Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. We do need a verification for employers, and we will be voting on that later today. But in the meantime, we make decisions here to cut spending both nationally and locally on programs that are important to all American citizens in this country. Now we have an amendment to pay tax dollars to people who have entered this country illegally. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, that is wrong, and we should oppose this amendment as it comes forward.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, a strong domestic oil and gas industry not only means more jobs and a better economic future, but is essential for our Nation's national security. Throughout the last decade America's oil and gas industry has lost a staggering number of jobs to sunnier business climates. My Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee has been conducting hearings to highlight the need for a Federal energy policy that encourages domestic exploration and production. This policy must allow our oil and gas producers to have greater public land access while reducing the regulatory burden on doing business at home. I have no doubt that this Congress will reverse recent trends and move toward a policy that encourages exploration and production to ensure a vibrant healthy economy.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, there are about 350,000 milk cows in my area of California. I probably have more milk cows in my district than my good friend, the gentleman from the State of New York. I was in favor of deregulating the entire dairy program, as many people here would like to do. But my friend was opposed to that. That is where we are at today. The Gunderson compromise is the best compromise that we have, so I hope my colleagues will join me and the California Farm Bureau, National Farm Bureau, and my local producers, and it is the largest producing area in the United States, in opposing Solomon-Dooley.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, due to a hearing on future energy policy by the House Resources Committee, which I served as chairman, I was unavoidably detained, and thus unable to vote for final passage of H.R. 2924. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Social Security Guarantee Act--H.R. 2924. I feel it is absolutely imperative to express Congress' intention to pass legislation increasing the public debt limit before March 1, 1996, and ensure that March Social Security benefits will be paid on time. Senior citizens should not be held hostage on account of the budget deliberations we are holding today. I will continue to fight for a balanced budget by the turn of the century, and at the same time, protect America's obligations to its seniors.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, the rumor going around the California agricultural community is that USDA Secretary Dan Glickman is out to ruin California's multibillion-dollar-a-year fruit and vegetable industry. Why would Secretary Glickman want to destroy California's Agricultural industry? Only he knows. Bill Clinton will get the blame--conventional wisdom says this is a no brainer--costing Clinton the November election. An independent study by University of California, Riverside, Boston University, Cornell University, and Oregon State University states that USDA has not used good science. Allowing pest ridden Mexican avocados into the United States is a recipe for disaster. They will bring in fruit flies, stem borers and seed weevils. The invasion of these pests will destroy California's crops for generations to come. Secretary Glickman, use common sense. Don't allow pest ridden Mexican avocados into our country. It is bad policy, based on bad science.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, it would seem Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman is on a one-man crusade to destroy California's multibillion- dollar fruit and vegetable industry. That is exactly what will happen if he allows the importation of Mexican avocados. These avocados will bring fruit flies, seed weevils, stem borers, and other pests that will destroy California's economy. ``Not to worry,'' says Secretary Glickman, ``we have used good science.'' That is not true. An independent report by University of California Riverside, Cornell University, Boston University, and Oregon State University states that ``there is no rational basis for USDA's estimate of risk.'' The importation of Mexican avocados could mean catastrophe for California. The introduction of these pests will destroy our oranges, our avocados, and our grapes. Not for one season, but for a generation. This is bad public policy, based on bad science. Do not ruin California's economy. Mr. Secretary, institute a credible peer review process, now.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to urge my colleagues to support the motion to override. For the sake of the American people we need to reopen our national treasures. There is no good reason why the parks are closed. There is no good reason why the monuments are closed. There is no reason why our constituents here in Washington cannot go to some of the great places around this District. This bill is fair, balanced. It protects our natural resources while ensuring a fair return to the American taxpayers. I urge all my colleagues to support the motion to override.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, the President has missed a historic opportunity to reverse his spending addiction. Since his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton has told America that he would balance the budget in 5 years, 10 years, 8 years, 9 years, and even 7 years. When the President vetoed the balanced budget plan he showed the American people his true colors. The President does not want to balance the Federal budget. Not now, not ever. America, don't be fooled. The President will say anything. He will tell you that Republican efforts to balance the budget are extreme. He will tell you that Republicans are cutting Medicare. He will tell you that Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of children. He will tell you that Republicans are taking away student loans. That is not true. He tells you this because he loves big government, big spending, and big taxes.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, December 19, 1995, is a truly historical date. On this day Fender Musical Instruments will host the grand opening of a new facility in Corona, CA. This 90,000 square foot manufacturing operation, will produce high quality speakers and amplifiers, creating 250 new jobs for the Corona community. A short 9 years ago this company almost became a historical statistic as a result of competition from Japan. The great name of Fender was close to being wiped out by cheap foreign imitations. Using economic advantages that did not exist in this country, the foreign product dominated the musical instrument business. Led by its president, Bill Schultz, Fender Musical Instruments became the comeback story for the past decade. Moving to the city of Corona in 1986 with only 15 employees, this once great company was manufacturing just two dozen guitars per day. Faced with what many considered an uncertain future at best, the success story of quality and tradition began to unfold in my hometown of Corona. Today, Fender Musical Instruments builds 350 high-end guitars per day and employs [[Page E 2314]] over 600 people. With the opening of this new facility and the addition of 250 people to its staff, total Fender Music's employment in Corona, CA, will be 850 people. Fender is the choice for some of the most popular entertainers in the world, such as Eric Clapton, Bruce Springsteen, and many more. Fender was also chosen to custom make just over 100 guitars to celebrate the anniversary of Harley Davidson. These particular guitars are valued at over $40,000 each. In the music business the name Fender means quality, which means reliability, which also means the best sound possible from a musical instrument. This tremendous comeback was accomplished through the leadership of Bill Schultz, president of Fender Musical Instruments. Mr. Schultz has worked closely with Federal, State, and local leaders. He has provided valued input on business issues to help ensure continued economic growth in this country. It is a great pleasure for me, on behalf of the citizens of California's 43d Congressional District, to congratulate the leadership of Fender Musical Instruments and the city of Corona for making this dynamic growth a reality. We can all be proud of the private and public sector working together to keep valuable jobs in America.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support on the conference report on H.R. 2491, Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I wish to take my limited time to speak to the importance of the title V, Energy and Natural Resources Provisions, chapter 4--Federal Oil and Gas Royalties as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. This chapter is the only legislative initiative taken during the last 13 years to cost effectively increase the Nation's third largest source of revenue--oil and gas royalties. This chapter establishes a comprehensive statutory plan to increase, not decrease, collection of royalty receipts due the United States. In short, it reduces the deficit. Without this chapter as part of the Seven Year Balanced Budget Act of 1995, an ineffective and costly royalty collection system will prevail, perpetuating long delays and uncollected royalties. To increase royalty collections to reduce the deficit, the chapter: [[Page H 13628]] First, requires the Secretary and delegated States to collect and protect all royalty claims within 6 years. To ensure full and complete collection of all receipts, extension of the 6-year period is permitted and lessees are required to provide records necessary for proper collection; Second, requires the Secretary to increase the value of disputed claims by deciding appeals within 30 months that will result in additional royalty collections. Today, over $450 million of disputed claims languish in a bureaucratic appeal process and continue to lose value; Third, allows States which receive one-half of royalties collected to protect their interests by performing royalty collection activities in partnership with the Secretary. This partnership increases receipts to both the U.S. Treasury and the States; Fourth, requires more aggressive and cost-effective royalty collection by the Secretary and the delegated States which will increase the amount of collections within the 6-year period; and, Fifth, increases oil and gas production on Federal lands by creating economic efficiencies to make Federal leases more competitive with private leases. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that these changes increase royalty income over 7 years to the U.S. Treasury by $51 million and another $33 million to the States. Additional royalty collections will continue to occur for each fiscal year after the 7- year period. Collections well in excess of $51 million are likely to occur as the Secretary and States more aggressively collect royalties. Furthermore, net receipts are maximized through increased efficiencies, and production is stimulated under this chapter. The truth is, the Federal oil and gas royalty chapter makes money, because it makes everybody, lessee and lessor alike, work to collect and pay royalties payments right the first time. And, it empowers the States to do the job on leases within their boundaries to ensure that royalty bills are fully paid on time, and for lower collection costs. The Governors of the two States with the most at stake--Wyoming and New Mexico--support this legislation because it will allow them to do their jobs better, fairer, and less expensively and ensure that this significant source of revenue to the U.S. Treasury and Western States will increase. Some Democrats oppose this chapter because they would rather promote the status quo to allow bureaucrats an indefinite period of time to pursue money due the taxpayers. In spite of the positive CBO score, these same opponents claim royalties will be lost, but in truth, royalty collections will increase. States will have a more direct role, thereby increasing collections to use to for funding schools, highways, and social programs. There has been many allegations about chapter four which are false and been used in attempt to divert attention from the provisions of this chapter which increase royalty collections, eliminate ineffective and costly administrative actions and allows States to form a partnership with the Secretary to participate in activities that directly impact the royalties they received from Federal leases. As part of the record, I would like to clarify the intent of various provisions of this chapter. This chapter in no way affects Indian lands or alters how the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 applies to Indian lands. The intent of specific section of this chapter includes:

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor of the House today to honor and praise the lifelong dedication of a friend and public servant of the great city of Lake Elsinore in California. The accomplishments of this individual make me proud to call him my personal friend, a fellow community member, and a fellow American. His love for his family as a father and a husband, and his love for his country as a veteran and a leader are a display of his utmost respect for the traditional American values and principles. This gentleman that I speak so highly of, and regard with the highest respect is the mayor of the city of Lake Elsinore, Mr. Gary Washburn. For the past 16 years, Mr. Washburn has served the government of the city of Lake Elsinore as a member of the planning commission, a city council member, and mayor. His influence and involvement has played an integral role in the growth and development of his city. I would like to commend him on his accomplishments in representing his constituents and providing leadership as the elected mayor of the city of Lake Elsinore. Prior to his involvement in the city government of Lake Elsinore, Mr.. Washburn served as a professor and is responsible for the education and welfare of many university-level students. He helped many young Americans open their minds, reach their goals, and build new dreams through education. In addition, Mr. Washburn is a combat veteran of Vietnam who was honorably discharged after 2 years of service as a crew chief on July 4, 1968. During his military career, he served our country in the 1st Aviation Brigade, the 54th Utility Airplane Company, and the Otter Air Service. In addition to his involvement in representing city government and serving America, Mr. Washburn's other community involvements include: president of the Elsinore Elementary P.T.G., executive board of the Riverside County Economic Development Committee, president of the Rotary Club, chairman of the Riverside County City Selection Committee, board member of the Riverside Transit Agency, city representative to the Lake Elsinore Management Agency, city representative to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. His timeless dedication in serving his city and country have earned him the respect of his family, friends, colleagues, and constituents as a true champion of public service. Unfortunately, on November 7, 1995, Mr. Gary Washburn will retire as mayor after a lifelong dedication to the public welfare of the citizens of the city of Lake Elsinore, CA. After over 16 years of service in city government, Mr. Washburn will end a long tradition of contributions of dedication and effort by his family dating back to 1889. On the occasion of his retirement, I would like to thank him for his service to our community, and offer my best wishes for his future endeavors.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. This bill is about creating jobs and stimulating our economy and I urge a yes vote on this rule and on final passage. Over a year ago, over 100 Members of Congress wrote to the President about the alarming deterioration of our domestic oil and gas industry. All across the Nation, small businesses have been forced to close and hard-working Americans have been let go. Over a year later, we still have not done nearly enough to spur domestic production and preserve these vital jobs. Last year, for the first time, we had to import over a half of our domestic oil requirements because of decreased production within the United States. The Department of Interior has estimated that Alaskan exports would increase production in Alaska and California by 110,000 barrels per day by the year 2000. In addition, these exports could help create up to 25,000 jobs over the same period. In my State, the oil and gas industry has been devastated in recent years. These are real people losing good jobs. This bill will create jobs, stimulate our economy, and raise State and Federal revenues. I urge a vote on the rule on the conference report, which rule we already passed. In addition, I understand that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] will offer a motion to recommit to strike the deepwater royalty incentive. There has been much misinformation regarding the deep-water provision in this bill. Let me make this clear, this provision will generate $130 million of revenues to the Treasury over the next 7 years. In addition, and more importantly, it will help offset some of the $50 billion that the United States currently spends to import oil. The deepwater royalty provision is important because it will increase production in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. This area accounts for a full 25 percent of the Nation's estimated oil and gas reserves. By increasing the incentive to produce oil and gas in the deepwater of the gulf, this measure will result in a significant increase in domestic energy production. Why is this provision needed? It is simple. The costs and difficulties of exploration and production in deep water are immense. These costs frighten companies from even bidding on available leases. Last year, only 18 percent of the deepwater tracts received multiple bids. The taxpayers are not receiving the compensation they deserve in this no-competition bidding process. Mr. Speaker, it is important that my colleagues know that this legislation does not apply to shallow water leases, where bids are numerous and prices strong, but only to deepwater leases where startup capital can reach upward of $1 billion and risks are great. If we do not pass this conference report as we receive it today, we are losing a golden opportunity to create thousands of jobs and generate millions in revenue. Do not listen to false claims of corporate welfare. Look at the facts. They bear out the truth--this bill is good for the taxpayer and good for the country. I urge a ``no'' vote to this motion to recommit.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 207 as introduced by my esteemed colleague from California [Mr. Cox]. This is a matter of importance to my district and with that in mind I ask for passage of this bill. Time is of the essence in this case. The county of San Diego has decided to disallow all building permits on the Lost Valley Scout Reservation until a master land plan is approved. This approval cannot come until this boundary dispute is resolved. [[Page H 11796]] Lost Valley needs building permits now. The scout population at Lost Valley has increased 150 percent in just the past 3 years. As a result, repairs, and capital improvements must quickly commence. The Reservation is in dire need of 18 new staff cabins and a new dinning hall. In fact, the local health department has only allowed the existing dining hall's continued operation with the understanding that it will be replaced in the near future. This bill is a fair settlement to end this boundary dispute and I urge its passage.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome my dear friend, Rev. Lou Sheldon. We are all very blessed to have Reverend Sheldon with us today. I want to thank him for his uplifting words of prayer for today's session. Indeed, we must pray each day for the strength to uphold the spiritual and moral principles that have guided our great Nation. Since his ordination, Reverend Sheldon has pastored churches for more than 20 years. Today, he works tirelessly to educate and inform the 31,000 churches with whom he is affiliated. He has been a wise counselor and good friend to me. His dedication to the Almighty and his strong moral convictions are an inspiration to us all. All of us are grateful for your good work and dedication to the Almighty.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, the House leadership recently removed from the budget reconciliation legislation a provision to auction the Southeastern Power Administration [SEPA]. I applaud this action as the measure would have increased SEPA customer power rates and established a poor precedent for other Federal power marketing administrations [PMA's]. SEPA ratepayers would be adversely affected by a sale as had been proposed in the original resources package. Simply put, that type of auction sale of SEPA would have almost certainly meant rate increases to consumers, and the larger the sale price, the larger the rate increase. If the facilities were sold to a private power company, the CBO estimates that consumer-owned electric utilities could pay as much as $75 million more for PMA power; costs that would have been passed on to electric consumers. Though I am not from the SEPA region, I am concerned about the precedent at PMA sale would create for other regions of the country. Millions of customers throughout the Nation are served by PMA's. As a Representative from Riverside, I am worried that the electric customers in southern California who receive their power from the Western Area Power Administration [WAPA] would see their electric payments increase if Western were sold. Costs for water delivered by the metropolitan water district would almost certainly go up, since power from Hoover Dam and Parker Dam is used to pump that water. The reconciliation package does include language that will institute a study of SEPA, WAPA, and Southwestern Power Administration [SWPA] to evaluate possible sale structures and the effects of such sales. I support this language, and suspect it will bear out that WAPA is not a good candidate for auction and that any sale of WAPA should take into account a number of factors which would not be addressed in an auction sale. While I do support the defederalization of PMA's, I believe there is a better solution than the one proposed by the Resources Committee--a solution that is fair to those entities that made substantial investments in the projects and facilities that comprise WAPA and the other regions' PMA's while at the same time, protects the customers who receive PMA power. I am in the process of reviewing a number of proposals that achieve these goals. I look forward to seeing that these views are fairly represented in the study called for in the reconciliation package.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the reconciliation bill Chairman Kasich has brought to the floor today. I wish to take my limited time to speak in rebuttal to my Democratic colleagues' criticism of the Resources Committee's title which occurred around dinner time last night. Listening to it made my stomach churn. It is the big lie, Mr. Chairman, which the five minority Members of the Resources Committee who spoke all reiterated about title IX. I have to hand it to them though, they have been saying it so often they must be starting to believe it themselves. But, the American public is not fooled. The giveaway mantra echoing down in the well last night rings hollow from these Members. For example, they complain bitterly about our proposed reform of the law governing mining rights on public lands, but where have they been for the last 40 years? My friend from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie likened us to bank robbers, but failed to mention that the Democratic alternative we get to vote upon has no mining provisions as far as I can see. And if they think the alternative provision offered in our committee was so worthy, where is it now? Mr. Chairman, it is missing because it was the same ludicrous job- killing, investment-robbing bill they have pushed for three or more Congresses. It had an 8 percent gross royalty provision that even the Clinton administration's own Interior Department said in 1993 would quickly cost us 1,100 American jobs and lose the U.S. Treasury $11 million in just 3 years. And, other more reputable studies show a far greater negative impact than this. But, we have opted to levy a net proceeds of mines royalty in our bill. It has a proven formula for generating revenue for the Treasury while at the same time preserves domestic mining jobs. The terms are modeled directly upon the State of Nevada's well-studied net proceeds of mines tax. Mr. Abercrombie maintains that we have expanded the allowable deductions from gross proceeds beyond those of the Nevada tax, but this is simply not the case. We have clarified what is actual practice, which practice resulted in the collection of $48.2 million in 1994. Mr. Chairman, gross royalties distort the marketplace, encourage high-grading, and cause layoffs and closing of higher cost mines. Net royalties do not. Perhaps this is why gross royalties are fast becoming very rare in the world. The Federal Governments of Canada, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Spain, Sweden, and Zimbabwe do not levy gross royalties on metal mining at all! Instead, they tax mining profits, just as our Government does as well. Now, Mr. Abercrombie notes that mining royalties paid to private mineral owners in Nevada average 3 percent of gross revenues, but he failed to note that such landowners are unable to levy income taxes-- only governments can do that--so the only way an economic rent can be had in such cases is to seek as large a royalty as can possibly be sustained. But for the Federal Government to do the same would be to cut off its nose (corporate and individual income tax revenues) to spite its face (royalty receipts shared with States). Obviously, it is quite possible for Congress to levy a mining royalty which loses money when tax consequences for considered--which budget enforcement rules do not allow to be factored into a CBO score. And that is exactly what would happen if the 8 percent net smelter return royalty touted by the Democrats were enacted. If my Democratic friends would acknowledge simple economic principles now and then they would not be ranting and raving about Jesse James. Even Fidel Castro is lately talking more sense than our friends across the aisle. But then, he is looking for investment to flow into Cuba not away. Why does not the minority come out and say what we all know--they simply do not want hardrock mining on public lands in the United States. Adios, mineros. Vamos a Mexico! But, Mr. Chairman, that was not enough. They knocked our efforts to simplify and make fairer the byzantine Federal oil and gas royalty collection system, too. There we go, robbing the Treasury again to give breaks to oil companies. If this were the case, why is it that the CBO says the royalty fairness part makes $57 million for the Feds and $33 million more for the States? It is the very same CBO whose numbers my friends across the aisle will quote until the cows come home when it fits their purpose. Mr. Abercrombie says we drastically modify the existing statute of limitations on the collection of royalties due taxpayers. But, in truth, our bill does not modify an existing statute of limitations, because there is not one! The Democrats would rather promote the status quo, which is to allow bureaucrats an indefinite period of time to collect royalties. As a result of this inertia, over $450 million worth of royalty collections is outstanding--tied up in red tape and litigation. Our bill requires the Secretary collect all royalties within 6 years accelerating revenues and eliminating expensive bureaucratic delays. Another falsehood about the royalty fairness provisions is the allegation that lessees of marginal wells could operate without paying any royalty. Absolutely nowhere does this proposal allow this consequence. And the prepayment of future royalty obligations for marginal leases which we encourage in this part requires the agreement of the Secretary of the Interior as well as the Governor of the affected State as to the present value of the future royalty stream. It is bullet proof for the Treasury, and the Democrats should know that. Furthermore, our friends across the aisle charge that our provisions for equitable treatment of royalty payments on oil and gas leases would cost $60 million over 7 years. But that is not what CBO said. In fact, the policy to treat royalty overpayments in the same manner the IRS treats overpayments--reciprocity of interest obligations--greatly simplifies accounting requirements and directly contributes to the collection of an additional $117 million of royalties offset by the anticipated $60 million cost. That is a net of $57 million to the taxpayer which the Democrats suggest we should walk away from. We believe this sum is worth saving however, and so does the Clinton administration. The truth is, our royalty simplification bill makes money because it makes everybody--lessee and lessor alike--work to get it right the first time. And, we empower the States to do the job on leases within their boundaries. After all, half the onshore royalty stream goes back to the States, why would they not be just as diligent as the Feds to ensure that the bills are fully paid on time, and for lower collection costs? Of course, the States will be vigilant in protecting their interests. The Governors of the two States with by far the most a stake--Wyoming and New Mexico--support this legislation because it allows them to do the same jobs better, fairer, and less expensively than the Feds could ever dream of doing. No, it is not a loophole bill, it is a reduce the Federal bureaucracy bill, and that bothers supporters of the status quo. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Kasich budget reconciliation bill. The Resources title is sound. It stands the test of increasing direct receipts without bankrupting the Treasury because of lost job opportunities. Vote ``aye'' on H.R. 2517.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 1976. In particular, I would like to thank the conferees for providing an additional $500,000 to the Agriculture Research Service to begin research on a virus that threatens California's citrus industry--Citrus Tristeza Virus [CTV]. California's citrus industry is a $1.5 billion industry. CTV puts at risk the only remaining disease free budwood stock as well as our $485 million export market. The ARS' work on CTV in California will compliment ongoing private sector research in the State. Ultimately, I hope it will give our farmers the tools to eradicate this threat. I believe funding for this research is an investment in the long-term health of California's economy.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on Interior appropriations. Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee with jurisdiction over mineral resources on the public lands. I believe the conference report language on mining claims solves a problem. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to fix an outdated law, not since 1866, whereby miners pay a fixed price of $5 an acre for resource-rich land. None of us believe that the existing price of $5 an acre is valid today, but there is every reason to support his conference report. Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that patent applicants will pay fair market value for the land, upon enactment of this conference report. The Committee on Resources has within its budget reconciliation title legislation a measure to levy a royalty on hardrock minerals produced from public lands for the first time in 150 years. Mr. Speaker, why would any of us not support his opportunity to charge fair market value for mineral patents and receive royalty? Mr. Speaker, I urge acceptance of this conference report.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer amendment and in strong support for the international space station. We have already spent billions of dollars over the years on this necessary program and I find it amazing that we are now discussing terminating funding at a time when mission launches begin next year. The space station is needed to develop new materials and processes in industry. This space station will accelerate breakthroughs in technology and engineering that will have immediate, practical applications for life on Earth--and will create jobs and economic opportunities today and in the decades to come. It would maintain U.S. leadership in space and in global competitiveness, and serve as a driving force for emerging technologies. The space station will force new partnerships with the nations of the world. It would inspire our children, foster the next generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, and satisfy humanity's ancient need to explore and achieve. We need the space station to invest for today and tomorrow. Every dollar spent on space programs returns at least $2 in direct and indirect benefits. And finally, the space station will help sustain and strengthen the United States' strongest export sector--aerospace technology--which in 1993 exceeded $39 billion. We need the space station, for the present and for the future. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Roemer amendment.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that makes America great is the fact that in towns and cities across the face of our country there are citizens who are willing to step forward and dedicate their talents and energies to make life better for their friends and neighbors. Riverside County has been fortunate to have many such citizens. Men and women who have given freely of themselves so that our beautiful area in southern California will continue to be a desirable place to live for generations to come. Mrs. Eddie Dee Smith is one of these exceptional citizens. A ceremony is scheduled on August 5 to rededicate the Rubidoux Senior Center as the Eddie Dee Smith Senior Center. The North Rubidoux Women's Club, founded in Smith's home in 1954, was the driving force in getting the center established. Eddie Dee Smith was the club's founding vice president. She was also the senior center's director from 1977 to 1981. [[Page E 1531]] Eddie Dee Smith has always been at the forefront of Rubidoux's advancement. She was a founder of the Mount Calvary Baptist Church, the Mount Vernon Baptist Church, the Rubidoux Senior Center, head of the Jurupa Area Girl Scouts, member of the Avalon Park Committee, regent of the Jensen-Alvarado Ranch, president of the Jurupa Democrat Club, and 1993 Jurupa Chamber of Commerce citizen of the year. On behalf of the many people whose lives this remarkable woman has touched, I would like to add my personal congratulations, and the thanks of the people of the 43d Congressional District.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion offered by the gentleman from Martinez, CA, to instruct House conferees to not agree to the Senate-passed provision providing an incentive for leasing of the Outer Continental Shelf lands in water depths exceeding 200 meters. Mr. Speaker, I chair the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources. We are the panel of jurisdiction on OCS oil and gas matters. I do not disagree with his assessment of the process at issue, the committee and subcommittee have not had a hearing on deepwater leasing incentives this Congress. However, the gentleman is very aware that the committee did hold an oversight hearing on June 23, 1994, on the ``Economic Health of the Domestic Offshore Oil and Gas Industry'' which focused on the desirability of incentives for the development of the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas resources. The Clinton administration was noncommittal at that hearing but has since agreed with legislative provisions drafted in the other body which provide an incentive to lease and develop deepwater tracts. The gentleman makes reference to a lease sale conducted by the Minerals Management Service a few months ago which did indeed bring in nearly one-third of a billion dollars in bonus bids, some of which were for deepwater tracts. But, the gentleman from California misses the point-- as the CBO has acknowledged by the revenue score on this provision, while a certain volume of oil and gas which may be discovered and developed on such tracts will be royalty free, the lost revenue is offset by expected increases in bonus bids at competitive auction of such tracts. In other words, Mr. Speaker, had the deepwater incentives been in effect for the leases offered up for bid in April, the sum of the high bids would likely have been much greater than even the admittedly large sum which was collected. The MMS believes this to be the case, as well, and has thrown its support behind deepwater incentives structured in the manner outlined in the Senate position. That is, the average depth of water in the lease tract determines the number of barrels of oil, or equivalent volume of natural gas, for which no [[Page H 7581]] royalty would be due. Let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker the risk remains entirely with the lessee that hydrocarbon resources will be discovered in paying quantities. If a dry hole is drilled on a deepwater tract no royalty relief is available, of course, yet a bonus bid will have been paid to the U.S. Treasury, a bonus bid which will be incrementally larger than it would be without deepwater incentives. And if oil or gas is discovered, the economics of developing the field is enhanced such that wells will likely stay on line longer generating a larger domestic supply of an important resource. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I join with the chairman of the Resources Committee in opposing the motion of the gentleman from California. We should give our conferees as much latitude as possible to strike a deal with the other body which best serves the Nation. This motion restricts our ability to achieve that end, and should be defeated.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 70. Whether or not the ban on Alaskan oil exports made sense in 1973, it is having harmful and unintended consequences today. This ban has effectively forced Alaska to sell the bulk of its production in my home State of California and has severely damaged our oil and gas industry. Left in place, the ban will ensure a further decline in the production of crude oil in Alaska and California, resulting in thousands of lost jobs. For the small businesses that make up the bulk of the oil and gas industry in California, this legislation is vital to their future. If they can sell heavy crude oil into a market that no longer is distorted by artificial restraints, they will have a future producing oil. In recent weeks, prices have been edging down. Today, Kern County heavy crude was posted at $13.75 a barrel. We need to do something to help get them back to the levels at which significant investments will be made. Many of the independent oil producers have told me they will begin hiring the minute this bill is enacted. So the potential for job gains is quite real. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 70 and provide the oil and gas industry of my State with relief.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, on opening day of the new Republican Congress we voted to have an independent audit of all House financial records. This week we fulfilled our promise. Republicans are committed to having regular future audits. We will continue to monitor our progress and instill faith in the American people. This audit is a symbol of the new Republican Congress and our commitment to openness and reform. The auditors found that the Democratic controlled 103d Congress had gross disregard for financial controls, business-like practices and frequently waived congressional rules. We Republicans have already implemented a number of reforms suggested by the auditors. This audit is a road map for future management improvements and for the sake of the American taxpayer we must stay on this course. The American people deserve this type of government. That is what they voted for on November 8, and that is what the Republican Congress will deliver.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which limits the use of funds for the acceptance and processing of mineral patent applications or the issuance of such patents by the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee of jurisdiction over the mining law of 1872, as amended. I am also the lead cosponsor of H.R. 1580, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1995. If the amendment to the appropriations bill before us now is adopted, we will have repeated the mistake of the 103d Congress in its attempt to change the mining law. The real objective of this amendment is to derail attempts to bring about reasonable changes to the 1872 act. The deadlocked end to the conference committee on mining law reform last September 28 followed just 2 days after Congress adopted the fiscal year 1995 conference report which included a mineral patent moratorium for the first time. Was this mere happenstance? Absolutely not. H.R. 1580 retains the right to receive a patent, after demonstration that a valuable mineral deposit has been discovered, but only upon payment of the appraised fair market value of the land within the claim. The sponsors of this amendment would eliminate patenting altogether without substituting any other provision for making secure the opportunity to mine one's claims. If you want a real solution, vote against this misguided amendment.