OCR Text |
Show plicitly before becoming part of the President's budget.16 In addition, the present method leaves decisions of budget allocations among regions to the individual agencies. The President, through the Bureau of the Budget, and the Congress never have a real chance to consider regional allocations in the context of the budget process. We have found that there are great regional variations in what a dollar of Federal program expenditures will buy. We believe Congress should be given the specific opportunity to make choices on regional expenditures as part of the appropriation process. Even within an agency budget, comparisons among programs are very difficult. The budgets do not present reliable information on investments and administrative expenditures on, for example, range management. And within that category, there is no satisfactory information for comparing various kinds of range management programs. This kind of information is being developed by the public land management agencies. Past research has provided a basic fund of knowledge for collecting information, while the recent efforts to develop program analyses have translated some of this information into meaningful framework for presenting budget information. Improvements in the method of presenting budgets, so that the expected results of programs could be compared with the proposed costs, have long been recommended. This Commission believes it is time that this proposal be implemented for public land programs.17 We recognize that public land programs are only a small part of the whole budget. But these programs can be treated in a cost-benefit framework in the same way that proposals for major water development projects have been treated for years. Techniques and competence are available, and this is a good place to take the next step toward budgets designed for making decisions. Periodic Program Authorization Recommendation 135: Periodic regional public land programs should be authorized by statute as a basis for annual budgets and for appropriation of funds. 16 We recognize that at a later date the Forest Service budget becomes part of the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation. Even then there is no attempt to compare the Forest Service and BLM programs; but our emphasis here is on the fact that there is no joinder that would permit comparison before the President's budget is submitted to the Congress. 17 The budget analyses made in the public land agencies as part of the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System have been useful in guiding program decisions, but have never been made available outside of the executive branch in support of budget requests. 286 We find that generally there is no close relationship between the process of legislating substantive laws and approving appropriations to implement these laws. We do not believe that Congress should go back to having a number of standing legislative committees also responsible for appropriations, which was the case prior to 1920. But the authorization of periodic regional public land programs, based on comprehensive regional public land use plans would provide a guide to the Appropriations Committees; and would narrow the gap between program legislation and appropriations. It would require the President and the Congress to consider from time to time the full implications of regional programs and the relationship between program authorization and appropriations. It would provide an opportunity for Congress to see how the public land policies provided by statute are applied to different kinds of public lands in different regions; to examine the flow of benefits that will be produced by a particular combination of planned land uses; and to determine whether the proposed levels and schedules of program financing are appropriate to the suggested plan of land use and development. Although the workload would be heavy, we believe that authorizing regional land use programs by statute on, say a 5- or 7-year basis would force the development and presentation of information that is not now available. In fact, the budget process can be used as a key lever in forcing the development of such information. Consistent standards for program evaluation should be established by statute. The requirement to use benefit-cost analysis and a specified interest rate in evaluating Federal water development projects is well established. Benefit-cost ratios as defined for water development projects may not be the best standards for use in evaluating public land programs. But this, or a similar, approach to establish standards should be adopted. It is our conclusion that the public land agencies should start immediately to review the existing approaches that are being used in light of the kinds of programs on public lands. The agencies should then recommend the most appropriate approach to the Congress for consideration and possible inclusion in law. Save where the Commission has made an exception, the earmarking of receipts for public land programs should be abolished. There are a number of program areas where receipts are automatically returned to the land management agencies for spending on specific programs. Included are the Forest Service roads and trails fund, the Knutson-Vandenberg fund for reforestation and, in effect, the Bureau of Land Management's range improvement funds. Congress |