Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the committee.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1975, the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996. The purpose of this bill is to improve the management of royalties from Federal oil and gas leases onshore and on the Outer Continental Shelf, as well. H.R. 1975 does this by establishing clear an equitable provisions for the effective and efficient administration of leases by the Secretary of the Interior to further exploration and development of oil and gas resources. Mr. Speaker, our existing laws, regulations, policies, and procedures related to oil and gas leasing lack clarity and consistency and impose unnecessary and unreasonable costs and burdens on lessees and the Government alike. Because the Federal Royalty Program is so complex and unfair a damper is placed upon competition for these leases--especially among the smaller independent producers. This complexity is an outgrowth of reforms mandated by conditions in the late 1970's when States and Indian tribes which share in these leasing receipts charged that the Federal agency then responsible for collecting royalties could not adequately track payments against obligations. The Commission on Fiscal Accountability of the Nation's energy resources was chartered to study possible reforms, and made 60 recommendations for improvements. Nearly 14 years ago, Congress passed the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act to implement many of the panel suggestions, which, indeed, has clearly improved Federal royalty management with increased revenues to the U.S. Treasury, and to the States via the net receipts sharing formula for onshore leases and certain OCS leases. However, further improvements are necessary. For example, multiple conflicting laws and recent lower court decisions holding that no statute of limitations applies for royalty purposes have created uncertainty and unfairness for lessees subject to indefinite audit exposure. Mr. Speaker, unlike the situation for taxpayers and the IRS, the royalty books are never closed for a lessee of the Interior Department--and because of this the Government doesn't act timely to make payment demands of lessees. It simply is not a priority of the Feds because the Department of the Interior can go back decades later to audit and if necessary demand further payment. But, what kind of way is this to run a multibillion dollar program? Money has a time value and the Secretary's levy of interest on royalty underpayments does not fully offset the many years delay in collecting what may be owed. Furthermore, current law severely restricts Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act lessees access to overpayments made to the Federal Government, and does not provide for the time value of lessees' overpayments, while at the same time underpayors definitely owe interest. In other words, the playing field is so far tilted it's a wonder anybody plays the game. But, Mr. Speaker, the most overlooked reform recommended by the Commission was to further involve the States in Federal royalty collections. We must not forget that many States have auditors who are ready, willing, and able to do the job, as well as the motivation to go after each and every penny or royalty owed. Because for every dollar collected from an onshore Federal lessee 50 cents will come back to the State's treasury. For most of the States where the Federal acreage is concentrated this revenue stream is a significant part of their operating budgets for schools, roads, or other programs. For such States, the lack of aggressive efforts by the Feds to collect these moneys to be shared is very frustrating. And to top it all off, since fiscal year 1991 the States have had to pay one-fourth of the Feds costs to manage the mineral leasing program--from the land-use planning stage through leasing, permitting, and, if the leases are productive, the collection of royalties. Mr. Speaker, in truth, this is why we are here today. Our States are demanding a larger role in policing what they are owed from lessees and H.R. 1975 will provide them such opportunity. The Vice President proposed 1 year ago to totally devolve the royalty program to the States. Although that proposal was pulled back after a few months, the administration fully supports the State delegation language we are voting upon today, indeed, the entire bill has the President's backing. Quite frankly, I would have liked a stronger delegation provision requiring the Secretary of the Interior to give primacy for royalty collection to those States which are able to demonstrate an efficient program, but that was not achievable this year. Instead, the Secretary will have discretion to hand down these duties to States or maintain the current Federal role. Given the realities of the Federal budget, I believe enactment of H.R. 1975 will ultimately lead to expanded delegation to the States simply because staffing in the Interior Department will for all practical purposes dictate this result. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill would increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury by $36 million over 6 years, and cumulatively to the States by $9 million during the same interval. This bill is good Government, pure and simple, and I ask my colleagues for their support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1975, the bill just passed.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I want to offer my condolences to the families and loved one of those killed in Saudi Arabia yesterday, another act of terror. Madam Speaker, under current law, the Bureau of Justice may transfer any surplus property which they administer over to the State and local authorities provided that the property is used for the establishment of prisons. I am introducing a bill that would allow State and local authorities to use surplus Federal properties and other public safety needs such as police and firefighting training facilities. This will help prevent terror and lawlessness in our own country. Prisons may still be build under this measure. This bill provides flexibility to make the best use of these facilities, based on local needs. This is particularly helpful for communities attempting to reuse closed or realigned military bases. I work closely with the Bureau of Justice on this measure and it has bipartisan support. I intend to introduce this legislation tomorrow. Please join me and cosponsor this important measure.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Regula for allowing me the opportunity to offer this amendment. My amendment would simply transfer $1 million from the Forest Service general administration account to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. We are decreasing bureaucracy to bring money back to the local communities to help save endangered species. The transferred money would be used to further the completion of habitat conservation plans and thus would serve two important purposes. It would provide lands as safe harbors for threatened and endangered species and bring us one step closer to creating multi-species preserves. It would also help protect American citizens from any negative effects of the Endangered Species Act by freeing them from various restrictions and fees. I would like to see acceptance of this amendment.

Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the McIntosh amendment and certainly in favor of the Roemer-Royce amendment to the United States Housing Act. The McIntosh amendment is a poison pill meant to kill this commonsense reform that we are working on. The McIntosh amendment is certainly opposed by HUD. But more importantly, the great majority, the great majority of the industry, the manufactured industry here in the United States, is also in opposition, along with many, many consumer groups. It is an unworkable proposal that flies in the face of this Congress's efforts to return authority to State and local governments. It is of particular concern to California as the McIntosh language would more than likely prevent local governments from allowing fire sprinklers in manufactured housing, a great concern in my area, and as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] mentioned, the problem we have had with wind and sheer in the Florida area, we could have had that resolved if this committee was in effect earlier. On the other hand, the Roemer-Royce amendment has broad bipartisan support and the backing, as I mentioned earlier, of industry, HUD and consumers. It creates a committee consisting of manufacturers, consumers, public officials and other interest groups. This committee will develop standards for manufactured housing in partnership with the HUD secretary. Let us not lose an opportunity to enact commonense reform. Reject the poison-pill McIntosh amendment and support the bipartisan Roemer-Royce- Calvert proposal.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cremeans] who has been very helpful in this legislation.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry]. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Hawaii for his courtesy through all of this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] who has really fought this battle to end the helium program once and for all, and hopefully, this time, will succeed. (Mr. COX of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks).

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the various bills considered today.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, illegal immigrants are from all over the world. They are not just from South America, they are from Asia, they are from Europe, they are from Russia. One thing they all have in common, they mostly want a job. As an employer, you have certain responsibilities in this country. One of those responsibilities is to fill out an I-9 form. That has given employers a cover, because once you have that I-9 form in the personnel jacket, along with two pieces of identification, along with that Social Security card, in every case, if the INS comes into your establishment and you have met that criteria, even though you have a great number of illegals working in that business, you are not held accountable for that, because there is no way for you to verify whether or not a Social Security card is a fraudulent document. This is all that does. It gives an opportunity for an employer to call a number and check a name to a number. This is a system that we must have, and quite frankly, if it is a voluntary system, those people that are not very good employers and who are knowingly hiring illegals are going to continue to do so.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, the Chabot amendment takes the teeth out of this bill. Illegal immigrants come to this country for one reason, jobs. The immigration bill of 1986 tried to move in the right direction, but it failed to maintain an adequate workplace enforcement provision. What it did was create a system where employers are forced to be pseudo INS agents. With the fear of fines, employers must decide which documents are fake and which are real. This is an unfair, unrealistic burden. 1-800 is not big brother. It simply gives employers an easy, cost-effective way to make sure they are following Federal law. As a former small businessman who ran several restaurants in southern California, I saw my share of suspicious documents over the years. 1- 800 would give me peace of mind as a small employer. When I first proposed a toll-free workplace verification system back in 1994, I had no idea it would attract such attention. I am glad that it has, but like many hot issues, certain untruths have cropped up. 1-800 is not big brother; it is not an intrusion into small business; it is not discriminatory; it is not an ID number or system. It is, however, cost-effective, nondiscriminatory, business-friendly and, most importantly, the most effective tool we have at stopping illegal immigration once and for all. It may come as a surprise, but many employers knowingly hire illegal immigrants in this country. These employers hide behind the current law. The I-9 form, which I have used on thousands of occasions as an employer, is cover. Get your fake documents, xerox them on the back of the I-9 form and when the INS comes in, you are OK. That is wrong. We need to have a verification system that employers can rely on. If you vote for Chabot, you are voting for the status quo. I urge Members to vote to support tough action against illegal immigration and oppose the Chabot amendment.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, March 14, 1996, I inadvertently voted in favor of the Watt amendment which would have stricken the antiterrorism bill's--H.R. 2703--habeas corpus provisions. This was rollcall vote No. 64. I wish to express on the record that I had intended to vote in opposition to the Watt amendment. I strongly favor limiting the ability of State death-row and other prisoners to challenge in Federal court the constitutionality of their sentences.