of
permanent easements. These funds may
state or local government.
several specified criteria in the federal tax
only be spent with the land owner’s
code (§704(c)). Any eligible participant
consent. The easement holder may
may hold title to easement, and may
enforce its conservation requirements.
enforce the conservation requirements of
The Attorney General of the state must
the easement (§704(d)). H.R. 701 as
certify, prior to making the grant
passed, amends the FPP to purchase
available, that the easement will achieve
either permanent easements, or partial
the program purposes (§803(c)).
or permanent easements in lands that are
subject to a pending offer from state or
local government.

---

CRS-53
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Conservation Easements – Federal Share
Federal share of easement may not exceed
No provisions.
No provisions.
No similar provisions in
50% (§704(b)).
law.
Conservation Easements – Certification
Attorney general of the state must certify
No provisions.
No provisions.
No similar provisions in
that, under that state’s laws, the easement
law.
will achieve the conservation purpose and
the terms of the grant (§704(e)).
Conservation Easements – Planning and Technical Assistance
Land under these easements is subject to a
No provisions.
No provisions.
No similar provisions in
conservation plan consistent with the
law.
terms or conditions of the easement
(§704(f)). (Note: bill does not specify the
plan contents, the preparer, nor any
standards for the plan.) DOI may use up
to 10% of the funds to provide supporting
technical assistance (§704(g)). (Note: bill
does not specify who may receive the
assistance, or the form it would take.)
H.R. 701 as passed, allows the Sec. of
Agriculture to use up to 10% of the total
for technical assistance (§704 (g)).

---

CRS-54
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery (Species Recovery) – Overview
Permanently appropriates dedicated
No similar provisions.
Permanently appropriates dedicated
No similar provisions in
funding for incentives program to FWS
funding to develop and carry out recovery
law.
and NMFS for recovery of listed species
agreements (RAs) (Title IV).
and their habitat; intended to increase
involvement by non-federal entities in
recovery of listed species and their habitat
(Title VII, Subtitle B).
Species Recovery – Funding Source and Amount
Permanently appropriates $50 million
No similar provisions.
Similar to H.R. 701, but no ending date (§
No similar provisions in
annually from the CARA Fund through
401(c)).
law.
FY2015 (§5(b)(7)(B)).
Species Recovery – Definitions
Defines the terms “endangered species”,
No similar provisions.
Does not define “endangered species”,
These terms are defined
“threatened species” (identically to
“threatened species” “family farm”, or
in various places in
current law), “Secretary” (of the Interior
“small landowner.” “Secretary” is
current law, such as
or Commerce, as appropriate under ESA),
defined as Interior only. “Recovery
within the ESA.
“small landowner”, “family farm”and
agreement” (RA) is defined as agreement
“species recovery agreement” (SRA)
entered into by the Sec. under §§(e)
(§715). H.R. 701 as passed, deletes the
(should probably be §§(f)).
definition of family farm.
Species Recovery – Agreements
Sec. may enter SRAs with “persons”, an
No similar provisions.
Sec. may fund SRAs with “any person”.
No similar provisions in
undefined term (§714). SRAs have a
No time limit specified nor any conditions
law.
specified beginning and end (§714(b)(7)),
that would cause cancellation (§401(d)).
and terminate if the Sec. certifies that a
person has not complied with its terms
(§714(b)(8)). (Note: the subtitle is silent
regarding renewal of SRAs.)

---

CRS-55
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Species Recovery – Conditions and Restrictions on Recovery Agreements
SRAs require “persons” (on his/her real
No similar provisions.
Similar requirements, but no specified
No similar provisions in
property) to carry out activities not
mechanism to return non-qualifying
law.
otherwise required by law that contribute
proposals to landowner with request for
to recovery and/or to refrain from carrying
modifications (§401(f)).
out otherwise legal activities that would
inhibit recovery (§714(b)(1)). SRAs must
specify recovery goals and measures for
their attainment, and monitoring to
measure annual progress (§714(b)(3),(4),
and (5)).
Sec. reviews proposed SRAs, and
proposes any necessary modifications for
compliance with §714; if SRA is
compliant, Sec. “shall” enter into the
agreement (§714(c)).

---

CRS-56
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Species Recovery – Financial Assistance
The Sec. allocates financial assistance for
No similar provisions.
No requirement that Sec. use monitoring
No similar provisions in
approved SRAs annually or at some other
data in making allocations nor that
law.
agreed interval (§714(b)(9)).
assistance be provided at a specified
The Sec. must use the information from
interval. §401(e) prohibits funding for
monitoring (§714(b)(5)) in disbursing
actions already required by law. No
financial assistance under the SRA
provision regarding effects on payments
(§714(d)).
under other laws.
The Sec. may use the CARA Fund to
assist persons in developing and
implementing SRAs, under criteria that
favor funding ESA recovery plans,
contribute to recovery of listed species,
and land owned by small landowners or
family farmers. Actions already required
under an ESA permit or other federal law
are not eligible for assistance (§713(a)-
(c)). Financial assistance under an SRA
does not affect any payments a person
may be eligible to receive under 3
specified conservation programs.
However, there can be no payments for
SRAs for carrying out the same activities
under these 3 programs, unless the SRA
requires additional financial or
management obligations beyond those
specified in the 3 programs (§713(d)).
“Family farmers” are not included.

---

CRS-57
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (RRSF)– Overview
Permanently appropriates funds up to
No similar provision.
Permanently appropriates “such moneys
31 U.S.C. Ch. 69 (PILT)
$200 million, to provide full funding of
as are necessary” for full payment of
and 16 U.S.C. 715s
payments to local governments for various
PILT. (RRSF not included.) (Title X.)
(RRSF) compensate local
categories of federal land under 31U.S.C.,
governments for presence
Ch. 69, and 16 U.S.C. 715s (§5(d) and
of certain non-taxable
(e)).
federal lands. Both
require annual
appropriations (from
general fund) for full
payment of formulas.
PILT/RRSF – Source of Funds
Interest from CARA Fund (§5(d)(1)and
No similar provision.
Directly from OCS revenues specified in
PILT: annual
(2)).
43 U.S.C. 1331(u), as amended by Title II
appropriations from U.S.
(§1001).
Treasury. RRSF:
permanent appropriation
of certain refuge
revenues, plus annual
appropriations.
PILT/RRSF – Ceiling on Appropriations
The lesser of (a) $200 million or (b)
No similar provision.
Full amount authorized under formula in
Full amounts authorized
amount appropriated under other
PILT law (which varies from year to year)
under formulas in PILT
provisions of law for PILT or RRSF
(§1001).
and RRSF laws (which
(§5(d)(3)). No CARA match is available
vary from year to year).
unless PILT appropriations from other
sources are at least $100 million, and for
RRSF, at least $15 million.

---

CRS-58
H.R. 701/S. 2567 and S. 2123
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
Protection of Social Security and Medicare Benefits
H.R. 701 as passed, states that no funds
No similar provisions.
No similar provisions.
No similar provisions in
can be expended under the Act if they
law.
would diminish Social Security or
Medicare benefit obligations (New Title
VIII). (Note: There are no explicit
provisions in the bill altering Social
Security or Medicare benefits. This
provision, and other, potentially more
significant social security and medicare
provisions that were added to the general
provisions in §5(g), are discussed in the
subsection titled Debt Reduction, Social
Security, and Medicare.)

---

CRS-59
H.R.701/ S.
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
2576 and S.2123
Other Programs
Marine Cooperative Enforcement Grants
No provisions.
No
States participating on interstate fisheries commissions can apply
No similar provisions in law.
provisions.
for $25 million in grants annually from the OCCF to implement
cooperative enforcement agreements with the Sec. of Commerce,
deputizing state employees to enforce federal marine resource-
related laws. The Sec. will enter these agreements after receiving
an application, and will equitably allocate the funds (§202(b)and
(d)).
Fisheries Research and Management Grants
No provisions
No
States participating on interstate marine fisheries commissions can
No similar provisions in law.
provisions.
apply for $75 million in grants annually from the OCCF to
implement a sole-source research and management agreement to
undertake projects. These projects must address critical needs
identified in fishery management reports or plans that pertain to
collecting and analyzing fishery data and information, and
developing measures to promote cooperative or innovative fisheries
management. Priority projects will include: (1) establishing
observer programs; (2) cooperative research projects to meet
national or regional management priorities; (3) projects to reduce
harvesting capacity; (4) projects to identify ecosystem impacts of
fishing; and (5) projects to identify, conserve, or restore fish
habitat. Implementing procedures must be adopted within 90 days
(§202(b) and (e)).

---

CRS-60
H.R.701/ S.
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
2576 and S.2123
Coral Reef Conservation Program (Coral Reefs) – Overview
No provisions.
No
States can apply to the Sec. of Commerce for $25 million in grants
No similar provisions in law.
provisions.
annually from the OCCF to conserve and protect coral reefs
(§202(b)). In addition, the Sec. of the Interior will provide $15
million annually from the Coral Reef Resources Restoration Fund
(CRRRF) for financial grants for coral reef conservation on areas
under the jurisdiction of DOI (§602).
Coral Reefs–Funding Source and Amount
No provisions.
No
Permanently appropriates $15 million annually from the OCCF, to
No similar provisions in law.
provisions.
be available until spent. Also, permanently appropriates an
additional $15 million annually from qualified OCS revenues to the
CRRRF for specified species of coral. The Sec. of the Interior will
submit a list of priority projects with the annual budget submission
that will be funded 15 days after Congress adjourns, unless it
approves an alternative list; if that list is less than the authorized
amount, the remainder will be spent on the Administration’s
proposals (§602(a)(b) and (d)(2)). The CRRRF will be
implemented within 180 days of enactment, after consultation with
interested parties (§602(d)(8)).

---

CRS-61
H.R.701/ S.
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
2576 and S.2123
Coral Reefs – Allocation of Appropriations
No provisions.
No
In implementing the CRRRF, the Sec. of the Interior will consult
No similar provisions in law.
provisions.
with the Coral Reefs Task Force (created in a June 11, 1998 E.O.)
and others to set priorities for grants based on site-specific or
comprehensive threats affecting coral ecosystems. Guidelines for
reviewing and ranking proposals are specified (§602(d)(5,6, and
7)). At least 40% of the funds must be awarded for projects in the
Pacific Ocean, at least 40% in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico,
and Caribbean Sea, and the remainder for emerging priorities or
threats (§602(d)(4). Any organization with demonstrated expertise
in marine science or coral reef conservation is eligible (§602(d)(3)).
Grants may not exceed 75% of the project cost; this cap can be
waived if the project cost is less than $25,000. The non federal
share can be in-kind contributions or other non-cash support
(§602(2)).
Urban and Community Forestry Assistance
No provisions
No
Permanently appropriates $50 million annually, to remain available
The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L.
provisions.
until spent (§702).
95-313) provides technical assistance and grants to local
governments and non profit organizations in partnership
with state forestry agencies to improve the health of and
to sustainably manage urban forests.
Forest Legacy Fund
No provisions.
No
Permanently appropriates $50 million annually, to remain available
The Forest Legacy Program, enacted in §7(1) of the
provisions.
until spent (§801).
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-
313) provides funds to acquire forest land, or interest in
it, when it is threatened by conversion to non forest uses.

---

CRS-62
H.R.701/ S.
S. 25
S. 2181
Current Law
2576 and S.2123
Youth Conservation Corps Fund
No provisions.
No
Permanently appropriates $60 million annually from qualified OCS
The Youth Conservation Corps Act creates a program to
provisions.
revenues, to remain available until spent, to implement Titles I and
employ people between the ages of 15 and 19 to assist the
II of the Youth Conservation Corps Act, subject to the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to develop,
requirements of those titles (§901).
preserve, and maintain lands managed by the four major
federal land management agencies.
Forest Service Rural Community Assistance
No provisions.
No
Permanently appropriates $25 million annually from qualified OCS
The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 has five
provisions.
revenues, to remain available until spent, on a new Rural
components to help rural communities strengthen,
Development Program under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance
diversify, and expand their local economies.
Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313). This program will provide technical
assistance to rural communities to sustain rural development.
Also, permanently appropriates $25 million annually, to be
available until spent, for a new Forest Service Rural Community
Assistance Fund, added to §2379 of the National Forest-Dependent
Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act (P.L. 101-624)
(§902).

---