George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill adds 935 acres in the northern boundary of the national monument. The lands include the headwaters of a watershed that drains into the park. The bill has had no hearings or markups in the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think now the gentlewoman is drifting over into my area of expertise, and that is American humor, with the argument for this legislation that somehow because we pump the sand up on the beaches from the Federal OCS, the Outer Continental Shelf, that it is just a loan, because then the sand goes back to the Outer Continental Shelf, which is probably accurate. But what is not a loan is the taxpayer dollars to continue to do this year after year after year as we try to defeat nature because of storms and hurricanes and what have you. I think this bill is seriously flawed in the sense of the kind of revenues that it loses, and it raises questions about whether or not we are really engaging in products that simply are not feasible when we are trying to allow development and activities on lands that are subject to nature in terms of the storm patterns that develop annually along the eastern sea coast. I might also mention that the administration has sent both a letter and a statement of administration policy against this legislation for the reasons that I have raised with respect to the cost of this, the direct spending, which they estimate will be about $10 million over the next few years, and they believe that the Secretary ought to be able to continue to charge those fees. They also make their point in the statement of administration policy that ``enactment of H.R. 3972 would thus deny the American taxpayer a fair return on the use of the public resources, as well as fuel the demand for OCS sand and gravel and shell and competitively disadvantage the private onshore sand and gravel suppliers.'' What this means is because the Federal Government is not going to charge a fee, the projects you want to engage in do not really have to have a positive cost-benefit ratio or be feasible because you are getting the Federal Government to pump the sand and not charging the municipality for this project. Not only are you doing that, but the private sand and gravel people who are in business trying to sell sand and gravel to these people are now disadvantaged, so they will not be able to participate in that market because they cannot sell it for free. So we have kind of come up with what is bad sometimes about government involvement in subsidizing various activities, that not only do we undermine bad decisions being made because the theory is, they used to say well, it is free dollars, it is just Federal dollars, so it does not matter how we design it. We are putting them back into that category, but we are also hurting the business people in the community who this is their business, providing sand and gravel to developers, to municipalities, to landowners and all of the rest. So I am not in agreement with this legislation and the administration is not in agreement with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the administration policy on this matter. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Washington, DC, Sept. 23, 1998. Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Miller: I understand that the Resources Committee is considering various ways to move H.R. 3972, a bill to amend section 8(k) of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act. In general, the bill proposes to waive the fee provisions associated with making OCS sand, gravel and shell resources available for certain publicly-beneficial beach nourishment and wetlands restoration projects undertaken by State or local government entities. Currently, section 8(k) of the OCS Lands Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to charge a reasonable fee for the use of such resources when conveyed non-competitively. On July 21, 1998, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) testified on behalf of the Department of the Interior (Department) on the proposed legislation and opposed enactment for several reasons. I am writing now to reiterate the Department's opposition to the bill. We continue to feel strongly that it is important to provide the Secretary with the authority to assess a fee. Although the fee typically represents only a small fraction of a project's total cost, in a larger sense it also represents the Federal government's commitment to provide a fair return to the Nation for the use of the public's resources. As you are aware, Public Law 103-426, passed by Congress in 1994, authorized a negotiated agreement process (in lieu of competitive bidding) to better facilitate a way for OCS sand, gravel, and shell resources to be made available for certain publicly-beneficial projects like beach nourishment and wetlands restoration projects undertaken by Federal, State, or local government agencies. Section 8(k)(2)(B) provides that ``the Secretary may assess a fee based on the value of the resources and the public interest served by development of the resources, except that no fee would be assessed against a Federal agency.'' This valuation method allows the Secretary to determine an appropriate fee that takes into account both the value of the Federal minerals and the public benefits gained by providing affordable access to OCS sand, gravel and shell resources to support public projects. The ``no fee'' exemption for Federal agencies was included to prevent the transfer of funds from one Federal agency to another and to prevent local project sponsors from passing back to the federal government the expense of fees for use of the Federal sand paid under this law (e.g., through a cost-sharing agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers). MMS, as the agency in the Department responsible for administering the OCS sand and gravel program, developed guidelines describing how fees for sand and gravel conveyed pursuant to negotiated agreements would be determined. The MMS methodology provides for a determination of sand values based on references to market values and provides for discounts to reflect the public interest in the fee assessment, reducing the market-based estimate of value by the same percentage amount (typically 65%) used to represent the congressionally-mandated Federal share of project construction costs. Thus, this balancing of resource value with public interest considerations provides for a significant discount for State and local governments, resulting in a quite reasonable fee for the Federal resource. Further, the Department's OCS Policy Committee (Committee) reviewed the guidelines and urged MMS to adopt them since the approach was reasonable and consistent with the OCS Lands Act. The Committee includes representatives from coastal States, local governments, the environmental community and industry and provides advice to the Secretary on a wide range of issues associated with OCS mineral development. The Committee recommended that the guidelines be made available to the public to enhance the timely dissemination of information and to assist governmental planners as they contemplated costs associated with beach nourishment projects. Because of the bill's significant policy and budget implications, I urge you to give the issues raised by H.R. 3972 more consideration. First, enactment of this proposal could competitively disadvantage private onshore sand and gravel suppliers even further. Second, by making a Federal resource more readily available to State and local governments, we anticipate that requests for access to OCS sand, gravel and shell resources will rise even more than originally anticipated. This increase could put severe strains on existing MMS resources to undertake the necessary environmental studies, analyses, and administrative work associated with facilitating State and local requests. Given current budgetary resources, an unintended result of the bill could be to put MMS in the unfortunate position of not being able to respond to State and local government requests in a timely fashion or even having to turn down future requests. Third, the budgetary implications of this expected rise in requests for free OCS sand could be substantial. Although the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the scoring implications of passing the bill are fairly minimal, our recently-completed analysis indicates otherwise. For example, within the next 5 years, we estimate that 8.5 to 12 million cubic yards of OCS sand will be needed for at least 8 shore protection projects. As currently envisioned, these projects would generate total fees of between $1.3 to $1.8 million. However, there are an additional 24 potential projects (needing between 46 and 74 million cubic yards of sand) that could be implemented during this period and may need access to OCS sand. If any of these projects materialize, significantly more fees could be generated for the Federal Treasury in any given year. In conclusion, I urge you to defer further action on H.R. 3972. Like other mineral resources that reside on Federal lands, the American public has a right to a fair return on its sand, gravel and shell resources. The provisions currently contained in the OCS Lands Act provide for that right while also ensuring that those States and localities needing OCS sand and gravel can receive the resource in an expedited fashion and pay a price that reflects the public interest served. An identical letter is being sent to the Honorable Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources. Sincerely, Cynthia Quarterman, Director.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a National Park Service initiative. It would simply place within the boundaries of the Historic Site 120 acres that the NPS previously purchased as an uneconomic remnant of another parcel they acquired.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this bill. We passed it out of the House last year. Basically the bill removes a restriction on a piece of property owned by the Agua Caliente Tribe in downtown Palm Springs, California. The restriction, part of the 1959 law, provides that revenues from this property would first go to the 85 Members of the Tribe who lost lands in the use to create tribal property. This asks Congress to remove the restriction so it can distribute the revenues general rated from the Spa Casino, which sits on the property, to all members of the Tribe. The House-passed bill would have compensated 85 members with a cash payment of $22,000 each. The Senate determined that the 85 Members have already been compensated and the property restriction was not intended to last indefinitely. I want to once again, however, state for the record my objection to per capita payments to tribal members from any gambling casino. I think that ultimately, this is unwise, and if we are ever to amend the Indian gaming act, this is one of the issues that Congress will have to reexamine. The administration supports this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced yesterday by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and the National Park Service to transfer not one more than one acre of land within the Franklin D. Roosevelt memorial site to the Archivist of the United States to build a joint archival/visitor center. The NPS supports this initiative. However, there also is a Senate- passed bill here in the House which also deals with the FDR Historic Site. This bill, which the National Park Service wants, simply would allow the National Park Service to acquire lands within the boundaries of the Historic Site using appropriated funds. Currently the NPS can only acquire by donation. We would urge that that bill be put up for consideration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this bill and its House companion bill, H.R. 4513, have had no hearings or markups in the House. The bill directs the National Park Service to undertake a number of cultural resource programs along the Route 66 corridor. The National Park Service already has authority to do such programs. What the National Park Service does not have the authority to do and what is the real purpose of this act is to provide funding to nonfederal entities. This bill includes a $10 million authorization. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the millions of Americans who are mourning the death of Matthew Shepard, who died Monday, at the age of 21 years old after being beaten, robbed, and left to die, tied to a fence near Laramie, Wyo. I wish to express my sadness to Matthew's family and send them my prayers as they grieve over his death. It is a tragedy anytime a young person is a victim of violence, which we all know happens far too often. The murder rate for young people in this country is a national crisis and a national disgrace. According to police reports, Matthew Shepard was targeted by his killers because of his sexual orientation. Thus his murder is particularly saddening and disturbing. Matthew Shepard's death is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. According to the FBI, more than a thousand gay and lesbian men and women were the victims of violent ``hate crimes'' last year. In this way, Matthew Shepard's death reflects a much wider problem in our society. But the public reaction may also signal a turning point in efforts to prevent similar tragedies in the future. It is my hope that something positive will be extracted from this senseless and despicable act by our working even harder against such hate crimes in our country. We need to send the message that these crimes will not be tolerated, and that those who commit them will be duly punished. I would also hope that those who seek to demonize homosexuality, and who may in turn, intentionally or unintentionally, fuel hatred against gays and lesbians, reflect on the possible consequences of their actions. No single person or movement can be blamed for Matthew's death. But everyone should examine the way in which their words or actions may help contribute to an atmosphere of intolerance that makes such tragedies more likely. Bigotry, prejudice, and hatred are not American values. Our diversity is our strength. If we are to thrive as a society, every institution-- our families, schools, government, businesses, and places of worship-- must work together to bridge our differences and to respect the rights and freedoms of every individual

Mr. MILLER of California. I join my colleagues in support of this effort.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I had a lot I wanted to say on this legislation, but having just heard Professor Cubin's discussion of this, I do not think I want to match wits, her chemistry degree against my degree in American humor, on this topic, although I still do not quite get how the molecules belong to the surface guys, but the coal belongs to the subsurface. But we can go into that at another time. I think the gentlewoman has explained this bill quite properly. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, it is necessary to provide certainty for people with the existing agreements, and I support the legislation. This bill is very important to the western states and for those individuals who own or lease federally-owned coal. We understand that the bill's sponsors have been working with other members and with the Department of Interior to craft this agreement. As many of my colleagues know, in the west, it is not uncommon for the mineral estate, in this case oil and gas, to be in separate ownership from the surface of the land--what is commonly known as ``split-estate.'' This system of split mineral estates is the result of the many federal statutes that granted varying levels of patents to homesteaders. In 1981, the Interior Department Solicitor issued an opinion that allowed surface owners in public lands states, like Wyoming and New Mexico, to lease the rights to coalbed methane gas to companies interested in developing this resource. Subsequent to that decision, other mineral estate owners, such as the Southern Ute Tribe, challenged the decision. Initially the Interior opinion was upheld, but on July 20, of this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a final en banc decision, ruled that methane gas produced out of coal seams is part of the coal itself, and not actually a gas. Consequently, the coalbed methane gas--instead of belonging to the owners of land as previously believed--is held to be owned by the owner of the mineral estate, or the owner of the coal. Therefore, in many places where these two resources occur together, there are separate owners. The bill's sponsors, and many of the landowners affected by the judicial decision, believe that the judicial decision will strip away a majority of the private ownership of gas in certain western states, and at a minimum, will cause a certain amount of confusion and potential monetary loss. To alleviate this situation, the bill would grandfather the leases that have been negotiated, in good faith, according to the policies of the federal government. The legislation would ensure that existing leases to produce methane remain valid and that there is no future assertion of ownership by the federal government on these parcels. The bill before applies only to federally owned coal. It would not have any effect on tribally owned or state-owned land or coal. While this bill provides an opportunity to provide some certainty for people with existing agreements, I would note that it has not been subject to any hearing or consideration by either the House Resources Committee or the Senate Energy Committee--despite the fact that the Court decision occurred approximately three months ago. The Interior Department has assured us that this bill is acceptable to them, and therefore, we will not oppose it today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.