[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             BUDGET ESTIMATES REGARDING S. 2266 AND S. 2253

 Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on September 26 the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources filed the reports to accompany S. 2266, a 
bill to amend the Recreation Management Act of 1992, and for other 
purposes, and S. 2253, the Mountain Park Project Act of 1994.
  At the time these two reports were filed, the Congressional Budget 
Office had not submitted its budget estimates regarding these measures. 
The committee has since received these communications from the 
Congressional Budget Office, and I ask that they be printed in the 
Record in full at this point.
  The letters follow:
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     reviewed S. 2253, the Mountain Park Project Act of 1994, as 
     reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources on September 26, 1994. Enactment of S. 2253 could 
     result in a long-run loss of offsetting receipts to the 
     federal government, but over the 1995-1999 period, it would 
     result in a net reduction in outlays of $8 million. Because 
     the change in outlays would be direct spending, pay-as-you-go 
     procedures would apply to the bill.
       Under current law, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is 
     authorized to accept a prepayment of certain repayment 
     obligations owned to the federal government for the 
     construction of the Mountain Park water supply project in 
     Oklahoma. The BOR has proposed prepayment terms, but the 
     three cities required to pay a portion of the costs of 
     constructing the project have rejected the current offer. 
     While the cities are making annual payments totaling about 
     $1.,3 million as required under current law, the amounts due 
     each year are growing and the cities believe that they may be 
     unable to continue making these payments in the future.
       S. 2253 would allow BOR to recalculate the prepayments, 
     using terms and conditions that are more favorable to the 
     cities. The bill also would authorize BOR to reallocate 
     certain costs of the Mountain Park project to environmental 
     quality. The recalculation and reallocation would have the 
     effect of lowering, by an estimated $15 million, the 
     prepayment the cities may make to the federal government. 
     Whether this reduction would result in a long-run loss to the 
     federal government depends on whether the cities would be 
     able to meet their repayment obligations under current law.
       The budget reflects these transactions on a cash basis in 
     each fiscal year. On this basis, a prepayment, even if much 
     smaller than the current repayment obligation, has the effect 
     of reducing the deficit in the short term. Based on 
     information provided to us by BOR, CBO estimates that 
     enactment of this bill by October 1994 would result in 
     additional offseting receipts to the federal government 
     totaling about $12 million in fiscal year 1995. The federal 
     government would lose offsetting receipts totaling about $1 
     million annually once this prepayment is made.
       The following table summarizes the pay-as-you-go impact of 
     this bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    1995      1996      1997      1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Outlays...............       -12         1         1         1
Change in Receipts..............     (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not applicable.                                                      

       Enactment of S. 2253 would result in long-run savings to 
     the three cities involved, and in no costs or savings to 
     other state or local governments.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Theresa 
     Gullo.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James L. Blum,
                             (For Robert D. Reischauer, Director).
                                 ______

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     review S. 2266, a bill to amend the Recreation Management Act 
     of 1992, and for other purposes, as reported by the Senate 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on September 26, 
     1994. We estimate that implementing S. 2266 would cost the 
     federal government about $1 million annually, assuming 
     appropriation of the necessary funds. The bill would not 
     significantly affect the budgets of state and local 
     governments. Because enactment of S. 2266 would affect direct 
     spending and receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply 
     to this bill. We expect the pay-as-you-go impact to be 
     insignificant.
       S. 2266 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
     designate employees of the agency as law enforcement officers 
     and other federal employees and state and local law 
     enforcement officials as special officers. These officials 
     would maintain law and order and protect property and persons 
     on land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation 
     (BOR). State and local governments would not be required to 
     take part in these activities, and the Secretary of the 
     Interior would be authorized, under certain circumstances, to 
     reimburse state and local governments for their expenses. CBO 
     estimates that implementing these provisions would cost the 
     federal government about $1 million annually.
       State and local law enforcement officials, when carrying 
     out these law enforcement activities, would be considered 
     federal employees for purposes of tort claims and work-
     related injuries. If a tort claim or work-related injury were 
     to occur, the BOR would make any necessary payments from an 
     appropriate appropriation, if one exists. If not, tort claims 
     would be paid out of the Claims and Judgments Fund and injury 
     compensation would be paid out of the Employee Compensation 
     Fund. Payments from these two funds would be direct spending. 
     CBO cannot estimate the extent of such payments, but we 
     expect them to be small.
       Finally, the bill would establish a criminal penalty for 
     individuals who violate regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary of the Interior to protect resources and the public 
     on BOR land. Any amounts collected from such fines would be 
     deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and spent the following 
     year. CBO estimates that the additional receipts and the 
     resulting direct spending would be insignificant.
       The following table shows the estimated pay-as-you-go 
     impact of this bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    1995      1996      1997      1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Outlays...............         0         0         0         0
Change in Receipts..............         0         0         0         0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO contact is John Patterson.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James L. Blum,
     (For Robert D. Reischauer, Director.)

                          ____________________