Federal Land Ownership: Acquisition and Disposal Authorities

Summary: The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, heavily concentrated in 12 western states. Four agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands.

Summary: The extent to which each of these four federal agencies have authority to acquire and dispose of land varies considerably. The BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The agency also has other authorities for disposing of land, including two laws that allow the agency to retain the proceeds for subsequent land acquisition, among other purposes, and a law that allows transfers to governmental units and other entities for public purposes. By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands. The FS authority to acquire lands is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used. The FWS has various authorities to acquire lands but no general authority to dispose of its lands. The agency frequently uses acquisition authority under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.

Summary: The nature of the acquisition and disposal authorities of the four federal agencies also varies. In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow the four agencies to bring into federal ownership lands that many contend could benefit from federal management. Disposal authorities generally are designed to allow agencies to convey land that is no longer needed for a federal purpose or that might be chiefly valuable for another purpose. Some of the authorities specify particular circumstances where they can be used, such as the conveyance of FS land for educational purposes and the disposal of BLM land for recreation and public purposes.

Summary: Congress often faces questions on the adequacy of existing acquisition and disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; and the extent of federal land ownership overall. The current acquisition and disposal authorities form the backdrop for consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate authorities, or to provide for the acquisition or disposal of particular lands. In some cases, Congress enacts bills to provide authority to acquire or dispose of particular parcels where no standing authority exists and, in other cases, to direct or facilitate land transactions. Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of debates on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally, and it has considered broader measures to dispose of lands or to promote acquisition.

Summary: Other issues for Congress pertain to the sources and levels of funds for land acquisition. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the primary source of funding for land acquisition. Congress has considered diverse measures related to the LWCF, such as legislation to make LWCF funding permanent and bills to direct LWCF monies to additional, nonacquisition purposes. Additionally, the FWS has the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, an account with mandatory spending authority supported by revenue from three sources. The BLM also has mandatory spending authorities that allow the proceeds from land sales to be used for land acquisition, among other purposes.

The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, more than a quarter of the land in the United States. These lands are heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), where t he federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area. Four federal agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), all in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands.

No single law provides authority for these four agencies to acquire and/or disposal of lands. Rather, Congress provided various acquisition and disposal authorities through laws enacted over more than a century. This report describes the primary authorities of the four agencies.

The extent to which each of the agencies has authority to acquire and dispose of land, and the nature of the authorities, varies considerably. Some of the agencies have relatively broad authority to acquire and/or dispose of land. Most notably, the BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals. By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands. The extent of the acquisition and disposal authorities for the FS and the FWS are not nearly as broad as the BLM's but not nearly as restrictive as the NPS's. The FS authority to acquire lands is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used. The FWS has various authorities to acquire lands but no general authority to dispose of its lands.

The acquisition authorities differ as to the circumstances in which they apply, and the disposal authorities likewise differ as to their purposes. Thus, where a specific acquisition or disposal by an agency is contemplated, the particular authority at issue should be consulted. In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow federal agencies to acquire lands that could be viewed as benefitting from federal management. Among other circumstances, acquisition might be authorized to bring inholdings or lands adjacent to federal lands into federal ownership to improve or simplify management of federal lands. Acquisitions also might be authorized to conserve species, protect natural and cultural resources, and increase opportunities for recreation. The disposal authorities generally are designed to allow federal agencies to dispose of land that is no longer required for a federal purpose, might be inefficient to manage, or might be chiefly valuable for another purpose. For instance, disposal might be authorized to allow lands to be used for agriculture, community development, mineral extraction, or educational purposes.

Agencies also acquire and dispose of federal land in exchanges. Exchanges are not discussed separately in this report, as often the authorities to acquire and dispose of lands also apply to land exchange. However, there are provisions of law particularly applicable to exchanges. The exchange authorities for the NPS and the FWS are relatively narrow. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. §§1701-1781) provides broader exchange authority and is the main authority governing exchanges by the BLM and the FS.

Congress often faces questions on the adequacy of existing acquisition and disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; the extent of federal land ownership overall; and the sources and levels of land acquisition funds, among other issues. The suitability of the acquisition and disposal authorities, and the extent and circumstances of their use by the agencies, forms the backdrop for congressional consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate the use of authorities. With regard to the establishment of new authorities, for instance, some 115 th Congress proposals would authorize states to exchange land grant parcels for federal lands. Other measures would authorize the BLM and FS to convey small tracts to adjacent landowners and to govern the use of proceeds from these conveyances. Proposals to modify authorities include measures in the 115 th Congress to reauthorize and amend BLM authority to sell or exchange land under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA; 43 U.S.C. §§2301 et seq.), as well as bills to amend the Small Tracts Act (16 U.S.C. §521e) regarding the type and value of FS lands that can be disposed of and the use of related proceeds. Among the provisions to eliminate the use of authorities are those to prevent the disposal of federal land under the General Mining Law of 1872, which have been contained in annual Interior appropriations laws since FY1995.

In addition, Congress frequently considers legislation authorizing and governing the acquisition or disposal of specific parcels. For example, Title XXX of P.L. 113-291 contained various provisions to authorize the acquisition and/or disposal of land. Congress may consider such legislation to provide an agency with acquisition or disposal authority in a particular instance because it is lacking. In other cases, Congress directs a particular acquisition or disposal to facilitate the action. For instance, the legislation may seek to direct an acquisition based on Congress's assessment of public needs and priorities. It may expedite the process for acquiring a parcel of land, such as by limiting the assessments and evaluations that ordinarily would be required under law. The legislation also might authorize actions not ordinarily permitted, such as the conveyance of land at reduced or no cost rather than at fair market value.

Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of deliberations on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally. The extent to which the federal government should own land remains controversial. Many westerners contend that there is excessive federal influence over their lives and economies and that the federal government should divest itself of many lands. Many others support the policy of retaining lands in federal ownership on behalf of the public and sometimes advocate adding more lands to enhance protection. Recent Congresses considered diverse bills pertaining to the extent of federal land ownership. Among others, 115 th Congress measures would authorize or direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to offer to sell a certain percentage of land in each of several fiscal years. Other bills provide that where a land management agency acquires land, an equal number of acres is to be offered for sale.

Another set of issues pertains to the sources and levels of funds for land acquisition. The principal financing mechanism for federal land acquisition is discretionary appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCF Act; 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.) had provided for $900 million in specified revenues to be deposited in the LWCF annually. These provisions expired September 30, 2018. Each year, Congress determines the level of appropriations from the LWCF for federal land acquisition. Total appropriations for land acquisition and the amount provided to each of the federal land management agencies have varied substantially since the program's origin in 1965. In the 115 th Congress, some measures propose permanent reauthorization of the LWCF and/or mandatory appropriations at the authorized level. Advocates of such bills typically seek stable, predictable funding to promote a strong federal role in acquiring and managing sensitive resources. Other measures would direct a portion of funding to particular purposes, such as acquisitions in areas with restricted access for fishing, hunting, and other types of recreation. Still other proposals would allow LWCF to be used for a broader array of purposes, including nonacquisition purposes, due to concerns about the extent of federal land ownership and the availability of funding for other federal activities.

Additional sources of funding are available for some agencies or under certain authorities. For instance, the FWS has a mandatory source of funds for land acquisition through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, as discussed below. As another example, the BLM also has mandatory spending authorities that allow the agency to keep the proceeds of land sales and use these proceeds for subsequent acquisitions and other purposes. These authorities are discussed below. The application of mandatory spending authorities, including the uses of the proceeds, has been the subject of congressional debate.

As noted above, various laws authorizing and governing specific land acquisitions have been enacted. In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for acquiring lands. In general, all four agencies are authorized to accept land as gifts and bequests. In addition, each generally is authorized to use eminent domain —taking private property, through condemnation, for public use—while compensating the landowner. However, this practice is controversial, and it is rarely used by the land management agencies.

The primary land acquisition authorities are described below for each of the four federal land management agencies. In general, the agencies are presented in the order of the breadth of their authorities, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last.

The NPS does not have standing authority to acquire lands for new or existing units of the National Park System, except in limited circumstances. Rather, most units have been created by Congress, and the law creating a park unit typically includes specific authority for the NPS to acquire nonfederal inholdings within the identified boundaries of that park.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make certain boundary adjustments of park units for "proper preservation, protection, interpretation, or management" and to acquire the nonfederal lands within the adjusted boundary, under specified provisions and conditions (54 U.S.C. §100506(c)). Some of these conditions have been interpreted to apply particularly to boundary adjustments requiring land purchases, as opposed to those in which added lands are acquired by donation, transfer, or exchange.

The President has authority to create national monuments on federal lands under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. §§320301 et seq.). In total, 158 monuments have been created by presidential proclamation. Most are managed by the NPS, but some are managed by the BLM and other agencies.

Under law, the Secretary of the Interior and the NPS have responsibilities related to the potential acquisition of lands for the National Park System. Among other requirements, the Secretary is directed "to investigate, study, and continually monitor the welfare of" areas that could potentially be added to the system and to report to Congress on possible additions (54 U.S.C. §100507). Furthermore, the general management plan for each unit is to include potential changes to the boundaries of the unit and the reasons for such changes (54 U.S.C. §100502). The Secretary also is to conduct a "systematic and comprehensive review of certain aspects of the National Park System" and to submit a related report to Congress at least every three years (54 U.S.C. §100505(a)) that includes a list of all authorized but unacquired lands within the boundaries of park units and a priority listing of these unacquired parcels (54 U.S.C. §100505(c)).

The Secretary of Agriculture has various authorities to acquire lands for the National Forest System (NFS). The NFS consists of 284 units covering 232.4 million acres of federal and nonfederal land, including national forests, national grasslands, purchase units, land utilization projects, and other areas. Today, only an act of Congress can create new NFS units, but the Secretary may acquire lands within or contiguous to the proclaimed exterior boundaries of an NFS unit. The NFS contains substantial acreage of nonfederal lands within the proclaimed boundaries of the system, particularly in the east, where national forests were established after extensive settlement. NFS units in the Eastern and Southern Regions average about 46% nonfederal land within their boundaries, while Western Region NFS units average about 10%. The FS has very limited regulatory authority over the uses of the 39.5 million acres of nonfederal land within the NFS.

The FS's primary land acquisition authority is the Weeks Act of 1911 (16 U.S.C. §515), which was used to acquire many of the lands that became the eastern national forests. The Weeks Act authority continues to be the agency's primary authority to acquire lands; however, acquisitions are now limited to lands within (or adjacent to) established NFS unit boundaries. The Weeks Act also authorizes the Secretary to modify the NFS unit boundary as needed to encompass new acquisitions.

Other laws authorize the FS to acquire lands for the national forests, typically in specific areas or for specific purposes. For example, Section 205 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; P.L. 94-579 ) authorizes the acquisition of access corridors—including easements—to national forests across nonfederal lands (43 U.S.C. §1715(a)). Another example is the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. §428(a)), which authorizes the FS to acquire lands without any geographical limitations but does require a provision be made in a specific appropriation or other law. Another law authorizes proceeds from certain land sales or exchanges to be used for acquisitions, including for administrative sites and enhancement of recreational access. However, the acquisitions are limited to the state in which FS previously conveyed NFS land under specific disposal authorities, as discussed later in this report. Several other acquisition authorities apply to specific national forests, such as the Act of June 11, 1940, which authorizes the purchase of lands within the Angeles National Forest in California. In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture and the secretary of a military department that has lands within or adjacent to proclaimed NFS land may interchange lands, without reimbursement or transfer of funds. Many of the acquisition authorities also allow the FS to accept donations of land as specified.

Within the NFS, the Secretary of Agriculture also is authorized to acquire privately owned lands within or adjacent to designated wilderness areas (16 U.S.C. §1134(c)), Wild and Scenic River corridors (16 U.S.C. §1277), and certain segments of designated National Trails (16 U.S.C. §1244), as specified by the law creating the trail.

Lands may be added to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) in a number of ways, including through congressional and administrative actions and donations. A principal FWS land acquisition authority is the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (MBCA; 16 U.S.C. §§715 et seq.). This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to recommend areas "necessary for the conservation of migratory birds" to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, after consulting with the relevant governor (or state agency) and appropriate local government officials (16 U.S.C. §715a and §715c). In addition, the state in which the purchase is located must have consented to the acquisition by law (16 U.S.C. §715f and §715k-5). The Secretary may then purchase or rent areas or interests therein approved by the commission and acquire by gift or devise any area or interest therein (16 U.S.C. §715d).

The MBCA authority is used frequently because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF, 16 U.S.C. §718d). The MBCF is supported by multiple sources of funding, including three major sources: the sale of hunting and conservation stamps (commonly known as duck stamps); import duties on arms and ammunition; and a portion of certain refuge entrance fees. MBCF funds are permanently appropriated to the extent of receipts and, after paying certain administrative costs, may be used for the "location, ascertainment, and acquisition of suitable areas for migratory bird refuges ..." (16 U.S.C. §718d(b)). The predictability of funding and permanent authority for use makes the MBCF, and thus the MBCA, particularly important for FWS land acquisition and unique among the four agencies.

Other laws provide general authority to expand the NWRS, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. §§661-667a), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. §§742a et seq.), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. §§668dd-668ee) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land or interests therein through donated funds or exchange (16 U.S.C. §668dd(b)). Further, FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw lands from the public domain for creating or adding to refuges (which would be an interagency transfer), although withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres are subject to congressional approval (43 U.S.C. §1714(c)). In contrast to NPS and FS land acquisition, where the lands generally must be within the boundaries of established units, the FWS can acquire new lands to create a new refuge or to expand an existing one under the general FWS authorities cited above, as well as under certain other laws.

Some national wildlife refuge (NWR) units have been created by specific acts of Congress, such as Protection Island NWR (WA) and Bayou Sauvage Urban NWR (LA) (16 U.S.C. §668dd note). Units also can be created by executive order; for example, the Midway Atoll NWR was created by President Clinton in Executive Order 13022.

The BLM has broad, general authority to acquire lands, principally under Section 205 of FLPMA. Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire, by purchase, exchange, donation, or use of eminent domain, lands or interests therein (43 U.S.C. §1715(a)). The BLM acquires land or interests in land, including inholdings, for a variety of reasons. These include to protect natural and cultural resources, to increase opportunities for public access and recreation, and to improve management of lands.

As noted above, various laws directing the disposal of particular lands sometimes have been enacted. In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for disposing of lands. The specific disposal authorities are discussed below for each of the four agencies in the order of their apparent breadth, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last.

The NPS does not have general authority to dispose of National Park System lands. Units and lands of the Park System that were established by acts of Congress can be disposed of only by acts of Congress. Preservation of park units is a management goal and provisions of law limit the power of the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of land in changing park boundaries. Although the Secretary can, under specified conditions, make boundary changes that concurrently add and remove land within the boundary, minor boundary revisions solely to remove NPS acreage can be made only by Congress. Also, the Secretary can acquire by exchange lands that are adjacent to a boundary revision, but the Secretary cannot dispose of NPS land to do so (54 U.S.C. §100506(c)).

Presidents have modified the boundaries of national monuments established by previous presidential proclamations, in some cases reducing the size of the monument. However, no president has terminated a monument established by proclamation.

The FWS does not have general authority to dispose of its lands. With certain exceptions, wildlife refuge lands administered by the FWS can be disposed only by an act of Congress (16 U.S.C. §§668dd(a)(5) and (6)). For refuge lands reserved from the public domain, FLPMA prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from modifying or revoking any withdrawal which added lands to the NWRS (43 U.S.C. §1714(j)). For acquired lands, disposal is allowed only if: (1) the disposal is part of an authorized land exchange (16 U.S.C. §§668dd(a)(6) and (b)(3)); or (2) the Secretary determines the lands are no longer needed and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approves the disposal (16 U.S.C. §668dd(a)(5)). In the latter case, the disposal must recover the acquisition cost or be at the fair market value (whichever is higher), and the receipts must be deposited in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.

The Secretary of Agriculture has numerous authorities to convey lands within proclaimed NFS boundaries out of federal ownership—through sale or exchange—although previous, broader authorities have been modified or revoked. Many of the authorities put constraints on land disposal, such as applying only to a specific geographical area or to the disposal of particular administrative properties or facilities. Many of the authorities are used in conjunction with FLPMA and other federal law and as such may place requirements on the sale or exchange of land. This includes obtaining at least fair market value for the sale of federal lands; requiring that nonfederal land exchanged for federal land be in the same state; and requiring exchanged lands to be of equal value, although value may be partially equalized with a cash payment (43 U.S.C. §1716).

The General Exchange Act of 1922 (16 U.S.C. §485) authorizes the exchange of NFS land or timber that was reserved from the public domain if the Secretary determines it will be in the public interest. The nonfederal land must be within the same state and within the exterior boundary of a national forest, and it must be chiefly valuable for national forest purposes, among other provisions. The Weeks Act of 1911 allows for similar exchanges for acquired NFS lands (16 U.S.C. §516).

The 1983 Small Tracts Act authorizes the Secretary to dispose of NFS land by sale or exchange, generally up to certain specified acreage limits. The disposal may be

To improve management efficiencies where NFS lands are interspersed with nonfederal mineral rights owners, or if the Secretary determines the parcels to be inaccessible, physically isolated from other federal land, or to have lost national forest character (40 acres maximum); To relieve encroachments including due to erroneous surveys, or encroachments by a permanent habitable improvement if there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or due to negligence (10 acres maximum); To dispose of unneeded federal rights-of-way substantially surrounded by nonfederal lands (no specified acreage limitation); and If the parcel is used as a cemetery, landfill, or sewage plant pursuant to a special use authorization for the use and occupancy of NFS land (no specified acreage limitation) (16 U.S.C. §521e).

The conveyance must be determined to be in the public interest and the tracts may not be valued at more than $500,000. The land can be disposed of for cash, lands, interests in land (such as an easement), or any combination thereof for at least the value of the land being sold or exchanged (16 U.S.C. §521d) plus "all reasonable costs of administration, survey, and appraisal incidental to such conveyance" (16 U.S.C. §521f). In some cases, the proceeds may be used for specified land acquisition purposes.

The 1958 Townsites Act authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 640 acres of NFS land adjacent to communities in Alaska or the 11 western states for townsites, if the "indigenous community objectives ... outweigh the public objectives and values which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership" (16 U.S.C. §478a). Public notice of the application for such transfer is required, and upon a "satisfactory showing of need," the Secretary may offer the land to a local governmental entity at "not less than the fair market value."

The Education Land Grant Act, also known as the Sisk Act (16 U.S.C. §479a), authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 80 acres of NFS land for a nominal cost upon written application of a public school district. It provides for reversion of the title to the federal government if the lands are not used for the educational purposes for which they were acquired.

There are a few other specific authorities that allow for the disposal of NFS lands. For example, the 1911 Weeks Act authorizes the disposal of NFS lands that are "chiefly valuable for agriculture" but were acquired inadvertently or otherwise, if agricultural use will not injure the forests or streamflows and the lands are not needed for public purposes. The lands can be sold as homesteads in parcels of up to 80 acres (16 U.S.C. §519). The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. §§1010-1012) also authorizes the disposal of lands acquired under its authority, although the FS has adopted regulations stating that the Bankhead-Jones lands comprising the national grasslands will be held permanently (36 C.F.R. §213.1(b)).

The BLM can dispose of land under several authorities. They include (1) exchanges and sales under FLPMA, (2) sales or exchanges under the FLTFA, (3) transfers to other governmental units or nonprofit entities for public purposes, (4) patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, and (5) geographically limited sale authorities.

With regard to exchanges under FLPMA, the exchanges must serve the public interest, and the federal and nonfederal lands in the exchange must be located in the same state and be of equal value (with cash equalization payments possible), among other requirements (43 U.S.C. §1716). With regard to sales under FLPMA, the BLM is authorized to sell certain tracts of public land that are identified through the land-use planning process. Such tracts must meet specific criteria (43 U.S.C. §1713(a)):

(1) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or

(2) such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or

(3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership.

The size of the tracts for sale is determined by "the land use capabilities and development requirements." Proposals to sell tracts of more than 2,500 acres first must be submitted to Congress and can be disapproved by Congress. Lands may not be sold at less than their fair market value. They generally must be sold through competitive bidding, although modified competition and noncompetitive sales are allowed.

FLTFA provides for the sale or exchange of BLM lands identified for disposal under BLM land- use plans. The law create s a separate Treasury account for most of the proceeds (96%) from the sale or exchange, and it provide s for the use of those funds by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretaries may acquire nonfederal lands, specifically inholdings , lands adjacent to federal lands that contain exceptional resources , and areas adjacent to inaccessible lands that are open to recreation. Up to 20% of the funds in the account may be used for administrative costs, and at least 80% of the funds for acquisition are to be in the state in which the funds are generated .

The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. §869) authorizes the Secretary, upon application by a qualified applicant, to

dispose of any public lands to a State, Territory, county, municipality, or other State, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality or political subdivision for any public purposes, or to a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit association for any recreational or any public purpose consistent with its articles of incorporation or other creating authority.

The lands can be sold or leased, and the act specifies conditions, qualifications, and acreage limitations for transfer. The price of the land depends on the type of entity that will receive it, for instance, whether a state government or a nonprofit organization. The price also depends on the intended use of the land, with some sales and leases made at no cost.

Although the BLM can dispose of lands through patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, since FY1995 a series of annual moratoria on issuing mineral patents has been enacted into law. These moratoria, contained in the annual Interior appropriations laws, have effectively prevented this means of federal land disposal. Specifically, the Mining Law allows access to and development of hardrock minerals on federal lands that have not been withdrawn from entry. With evidence of valuable minerals and sufficient developmental effort, the Mining Law allows mining claims to be patented, with full title (of surface and mineral rights) transferred to the claimant upon payment of the appropriate fee. Nonmineral lands used for associated milling or other processing operations can also be patented (30 U.S.C. §42). Patented lands may be used for purposes other than mineral development.

The BLM also has geographically limited land sale authorities. The program with the largest revenue stream has been the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, which allows the Secretary of the Interior to sell or exchange certain lands around Las Vegas. The BLM and the local government unit jointly decide on the lands to be offered for sale or exchange. In general, 85% of the proceeds are deposited into a special account, and are available to the Secretary of the Interior for land acquisition in Nevada and other purposes in the state, such as certain capital improvements and development of parks, trails, and natural areas. The other 15% of the proceeds are for state or local purposes, specifically the State of Nevada General Education Fund (5%) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%). Other provisions of law similarly provide for BLM land sales in particular areas (mostly in Nevada), with specific allocations of the proceeds. Further, the BLM continues to dispose of land in Alaska as required by law, such as through transfers to the state of Alaska and to Alaska native corporations. A total of about 150 million acres in Alaska will be transferred from federal to state and private ownership.


Commemorative Coins: Background, Legislative Process, and Issues for Congress

Summary: Commemorative coins are produced by the U.S. Mint pursuant to an act of Congress and are often proposed by Members of Congress as part of their representational duties. These coins are legal tender that celebrate and honor American people, places, events, and institutions. Overall, 152 commemorative coins have been authorized since 1892. Since 1982, when Congress reinstituted the commemorative program, 91 commemorative coins have been authorized. Since 1998, only two coins may be authorized for any given year. To date, Congress has authorized commemorative coins to be issued through 2020.

Summary: The issuance of commemorative coins can be broadly divided into two eras: historical coins and modern coins. Historical commemorative coins were those authorized between 1892 and 1954 and generally celebrated anniversaries, public events, or the construction of new memorials. These coins were sold by the government to the sponsor organization, which then resold the coins to the public at a higher price to earn money to support their mission.

Summary: In 1939, Congress stopped authorizing new coins because a glut of commemorative coins on the market had caused their value to decline, and the U.S. Treasury became concerned that so many coins might facilitate counterfeiting. These sentiments were echoed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who in 1954 vetoed legislation for a half-dollar honoring the tercentennial of New York City and remarked that "large quantities [of coins] have remained unsold and have been returned to the mints for melting." The historical era concluded with the minting of George Washington Carver and Booker T. Washington half-dollars between 1951 and 1954.

Summary: The modern commemorative coin era began in 1982, when Congress authorized coins to celebrate the 250th anniversary of George Washington's birth. Between 1982 and 1997, prior to the Commemorative Coin Reform Act (CCRA) of 1996's statutory limitation of two commemorative coins issued per year, 47 commemorative coins were authorized and minted. Between 1998 and 2018, an additional 41 coins were authorized and minted. Three additional coins have been authorized, two in 2019 and one in 2020 (to date).

Summary: Commemorative coin legislation generally has a specific format. Once a coin is authorized, it follows a specific process for design and minting. This process includes consultation and recommendations by the Citizens Coin Advisory Commission (CCAC) and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), pursuant to any statutory instructions, before the Secretary of the Treasury makes the final decision on a coin's design. Following the conclusion of a coin program, designated recipient organizations may receive surcharge payments, once the U.S. Mint has recouped all costs associated with producing the coin.

Summary: Should Congress want to make changes to the commemorative coin process, several individual and institutional options might be available. The individual options include decisions made by Members of Congress as to which people, places, events, or institutions should be celebrated; which groups should receive potential surcharge payments; and any specific design requirements Congress might want to request or require. The institutional options could include House, Senate, or committee rules for the consideration of commemorative coin legislation and whether the statutory maximum of two coins minted per year is too many or too few.

Commemorative coins are coins that are "produced with the primary intention of creating a special souvenir to be sold (at a premium above face value) to observe or memorialize an anniversary, special occasion, or other event." Produced by the U.S. Mint pursuant to an act of Congress, these coins celebrate and honor American people, places, events, and institutions. Although they are considered legal tender, they are not minted for general circulation. Instead, they are designed to be collected and to help designated groups raise money to support group activities. Commemorative coin legislation is often proposed by Members of Congress as part of their representational duties.

The first commemorative coin was authorized in 1892 for the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Issued as a silver half-dollar, the proceeds for the sale of the coin were used "for the purpose of aiding in defraying the cost of completing in a suitable manner the work of preparation for inaugurating the World's Columbian Exposition."

Beginning in 1892 and continuing to the present day—with a hiatus between 1954 and 1981—coins have been a part of the commemoration of people, places, events, and institutions. This report examines the origins, development, and current practices for commemorative coins, including the authorization process; the design of coins; and issues for congressional consideration, including the disbursement of surcharges, the number of coins minted per year, differences between the number of authorized coins and coins sold, and requirements for legislative consideration in the House and Senate.

Since 1892, Congress has authorized 152 new commemorative coins. Sixty of these coins were authorized between 1892 and 1954. During this period, most commemorative coins celebrated state anniversaries (e.g., Connecticut's tercentennial in 1935), expositions and event anniversaries (e.g., the Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial in 1925 or the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in 1903), or helped support memorials (e.g., the Grant Memorial in 1922 or the Stone Mountain Memorial in 1925). During this time period, coins "were sold to sponsoring organizations, which resold them to the public at higher prices as a means of fundraising." The authorization of new commemorative coins was "discontinued by Congress in 1939, with the exception of three coins issued through 1954." For a list of historical commemorative coins authorized between 1892 and 1954, see Appendix A .

Between 1954 and 1981, Congress did not authorize any new commemorative coins. The moratorium on new commemorative coins was in part because public interest in the coins had waned and the Department of the Treasury was concerned that "multiplicity of designs on United States coins would tend to create confusion among the public, and to facilitate counterfeiting." In his February 1954 veto statement to Congress on S. 2474 (83 rd Congress), which would have authorized a 50-cent piece for the tercentennial of New York City, President Eisenhower cited a diminishing interest among the public for the collection of commemorative coins. President Eisenhower stated:

I am further advised by the Treasury Department that in the past in many instances the public interest in these special coins has been so short-lived that their sales for the purposes intended have lagged with the result that large quantities have remained unsold and have been returned to the mints for melting.

In 1982, Congress resumed the authorization of commemorative coins with the enactment of a bill to issue a commemorative half-dollar for George Washington's 250 th birthday. With the issuance of new commemorative coins, the "range of subject matter expanded to include subjects such as women, historical events, and even buildings and landscapes." Additionally, the concept of surcharges as a method to direct money to designated groups was introduced. The idea of a surcharge—a statutorily authorized "dollar amount added to the price of each coin" —was not without controversy. "These related surcharges became controversial with collectors, many of whom resented making involuntary donations when they bought coins. Today, the practice ... is ... the linchpin that has ignited most commemorative programs—as potential recipients of the surcharge launch ... lobbying campaigns in Congress."

Commemorative coins authorized during the modern period can be subdivided into coins minted between 1982 and 1997, and coins minted since 1998. In 1996, the Commemorative Coin Reform Act (CCRA) was enacted to (1) limit the maximum number of different coin programs minted per year; (2) limit the maximum number of coins minted per commemorative coin program; and (3) clarify the law with respect to the recovery of Mint expenses before surcharges are disbursed and conditions of payment of surcharges to recipient groups. The CCRA restrictions began in 1998.

Between 1982 and 1997, Congress authorized 47 commemorative coins. In several cases, multiple coins were authorized to recognize specific events, including the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles and the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. See Appendix B for a list of commemorative coins authorized by Congress prior to the two-per-year limit imposed by the CCRA.

As noted above, the CCRA limited the U.S. Mint to issuing two coins per year, beginning in 1998. This action was taken in response to the proliferation of commemorative coins authorized since the program was restarted in 1982. Between 1982 and 1997, as many as six different coins were minted in a single year (1994). Ten distinct coins were issued each year (eight Olympic coins per year in addition to two other commemorative coin programs) in 1995 and 1996. Starting in 1998, a maximum of two coins were to be authorized for minting in a given year. Even with this restriction, however, three coins were minted in 1999. Additionally, on two occasions, only one coin was authorized for a given year—2003 and 2008. Table 1 lists authorized commemorative coins since 1998, including their authorizing statute.

As listed in Table 1 , a total of 41 commemorative coins were struck by the U.S. Mint between 1998 and 2018. The average coin minted during this time period was authorized three years prior to being struck, with the longest time period between authorization and minting being the West Point Bicentennial commemorative coin, which was authorized in 1994 to be struck in 2002. The shortest time period between authorization and minting was the San Francisco Old Mint commemorative coin, which was authorized and struck in the same year: 2006.

In addition to completed commemorative coin programs, Congress has authorized coins to be minted in 2019 and future years. Currently, coins are authorized for 2019 and 2020. No coins are currently authorized for 2021 or beyond. Table 2 lists current and future commemorative coins, including their authorizing statute.

Each Congress, several proposals are introduced to authorize new commemorative coins. Table 3 lists proposals for new commemorative coins introduced in the 115 th Congress. These bills would have authorized coins for minting between 2017 and 2022. Legislation that became law—American Legion 100 th Anniversary and the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame—is not included in Table 3 .

Commemorative coin legislation generally has certain features, including

findings that summarize the commemorative subject's history and importance; specifications for denominations, weight, and metallic makeup; design requirements, including required dates, words, and images; start and end dates for minting coins and any other limitations; requirements for selling coins; coin surcharge and distribution to designated groups; and assurances that costs of the coin program are recouped by the U.S. Mint.

The following provides examples of the features generally found in a commemorative coin bill.

Commemorative coin legislation typically includes a section of findings. These include historical facts about the people, places, events, and institutions being honored by the coin. For example, the legislation to authorize the Star-Spangled Banner commemorative coin stated:

The coin specification section typically provides details on the type and number of coins authorized to be minted. Additionally, this section generally includes language that makes the coin legal tender and a numismatic item. In some cases, this section also includes specific language on coin design. For example, the legislation authorizing the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coin includes language on the three types of coins authorized—$5 gold coin, $1 silver coin, and half-dollar clad coin—and a sense of Congress that the reverse side of the coin should be "convex to more closely resemble a baseball, and the obverse concave."

Commemorative coin legislation also typically specifies requirements for the design of the coin. These include official language on words or dates that are to appear on the coin and instructions about how the design might be chosen. For example, the legislation to authorize the Civil Rights Act of 1964 commemorative coin stated:

The issuance of coins section typically specifies the time period that the coin will be available for sale and provides any instructions to the Secretary of the Treasury as to which mint location should strike the coins and the quality of the coins to be issued. For example, the March of Dimes commemorative coin authorization stated:

The sale of coins section typically sets the sale price of the coin and provides instructions to the Mint on bulk sales and prepaid coin orders. For example, the statute authorizing the Five-Star Generals commemorative coin stated:

The surcharges section of the legislation typically sets the surcharges (amount above the face value that the U.S. Mint charges) per coin and designates the distribution of these surcharges to recipient organizations. For example, the statute to authorize the U.S. Army commemorative coin stated:

More information on surcharges and disbursement to designated recipient organizations can be found below under " Disbursement of Surcharges ."

Some bills have included a section on financial assurances. This section generally states that minting coins will not result in a net cost to the government. The Mint is currently required to recover its expenses before it can disburse potential surcharges to recipient organizations designated in a commemorative coin statute. The Mint has stated that all commemorative coin programs have operated at no cost to the taxpayer since 1997. For example, the statute to authorize the American Legion 100 th Anniversary commemorative coin stated:

Consideration of Legislation in Congress

Once a commemorative coin bill is introduced, it is typically referred to the House Committee on Financial Services or the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

Neither House nor Senate rules provide any restrictions specifically concerning consideration of commemorative coin legislation on the House or Senate floor. Pursuant to Senate and House rules, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House Committee on Financial Services have jurisdiction over commemorative coin legislation.

In the Senate, the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee rules place a minimum on the number of cosponsors a commemorative coin bill must have before committee consideration. Committee Rule 8 requires that "at least 67 Senators must cosponsor any ... commemorative coin bill or resolution before consideration by the Committee."

The rules of the House Financial Services Committee adopted for the 116 th Congress do not specifically address committee consideration of commemorative coin legislation, although informal practices may exist.

After Congress has authorized a commemorative coin, the U.S. Treasury begins the coin design process. This process involves consultation with the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) and a design recommendation by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA). The final decision on a coin's design is made by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Established by P.L. 108-15 , the CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury on theme and design of all U.S. coins and medals. For commemorative coins, the CCAC advises the Secretary with regard to events, persons, or places to be commemorated, the mintage level of coins, and commemorative coin designs.

The CCAC consists of 11 members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, with four persons appointed upon the recommendation of the congressional leadership (one each by the Speaker of the House, the House minority leader, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate minority leader). The CCAC meets several times each year to consider design suggestions for coins and medals. For each coin considered, the CCAC provides advice to the Secretary "on thematic, technical, and design issues related to the production of coins." Recommendations are then published to the committee's website, at http://www.ccac.gov .

When making recommendations to the Secretary, the CCAC considers several design aspects. Figure 1 shows the CCAC's "Design Aspects We Look For," when advising groups on coin design.

Figure 2 shows examples of U.S. Commemorative coins. These include the first U.S. commemorative coin (1893 World's Columbian Exposition half-dollar), one of the best-selling commemorative coin programs of all time (1986 Statue of Liberty half-dollar), and one of the most recent (2016 National Park Service Centennial).

The U.S. Mint also makes a formal presentation of design options to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA). Established in 1910, the CFA advises "upon the location of statues, fountains, and monuments in the public squares, streets, and parks in the District of Columbia, the selection of models for statues, fountains, and monuments erected under the authority of the Federal Government; the selection of artists; and questions of art generally when required to do so by the President or a committee of Congress." This includes review of commemorative coins when they are presented by the U.S. Mint and the issuance of recommendations for a coin's design.

For example, in March 2016, the U.S. Mint presented several alternative designs for the Boys Town Centennial Commemorative Coin program. In a letter to the U.S. Mint, the CFA provided recommendations on the design for each of the three statutorily required coins. CFA's letter stated:

After receiving advice from the CCAC and the CFA, the Secretary of the Treasury, through the U.S. Mint, finalizes the coin's design and schedules it for production at the appropriate time. In some cases, the U.S. Mint holds a competition for coin designs. For example, in February 2016, the U.S. Mint announced a design competition for the 2018 commemorative coin to World War I American Veterans. Additionally, designers competed for the 2018 Breast Cancer Awareness commemorative coin. The final design was announced in October 2017.

From authorization to coin launch, the CCAC has estimated that a commemorative coin takes a minimum of between 56 and 60 weeks. This includes the coin design process, engraving, marketing, printing materials, and coin launch. This timeline, however, does not account for coin programs that might be authorized years in advance of the coins' scheduled release. In those circumstances, the process from authorization to coin launch will be considerably longer. The process, as described by the CCAC, is shown in Figure 3 .

As discussed above under " Authorizing Commemorative Coins ," each authorizing statute sets a surcharge amount per coin and designates one or more recipient organizations to receive the surcharges. A designated recipient organization is "any organization designated, under any provision of law, as the recipient of any surcharge imposed on the sale of any numismatic item."

Commemorative coin legislation generally includes the name(s) of the organization(s) that will benefit from the sale of the coin and how the surcharges will be divided, if necessary. For example, the legislation authorizing a commemorative coin for the U.S. Marshals Service specified four groups to receive distribution from the program. They were

the U.S. Marshals Museum, Inc., the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association Foundation, and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

Additionally, the law might also specify how much money the designated recipient organization should receive. For th e Marshals Service commemorative coin, the first $5 million was specified for the U.S. Marshals Museum. After that, additional surcharges were divided equally among the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association Foundation, and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

Once a commemorative coin has been authorized, the CCRA requires that certain standards be met before surcharge payments can be distributed to designated recipient organizations:

1. The recipient organization must raise funds from private sources "in an amount that is equal to or greater than the total amount of the proceeds of such surcharge derived from the sale of such numismatic item." 2. The qualifying funds raised from private sources must be for the purposes specified by the enabling legislation. 3. The U.S. Mint must recover "all numismatic operation and program costs allocable to the program." 4. The recipient organization must submit an audited financial statement and submit the results of annual audits to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury, that it has qualified for surcharge proceeds and is properly expending them.

Guidance provided by the U.S. Mint in Surcharge Recipient Organization's Compliance Procedures for Surcharge Eligibility & Payments includes further details of the requirements placed on designated recipient groups before surcharge payments can be made . These include requirements for documentation on the amount of money raised from private sources and the period of fund raising. To document these requirements, designated recipient groups must fill out a "Schedule of Funds Raised From Private Sources," which is provided in an appendix to the Surcharge Recipient Organization's Compliance Procedures for Surcharge Eligibility & Payments publication.

Following completion of these tasks, and after the Mint has recouped any expenses related to minting the commemorative coin, surcharges are then disbursed to the designated recipient organization. Since 1982, when the commemorative coin program was restarted, the U.S. Mint has raised more than $506 million in surcharges for various designated recipient groups. Production costs for each commemorative coin can differ based on design, administrative costs, and metals used. For example, Table 4 shows how the U.S. Mint calculated surcharges for a commemorative coin for the 2007 Benjamin Franklin Commemorative Coin.

As Members of Congress contemplate introducing legislation, and the House or the Senate potentially considers commemorative coin measures, there are several issues that could be considered. These can be divided into issues for individual Members of Congress with respect to individual coins, and issues for Congress as an institution. Individual issues include choices Member may make about which people, places, events, or institutions might be honored; which groups might receive surcharge payments; and whether specific design elements might be required for a proposed coin. Institutional issues might include committee or chamber rules on the consideration of commemorative coins and the limit on the number of commemorative coins minted per year.

Some commemorative coin programs are more popular than others. For example, since the commemorative coin program was restarted in 1982, the average commemorative coin program has sold approximately 1 million coins. The 1986 U.S. Statue of Liberty coins (15,491,169 coins) sold the most, while the 1997 Franklin Delano Roosevelt gold $5 coin sold the fewest (41,368).

The introduction of commemorative coin legislation often serves two purposes: to honor people, places, events, or institutions and to provide designated recipient groups with potential surcharge funds. These two purposes often go together. Since only two coins may be minted in a given year, Congress may face a ranking of which groups are honored at any given time. In making that decision, consideration might be given to coins that are likely to sell their authorized allotment and provide the designated recipient group with disbursed surcharges over coins that might be less popular and might not sell enough units to provide surcharges to the designated recipient group.

Alternatively, Congress could decide that a person, place, event, or institution merits a commemorative coin regardless of the potential sales of the coin. In this instance, the authorization for a coin might not expect that the allotment would be fully sold, but that the recognition provided by the coin was nevertheless desirable.

An important part of commemorative coin legislation is the designation of groups to receive potential surcharges from the coin sales. Often, when drafting legislation, Members have specific organizations in mind as recipients of potential surcharges. As that legislation is being drafted, however, Members face a choice of whether surcharges should be directed to a single group, or to more than one entity.

In order for a group to receive surcharge payments, it must go through two stages: (1) raise sufficient matching funds from private sources, and (2) be subject to annual audits on its use of surcharge payments. Designated recipient groups are required to raise matching funds from private sources prior to the disbursement of surcharges. A group's ability to raise sufficient funds is a potentially important consideration. Should a group not raise sufficient private funds, the full surcharge payment for which they could be eligible might not be disbursed.

Authorizing legislation generally includes language about how the group might use surcharges. As shown in " Surcharges " above, these purposes are often broad. For example, the legislation that authorized the 1993 Thomas Jefferson Commemorative coin directed surcharges to two organizations: the Jefferson Endowment Fund and the Corporation for Jefferson's Poplar Forest. Funds for the Jefferson Endowment Fund were to be used "to establish and maintain an endowment to be a permanent source of support for Monticello and its historic furnishings; and for the Jefferson Endowment Fund's educational programs, including the International Center for Jefferson Studies." For the Corporation for Jefferson's Poplar Forest, funds were to be used for the "restoration and maintenance of Poplar Forest."

Once sufficient funds are raised and surcharges are disbursed, designated recipient groups are subject to an audit of surcharge payments. Additionally, the surcharge payments must be "accounted for separately from all other revenues and expenditures of the organization." These audits are conducted "in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards by an independent public accountant selected by the organization." Should a group not use payments properly, that information would likely be discovered by the required audit and could potentially result in a sanction, although no specific penalty is mentioned in law.

In some cases, commemorative coin authorizations have required the Mint to incorporate design elements beyond requirements for specific words (e.g., "Liberty," or "E Pluribus Unum"), the denomination (e.g., "one dollar"), or the year. In these cases, the authorizing legislation specifically states the design element. For example, it was a sense of Congress that the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coin was to be curved to look more like a baseball. Similarly, the 2018 Breast Cancer Awareness $5 gold coin is to be minted using "pink gold."

Should a Member wish to have a specific design element incorporated into a future commemorative coin, the authorizing legislation would likely need to contain that language either as a sense of Congress or as part of the coin specification section. Including language that would require a certain design element would likely ensure that the Member's vision for the commemorative coin would be incorporated into the design and minting process. Such specification, however, could serve to limit design choice for the commemorative coin and might alter the cost structure of striking a coin, if the required element diverges from standard coin-minting practices.

Requirements for Legislative Consideration

As discussed above under " Consideration of Legislation in Congress ," neither House nor Senate rules provide any restrictions specifically concerning consideration of commemorative coin legislation on the House or Senate floor. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, however, does have a committee rule that requires that at "least 67 Senators must cosponsor any ... commemorative coin bill or resolution before consideration by the Committee." Currently, the House Financial Services Committee has not adopted any specific rules concerning committee consideration of commemorative coin legislation, although it has required a minimum number of cosponsors in past Congresses.

As demonstrated by the discontinuation of the House Financial Services Committee rule requiring a minimum number of cosponsors for committee commemorative coin legislation, committee rules can be changed from Congress to Congress. Should the House want to place requirements on the consideration of commemorative coin legislation, the Financial Services Committee could readopt its former rule, or something similar. Adopting committee rules to require a minimum number of cosponsors might encourage bill sponsors to build support among Representatives for a commemorative coin bill to honor a specified group or event. Such a minimum requirement, however, could potentially limit the committee in the number or type of commemorative coin bills it considers.

Since only the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has a rule that imposes a formal qualification on the potential consideration of commemorative coin legislation, the possible path forward for a bill can be different within each chamber. Should the House, the Senate, or both want to adopt similar language for the consideration of commemorative coin legislation, such language could be incorporated into future committee rules, into House and Senate Rules, or into law. Taking steps to formally codify the commemorative coin consideration process might provide sponsors with a single process for coin consideration, which could make it easier for coin bills to meet minimum requirements for consideration across both the House and Senate. Such codification could also limit congressional flexibility and might result in fewer proposals or authorizations to comply with new standards.

In 1996, Congress limited the U.S. Mint to issuing two coins per year beginning in calendar year 1998. This action was taken in response to the proliferation of commemorative coins authorized since the program was restarted in 1982. Should Congress want to increase or decrease the maximum number of commemorative coins minted per year, the law could be amended. Reducing the number of commemorative coins per year would also reduce the number of groups or events that might be commemorated and reduce the number of designated recipient groups that might be aided by the disbursement of coin surcharges. A decrease in the number of commemorative coins per year, however, could increase sales on authorized coins by reducing potential competition among coin programs.

Should Congress desire to increase the number of coins, more people, places, events, or institutions could potentially be honored, and a larger variety of designated recipient groups might receive surcharges from the U.S. Mint. Authorizing additional commemorative coin programs, however, could increase the number of commemorative coins available and reintroduce problems associated with competition among commemorative coin programs and result in a proliferation of coins on the market at any given time. Such a scenario might result in decreased surcharge disbursement opportunities for individual designated recipient groups.

Commemorative coins have long been a popular way to honor people, places, and events. Historically, commemorative coins were issued to celebrate state anniversaries, expositions, and event anniversaries, or to support the building of memorials. Coins were generally sold to sponsoring organizations, who then resold them to raise funds. In the modern era, only two coins can be minted per year at the same time; according to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), the "range of subject matter [has] expanded to include subjects such as women, historical events, and even buildings and landscapes." Additionally, instead of selling coins to organizations to raise money, the concept of surcharges as a method to direct money to designated groups has been introduced.

As Congress considers the authorization of new coins to support designated recipient groups, consideration might be given to coins that could maximize sales and provide groups with the ability to earn as much money as possible for surcharges to support group activities. On the other hand, if Congress's intent for a coin is to recognize a person, place, event, or institution, then smaller sales numbers might not factor into legislative decisionmaking. Some commemorations inherently have broader appeal than others and the sale of commemorative coins often reflects the popularity of a particular person, place, event, or institution to coin collectors and the broader general public.

To potentially maximize the appeal and sale of commemorative coins to support designated recipient organizations, Congress might consider whether the people, places, events, or institutions to be commemorated have a broad appeal and whether design elements might be specified that would make the coin more appealing to the general public. For example, the 1986 Statue of Liberty commemorative coin (shown in Figure 2 ) sold over 15 million units, while other coins have sold as few as approximately 40,000. For a designated recipient organization to earn surcharges, the U.S. Mint's production costs must be recouped before payments can be made. As a result, coins that sell out of statutory allotments are more likely to generate significant surcharges than those that struggle to find a market beyond commemorative coin collectors.

Similarly, on at least three occasions, Congress has provided specific requirements to the U.S. Mint on the design of commemorative coins—that the 2014 National Baseball Hall of Fame coin be curved to represent a baseball; that the 2018 National Breast Cancer Awareness coin be tinted pink, to reflect the color associated with breast cancer awareness efforts; and that the 2019 Apollo 11 50 th Anniversary coin be convex to resemble an astronaut's helmet. Evidence from the coin collecting community suggests that a coin with unique design features may be more attractive for coin collectors and noncollectors alike. For example, a coin-collecting publication reported that the National Baseball Hall of Fame coin was so popular that the U.S. Mint had difficulty meeting demand for orders, especially because it was the "first U.S. coin to utilize this [curved or dish design] production method and with a baseball theme, [it] ended up being a homerun with collectors."

The goal of commemorative coins is twofold: to commemorate a person, place, event, or institution and to provide surcharges to groups. As Congress considers future commemorative coins, the ability to appeal to broad segments of the population to purchase coins in support of designated recipient groups might be a consideration. If Congress considers what people, places, events, or institutions might be honored and the coins' designs, the commemorative coin program could create innovative designs that raise significant monies for designated recipient groups. Since not all people, places, events, or institutions have the same appeal to the general public, consideration of which might be the best subject of commemorative coins would ensure that the U.S. Mint dedicates its resources to coins that are more likely to sell out authorized allotments and provide maximum surcharge payments. Alternatively, Congress could recognize important people, places, events, or institutions with a coin without consideration of the potential surcharges. In this case, historically important people, places, events, or institutions could be recognized by the United States regardless of potential amounts raised for these groups.

Appendix A. Historical Commemorative Coins

Between 1892 and 1954, 60 commemorative coins were authorized by Congress. Table A-1 provides a list of these coins organized by the year in which they were struck by the mint. The table also includes the type of coin, the subject, and the authorization statute.

Appendix B. Modern Commemorative Coins, 1982-1997

Between 1982 and 1997, 47 commemorative coins were authorized by Congress. Table B-1 provides a list of these coins organized by the year in which they were struck by the Mint. The table also includes the coin's subject and authorizing statute. Coin denominations are not provided for modern commemorative coins because authorizing legislation generally provides for more than one denomination per commemorative coin series.