[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. TOM BLILEY

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 20, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1119) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 
     and 1999, and for other purposes:


  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Hefley amendment. This 
amendment would transfer the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Nos. 1 and 3 from 
the Department of Energy to the Department of the Interior so that they 
can be leased for oil and gas production.
  The Commerce Committee shares jurisdiction over the Naval Petroleum 
Reserves and the Naval Oil Shale Reserves with the National Security 
Committee. Unfortunately, this amendment was allowed to be considered 
on the House floor before one of the committees of jurisdiction has had 
an opportunity to hold a hearing or fully study the proposal. 
Proceeding on this amendment without laying a proper foundation at one 
of the relevant committees, forced Members to vote on an issue without 
having answers to a number of questions raised by the proposed 
transfer.
  And there are many unanswered questions about this proposal. For 
example, is the Federal Government receiving the maximum return for the 
leasing of this valuable asset? Are there more appropriate dispositions 
of this property that would result in greater returns to the Federal 
Government? Is the amount of bonus and royalty to be received from the 
proposed leasing appropriate? Is the sharing of revenues received from 
the leasing of this type of Federal land appropriate? Additionally, why 
does the Department of Energy retain responsibility for environmental 
restoration of the reserves after the transfer of the leasing authority 
to the Department of the Interior and what are the cost implications of 
having two Federal Department's with jurisdiction over these lands.
  Finally, there is no reason why the Hefley proposal could not have 
been considered as a separate piece of legislation. In fact, in order 
to assure that maximum value is received for these assets, it might 
have been more appropriate to consider disposition of all the Naval 
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserve together. If this amendment becomes law 
we will be in the curious situation of having the Federal Government 
retain responsibility for the Naval Oil Shale Reserve No. 2 and the 
Naval Petroleum Reserves Nos. 2 and 3 with the others being sold or 
leased. This amendment is not so intertwined with our national security 
that it had to be included in this bill without allowing time for full 
consideration of all the implications of its provisions.
  Thus, I oppose the amendment and believe its consideration is 
premature at this time.

                          ____________________