Date: 2000-10-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H

of California. Mr. Speaker. I thankthe gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the re marks of the gentleman. I have made my views known on this matter. I have a difference of opinion with the gentleman from Nevada on whether or not this is a sale at fair market value. I realize the restriction. But I have been over that. It is pretty clear the gentleman has the votes and. so. I will not belabor the point. I would hope that before this bill finishes its journey that we could do a little bit better by the taxpayers. H.R. 4656 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey for fair market value an approximately 8.7 acre parcel on thp Tahoe National Forest in Incline Village. NV to the Washoe County School District for use as an elementary school site. The parcel is valued at between $24 million. However. because of a deed restriction directing use as a school site and a reversionary clause. the Forest Service believes that the appraised value would be reduced by 75% to approximately $500.000. The bill requires the proceeds of the sale to be used for acquiring environmentally sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The parcel. although in a developed area. was originally acquired by the Forest Service in 1981 under the SantiniBurton Act for approximately $500.000. That act authorizes the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land in Lake Tahoe thru sales of BLM land in and near Las Vegas. While the SantiniBurton Act allows transfer of lands or interests in land to state and local govemment. deed restrictions must protect the environmental quality and public recreation purposes of the land. Legislation is needed in this instance because this conveyance does not fall withinthe parameiers of the Act. While local ordinances may protect the stream on the parcel. nothing in the legislation explicitly protects the stream area from development. The town sold off a potential school site in 1995 for $855.000. That money. plus a $7.2 million bond issue for construction of the school facility and environmental remediation. would pay for the project. H.R. 4656 was introduced by Representative GIBBONS on June 14. 2000. A companion measure. S. 2728. was introduced by Senator BRYAN .(-NV) on June 14. 2000. At the September 12. 2000 Committee markup. ADAM SMITH offered an amendment that would have removed the deed restriction and reversionary clause thereby allowing the federal govemment to get full fair market value. The amendment was rejected. the bill was reported out. and the minority filed dissenting views. Over our objections. the bill- was placed on the suspension calendar on October 10. 2000 and when a recorded vote was requested. failed on suspension 248160 on October 12. 2000. In retaliation. the Majority killed Mr. KILDEES noncontroversial suspension bill . Now being brought up under a closed rule. we are foreclosed from offering the Smith amendment. The administration opposes the bill as is. but would support it if it were amended so that the federal government could -get fair market value for the land. Were it allowed. the amendment we would have offered simply removes both the deed restriction and the reversionary clause thereby allowing the federal government to get full fair market value for the land. The closed rule prohibits offering the amendment that would get full fair market value for the taxpayers. This is unfair. Its also unfair that the majority killed a noncontroversial bill and failed to reschedule it. The taxpayers deserve fair compensation for this land in particular. because they purchased the land under a federal program (SantiniBurton) to buy environmentally sensitive land around Lake Tahoe and because the proceeds of the sale will be used to purchase additional environmentally sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe area. Like other land around Lake Tahoe. this land has appreciated considerably in the last 20 years (from $500.000 to several million). and full market value would ensure the government has the ability to replace the land with comparable property. To offset the fiscal and environmental loss of this environmentally valuable property. the federal government should get full value. The Majority argues that there is precedent for conveying land at less than FMV with a reversionary clause. But in H.R. 695 (San Juan CollegeT. Udall) and other bills. the land conveyed was simply public domain land or surplus land. H.R. 2890 (ViequesCrowley) retums land to Puerto Rico that has been used as a bombing range in an effort to restore its environmental integrity. In H.R. 2737 (Lewis and Clark Trail to State of IllinoisCostello). National Park Service land was conveyed for a purpose wholly consistent with the purpose for which the land was acquired (land went to the state to build an interpretive center). Finally. H.R. 1725 (Milwaleta Park ExpansionDeFazio (passed October 23. 2000 on suspension)) conveys park land to be used as park land. In this bill. the land is not surplus. and it is not being conveyed for a purpose consistent with the purpose for which it was acquired. The land is SantiniBurton land which the public purchased specifically for its environmental value and whose protection represents a federal priority. This bill undermines that act. which. thru restrictions on disposal of property. aims to protect the lands environmental quality and public recreation purposes. It is sound fiscal policy for the public to receive full value for its public assets. This bill is a sweetheart deal for one school district and is yet another example of using federal lands to subsidize local interests. This is not the solution to school construction problems. It is a ripoff for taxpayers and the environment. The school gets an added windfall because it recently sold a potential school site for $855.000. It also gets not just the property. but the development rights. Unfortunately. this land conveyance is not just an isolated example of a giveaway. It is representative of public lands bills and policies that benefit a few people at the expense of the public. I have long been concemed that land dealsespecially land exchangesare being cut behind closed doors with tremendous specialinterest pressure and limited public input. A General Accounting Office report that I -requested confirmed my fears: too many of these exchanges lead to environmental damage and taxpayer ripoffs. The GAO report. "Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate Value and Serve the Public Interest." released in July found that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars swapping valuable public land for private land of questionable value. and the report concludes that the BLM may even be breaking the law. The GAO reported that the agencies "did not ensure that the land being exchanged was appropriately valued or that exchanges served the public interest or met certain other exchange requirements." GAO went on to state that "the exchanges presented in our report demonstrate serious. substantive. and continuing problems with the agencies land. exchange programs." In addition. GAO found that the BLM hasunder the umbrella of its land exchange authority--illegally sold federal land. deposited the proceeds into interestbearing accounts. and used these funds to acquire nonfederal land (or arranged with others 1o do so). These unauthorized transactions undermine congressional budget authority. GAO said. Specific findings of the GAO report include: Private parties in one Nevada exchange made windfall profits. in one case acquiring land "valued" by BLM at $763.000 and selling it for $4.6 million on the same day and in another instance acquiring land "valued" at $504.000 and selling it for $1 million on the same day. In the DelMar exchange in Utah. the BLM paid more than seven times the appraised value. The Forest Service acquired lands in three exchanges in Nevada that were "overvalued by a- total of $8.8 million" because the appraised values "were not supported by. credible evidence." In the Cache Creek exchange in California. the BLM failed to "present the reasons for acquiring" the land. In another Nevada exchange. the Del Webb exchange. BLM removed an agency appraiser and violated the BLMs own policy by hiring a nonfederal appraiser recommended by the exchanges private party. The GAO said the problems were so bad that Congress should consider eliminating the programs altogether. I believe that the appropriate step is to halt the programs and then fix them. in light of the GAOs report. I asked the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to immediately suspend their programs while they evaluate the best method to achieve exchanges laudable goals. Both agencies declined my request for a moratorium but have begun to review their exchange programs. Although. the reviews may prove to correct many of the problems. I will watch the efforts closely. especially because the BLM continues the land transactions that GAO said were illegal. So now what does this Congress do when faced with a clear demonstration of the problems of the exchange program? Instead of supporting efforts to ensure that taxpayers and the- environment are protected. Congress has passed some of the worst land swaps I have seen in my 26 years of Congress. Since the GAO report was released: The House passed and the President signed into law. S. 1629. the Oregon Land Exchange Act. which mandated the exchange of 90.000 acres without sufficient NEPA review or public disclosure of appraisal information. The House and Senate passed H.R. 4828. the Steens Mountain exchange bill. The bill contains 5 legislated land exchanges. The exchanges were negotiated behind closed doors among a select group of participants. No -appraisals were done. Further. while the exchanges themselves are unequal. the ranchers asked for even more and the bill includes nearly $5 million in. cash payments to them. As if that was not enough. the bill directs the Secretary to provide fencing andwater developments for their grazing operations. Finally. these trades involve the unprecedented transfer of more than 18.000 acres of wilderness study areas (WSAs) to the ranchers. While it is true that the BLM would receivemore than 14.000 acres of private land within WSAs. this is not only a net loss but it also sets a bad precedent of trading wilderness for wilderness. Further. significant private inholdings will remain in the proposed wildernessareas even after these trades.