[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11921-S11922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   OVERSIGHT OF THE HEADWATERS FOREST AND NEW WORLD MINE ACQUISITIONS

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to share with my 
colleagues a little oversight on an issue that will be coming before 
this body again, and it covers the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine 
acquisitions taking place in both California and Montana. I have the 
obligation as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to 
initiate authorization of these matters. I have had an active interest 
in the decisions of the Clinton administration to acquire the 
Headwaters Forest in northern California, and the New World Mine Site 
in Montana.
  These decisions were made by the administration with little 
congressional involvement and the administration has now gone out of 
its way to, in my opinion, limit the role of Congress in how these 
properties actually are acquired.
  Originally, the administration proposed acquiring both of these 
properties through land exchanges. When that proved to be very 
difficult and impossible to do without going through Congress, the idea 
of land exchanges was abandoned. So clearly the objective was to 
circumvent Congress.
  The Clinton administration then proposed using $315 million from the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase both of these properties.
  The administration then insisted, contrary to the provisions of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, that such money could be spent 
without specific congressional authorization, clearly intending to go 
around Congress.
  Ultimately, that argument failed. While I would have preferred to 
enact separate authorizing legislation, authorizations were contained 
within the 1998 Interior Appropriations bill.
  However, the authorizations do not take effect and the money cannot 
be spent until a minimum of 180 days after enactment, and then only if 
no separate authorizing legislation is enacted.
  During the 180-day review period, as chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, I intend to conduct a series of oversight 
hearings to examine the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine 
acquisitions. One focus of these oversight hearings will be the 
appraised value of the properties. To date the Clinton administration 
has refused to conduct appraisals to determine fair market values. This 
failure is in direct contradiction of existing law, which requires the 
appraisals be conducted for any Federal land acquisition. The 
appropriators had the foresight, of course, to recognize this 
hypocrisy.
  Fair market value appraisals for both properties must be submitted to 
Congress within 120 days of enactment. The appraisals also must be 
reviewed, and independently analyzed by the Comptroller General of the 
United States.
  Once these appraisals are completed, I intend to closely examine 
them. I plan to look at the methodology and data used in the 
appraisals. Among the specific questions, I will ask:
  Do the appraisals comply with the Department of Justice's Uniform 
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions?
  What criteria were employed to determine fair market value?
  What assumptions were made about the property and the use of the 
property?
  What was the scope of the appraisal?
  It is important to remember that neither the Headwaters Forest nor 
New World Mine acquisitions can proceed, absent these appraisals. So 
these appraisals must be done.
  Further, Congress will have, at a minimum, 60 days to examine the 
appraisals. For every day, after 120 days, that appraisals are not 
submitted to Congress, the 180 day period will be extended by 1 day.
  I also intend to examine during the 180 day review period, the true 
cost to the American taxpayer of the Headwaters Forest acquisition. A 
condition to the Headwaters Forest acquisition is that the current 
owner of the property can take on his Federal taxes, as a business 
loss, the difference between what he contends is the property's fair 
market value and the price the Federal Government and California are 
paying for the property. That differential is $700 million.
  In the event the owner receives such a ruling from the IRS, there 
will be a lost of tax revenue to the Federal treasury. This lost tax 
revenue could amount to $100 million or more. It is inaccurate to say 
that the Headwaters Forest is costing the American taxpayer $250 
million. It could well cost the American taxpayer not only the $250 
million cash purchase price but also this lost tax revenue. Under no 
circumstances should this total cost exceed the appraised value of the 
Headwaters Forest.
  As to the New World Mine acquisition, I intend to examine exactly 
what land or interests in the land the Federal Government is acquiring 
for $65 million from the mining company. This issue needs to be 
examined because the agreement, committing the United States to buy 
this property, incredibly does not answer this question.
  The mining company, which agreed to sell, owns or has under lease, 
interests in nearly 6,000 acres. However, the mining company has fee 
title to only 1,700 acres. The remainder is unpatented mining claims. 
The ownership situation is further complicated by the fact that most of 
the interests in the 6,000 acres are owned by a third party not a 
signatory to the agreement with the Federal Government. Congress, and 
the American taxpayer, have

[[Page S11922]]

a right to know, what we are getting for $65 million.
  There are many other issues that my committee will examine about 
these acquisitions including:
  What is the status of the Habitat Conservation Plan for the land 
surrounding the Headwaters Forest?
  What impact will that Habitat Conservation Plan have on other 
property owners in the western United States and Pacific Northwest?
  Has California come up with its $130 million share of the purchase 
price for the Headwaters Forest?
  Do both acquisitions comply with the terms of the National 
Environmental Policy Act?
  How will the properties be managed?
  By whom?
  At what cost?
  How will the public access the Headwaters Forest?
  Is it good public policy to settle constitutional takings cases 
against the United States in this manner?
  Is it good public policy to settle environmental litigation in this 
manner?
  How does the Clinton administration interpret the phrase ``priority 
Federal land acquisitions?''
  Are the Headwaters Forest and New World Mine acquisitions consistent 
with the Federal land management policy on Federal land acquisitions?
  While this may seem like an exhaustive list of issue, I only have 
skimmed the surface of the numerous unanswered questions about the 
acquisitions.
  I want all of these questions answered before the acquisitions occur. 
It is in the interest of the taxpayers. It is the responsibility of 
this body.
  My goal is to ensure, despite the uncommon circumstances which have 
led us to this point, that Congress and the American people can have 
confidence in the decisions to acquire the Headwaters Forest and the 
New World Mine in the interest of the taxpayers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see several Senators seeking 
recognition, including the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________