A multitude of laws enacted over the past century authorize the lease or sale of federal lands and resources by federal agencies—the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (USFS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The receipts from selling or leasing federal lands and resources have been used for a wide variety of purposes, including funding general federal government activities and compensating state and local governments for the tax-exempt status of federal lands. This report presents information on the receipts from the sale and/or lease of federal lands and resources; it identifies the legislative authority for the sales or leases and the process by which fees are established. It also presents information on the disposition of those receipts—the amount or percentage allocated to specific accounts or deposited in the General Treasury. Many of these accounts have mandatory spending authority, allowing deposits to be spent without further appropriation by Congress. Others require annual appropriations by Congress to be spent. The report does not include information on federal receipts from water resources or marine fisheries, or federal lands and resources administered by other departments or agencies, such as the Department of Defense. It also excludes renewable energy activities on federal lands, because the receipts from these activities are relatively minor at this time. The report presents information on federal land sales, on the sale or lease of renewable resources, on the sale or lease of minerals, and on other resource sales or leases. Congress faces two general issues in legislation to create or reauthorize programs for the sale or lease of federal lands and resources: the price or fee to be charged, and how the receipts should be used. At a time of heightened fiscal concerns, the sale or lease of lands and resources presents opportunities to increase federal receipts and/or to use receipts to reduce the federal deficit, and ultimately the burden on federal taxpayers. On the other hand, a significant portion of receipts historically has been paid to state and local governments. In authorizing land and resource sales and leases, Congress can choose how fees or prices are to be established. Some sales and leases are offered and bid competitively, and thus the price is a value determined by the market. Other leases and sales are made at prices either specified in law or set administratively within statutory guidelines. Some administered prices are intended to estimate a fair market value, such as the appraisals for federal land sales. Other administered prices reflect other factors; for instance, grazing fees are to reflect sale prices of beef cattle, among other factors. In some instances, there has been considerable debate over the factors to be considered in setting fees. Some have raised concerns that administered fees differ from the prices that would occur in a competitive market. BLM and USFS grazing fees, for example, have been noted to be below the fees charged by other landowners. Critics argue that the low fees are a substantial subsidy to the ranching industry; others contend that the fees reflect that public land ranching is an economically marginal operation, and that higher grazing fees would drive many ranchers out of business. Similarly, hardrock mining fees recover at least some administrative costs, but return none of the value of the minerals extracted from the federal land; however, free access to the minerals has promoted economic development in many areas. Congress can also choose how to allocate receipts from any of the land and resource sale or lease programs it creates or amends. One issue is whether to provide mandatory spending authority for the receipts. Proponents of mandatory spending for particular programs generally are seeking greater financial stability, as compared to the vagaries of the annual appropriations process. Opponents argue that all taxpayers should benefit from the sale or lease of public assets, and often desire the more intense oversight that comes with annual appropriations. Mandatory spending also can affect federal spending levels and the budget deficit. Another issue is how the receipts should be used. Some advocate using the fees to reduce the fiscal burden on taxpayers generally. However, some fees are intended to recover administrative costs, while others are intended to fund activities to restore lands and resources to pre-sale conditions. Other receipts are "reinvested" in federal land or resource management in some way. In general, users may be more likely to tolerate higher fees or prices if they see that the additional federal receipts are to be used for management programs that they benefit from, at least in the long run, if not immediately. Generally, only the BLM is authorized to sell lands that it administers. Land sale authority is quite narrow for the USFS, and almost nonexistent for the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service. Receipts are from the sale of public (i.e., BLM) lands under various authorities. BLM sale authorities include the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq. ); the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA; 43 U.S.C. §§2301 et seq. ); disposals under geographic-specific laws, perhaps most notably the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA; P.L. 105-263 , as amended); patents under the General Mining Law (see " Hardrock/Locatable Minerals ," below); transfers to other governmental units for public purposes; and other statutes. Prices under most authorities (e.g., FLPMA, FLTFA, and SNPLMA) are based on fair market value, as determined by an agency appraisal. Also, some land disposal authorities (e.g., the General Mining Law) have other pricing provisions. Reclamation Fund —76% of receipts in Reclamation states under FLPMA and FLTFA are deposited in the fund; expenditures require an annual appropriation. Payments to States —4% of land sale receipts under FLPMA and FLTFA are permanently appropriated to the states. FLTFA —96% of land sale receipts under FLTFA are permanently appropriated to a designated account for the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture to use to acquire inholdings and adjacent nonfederal lands (or interests therein) with exceptional resources in the state where the receipts were generated; not more than 20% can be used for administrative expenses related to land disposal. SNLPMA, Federal Funds —85% of SNLPMA land sale receipts are permanently appropriated to a designated account for the Secretary of the Interior to use for certain purposes in Nevada: federal acquisition of environmentally sensitive land; capital improvements at certain federal areas; development of parks, trails, and natural areas in particular counties; and other purposes. SNLPMA, Local Payments —10% of SNLPMA land sale receipts are permanently appropriated to the Southern Nevada Water Authority. SNLPMA, State Payments —5% of SNLPMA land sale receipts are permanently appropriated to the State of Nevada General Education Fund. General Treasury —any remaining receipts (20% in Reclamation states and 96% in non-Reclamation states from FLPMA sales) are deposited in the Treasury. Recreation by the public is an authorized use of most federal lands. Recreational uses include a wide variety of activities, such as hiking, camping, bird watching, sightseeing, hunting, fishing, boating, and off-road driving. The agencies may restrict recreation in some areas to reduce conflicts that might occur, such as between off-road vehicle use and hiking. Fees are charged for recreation on federal lands and waters under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA; Title VIII of Division J of P.L. 108-447 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005). FLREA authorizes different fees for the four major federal land management agencies (and the Bureau of Reclamation), including entrance, standard amenity, expanded amenity, and special recreation permit fees. The law outlines criteria for establishing fees, and prohibits charging fees for certain activities and services. Fees are set administratively under the criteria, prohibitions, and other provisions of FLREA. The intent is, in general, to promote fair and consistent fees among agencies and locations, commensurate with the benefits and services provided. The Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture are required to consider comparable fees charged elsewhere, such as by nearby private providers of recreation services. To minimize confusion, burden, and overlap of fees, the Secretaries also are required to consider the aggregate effect of recreation fees on recreation users and providers. They are directed to establish the minimum number of fees and avoid collecting multiple or layered fees for similar purposes. In establishing new fees and fee sites, the Secretaries are required to obtain input from the public and from Recreation Resource Advisory Committees. FLREA Accounts —100% of receipts are deposited into a designated account for each agency in the Treasury, and are permanently appropriated to the Secretaries. In general, at least 80% of the receipts are directed to be used at the site where they were generated, for various purposes including visitor services and the operation, maintenance, and restoration of facilities. The remaining collections are available to be used at the discretion of the agency. The law contains other provisions for the distribution of certain collections, including from the sale of recreation passes authorized in the FLREA (e.g., the national recreation pass). The majority of timber from federal lands is sold by the USFS. In addition, the BLM sells timber: about 90% of BLM timber is sold from the Oregon and California (O&C) grant lands and the Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) grant lands in western Oregon. Both agencies determine the total amount of timber to be sold and the size and frequency of sales, generally based on land and resource management plans for the areas.