[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 26 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       INTRODUCTION OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 4, 1997

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this year's budget debate 
promises another round of arguments over cutting programs and services 
to American citizens in order to balance the Federal budget. In that 
debate, it is time to take a serious look at the wasteful practices 
that drain the Treasury while subsidizing the developers of natural 
resources from the public lands.
  Today I am introducing a bill, the Public Resources Deficit Reduction 
Act, that will terminate the very expensive subsidies that taxpayers 
have long provided to many of the nation's natural resource developers 
and require, instead, that taxpayers receive the fair market value of 
the public's resources.
  While we often disagree about the precise way to allocate limited 
Federal resources, I believe we should all be able to agree that we 
should not waste billions of dollars in taxpayers' money and resources. 
Yet our natural resources policies, often formulated decades ago when 
it was necessary to induce people to settle the West, still give away 
billions of dollars each year in subsidies to mining conglomerates, 
timber barons and argibusinesses. The taxpayers' largesse benefits some 
of the wealthiest ranchers and farm operators in the United States, 
while subsidizing environmental damage that the taxpayers eventually 
pay to clean up as well.
  This bill has a very simple goal: Companies and individuals who use 
natural resources from public lands--minerals, timber, water, 
hydropower and forage for grazing--would pay fair market value for 
those resources. In order to provide a transition period, it exempts 
all existing contracts and phases fair market pricing in over 5 years. 
But after 5 more years of taxpayer subsidies, this bill asks natural 
resource developers to pay the taxpayers what their assets are worth.
  The bill also contains a number of specific provisions to ensure that 
particular programs are altered to eliminate unfair subsidies. It would 
amend the 1872 mining law to require that the taxpayers receive a fair 
royalty for gold and silver mined on public lands. It would alter 
programs in the national parks to ensure that the public receives a 
fair share of the profits made by the concessionaires. It would set 
standards for eliminating below-cost timber sales and charging fair 
market value for grazing and the use of utility rights-of-way across 
public land. It would move the income from timber and grazing programs 
on-budget, so that the receipts are accounted for in annual budgeting.
  Another area addressed by this bill is the inconsistency of Federal 
irrigation and farm support policies, which often contradict one 
another or provide enormous combined subsidies. To address these 
inconsistencies, the bill would eliminate Federal irrigation subsidies 
to farmers already receiving payments under the Agricultural Market 
Transition Act. It also would require that the irrigation subsidies be 
counted into the cap on farm subsidies.
  Mr. Speaker, we have asked all of our citizens to accept some cuts in 
Federal programs in order to balance the budget. We told welfare 
recipients their aid would end after 5 years. This bill would tell our 
citizens that we can be responsible stewards of the assets they have 
entrusted to us, and that we will not longer demand that they tolerate 
wasteful subsidy programs.
  In the last Congress, this legislation was introduced with dozens of 
co-sponsors, including Members of both political parties. It was not 
even accorded a hearing by the Committee on Resources. The last 
Congress utterly failed to reform any of the major resource subsidy 
programs that currently apply to billions of dollars in public 
resources.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford such indifference again in the 105th 
Congress. We cannot afford environmental indifference to the 
consequences of subsidized resource development and usage. And we 
cannot afford the fiscal burden of maintaining, on the eve of the 21st 
century, subsidy programs born at the end of the 19th century.

                          ____________________