About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (February 19, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govybx0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Cogesoa Resarc Servic Updated February 19, 2019 Legislative Proposals for a National Park Service Deferred Maintenance Fund Congress has debated ways to address the National Park Service's (NPS's) substantial backlog of deferred maintenance-maintenance that was not performed as scheduled or as needed. NPS's maintenance backlog has grown over the past two decades and is estimated for FY2017 at $11.6 billion. The backlog's impacts on park resources and on visitor enjoyment and safety have been ongoing issues of concern for some Members of Congress and other stakeholders, as they seek to preserve the parks as crownjewels of the nation's public lands system and to ensure their continued contribution to the outdoor recreation economy. Legislative interest has focused primarily on federal funding sources to address the backlog, although some stakeholders have suggested that the backlog could be meaningfully reduced without major federal funding increases-for example, by reprioritizing current uses of NPS discretionary appropriations, improving the agency's capital investment strategies, or increasing the role of nonfederal partners in park funding and management. Legislative Proposals for an NPS Fund Multiple bills in the 115th Congress would have established a special fund to address NPS deferred maintenance. Two bills that were reported from committee with bipartisan support-H.R. 6510 and S. 3172-have been reintroduced in the 116th Congress as H.R. 1225 and S. 500. Several other 115th Congress bills-H.R. 5210, H.R. 2584, and S. 1460 (Section 5101)-received hearings but did not advance further. Additional bills were introduced that did not see committee action. All of the proposals would draw on revenues from energy development on offshore and/or onshore federal lands as the primary source of funding to address the backlog. Depending on the funding source specified in a given bill, these revenues could be derived from both conventional and renewable natural resources, including oil, gas, coal, wind, solar, and others. Federal energy revenues are collected under various laws, at several stages of the development process. For example, companies may pay bonus bids to secure leases for energy development, rents on energy leases prior to production, and royalties during production. Federal energy revenues currently are disbursed to multiple recipients under various laws. Some of the revenues are shared with states and tribes; other portions go to federal funds, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF; 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.), the Reclamation Fund (43 U.S.C. §§391 et seq.), and the Historic Preservation Fund (54 U.S.C. §§300101 et seq.). After these and other distributions, the remainder of federal energy revenues are deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Many of the NPS funding proposals would draw the monies for NPS deferred maintenance from the energy revenues that are credited to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts after other distributions are made. The 116th Congress bills (H.R. 1225 and S. 500) would provide NPS with 50% of federal energy revenues that remain after other distributions are made, with a cap of $1.3 billion annually, for five years. The Senate bill would provide the deferred maintenance funding to NPS only, whereas the House bill also includes some amounts for other agencies: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Budget and Appropriations Issues The 116th Congress bills would make the deferred maintenance funding available to the NPS and/or other agencies without the need for further appropriations (i.e., as direct, or mandatory, spending). Budget enforcement requirements present procedural hurdles for these proposals. In scoring the 115th Congress versions of the proposals (H.R. 6510 and S. 3172 in the 115th Congress), the Congressional Budget Office estimated that they would increase net direct spending by more than $6 billion over 10 years. Therefore, given existing budget rules, these bills would have been subject to certain budget points of order if not offset (for example, by cuts in direct spending or increases in revenue). Neither of the 115th Congress bills as reported from committee, nor the 116th Congress bills as introduced, contained spending offsets. In contrast, S. 1460 (Section 5101) in the 115th Congress would have created an NPS fund in which amounts would be available to NPS only to the extent appropriated in annual discretionary appropriations laws. Although this approach would have avoided budget enforcement requirements associated with mandatory spending, any monies appropriated from the NPS fund in annual appropriations laws would have counted against limits to discretionary spending, such as the statutory limits established under the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25). A number of stakeholders have contended that NPS maintenance projects, which often require multiyear investments, are hampered by the agency's heavy reliance on discretionary appropriations, which are uncertain from hittps:I/crsreports.conc -- _-_

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most