Report for Congress
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)
(H.R. 701) and a Related Initiative
in the 106 Congress
Updated January 17, 2001
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

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 passed the House on May 11, 2000 and was approved by the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on July 25, 2000, but no further action was
taken. This report compares these two bills with current law. The two versions contain some
significant differences. The bulk of the House version is permanently funded, while the Senate
version is considered discretionary spending. Opponents worried that enacting these bills
could increase the rate at which the federal government acquires private lands, increase
pressure to expand development in the OCS, or (in the case of the House bill) remove
significant funding decisions from the annual appropriations process. Supporters
believed that more dependable federal funding in larger amounts for diverse resource
protection purposes was long overdue, and argued 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. Many programs that would have been
funded in these bills were also in the Clinton Administration’s “Lands Legacy
Initiative”, which is reviewed in an appendix. Congress approved a $1.6 billion
version of this initiative in FY2001 Interior and Commerce appropriations (which is
not permanently funded) after it became clear that CARA would not be enacted. This
report will not be updated.

Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701)
and a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress
This report compares H.R. 701, as passed by the House and H.R. 701, as
approved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with current
law. These bills, often referred to as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
(CARA), would have funded various resource acquisition and protection activities.
The two versions contain some significant differences. Both bills (and numerous
related bills) originated, in part, from efforts to: (1) provide higher and more certain
funding for resource protection programs; (2) fund the state grant portion or the
entire LWCF each year; and (3) dedicate a large portion of offshore oil and gas
revenues to resource protection. Support for this legislation spread as: (1) the budget
deficit was replaced with a surplus; (2) protecting natural resources became viewed
as part of efforts to address sprawl; (3) local pressure to secure federal funding for
resource protection expanded; and (4) efforts to increase funding to federal resource
protection programs strengthened.
Both bills addressed numerous topics. The House-passed version provided just
over $3 billion, including interest, to fund 9 program areas, while Senate committee
version provided just under $3 billion to 15 program areas. Examples of activities
that would have been funded under both bills include: new programs for coastal areas
to mitigate impacts associated with offshore energy development and for wildlife
protection and restoration; and an urban program to develop recreation facilities. All
funding would have come from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas revenues,
which now fund the general functions of the federal government.
A key feature of the House version was to bypass the annual appropriations
process for most programs. While strongly supported by the bills’ advocates, this
feature was opposed by those who favored other priorities for federal spending,
wanted to limit overall federal spending, or believed such funding should be sought
through the annual appropriations process. Opposition was also raised by advocates
of private property rights who feared that additional funding would accelerate public
acquisition of private lands, as well as some environmental interests who worried that
support for more funding could increase pressure to expand OCS activities.
The Clinton Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative, which was first proposed
in January 1999, is reviewed in an appendix to this report. The Administration had
submitted this proposal with the FY2000 and FY2001 budgets, and it became an
alternative to CARA for FY2001 after it became apparent the CARA would not be
enacted. The Administration never developed this initiative as free-standing
legislation. It is different from CARA in many fundamental ways; it is not a multi-
year program, it is not tied to OCS revenues, it does not use permanent
appropriations, and the appropriations committees will have to agree on funding levels
for each of these programs every year. (To track related issues, see Issue Brief
IB10015, Managing Growth and Related Issues in the 107th Congress.)

NameArea(s) of ExpertisePhone
Pamela BaldwinLegal Issues 7-8597
Eugene BuckMarine Wildlife Conservation and 7-7262
Restoration Programs
M. Lynne CornTerrestrial Wildlife Conservation,7-7267
Restoration Programs, Payment in
Lieu of Taxes, Refuge Revenue
Sharing Fund
Ross GorteForestry7-7266
David KoitzSocial Security 7-7322
Larry KuminsOCS Oil and Gas Activities 7-7250
Sandy StreeterFederal Budget Process7-8653
David WhitemanUrban Park and Recreation Recovery,7-7786
Historic Preservation Programs
Jeffrey Zinn Land and Water Conservation Fund,7-7257
Coastal Management, Easements
BLMBureau of Land Management, an agency in DOI
CARA FundConservation and Reinvestment Act Fund, created under H.R. 701
CFAACooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2102, et seq.)
CBOCongressional Budget Office
CZMACoastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. et. seq.)
DOIDepartment of the Interior
E.O.Executive Order
ESAEndangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1530, et. seq.)
FACAFederal Advisory Committee Act ( 5 U.S.C. App.)
FPPFarmland Protection Program (16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.)
FWSU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency in DOI
LWCFALand and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et. seq.)
LWCFLand and Water Conservation Fund
NFSNational Forest Service, an agency in USDA
NMFSNational Marine Fisheries Service, an agency in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce
NPSNational Park Service, an agency in DOI
NWRSNational Wildlife Refuge System
OCSOuter Continental Shelf
OCSLAOuter Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1331
et. seq.)
P-RPittman-Robertson Act, more properly titled Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act of Sept. 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669 et. seq.)
PILTPayment in Lieu of Taxes Program (16 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.)
SRASpecies Recovery Agreements, created under H.R. 701/S. 2123
RRSFRefuge Revenue Sharing Fund (16 U.S.C. 715s)
UPARRUrban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (16 U.S.C. 2501 et. seq.)
USDAU.S. Department of Agriculture
WCRPWildlife Conservation and Restoration Program, created under H.R. 701

Introduction ................................................... 1
Coverage of Report..........................................1
Other Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress...................2
Forces Behind these Proposals..................................3
Fully Funding the LWCF..................................3
Backlog of Pending Land Acquisitions and Limits on Spending LWCF
Funds ............................................. 4
Increasing Overall Resource Protection Funding.................4
Funding State Programs For Non-Game Species................4
Increasing Federal Payments to Local Governments..............5
Offshore Energy Development and Coastal Effects...............5
Growing OCS Revenues..................................6
Funding the Proposals............................................7
Where the Funds Would Have Gone.................................8
Major Issues..................................................10
Federal Budget Implications...................................11
Debt Reduction, Social Security, and Medicare................11
Is Funding Permanent or Not?.............................13
Dual Funding for LWCF under H.R. 701 (HP).................15
Property Rights............................................16
OCS Leasing and Moratoria...................................17
Funding for County Payments.................................19
Side by Side Comparison of Provisions in the House-Passed Version and
the Senate Committee-Reported Version of H.R. 701 with Current Law.21
General Provisions..........................................21
Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation (Coastal Assistance) – Overview
.................................................... 23
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) – Overview ............28
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration – Overview .................34
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) – Overview...37
Historic Preservation Fund – Allocation..........................39
Federal and Indian Lands Restoration (Land Restoration) – Overview ...40
Conservation Easements – Overview ............................42
Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery (Species Recovery) – Overview
.................................................... 43
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (RRSF)–
Overview ............................................. 45
Protection of Social Security and Medicare Benefits.................45
Other Programs ...........................................46
Appendix – The Clinton Administration’s
Lands Legacy Initiative......................................49
FY2000 .................................................. 49
FY2001 .................................................. 50

Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)
(H.R. 701) and a Related Initiative in the
106 Congress
The 106th Congress considered numerous omnibus bills to greatly expand federal
financial support for various land and resource protection, acquisition, and restoration
programs. 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 received greater
congressional attention.
The House passed H.R. 701 on May 11, 2000, after 2 days of debate during
which it adopted 7 of the 24 amendments that it considered. H.R. 701 was
cosponsored by 315 members and passed the House by a vote of 315-102. Passage
was supported by a majority of both Republican and Democratic Members. After
completion of action in the House, supporters of the legislation pressed the Senate to
act. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on several
alternative proposals on May 24. It approved a substitute version of H.R. 701 on July
25 by a vote of 13-7, after several days of often contentious debate. Numerous
amendments were proposed, but none that were characterized as more than technical
corrections were adopted. The substitute version generally combined provisions in
H.R. 701 as passed in the House with provisions in a bill that had been introduced by
the ranking minority member, Senator Bingaman, S. 2181. The committee filed its
report, with minority views, on September 14, 2000 (S. Report 106-413). No further
action was taken.
Coverage of Report
This report compares existing law with H.R. 701, as passed by the House(HP)
and H.R. 701, as reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
(SCR). Both versions, also known as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
(CARA), would have created a new fund, the CARA Fund. Both bills would have
created and funded a new coastal energy impact assistance program, amended and
funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), funded the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Program and the Historic Preservation Fund, increased funding
for wildlife conservation, funded land restoration and easement programs, and funded

the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program.1 The SCR version would also have
funded additional programs to protect natural and cultural resources.
Revenue from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas activities in federal
waters would have funded these programs. Funding requirements for both versions
of H.R. 701 were estimated to approach $3 billion, and H.R. 701(HP) would have
accrued additional interest as well. The largest amount would have been spent in2
California ($331 million under the House bill and $327 million under the Senate bill).
Other Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress
Several other closely-related bills are identified in this section, but not discussed
further in this report. The first omnibus bill introduced in the 106th Congress, S. 25
sponsored by Senator Landrieu, would have funded 4 programs using percentages of3
total OCS revenues rather than specified dollar amounts. Subsequently, Senator
Landrieu introduced S. 2123, which was identical to H.R. 701, as reported by the
House Resources Committee. Senator Boxer’s S. 446 was identical to H.R. 798,
sponsored by Representative George Miller. Provisions in these bills drew on many
components of the Clinton Administration “Lands Legacy Initiative,” announced in
January 1999 and discussed in the appendix. However, Representative Miller
cosponsored and voted for H.R. 701 and Senator Boxer introduced a subsequent bill,
S. 2567, which was identical to H.R. 701(HP).4 Another bill that was similar to the
Clinton Administration proposal was S. 2181, sponsored by Senator Bingaman.
Several elements of S. 2181 were incorporated into the SCR version of H.R. 701.
Two other bills more limited in the topics they would address, H.R. 452 and S.
532, also were introduced. H.R. 452, sponsored by Representative Campbell, would
have only amended the LWCF. This bill would have taken the LWCF off-budget, and
exempted this fund from any general budget limitation. Also, it would have required
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 was sponsored by Senator Feinstein. She described S. 532 as a
“moderate alternative” to S. 446, which she supported. It would have amended the
LWCF Act and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). It

1See the list of acronyms, which follows the summary, for fuller citations of the laws
discussed in this report.
2Based on draft cost estimates prepared by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Policy
Analysis, dated September 9, 2000.
3Most of these bills are discussed in greater detail in earlier versions of this CRS report,
RL30444, when it was possible that they would be a vehicle for further legislative action.
Also, more detail on the House-passed version of H.R. 701, including all the amendments
considered and adopted, can be found in the June 12 version.
4Senator Boxer stated at the May 24, 2000 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
hearing that she had introduced S. 2567 because she believed it would be the fastest way to
pass legislation, and was concerned that the legislative calendar was growing short. She also
commented that she did not necessarily endorse all the provisions in H.R. 701/S.2567.

would have permanently appropriated the entire annual authorized amount, $900
million. It also would have allocated 50% of this amount to federal agencies, 40% to
states, and 10% to local governments through UPARR. This bill also would have
amended UPARR in several ways.
Forces Behind these Proposals
Widespread interest in and support of aspects of CARA may have reflected the
confluence of several interrelated factors. Various interests and combinations of
interests 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 and expand the ways that LWCF funds can be spent; (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 address resource
management needs in coastal areas, especially those affected by offshore energy
development; and, (7) to allow states and counties to draw further on OCS revenues,
which grew during the 1990s. Both bills responded to each of these forces, some
times in different ways.
The Clinton Administration expressed support for the general concepts behind
these legislative proposals through its Lands Legacy Initiative. This initiative was first
proposed with the FY2000 budget, and was resubmitted, slightly altered, with the
FY2001 submission. As this initiative is a component of the budget, it must be
reconsidered each year by the appropriate appropriations subcommittees. The FY

2001 proposal called for almost a doubling of funding for the Lands Legacy Initiative,

to $1.4 billion for more than 20 programs. The House and Senate versions of CARA
would have funded many of the programs in the initiative. The initiative is reviewed
in greater detail in the appendix.5
Overall support for CARA was widespread, and came out of a large and diverse
coalition of many interests. Members favoring the legislation frequently pointed out
that more than 4,500 groups, from conservation organizations to governors and other
public entities had expressed support for this legislation. Opponents countered that
support shows the magnitude and diversity of the “pork” this legislation would fund
as almost all of these groups would have directly benefitted if this legislation had been
enacted. While some probably wanted the overall legislation enacted, most interests
would have benefited from one or more titles or programs rather than the entire bill.
Fully Funding the LWCF. A growing number in Congress have been
advocating fully and predictably funding the LWCF.6 Under current law, $900
million is authorized to be appropriated annually through FY2015. Unappropriated

5For more information on this initiative, see CRS Issue Brief IB10015, Conserving Land
Resources: Legislative Proposals in the 106th Congress. 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.
6For 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.

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 $23.7 billion through
FY2000. However, only $11.4 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 funded other
government functions.
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 and Limits on Spending
LWCF Funds. 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 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. While the
size of the backlog may be in question, all agree that it has been growing. Some
would also like to give states and localities greater flexibility to use these funds to
maintain and restore facilities.
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
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 Bureau of Land Management; and (b) the Refuge
Revenue Sharing Fund (RRSF), entirely for the National Wildlife Refuge System.7
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.
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 the affected states. These

7RRSF 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.

funds would be used to 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 that crisis had
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.8 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. Federal revenues derived from OCS energy
activities averaged about $2.5 billion annually in the early 1990s, then increased
rapidly to a record $4.8 billion in FY1997, and have been declining more recently.
Currently, those portions of OCS revenues that are not spent on LWCF or the
Historic Preservation Fund 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$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, as
the rapid changes in retail prices during the past 6 months graphically demonstrate.
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

8One 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

Department not states revenues totaled almost $4.5 billion; earlier it had estimated the
total would be $3.55 billion. 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
FY2010.9 The current run-up in prices may alter this picture drastically. Analysts do
not agree on whether the current increase in wellhead prices could delay that decline
in revenues, once it begins, and how fast or how far revenues will fall in the future.
Further, any shifts in energy policy in the future could alter these estimates.
Total OCS revenues may give an inaccurate impression of the amounts that
would have been available to fund these proposals. Both bills limited 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 would have been 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 would have funded these programs may become a declining portion
of the total revenue generated from all OCS production; no estimates was released on
what portion would have been available to fund CARA, especially in the out years of
the program.
Funding the Proposals
Both bills would have used revenues from offshore oil and gas fields under
federal waters to fund the proposals. Section 3(12) of H.R. 701(HP) and §101 of
H.R. 701(SCR) would have defined 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. These provisions would have
excluded 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 would have
been treated is in §8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).
Section 5 of H.R. 701(HP) and §2 of H.R. 701(SCR) would have established the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund (CARA Fund). Under the House bill, the
CARA Fund would have received a maximum of $2.825 billion annually from
qualifying OCS revenues and previously undispersed funds, to be distributed in
specified amounts among 7 programs. The Senate version would have allocated
$2.99 billion annually from qualified OCS revenues to 15 specified program areas.
Section 5(c) of H.R. 701(HP) and §2(e) of H.R. 701(SCR) would have required that
funding be reduced proportionately for each program if less than the authorized
amount is deposited into the Fund. Section 5(e) of H.R. 701(HP) would have
required that any necessary OCS royalty refunds be paid proportionately from the
Fund; the Senate bill did not address this topic.
Under the House bill, the CARA Fund would have also generated additional
revenue through interest earned, as described in §5(d), so that the total amount

9Personal communication with Mineral Management Service budget staff, February 22, 2000.

available to the fund was actually estimated to be slightly more than $3 billion
annually. Interest would have been earned by 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 have been 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 have gone to10
implement the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
A potential major impediment to these proposals was how they would have been
treated under the budget caps. If Congress had been required to offset these funds
with savings elsewhere, enactment would have been more difficult, as those who
support the programs that would have been reduced might oppose this legislation.
Since most of the current OCS revenues are available to fund any federal government
activity, opposition to these bills from those with concerns about the overall budget
was also anticipated. The Congressional Budget Office informed Resources
Committee Chair Don Young in a letter that it believed 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 were enacted “because
creating new direct spending authority does not constitute a change in budgetary
concepts or definitions.”11 H.R. 701 would have still been 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
Where the Funds Would Have Gone
Funds would have been distributed among the recipient programs based on
amounts and formulas in existing law or as specified in each bill. Table 1, on the next
page, shows how the funds would have been distributed by activity, and table 2, on
the following page, shows the total funding that was forecast to be distributed, by
Both versions of H.R. 701 would have provided about the same total amount of
money. However, the pattern of distribution among programs would have varied
because the program funding levels under the 2 bills were different for most programs,
as shown in table 1. The largest difference was that H.R. 701(HP) would have
provided $1 billion for coastal assistance, while H.R. 701(SCR) would have provided
$805 million for a different mix of coastal and marine programs. The other major
difference is that H.R. 701(SCR) would have funded programs that were not included
in H.R. 701(HP), and some of the programs in both bills would have received more
funding under the House version.

10Interest earned on Pittman-Robertson funds is currently directed to the North American
Wetlands Conservation Program
11Letter to Rep. Don Young from Dan Crippen, Director of CBO, October 14, 1999.

Table 1. Funding by Topic or Program under each Proposal ($ in millions)
Topic or ProgramHouse VersionSenate Version
Land and Water Conservation Fund–Federal$450a$450
Land and Water Conservation Fund–State$450$450
Coastal Impact Assistance$1,000$430
Coastal Stewardship ProgramNot Applicable$250
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration$350$350
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program$125$75
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)$100$135
HPF – Battlefield ProtectionNot Applicable$15
Land Restoration$200$125
Conservation Easements – Farm Land$100$25b
Conservation Easements – Ranch LandNot Applicable$25
Endangered Species Recovery$50$50
PILT & Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund$200 or lesscsuch sums as necessary:
(PILT only in H.R. 701 (SCR)est. to be $325
Cooperative ForestryNot Applicable$25
Fisheries Research and Management GrantsNot Applicable$100
Coral Reef ConservationNot Applicable$25
Urban and Community Forestry AssistanceNot Applicable$50
Forest Legacy ProgramNot Applicable$50
Youth Conservation CorpsNot Applicable$60
Forest Service Rural Community AssistanceNot Applicable$25
a. The House-passed version of H.R. 701might have provided larger amounts for federal and state
LWCF, as explained in the section titled Overall Funding Levels for LWCF, below.
b. The Senate version provided $50 million for farmland and ranchland. In the table, it is assumed
that this amount would have been split equally.
c. CBO estimates that only $ 53 million would have been available in interest for PILT in 2002.
The pattern of distribution among states would also have varied. Under both
bills, the same five states (California, Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, and Florida), all
defined as “producing states,” would have received more than $100 million per year.
California would have received the largest amount, about 11% of the total. H.R.
701(HP) provided a larger percent of the total to the largest recipients, while 10 states
would have received less than $20 million annually. Only 4 states would have
received less than $20 million annually under H.R. 701 (SCR).

Table 2. Estimated Distribution of Funding, by State ($ in millions)
State House a Senate a State House Senate
Version Version Version Version
Alabama 53.3 74.4 Nebraska 17.7 21.5
Alaska 163.3 167.3 Nevada 53.5 45.9
Arizona59.664.4New Hampshire18.327.8
Arkansas21.221.3New Jersey58.148.4
California331.1326.9New Mexico43.056.2
Colorado52.258.9New York 99.673.6
Connecticut22.625.6North Carolina47.645.6
Delaware13.120.4North Dakota16.315.6
Florida 140.7 150.1 Ohio 52.4 50.9
Georgia 42.7 40.5 Oklahoma 18.5 22.0
Hawaii 32.5 39.6 Oregon 53.1 50.5
Idaho 42.4 45.8 Pennsylvania 54.3 52.4
Illinois56.549.2Rhode Island15.221.1
Indiana31.332.1South Carolina28.227.7
Iowa15.516.9South Dakota17.020.5
Kansas 16.1 18.6 Tennessee 26.6 27.1
Kentucky 20.8 22.6 Texas 235.2 194.9
Louisiana 299.8 174.3 Utah 45.4 57.3
Maine 35.6 36.4 Vermont 11.6 16.9
Maryland 37.0 34.2 Virginia 51.8 52.9
Massachusetts 47.6 45.4 Washington 61.4 65.8
Michigan58.451.2West Virginia17.823.0
Minnesota 39.5 38.4 Wisconsin 32.2 31.5
Mississippi 75.1 82.0 Wyoming 33.2 42.4
Missouri 32.5 32.7 Other b 175.3 169.5
Montana52.360.0U.S. Total 3,076.52,990.0
a Estimates prepared by Department of the Interior’s Office of Policy Analysis, labeled “draft” and
dated September 6, 2000.
b Included funding for Program Administration, Territories, Native Americans, and the District of
Columbia. House-passed H.R. 701also included $9.3 million under Title V for the Historic
Preservation Fund and $28.9 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
Major Issues
A number of themes became 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 were addressed in the bills. The views of
major interests also are identified.
Federal Budget Implications
Both bills appear to guarantee the availability (and predictability) of funding
without further appropriations for all the programs funded by the CARA Fund.
However, much of this guarantee is contradicted by restrictions contained in (a)
provisions in both bills designed to protect Social Security and Medicare as well as
assist in debt reduction, (b) provisions in H.R. 701(HP) to augment Congressional
control over the federal portion of LWCF; and (c) §2(f) of H.R. 701(SCR), affecting
not only the federal portion of the LWCF but the entire CARA Fund. 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; however its use is not
widespread. Providing funds without further appropriation 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 is specified in the legislation creating the fund.
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.
In addition, both bills contain provisions which would have amended LWCF,
leaving major portions intact. Both bills also contained sunset provisions, so that
funding would have ceased in FY2016 unless Congress acted to extend the programs.
Debt Reduction, Social Security, and Medicare. Two provisions
addressing these topics are in H.R. 701(HP), and similar provisions are found in
H.R.701(SCR) as well (see discussion below). Section 5(g) of H.R.701(HP)
contained a provision precluding the transfer of funds to the CARA Fund in any fiscal
year unless a number of conditions are met.12 The director of the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) would have been required to certify that enough “on-budget”
surplus had been reserved to cause elimination of the publicly held federal debt by
2013, and that there was 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 would have been required to certify that outlays from their respective trust
funds would not exceed their revenues during the five years following each year of
transfer. Since the most recent trustees’ reports for the two programs (issued in
March 2000) projected that outlays will exceed the revenues in both programs at
some point during the next 20 years, it is possible that this provision would have
precluded the transfer of funds to the CARA Fund during the latter part of the period
in which it would have been in effect.

12This subsection, a floor amendment offered by Representative Shadegg, passed the House
by 216-208 on Roll Call vote 163 on May 10.

However, if the term “revenues” (as used in the bill) referred only to the tax
receipts of both programs (and excludes the interest credited to the trust funds semi-
annually), the trustees’ reports suggested that outlays from the Social Security
Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund would exceed its revenues somewhat earlier, in
or around FY 2007. For the HI Trust Fund, the same was 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, for H.R. 701(HP) at least in principle, Congress would not have decided
annually whether the CARA-supported programs would be funded in competition
with all other discretionary spending. Rather, other discretionary spending would
have first become law in appropriations bills, and the results would have then been
measured against the goals in §5(g) for reducing the debt and protecting Social
Security and Medicare. If the goals would have been met, the CARA programs
would have been funded automatically; however, the portion of CARA allowed to
federal LWCF would have continued to require action in annual appropriations bills.
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 appears that the CARA programs initially would have
been funded as proposed, but would have approached being at risk in roughly a
decade, depending on the meaning of the term “revenues” in the bill.
A new Title VIII of H.R. 701(HP) was added pursuant to a motion to recommit
with instructions by Representative DeFazio and adopted by a recorded vote of 413-3
just before final passage. This title would have provided that no funds can be
expended under the Act if doing so would diminish Social Security or Medicare
benefit obligations. Representative DeFazio characterized his motion as an effort to
strengthen the Shadegg amendment. As passed by the House, there are no explicit
provisions in the bill that would have altered Social Security or Medicare benefits, and
none of the expenditures authorized under the bill would have interacted 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 would
have been unlikely to be affected by this title.
In H.R.701(SCR), §8 required (a) the Director of CBO to report on specific
aspects of progress to eliminate public debt by 2013, and on whether an on-budget
surplus exists for the current fiscal year; (b) the Social Security trustees to report on
the relation of Social Security revenues and outlays for the succeeding 5 years; and
(c) the Medicare trustees to report on the relation of Medicare revenues and outlays
for the succeeding 5 years. Nothing in the section required any action that would
depend on these reports, so the reports would have had no direct effect on CARA
spending. At the same time, §9 of this bill had the same language concerning
diminution of the benefit obligations of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds
that was found in H.R. 701(HP). As noted above, this wording left CARA funding
unaffected. However, §9 also provided that CARA would not have been funded in
years in which “there is not an on-budget surplus.” Section 8 implied that this
determination would have been made by the Director of CBO, but the two sections
were not explicitly linked. A decision by the Budget Committees or Appropriations
Committees could have been sufficient to determine the status of the surplus.
Regardless of who would have made the determination, as noted above for somewhat

similar language, CARA funding could ultimately could have taken a back seat to all
other federal funding if the Senate Committee bill had become law.
Is Funding Permanent or Not? Both bills attempted to provide control of
spending for federal land acquisitions under LWCF via the money transferred from
CARA. However, the attempts to do so had broader consequences. How likely is
it that the specified amount would have actually been available, and how did that
likelihood compare to the current situation? In the House version, the control would
have resulted in CBO scoring three programs (federal LWCF, and the PILT and
RRSF add-ons) as discretionary, and therefore their funding would have faced many
of the same hurdles it does now. All of the remaining programs in the bill would have
been funded without further appropriation. In the Senate version, the control would
have cast the entire bill as discretionary spending, even though the phrase “without
further appropriation” was found throughout the bill. As discretionary spending, they
would have all required action in annual appropriations bills. First the House and then
the Senate bills are discussed below.
The House Bill: Federal LWCF, PILT, and RRSF. Under current
procedures, each appropriations subcommittee is allocated a fixed amount 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
LWCF. While agencies are not necessarily bound by report language that is not
incorporated into the funding law, they may be constrained politically in what parcels
they purchase.
If H.R.701(HP) had become law, 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 have affected whether Congress would have actually
appropriated funds for federal land acquisition, but §205 of H.R. 701(HP) was
particularly important to federal LWCF.
This section required annual approval by Congress for all federal land acquisition
under CARA. Therefore, federal LWCF funding would have been treated as it is
now: it would have been considered discretionary spending (unlike the other programs
funded by CARA),13 and might have been scored under the Interior Subcommittee’s
annual over-all spending ceiling (the §302(b) allocation under the Budget Act.) It
would have continued to be subject to annual appropriations, as it is under current14
law. (Historically, there have been very substantial variations in funding.)

13Personal communication with Deborah Reis, budget analyst, Congressional Budget Office,
May 9, 2000.
14The new §5(g) (the Social Security and Medicare provisions) 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 have limited funding, not only

Therefore, for federal LWCF, the chief budgetary differences between H.R. 701(HP)
and current law and practice would have been the following:
!Annual appropriations under H.R. 701(HP) would have been limited to $450
million from CARA, and could have been less. Potentially, another $450
million could have been added via CARA to current LWCF federal acquisition.
(See the section below titled Dual Funding for Federal LWCF under H.R.
701(HP).) Whether Congress would have actually chosen to spend more than
the CARA portion is debatable.
!Under H.R. 701(HP), both the agency totals and the earmarks would have
been 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 reports, their
freedom to do so would have been eliminated if the earmarks were enacted in
For the provisions on Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Fund (RRSF), CBO similarly scored the CARA match provided in §5(d) as
discretionary spending, since funding would have been contingent on congressional
action, i.e., providing at least a certain minimum amount in annual appropriations bills
(H.Rept. 106-499, Part I, p. 51-53). For FY2002, CBO estimated $53 million in
CARA funds would have been available for these two funds; the amount was scored
as discretionary spending, and was therefore subject to the §302(b) allocations. An
appreciable change in certainty in the funding of these two programs would therefore
have been unlikely.
The Senate Provisions: All Funding Affected. While the funds for
federal land acquisition would have been available “without further appropriation”
under H.R. 701(SCR), §207(b) further provided that “No money shall be obligated
or expended for Federal land acquisition purposes under this section unless approved
in an Act making appropriations.” Therefore, the funding for federal LWCF would
have been considered discretionary, and any spending of these CARA funds would
have counted against the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee’s §302(b) allocations,
as in the House version.
Moreover, the Senate Committee’s §2(f) required that no CARA funds for any
other programs in the bill be transferred unless Congress makes the full $450 million15
available for federal land acquisition in that year. All funding in the bill would have
been considered discretionary, and all of it subject to §302(b) allocations, since
Congress would have had to act to enable the funds to be spent. The practical effect
would have been that each of the programs contained in H.R. 701(SCR) was hardly
different from an ordinary authorization. While supporters of the various programs

for federal LWCF but for the entire bill.
15If OCS revenues would have been insufficient for full funding of the bill, the bill required
all CARA programs to be reduced proportionately. In such a case, Congress would have to
appropriate the full (but reduced) amount for federal LWCF before the rest of the bill could
have been funded, also proportionately reduced.

sought “assured funding” for the various aspects of the bill, it would appear that H.R.

701(SCR) did not achieve that goal for any of the titles.

At the same time, the control Congress would have retained over spending in
these programs is somewhat complex: once $450 million would have been
appropriated for federal land acquisition, all of the remaining programs would have
been fully funded. However, Congress could have picked and chosen among them to
favor funding some programs over others, via restrictions and amendments in
appropriations bills. It is unclear what advantage these changes would have offered
over a simple authorization of each of these programs.
Clearly, supporters of all other aspects of this bill sought to ensure that the
federal LWCF program was fully funded, probably resulting in substantial pressure
on Congress to do so. All funding for the entire bill would have risen or fallen on
whether Congress appropriated the full $450 million. In light of the constraints on
allocations under the Budget Act, it is unclear whether the pressure to do so would
have been sufficient.
Dual Funding for LWCF under H.R. 701 (HP). As approved by the
House, the LWCF provisions might appear to have provided potentially less money
for federal land acquisition: current law allows annual appropriations up to $900
million per year, plus any backlog of authorized but unappropriated funds, but CARA
provided an appropriation of only $450 million for federal land acquisition. Yet, a
closer analysis reveals that more money, in theory, might have been spent. Section
202 of H. R. 701(HP) amended §2(c) of the LWCF to provide $450 million annually
for federal acquisition from the CARA fund. These funds would have been subject
to annual appropriations.16
In addition, §203 of this bill amended §3 of the LWCF to provide up to $900
million, under existing law17, subject to annual appropriations. It continued with a
reference to amounts transferred from CARA. In its analysis (H.Rept. 106-499, Part
I, p. 50-51), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored these amounts as two
separate items. In other words, it scored the $900 million from LWCF and $900
million from CARA for a total of $1.8 billion(both ½ federal and ½ state). Of the
total, $450 million (for states) would have been available without further
appropriation, while the remaining $1.35 billion was scored as discretionary spending,
potentially $900 million of it available for federal land acquisition, and $450 million
for state LWCF programs.18 If past appropriations for federal land acquisition is any
guide, it is highly doubtful that Interior Appropriations Subcommittees would have
chosen to allocate so large a fraction of their §302(b) allocations to federal land

16For a funding history of the LWCF, see CRS Report 97-792, Land and Water Conservation
Fund: Current Status and Issues.
17Current 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.
18Additional discretionary spending would have been provided for payments from interest on
CARA funds for PILT and for RRSF. See Funding for County Payments, below.

This bill also added new controls limiting how any federal funds (whether
through CARA or the LWCF as amended by CARA) could have been spent and
increased the role of Congress in making these decisions. These controls are
discussed in the section titled Property Rights, below, and in the discussion on
permanency of appropriations above.
H.R.701(SCR) had somewhat different language in its §202(b). It did not
appropriate an additional $900 million, and instead made the $900 million in the fund
(from CARA, plus 2 other relatively minor sources) available for expenditure. Thus
$900 million would have been available, but subject to §2(f). (See discussion, above.)
Of this, $450 million would have been available for federal land acquisition.
Much has been made of the “backlog” of over $12 billion in authorized but
unappropriated funds for LWCF. Neither bill stated whether funds to address this
backlog could or could not be appropriated in future Interior appropriations bills.
Property Rights
Advocates of private property owners’ rights raised concerns that the availability
of additional funds would have increased pressure to acquire more federal land, and
that further acquisition would have been likely to center on areas where federal
ownership is already concentrated. Section 10 of H.R. 701(HP) and §6 of H.R.
701(SCR) both state 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 bills used somewhat different language to make
these statements. The House Resources Committee report stated that regulation of19
private property must be “specifically authorized” by Congress.
H.R. 701(HP) contained several provisions in Title II that may have responded
to concerns about federal land acquisition and property rights. One change, made as
a technical correction prior to House floor consideration and mentioned above, would
have retained the requirement that the federal portion of the LWCF be subject to
annual appropriations. The Senate version also required an annual appropriation for
the federal portion of LWCF for specified acquisitions, but the language in §2(f) could
have placed considerable pressure on Congress to complete this task quickly, as no
money would have been released to the other CARA Fund programs until full funding
was provided. Current law and other changes in the various bills include:
!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(HP) and §206 of H.R. 701(SCR), the Secretaries of Agriculture and

19 It is not likely that exemption from regulation under the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air
Act, for example, was intended, but just how broadly the language would have been
interpreted is unclear.

Interior would have been required to submit a joint priority list, and Congress
could have changed this list (in the appropriations bill).
!Section 205 of H.R. 701(HP) and §207 of H.R. 701(SCR) required 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.
!Section 205 of H.R. 701(HP) and §207 of H.R. 401(SCR), using different
legislative language, directed 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
alternatives to acquisitions. The House version established acquisition
priorities based on several specified considerations, while the Senate version
relied on “best professional judgement.”
!Section 205 of H.R. 701(HP) required 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, would have provided 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. H.R. 701(SCR) did not have a similar
H.R. 701(HP) contained numerous other provisions that laid out in considerable
detail the procedures – environmental analyses, public participation, specified
notifications, and other processes – that federal agencies would have followed when
they were using CARA funds to acquire land. Nonetheless, these provisions did not
assuage property rights advocates, who continued to voice their concerns.
In sum, H.R. 701(HP) offered a package of protections to property owners that
exceed those available in current law, and the House version was somewhat stronger
than the Senate version. These protections might have been offset by authorizing
more funds for federal acquisitions under the LWCF, but funding levels would still
have been controlled through the appropriations process in both bills. Nonetheless,
H.R. 701(HP) and H.R. 701(SCR) were opposed by several groups concerned over
possible increases in federal land acquisition and property rights issues.
OCS Leasing and Moratoria
Some environmental interests feared 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:

!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.20 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 of major steps leading up to each anticipated lease and
a description of areas proposed for leasing; the current plan runs through 2002.
The process of developing the 5 year plan, while not an actual ban, is used to
decide where leasing will occur.
H.R. 701(HP) addressed 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; the Senate
version was nearly the same, but the deadlines are one year later, in 2000.
A central concern was that these bills might undermine support for offshore
moratoria by creating a constituency that desired or became accustomed to receiving
OCS moneys. Were the OCS revenue stream to decline to the point that the
authorized activities could not have been fully funded, those accustomed to receiving
funding might have sought replenishment by supporting leasing of tracts that had been
off-limits to development. Supporters of the underfunded programs and projects21
could come together as new pro-leasing constituencies.
Some held that the three approaches to moratoria already provided ample
protection against leasing environmentally sensitive tracts. It was 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 countered that the
moratoria, while occurring in three places, would be only temporary, having no

20Preleasing involves all the planning activities and analysis that are conducted prior to
offering tracts for lease. These activities can take several years and are such a large
commitment of resources that some believe that it would be difficult, as a practical matter,
to halt the lease process by the time that the sale is scheduled, 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 be consistent with a state’s program.
21Analogous situations have occurred in rural communities that are dependent on mining or
timber activities.

permanent basis in law, and a new Administration or congressional makeup could lead
to change.
Funding for County Payments
Section 5(d) of H.R. 701(HP) provided that PILT matching funds from CARA
would be available if the annual appropriation for PILT under the regular
appropriations bill exceeded $100 million.22 Thus, if Congress appropriated $99
million for PILT, no CARA funds would have been spent; if it appropriated $135
million for PILT, then an additional $135 million would have been spent from CARA
for PILT matching. For RRSF, CARA matching funds would be available only if
funds from other sources exceeded $15 million.23 If the total from the other sources
were $15 million, CARA would have provided an additional $15 million in matching
money. However, the CARA add-on could not have brought 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 have provided more funding than authorized under either RRSF or PILT for
that year, the excess funds would have been available, first for the other program
(RRSF or PILT), and second for other CARA programs. The entire $200 million
available under §5(d) was 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 remained at current levels.24 This insufficiency would have been exacerbated
because PILT requires annual adjustments in its formula to compensate for inflation.
Table 3 shows the result that would have occurred in FY1999 (the most recent fiscal
year for which full data are available for both programs) had §5(d) of H.R. 701(HP)
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.
Because of the funding mechanism found in the House bill, both the amount
appropriated in the annual appropriations bill, plus the CARA add-on would have
been counted as discretionary spending under the Budget Act, and both would
therefore have been scored under the §302(b) allocations for the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittees. Thus, as a practical matter, it is unclear whether
CARA would have resulted in any additional spending for PILT or RRSF, as the
program was proposed in H.R. 701(HP).
H.R. 701(SCR), in §2(b)(15) and §2(c) and (d), would have appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to fund the PILT program to the full authorized amount.
It contained no funds for RRSF. (See Table 3 for the effects if H.R. 701(SCR) had
been law in FY1999.) It should be noted that RRSF is under the jurisdiction of a

22The 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).
23Total 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).
24CBO (H.Rept. 106-499, Part I, p. 50) estimates that about $53 million is the amount that
would be available in FY2002 for discretionary spending for these two programs combined.

different Senate committee, and the omission may well reflect a desire to avoid a
jurisdictional dispute, rather than an opposition to full funding of the much smaller
RRSF. If so, the RRSF provisions of the House might have prevailed if the bill had
reached conference.
This funding would have been considered discretionary, due to §2(f) of the
Senate bill; therefore the actual appropriation would have been subject to many of the
same constraints it now is.
Table 3. Amounts that would have been added under both versions of H.R. 701
to the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund (RRSF) and Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT). ($ in thousands)
Funding LevelRRSFPILT
FY1999 Appropriation16,664125,000
FY1999 Authorization28,000301,182
Amount that would have been added11,336a130,328b
by H.R. 701 (HP)c
Resulting unfunded authorization045,854
under H.R. 701 (HP)
Amount that would have been added0301,182d
by H.R. 701 (SCR)
Resulting unfunded authorization11,3360
under H.R. 701 (SCR)
a. In this version, CARA could have matched the $16,664,000, but only $11,336,000 was
needed to bring RRSF to full funding of the amount authorized in the formula. The
additional $5,328,000 was therefore made available to the PILT portion of the CARA
Fund match.
b. CARA provide 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 would have been 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.
c. Since the funds would be discretionary, both for the annual appropriation and the CARA
add-on, availability of the entire amount would have depended on action by Congress
each year.
d. In this version, the entire authorized level for PILT would have been funded by CARA, but
these funds would have been subject to appropriation, per §2(f).

Side by Side Comparison of Provisions in the House-Passed Version and
the Senate Committee-Reported Version of H.R. 701 with Current Law
H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Creates the CARA fund of just under $3No similar provisions in law.
billion, and allocates that amount to 15 listed
programs. If total deposits are insufficient, the
amount transferred to each program is reduced
proportionately. Funds for all other programs
iki/CRS-RL30444will be made available only after funds have
g/wbeen appropriated for federal land acquisition
s.orunder the LWCF. State and local governments
leakmay only use these funds to acquire land from
willing sellers, “to the extent practicable”.
://wikiCARA does not affect any water rights (§2).
No general limits on administrative expenses. The analogous current laws have varying
Limits set for some programs; maximumprovisions addressing administrative
allowable rates vary from program to program.expenses.
Similar, except also includes the Sec. ofNo similar provisions in law.

Commerce (§3).

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Similar, except: includes Sec. of Commerce; noNo similar provisions in law.
date is specified for state and local
submissions; and all submissions are to discuss
all acquisitions and “the circumstances
surrounding each acquisition” (§4).
Similar, but gives the Sec. who makes the grantNo similar provisions in law. However, see
to state and local government the authority toWildlife Conservation and Restoration ,
determine whether their commitment isbelow, on diversion of funds.
sufficient (§5). (Note: The bill does not include
iki/CRS-RL30444any criteria for making that judgement.)
Private property may not be taken withoutNo similar provisions in any of the
just compensation. This legislation doesspecific laws amended by CARA, though
not create any new authority for federalsuch property rights are protected under
agencies to apply regulations on privatethe constitution and other more general
lands (§6).laws.

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Similar, except the Congressional BudgetNo similar provisions in law. Social security
Office report must be submitted to Congress byand medicare are mandatory spending.
Feb. 1 each year (§8).
Similar (§7).No similar provisions in law.
s.orThe Fund receives deposits through FY2015,The LWCF terminates Sept. 30, 2015 (16
leakand allocates monies to the specified programsU.S.C. 4601-5).
through FY2016 (§2 (a) and (b)).
Subject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARANo similar provisions in law

Fund $430 million annually to “producing
coastal states” for coastal impact assistance,
$250 million for coastal stewardship, and $100
million for cooperative fisheries programs.
Specifies planning requirements and limits on
how funds may be spent. The Sec. of the
Interior will administer the coastal impact
portion, and the Sec. of Commerce will
administer the remainder.

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
“coastal state”,Terms that are defined and added to §2 of theMany of the definitions are taken from
”,Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA),current law, including OCSLA and CZMA.
, “leased tract”, “outer continental shelf”,or to the new sections 31 and 32 that this bill
, and “producing state” (§3).would add to the OCSLA include “coastal
population, “coastal political subdivision”,
“coastline”,”coastal state”, “leased tract”,
“producing coastal state”, and “qualified
Outer Continental Shelf revenues.” All
definitions common to both bills are identical or
nearly identical.
iki/CRS-RL30444Subject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARANo similar provisions in law

g/wFund $430 million annually to producing
s.orcoastal states for coastal impact assistance,
leak$250 million for coastal stewardship, and $100
million for cooperative fisheries programs. The
://wikifisheries program includes at least $25 million
httpfor implementing cooperative fisheries
enforcement agreements and the remainder for
cooperative research and management
activities. 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 (§102
and §103).

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Same, except both dates are Jan. 1, 2000See discussion of legislative moratoria,
(§101). administrative directives, and Interior
Department 5 year Leasing Plan in the
section of this report titled Funding the
Proposals, above.
All producing states will divide $245 millionNo similar provisions in law.

equally for coastal impact assistance, and split
the remaining $185 million based on a ratio of
revenues generated off its coast to all eligible
revenues. This ratio will be recalculated every
iki/CRS-RL304445 years. Coastal stewardship funds will be
g/wallocated based : 50% equally; 25% on the
s.orrelative length of shoreline; and 25% on the
leakrelative coastal population. Cooperative
fisheries funds will be awarded in response to
://wikiapplications, with at least 25% of the total for
httpcooperative enforcement agreements, and up to
5% reserved for federal technical and
administrative expenses (§102 and §103).

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Each producing state will allocate 20% of itsNo similar provisions in law
coastal impact assistance among political
subdivisions, based: 25% on coastal
population; 25% on coast line miles; and 50%
on relative distance from leased tracts.
Population and distance from tracts treated
differently in Louisiana.
For coastal impact assistance, eligible statesNo similar provisions in law

are required to submit a plan to the Sec. of the
Interior which lists how states and political
iki/CRS-RL30444subdivisions will use the funds. Bill specifies 6
g/wuses. Plan amendments must be approved or
s.orrejected within 90 days. Funds not distributed
leakbecause of failure to approve a plan may be
redistributed among other eligible states, or
://wikiheld in escrow for the state if it is attempting to
httpsubmit an approvable plan (§102). (Note: this
provision also applies to coastal stewardship
Coastal stewardship requires a state plan to be
submitted by July 1, 2001, and to be updated
every 5 years. Plan must be approved before
funds can be dispersed. Bill specifies the
plan’s contents and the 10 permitted uses
Cooperative fisheries grants may be allocated
to states to implement projects in specified
topics, with priority given to projects that
address 7 topics (§103).

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Coastal impact assistance funds may be usedNo similar provisions in law.

for: (a) all purposes under coastal stewardship;
(b) wetland protection and improvement
projects; (c) mitigating damage to natural
resources; (d) administrative costs; (e)
implementing certain federally approved
conservation plans; and (f) funding onshore
infrastructure and public service projects that
mitigate OCS impacts (limited to 23% of
available funds under program) (§102).
Coastal stewardship funds may be used for: (a)
activities consistent with specified coastal and
iki/CRS-RL30444marine programs; (b) protecting and improvingcoastal and marine habitats; (c) improving
g/wwater quality from coastal non point sources;
s.or(d) multiple jurisdictional watershed protection;
leak(e) research and monitoring coastal and marine
://wikienvironments; (f) addressing environmentalimpacts of coastal population fluctuations; (g)
httpcoastal erosion; (h) invasive species; (i)
assisting local communities to protect coastal
and marine environments; and j) promoting
research and education about marine resources
Cooperative fisheries research and management
programs give priority to projects that: (a)
establish observer programs; (b) foster
cooperative public-private research; (c) reduce
harvesting capacity; (d) identify ecosystem
impacts of fishing; (e) develop sustainable
aquaculture; and (f) improve coastal fisheries

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Under the coastal impact assistance and coastalNo similar provisions in law.
stewardship programs, if funds are used for
inconsistent purposes, states must either repay
them or obligate funds for eligible uses before
additional funds are provided (§102 and §103).
(Note: The cooperative fisheries programs
include no monitoring requirements.)
Similar, but the CARA program fundingAllocates appropriated funds, up to $900
iki/CRS-RL30444replaces the LWCF funding, rather than beingin addition to it.million annually, to federal agencies toacquire lands for LWCF purposes and to
g/wstates to acquire and develop lands for
s.orLWCF purposes. Backlog (over $12 billion)
leakof authorized funding may be available for
://wiki appropriation.
Subject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARA§2(c)(1) of the LWCFA of 1965 authorizes
Fund $900 million annually. The$900 million per year from the fund through
unappropriated balance currently in the LWCFFY2015. §2(c)(2) authorizes using OCS
is available, if appropriated (§202(b)). revenues to fully fund the LWCF, but §3
requires that funds must be appropriated

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Allocates same amount (§202(c)). Identical,§5 allocates not less than 40% of the
except: developing the acquisition list relies onappropriated funds for federal programs. §7,
best professional judgement; the acquisition listwhich allows acquisition within the exterior
is to be submitted to the authorizing committeesboundaries of the National Park System,
and, in the Senate, the Committee on Energyinholdings within the boundaries of national
and Natural Resources will submit a priorityforests, and for National Wildlife Refuge
list to the appropriations committee by May 1System units, endangered species, and other
each year; and funds may be used for pre-wildlife areas, is not affected by these bills.
acquisition under certain circumstances (§207). §7(b) limits acquisition to authorized
(Note: This bill does not address surplus landspurchases, except under limited
or include the Montana provisions.) circumstances.
No provisions.§7(a)(1) requires that not more than 15% of
the land acquired for the National Forestth
System annually be west of the 100
meridian, unless specifically authorized.

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Similar provisions, except the written noticeNo limitations in current law; however, each
requirements are replaced by a consultationagency has regulations governing acquisitions
requirement.using LWCF monies. Condemnation
authority is usually available to the agencies,
but they report that they rarely use it.

leakFederal LWCF: Permanent or Not?)

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Similar, except: apportions 60% equally and§5 allocates not less than 40% of the

40% based on total population (§203(b)); eachappropriated funds for federal programs.

state will make at least 25% of its annual grant§6(a), (b), and (c) apportion funds among the
amount available to local governments unless itstates for outdoor recreation planning,
documents a compelling justification not toacquisition, and development. No state may
each year (§203(b)); and purposes for whichreceive more than 10% of the annual
states can spend these funds are expanded toappropriation for state programs.
include facility rehabilitation (§203)(a).
Same, except Commonwealth of the NorthernThe District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Mariana Islands is included with Puerto RicoVirgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
and the other entities (§203(b)the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, together, are treated as 1 state
(§6(b)(5)). A portion of the funds are
allocated equally among states, and the
remainder based on relative efficiency
(§6(b)(1,2, and 3)).

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Almost identical (§203(b)).No similar provisions in law.
Not more than 4% of the total may be deductedNo similar provisions in law.

by the Sec. for administrative expenses

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Almost identical, except plan is required before§6(d) requires states to develop and maintain
any funds are awarded (§204 and §205).comprehensive outdoor recreation plans to be
eligible to receive grants. Plans must have
“ample” public participation and address
wetlands. The Secretary of the Interior
decides whether a state plan is adequate.
§6(f) lists the requirements for federal
approval of state projects. Federal funding is
available to develop and maintain the plan.
§6(d) and §6(e) describe
eligible acquisition and development projects.
Similar, except wetlands language is not§6(f)(3) states properties on which LWCF
://wikiincluded (§209).funds have been spent may be converted to
httpnon-recreation uses if the Sec. agrees the
change is in accord with the state plan and
that the substituted property is of at least
equal fair market value and equivalent
usefulness and location. Wetlands are
usually considered suitable replacement

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Water rights are not affected by any provisionNo similar provisions in law.
in this legislation (§2(h)). (Note: Applies to all
programs funded by CARA; no water rights
language in the LWCF title.)
Title III is similar; subject to the fundingP -R provides formula grants to states and
requirement in §2(f).territories from permanently appropriated
taxes on hunting equipment. Program benefits
restricted to game species.
Identical (§301(b)).Game species only. (This program would
://wiki crayfish, snails, butterflies, etc.) could benefit. (Note:continue unaltered.)
Similar, except limit is FY2016 (§2(b)(5));Taxes on certain hunting equipment, guns,
appropriates funds subject to §2(f)). and archery equipment are permanently
appropriated. (This program would continue

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Similar, except federally-recognized IndianStates. For the major portion of the P-R
tribes are also eligible (§303). 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.
Similar; federal limit is 75% (§303).Federal share of plans and projects not to
iki/CRS-RL30444exceed 75%. (This program would continue
g/w unaltered.)
://wikiPuerto Rico and the District: up to 0.5% each;Complex formula based on population, state
httpGuam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas,proportion of total land area of U.S., and
and Virgin Islands, up to 0.25% each; federallystate proportion of national hunting licenses;
recognized tribes, up to 2.25% (1/3 based onformula specifies upper and lower limits for
land area and 2/3 based on population of tribe;state and territorial shares.

5% maximum for any tribe). The remainder is
divided among the states (1/3 in proportion to
land area and 2/3 in proportion to human
population). No state may receive more than
5%, nor less than 1% of the available amount

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
CARA funds must supplement rather thanLicense fees paid by hunters in that state may
replace funds from sport fish and wildlifebe used only for administration of that state’s
restoration programs. (Note: The bill does notfish and game department.
identify any requirements for non-diversion of
funds for existing state programs.
Consequences of non-compliance not
specified.) (§302(2)).
Very similar. Includes 10% limit on wildlife-States may apply to FWS for funding for
associated recreation and 10% limit on lawindividual projects or develop a
enforcement (§303). Also, plan must containcomprehensive plan for multiple projects.
iki/CRS-RL30444provision for a Wildlife Conservation Strategy(This program would continue unaltered.)
g/w(WCS), to be developed within 5 yr of first
s.orapportionment; Secretary approves WCS if it
leakmeets 7 specified standards concerning use of
best available data, integrates data on declining
://wikispecies; identifies habitat types, threats to
httpspecies, 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. (Note: Consequences of failure to
develop WCS are unclear.)
Funding limit is 10% (§303).P-R does not permit funding for state law
enforcement programs.

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Makes wildlife conservation education eligibleNo similar provisions in law.
for funding (§303).
No similar provisions.Advisory groups under these laws are
currently subject to FACA.
s.orSimilar, except appropriation subject to §2(f).Similar, except funds are not permanently
leak appropriated.
Expanded program purposes are the sameThe Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
(§402). Development grant language is similarAct of 1978 defines terms, including
(§403). Amended eligible areas language is“rehabilitation grants,” “innovation grants,”
almost identical (§404).“at-risk youth recreation grants,” and
“recovery action program grants.”in §1004.
§1005 defines established areas and
establishes project priority criteria.

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Subject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARA§1013 authorized appropriations through
Fund $75 million annually. Same language,FY1983, but the program received funding
except limits federal administrative portion tothrough FY1995.
4% of total, and limits administrative expenses
of grant recipients to 25% of total (§401).
Almost identical (§408).§1010 requires Secretarial approval before
permitting conversion of property to non-
recreational uses where UPARR funds were
iki/CRS-RL30444 used.
References to rehabilitation and innovation in§1006 provides grants for rehabilitation and
://wiki§1006 are deleted (§405).innovation, and advanced payments.
Identical (§408 and §409).§1007(a) requires local governments to
articulate their commitment to improving and
maintaining their park and recreation
systems. §1008 provides additional matching
funds as an incentive for state participation.

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Repeals §1014 and §1015 (§409).§1014 prohibits using these funds to acquire
property. §1015 contains sunset and
reporting provisions.
Subject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARA§108 of the National Historic Preservation
Fund $150 million annually: $75 million for Act provides funding through 1997, and does
state, local, and tribal historic preservationnot specify a priority for any of the funding
grant programs; $15 million for the battlefieldactivities. American Battlefield Protection
protection program; and $60 million for federalProgram authorized in §604 of P.L. 104-333.
preservation efforts. At least 50% of the
preservation amount will be used for preserving
endangered or historic properties and
iki/CRS-RL30444archeological sites, giving priority to threatenedsites (§501).
Each budget request is to include a list of§114 lists the purposes for which states can
://wikiproposals that will be funded 15 days afterspend these funds.

httpCongress 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 for the $75
million in grants and $60 million for federal
activities, with priority given for the
preservation of endangered historic properties
or archeological sites (§501).

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Priority financial assistance for Civil War§604 of P.L. 104-333 enacted the American
battlefield sites will be given to sites identifiedBattlefield Protection Program to provide
as Priority 1 in the Civil War Sites Advisoryfederal assistance at historic battlefields on
Commission Report. New funding authority, atAmerican soil. Funding is authorized at $3
$15 million a year, subject to §2(f), is added,million annually for 10 years. Unobligated
and the authorized level of $3 million annuallyfunds are returned to the U.S. Treasury.
and the sunset provision of Nov. 12, 2006 are
deleted (§502).
Provides appropriated funds to National ParkA variety of existing programs may overlap
iki/CRS-RL30444System units that are threatened by activitieswithin or outside the park boundaries, or needthese purposes, but are not permanentlyappropriated.
g/wrestoration or stabilization, and to Indian tribes
s.orto restore degraded lands.
httpSubject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARANo similar provisions in law.

Fund $100 million annually to the NPS and
$25 million annually to Indian tribes (§601(a)
and §602(a)).

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
NPS funds are to be used to stabilize or restoreNo similar provisions in law. (Any current
resources in National Park System units. Eachfunding for these purposes is appropriated
budget submission is to include a list ofannually.)
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 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)).
s.orPriority projects are identified in the park unit’sNo similar provisions in law.
leakgeneral management plan, are authorized
environmental restoration projects, or are
://wikiidentified as being needed to prevent immediate
httpdamage to park resources (§601(c).
Similar (§602b).No similar provisions in law.
No provisions.No similar provisions in law.

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Provides appropriated funds to purchaseWhile easements may be purchased under
easements on farmland and ranch land (§802many statutes, only the Migratory Bird
and §803).Treaty Act has a permanent appropriation.
The FPP provides grants to state and local
governments that are implementing programs
to purchase easements on farmland (§388 of
P.L. 104-127).
Identical, except: limited to the FPP; and,The FPP authorizes $35 million to purchase
subject to §2(f), appropriates $50 millioneasements on between 170,000 acres and
iki/CRS-RL30444annually, and these funds remain available untilspent (§802 and §803). 340,000 acres (§388(a) and (c)). The ForestLegacy and Urban and Community Forestry
g/wAssistance Programs are permanently
s.orauthorized with no appropriations ceilings.
httpIdentical, except that program is redefined toThe FPP allows funds to be used by state or
include ranch land (§701). (Note: Ranch landlocal governments to purchase partial or full
. Eligible participantsis not defined.)easements on land that is subject to pending
offers from a state or local government.

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
No provisions.No similar provisions in law.
No provisions.No similar provisions in law.
iki/CRS-RL30444endangered species”, “threatenedNo provisions.These terms are defined in various places in
g/w(identically to current law), “Secretary” (of thecurrent law, such as within the ESA.
s.or, “small
leak and “species recovery agreement” (SRA)
No provisions.No similar provisions in law.

H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
No provisions.No similar provisions in law.
iki/CRS-RL30444No provisions.No similar provisions in law.


H.R. 701 (House Passed)H.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Appropriates, subject to §2(f) “such moneys as31 U.S.C. Ch. 69 (PILT) and 16 U.S.C. 715s
are necessary” for full payment of PILT. (RRSF) compensate local governments for
(RRSF not included.) (Title X.)presence of certain non-taxable federal lands.
Both require annual appropriations (from
general fund) for full payment of formulas.
Directly from OCS revenues specified in 43PILT: annual appropriations from U.S.
U.S.C. 1331(u), as amended by Title IITreasury. RRSF: permanent appropriation
(§1001).of certain refuge revenues, plus annual
s.orFull amount authorized under formula in PILTFull amounts authorized under formulas in
leaklaw (which varies from year to year) (§1001).PILT and RRSF laws (which vary from year
to year).
Similar provisions (§8 and §9). §9 limitsNo similar provisions in law.

CARA funding if there is not an on-budget
surplus. See discussion above titled Debt
Reduction, Social Security, and Medicare.
Debt Reduction, Social

H.R.701 (HouseH.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Other Programs
Coral Reef Conservation Program (Coral Reefs) – Overview
No provisions.Sec. of Commerce and Sec. of the Interior will each administer $12.5No similar provisions in law.
million to fund activities to conserve and protect coral reefs. Applies to
all coral reef areas in U.S., including those in political entities in free
Coral Reefs–Funding Source and Amount
No provisions.Subject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARA Fund $25 millionNo similar provisions in law.
annually, to be available until spent. The Sec. of the Interior and Sec.
of Commerce will submit a list of priority projects with the annual
budget submission that will be funded 15 days after Congress adjourns,
iki/CRS-RL30444unless it approves an alternative list; if that list is less than the
g/wauthorized amount, the remainder will be spent on the Administration’s
s.orproposals (§104(f)). Funds may not be used to acquire full or partial
leakinterest in lands (§104 (d)).
://wikiCoral Reefs – Allocation of Appropriations
httpNo provisions.Funds may be used to: (a) enhance or improve coral reef management;No similar provisions in law.
(b) monitor and survey; (c) develop coral reef management strategies;
(d) conduct education programs; and (e) enforce laws. Priority is to be
given to the most critical environmental need. (§104(d)). Grant
recipients may include resource management entities in states,
territories or free association entities, or educational or non-
governmental organizations with demonstrated expertise in marine
science or coral (§104(d)(6)). Groups to be consulted in implementing
this provision are listed (§104(e)).
Urban and Community Forestry Assistance

H.R.701 (HouseH.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
§9 of the CFAASubject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARA Fund $50 million§9 of the CFAA provides financial, technical, and
listed as 1 of the 3annually to fund §9 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978other assistance and grants to local governments and
programs to be(CFAA) (§2(b)(7). non profit organizations in partnership with state
funded under theforestry agencies to improve the health of urban
Farmlandforests and to sustainably manage them.

Protection subtitle
(§5(b)(7)) and

H.R.701 (HouseH.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Forest Legacy Fund
Listed as 1 of theSubject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARA Fund $50 million§7 of the CFAA provides funds to acquire forest
3 programs to beannually, to remain available until spent. (Note: The bill includes noland, or interest in it, when it is threatened by
funded under theother language beyond authorizing the funding.)conversion to non-forest uses.
Protection subtitle
(§5(b)(7)) and
Youth Conservation Corps Fund
No provisions.Subject to §2(f), appropriates $60 million annually from the CARAThe Youth Conservation Corps Act (P.L. 91-378)
Fund, to be equally divided between the Chief of the Forest Service andcreates a program to employ people between the
the Sec. of the Interior and to remain available until spent, to implementages of 15 and 19 to assist the Departments of the
iki/CRS-RL30444Titles I and II of the Youth Conservation Corps Act, subject to theInterior and Agriculture to develop, preserve, and
g/wrequirements of those titles (§2(b)(14)).maintain lands managed by the four major federal
s.orland management agencies.
leakOther Forestry Assistance Programs
://wikiNo provisions.Subject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARA Fund $25 millionThe CFAA has 5 components to help rural
httpannually to remain available until spent, for a new rural developmentcommunities strengthen, diversify, and expand their
program, added as §21 to the CFAA. This program will providelocal economies; this language would add a new
technical assistance to rural communities to sustain rural developmentprogram..
(§2(b)(21) and §702).The Rural Community Assistance Fund provides
Subject to §2(f), appropriates from the CARA Fund $25 millioneducation and technical assistance to revitalize
annually to implement the Rural Community Assistance Fund, enactedforest-dependent communities by creating jobs,
as §2379 of the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reformraising income levels, and increasing public
Act (§2(b)(13)). (Note: The bill includes no other language beyondrevenues.
authorizing the funding.)
Non-Federal Lands of Regional or National Interest
No provisions.The Sec. of the Interior is to make grants for up to 50% of the totalNo similar provisions in law.

cost to states to conserve non-federal lands of clear regional or national
interest because of natural, cultural, historical, or recreational values.
Six priorities are specified for awarding grants. Projects where the
grant would exceed $1 million must be authorized by Congress (§703).
(Note: Appropriations of such funds as may be necessary are
authorized, and these funds would not come from the CARA Fund.)

H.R.701 (HouseH.R. 701 (Senate Committee Reported)Current Law
Mapping Conservation Easements
No provisions.The Sec. of the Interior will map all conservation easements to protectNo similar provisions in law.

wetlands acquired by the Fish and Wildlife Service before 1977 within
4 years of enactment (§704). (Note: No funds are authorized to
implement this provision.)

Appendix – The Clinton Administration’s
Lands Legacy Initiative
The Clinton Administration proposed higher funding for various natural resource
protection programs through its “Lands Legacy Initiative,” first announced in January 1999.
It then included these proposals in its FY2000 and FY2001 budget submissions. From the
first year to the second, the programs included in this initiative changed somewhat and the
total amount requested increased. Some of these proposals would have required authorization
as well as appropriations, but no draft legislative language accompanied the proposals either
year. In FY2000, the initiative was not directly linked to the CARA proposals, but in
FY2001, it replaced CARA after it became clear that CARA legislation would not be enacted.
The Clinton Administration sought increases for more than 20 line items in the
budgets of three Departments. The funding would have provided more than $1
billion, divided among the Department of the Interior (DOI)($579 million), the
Department of Agriculture (USDA)($268 million), and the Department of
Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA )($183
million). This would have been a total increase of $540 million from FY1999 funding
for these programs.
Congress rejected many of these proposals and partially funded most others. In
total, it provided $727 million for these programs, an increase of $268 million from
FY1999. The House and Senate Interior Appropriations Committees both opposed
the initiative. The House listed several “troubling” aspects of the proposal in the
committee report (drafted but not filed), noting that most of the funds would not go
to federal agencies, that a large federal maintenance backlog would not be addressed,
and that some funds would be spent on purposes that are not related to the LWCF
activities of the federal agencies. The Senate Appropriations Committee commented
in its report (S. Rept. 106-99) that funding the proposals would change the purposes
of the LWCF in many ways. The Committee stated that a minority of the LWCF
funding would be spent for purposes currently funded through it and called for
authorizing these changes before funds were appropriated. The report also stated that
the Committee supported many existing programs that the Administration proposed
increased funding for, but at lower funding levels.
While the normal appropriations process did not result in substantial funding for
the Clinton Administration proposals, negotiations on the Consolidated
Appropriations for FY2000 (H.R. 3194), which combined five appropriations bills that
were not enacted individually, resulted in providing an additional $197.5 million to
implement aspects of the Lands Legacy Initiative in a separate Subtitle VI of the
Interior Appropriations. Most of these funds were for land acquisition. The Forest
Service (located in the Agriculture Department, but funded in the Interior
Appropriations) received $81 million, of which $61 million was allocated to the Baca
Ranch acquisition and $5 million to the Forest Legacy Program. Agencies in the
Department of the Interior received the remaining $116.5 million, with $20 million
earmarked to the LWCF state grant program, $5 million for maintenance in the

National Park System, $10 million for restoring the Elwha River ecosystem, up to
$35 million for state grants for land acquisition in Florida, up to $19.5 million to
acquire mineral rights in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, up to
$5 million to protect the California Desert, and up to $2 million to protect the Rhode
Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The legislation also requires that
expenditures of the remaining unearmarked funds -- $15 million for the Forest
Service, and at least $20 million for the Department of the Interior agencies -- must
be approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees before they could
occur; the list of proposals was submitted in December and the funds were released
in early 2000.
The state grant program under the LWCF received $40 million for FY2000 from
the regular appropriation and the Title VI appropriation, combined (plus $1 million
for program administration). This program had not been funded since FY1995, and
states and localities had been actively seeking these funds. On February 14, the
Administration announced the distribution of funds. The press release noted that
states must match these funds, and that they could be used to “acquire land or
easements,” but did not mention that they also could be used for development.
California received the most money, almost $3.2 million. The next highest state was
Texas, with slightly less than $1 million. Wyoming received the least, $341,000.
The Administration slightly revised the components of its initiative in FY2001,
replacing three programs with three others. It sought an overall increase of $673
million, to $1.4 billion. Added programs included a Coastal Impact Assistance Fund,
the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund, and grants to states for non-game wildlife, all
programs that would have been funded through various CARA proposals. The
proposal would have provided $735 million to DOI, $429 million to NOAA, and $236
million to USDA. As in FY2000, no authorizing legislation was included with the
More specifically, the Lands Legacy Initiative, as proposed in FY2001, would:

!Fund federal land acquisition through the LWCF, including lands in southern
California, the New Jersey-New York watershed, Florida Everglades, Civil
War battlefields, the Lewis and Clark trail, lower Mississippi River delta, the
Northern Forest, and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The cost would be $450
million, an increase of $25 million.
!Provide grants to states and localities to acquire land through the state-side
grant program under the LWCF. Funding for development projects would be
limited. The cost would be $150 million, an increase of $109 million.
!Provide matching grants to states through the Department of the Interior to
develop open space and "smart growth" management strategies. The cost
would be $50 million; this proposal went unfunded last year.
!Initiate a new revolving loan fund at the Department of Agriculture to support
acquisition of land and easements in rural areas based on “smart growth”

principles. The cost would be $6 million; this program was not authorized last
!Expand funding for other programs, including the Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund, the Forest Legacy Program, Urban and
Community Forestry Program grants, the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund, and State Non-Game Wildlife Grants. The cost would be
$295 million, a increase of $196 million.
!Provide matching grants and technical assistance for the restoration of parks
in economically-distressed urban areas under the Urban Parks and Recreation
Recovery Program. The cost would be $20 million, an increase of $18 million.
!Increase funding for the Marine Sanctuaries Program to strengthen protection
at the 12 designated sites. The cost would be $35 million, an increase of $10
million from FY2000.
!Increase funding through matching grants for state coastal zone management
programs help states and communities address the “significant and costly
impacts” of growing population, polluted runoff, and deteriorating coastal
habitats. The cost would be $157 million, an increase of $95 million.
!Improve management at the 25 sites in the Estuarine Research Reserve System.
The cost would be $20 million, an increase of $8 million.
!Expand a NOAA program to protect coral reefs from pollution and other
human impacts, restore injured reefs and develop a coral nursery. The cost
would be $15 million, an increase of $9 million.
!Enact a new coastal impact assistance program to fund efforts to minimize
environmental risks from coastal development. The cost would be $100
!Increase support for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which helps
states, local government and Tribes undertake fishery recovery activities. The
cost would be $100 million, an increase of $42 million.
Congress initially responded through the regular appropriations process by
providing much less funding than the Clinton Administration had requested in the
Interior and Commerce appropriations funding bills. For example, the Administration
requested $450 million for federal land acquisition under the LWCF, but the House
provided $184 million and the Senate Appropriations Committee provided $180
million. (For a table comparing the FY2000 request, the FY2000 appropriation, and
the FY2001 request by program, see CRS Report RS20471, The Administration’s
Lands Legacy Initiative in the FY2001 Budget Proposal – A Fact Sheet.)
As Congress was finishing its actions on the FY2001 Interior Appropriations,
however, congressional appropriators and the Administration reached an agreement
to fund the Lands Legacy Initiative for 6 years through the annual appropriations
process. Members of Congress described this agreement as a shorter and less
expensive alternative to CARA. The Interior Appropriations conference committee
added a new Title VIII on land conservation with two parts. One part of this title
provides $686 million for Lands Legacy programs in FY2001 in addition to what is
already provided in the normal agency appropriations for these programs, making the
total appropriation for these programs $1.2 billion. The amount is divided as follows:

!$540 million for federal and state LWCF;
!$300 million for state and other conservation programs;
!$160 million for urban and historic preservation programs;
!$150 million for public land maintenance and facility rehabilitation; and
!$50 million for the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes program (an additional $400
million to fund NOAA programs in FY2001 only is provided through
Commerce Appropriations and discussed below) .
The second part proposes to fund these programs, increasing the total amount
by $200 million annually, for the next 5 years. Interior (and Commerce) programs
could receive a total of up to $12 billion over the 6 years. However, all funds each
year will have to be provided through the annual appropriations process; none of the
funding is mandatory, as supporters of CARA had sought. To protect these funds
from being used for other purposes, the legislation uses what proponents characterize
as a “fencing structure” to separate these funds from other Interior appropriations and
to separate each of the five categories listed above from each other. This fencing
structure applies only to the first $1.6 billion, and would not apply to any increases in
future years. Also, any funds not appropriated in one year could be appropriated in
a subsequent year. The FY2001 Commerce Appropriations do not contain any
provisions that are comparable to this second part.
The agreement, however, called for an additional $400 million to be provided for
coastal and marine programs in FY2001 in the Commerce Appropriations. The
language, in Title IX of P.L. 106-554, actually provides $420 million. The FY2001
funding would be divided as follows:
!$150 million for coastal impact assistance;
!$135 million for ocean, coastal, and conservation programs (all earmarked);
!$135 million for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs
(NOAA is to submit a spending plan for these funds to the appropriations
committees by February 28, 2001).