{
  "id": "RL30444",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30444",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101787,
      "date": "2001-01-17",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:29:24.639941",
      "title": "Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) (H.R. 701) and a Related Initiative in the 106th Congress",
      "summary": "This report compares  H.R. 701 , as passed by the House and  H.R. 701 , as\napproved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, with current law. These bills,\noften referred to as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), would have funded various\nresource acquisition and protection activities. The two versions contain some significant differences. \nBoth bills (and numerous related bills) originated, in part, from efforts to: (1) provide higher and\nmore certain funding for resource protection programs; (2) fund the state grant portion or the entire\nLWCF each year; and (3) dedicate a large portion of offshore oil and gas revenues to resource\nprotection. Support for this legislation spread as: (1) the budget deficit was replaced with a surplus;\n(2) protecting natural resources became viewed as part of efforts to address sprawl; (3) local pressure\nto secure federal funding for resource protection expanded; and (4) efforts to increase funding to\nfederal resource protection programs strengthened. \n  Both bills addressed numerous topics. The House-passed version provided just over $3 billion,\nincluding interest, to fund 9 program areas, while Senate committee version provided just under $3\nbillion to 15 program areas. Examples of activities that would have been funded under both bills\ninclude: new programs for coastal areas to mitigate impacts associated with offshore energy\ndevelopment and for wildlife protection and restoration; and an urban program to develop recreation\nfacilities. All funding would have come from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas revenues,\nwhich now fund the general functions of the federal government. \n  A key feature of the House version was to bypass the annual appropriations process for most\nprograms. While strongly supported by the bills' advocates, this feature was opposed by those who\nfavored other priorities for federal spending, wanted to limit overall federal spending, or believed\nsuch funding should be sought through the annual appropriations process. Opposition was also\nraised by advocates of private property rights who feared that additional funding would accelerate\npublic acquisition of private lands, as well as some environmental interests who worried that support\nfor more funding could increase pressure to expand OCS activities. \n  The Clinton Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative, which was first proposed in January\n1999, is reviewed in an appendix to this report. The Administration had submitted this proposal with\nthe FY2000 and FY2001 budgets, and it became an alternative to CARA for FY2001 after it became\napparent the CARA would not be enacted. The Administration never developed this initiative as\nfree-standing legislation. It is different from CARA in many fundamental ways; it is not a multi-year\nprogram, it is not tied to OCS revenues, it does not use permanent appropriations, and the\nappropriations committees will have to agree on funding levels for each of these programs every\nyear. (To track related issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10015,  Managing Growth and Related\nIssues\nin the 107th Congress .)",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30444",
          "sha1": "285f8b16f878c3c2ff5cafe55ed38d80b085a4ea",
          "filename": "files/20010117_RL30444_285f8b16f878c3c2ff5cafe55ed38d80b085a4ea.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010117_RL30444_285f8b16f878c3c2ff5cafe55ed38d80b085a4ea.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc814562/",
      "id": "RL30444_2000Jun12",
      "date": "2000-06-12",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Resource Protection: A Comparison of H.R. 701/S. 2567 and Three Other Senate Bills (S. 25, S. 2123, and S. 2181) with Current Law",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20000612_RL30444_44431cc024eddffdc52b81eafab78805f3264a1c.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000612_RL30444_44431cc024eddffdc52b81eafab78805f3264a1c.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}