[House Report 105-222]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 105-222
_______________________________________________________________________
FOR THE RELIEF OF GLOBAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KERR-
MCGEE CORPORATION, AND KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION
_______
July 31, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1211]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1211) for the relief of Global Exploration and
Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee
Chemical Corporation, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Payment of Claims.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out
of money not otherwise appropriated--
(1) to the Global Exploration and Development Corporation, a
Florida corporation incorporated in Delaware, $9,500,000;
(2) to Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation
incorporated in Delaware, $10,000,000; and
(3) to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, an Oklahoma
corporation incorporated in Delaware, $0.
(b) Condition of Payment.--(1) The payment authorized by subsection
(a)(1) is in settlement and compromise of all claims of Global
Exploration and Development Corporation, as described in the
recommendations of the Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl.
776.
(2) The payments authorized by subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) are in
settlement and compromise of all claims of Kerr-McGee Corporation and
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, as described in the recommendations of
the Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FEES.
No more than 15 percent of the sums authorized to be paid by section
1 shall be paid to or received by any agent or attorney for services
rendered in connection with the recovery of such sums. Any person
violating this section shall be fined not more than $1,000.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
This bill will pay $10,000,000 and $9,500,000,
respectively, to Kerr-McGee Corporation and Global Exploration
and Development Corporation based on the recommendation made by
the Court of Claims as to the amounts equitably due those
companies. This recommendation is made by the Court in response
to a congressional reference case concerning a phosphate
prospecting permit dispute in the 1960's.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
During the 98th Congress, legislation was enacted that
prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from issuing phosphate
mining leases for the Osceola National Forest unless a joint
resolution allowing such a lease is approved by the Congress.
Prior to the legislation enacted in the 98th Congress, the
Secretary of the Interior has issued a number of prospecting
permits between 1963 and 1968 under the provisions of the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Under the provisions of the
Mineral Leasing Act, if a prospector for phosphate is
successful he is entitled to a lease to mine the phosphate.
The claimants were among those who were successful in their
prospecting efforts, but whose subsequent applications for
mining leases were denied by the Secretary of the Interior.
In 1983, the Secretary of the Interior in denying the
applications determined that the applicants for phosphate
mining leases could not show a reasonable likelihood of success
in developing a valuable mine since there was no technology
currently licensed by the State of Florida that provided
reasonably successful reclamation of the mined lands to the
standards required by the Forest Service.
Over the next several years, the claimants were
unsuccessful in obtaining relief from the Secretary's decision
in the courts. The reason for their lack of success was the
enactment in 1983 of the Florida Wilderness Act. That act
stopped the issuance of phosphate mining leases in the Osceola
National Forest. Thus, it also mooted the rights the claimants
might have had to either force the Secretary to reopen his
decision denying the leases or to demand compensation for
erroneous denial of the leases.
On the premises that their ``entitlement to preference
right mining leases constitutes a property right'' and the
United States action ``constitutes a taking of property'', the
claimants brought an action in the Claims Court under the
Tucker Act. The U.S. argued that the Claims Court did not have
jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decisions rejecting the
existence of a property interest. As a result, the claimants
were unable to state sufficient taking claims. Without deciding
the matter, the Claims Court expressed doubt as to its
jurisdiction, however it also expressed its view that equity
required that a forum be provided in which the merits of the
asserted claims could be tested.
In 1990, the parties filed a joint status report with the
Claims Court agreeing that any action should be stayed pending
the claimants' request for congressional reference and that,
upon such reference, the claimants' cases should be dismissed
with prejudice.
In 1991, the Justice Department offered no objection to H.
Res. 29 which referred H.R. 477, a bill to provide compensation
to the claimants, to the Claims Court for a decision as to
whether it was an equitable claim, if the resolution was
``amended so that the referral becomes effective only upon the
dismissal with prejudice of the Tucker Act cases currently
pending before the Claims . . . These issues should appear
before the Claims Court only once, not once on the merits of
the takings issue and once pursuant to the congressional
reference''. The House passed the resolution which sent the
case to the Claims Court.
Following the evidentiary hearing but before a decision by
the Court, the claimants, the Department of Justice and the
Department of the Interior presented a settlement agreement to
the Court; the Court approved that settlement; and reported to
the Congress that the amounts equitably due from the U.S. to
Kerr-McGee and Global are, respectively $10,000,000 and
$9,500,000. As part of the settlement, Kerr-McGee will return
its $10,000,000 to the government by paying it to the Hazardous
Waste Superfund as a partial settlement of litigation involving
a Superfund cleanup site in Louisiana.
An amendment was made to the bill at the request of the
Department of Justice to clarify that the bill would implement
the settlement of the disputed claims and would not be an
admission of fault.
committee consideration
On June 3, 1997, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill
H.R. 1211, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On July 23, 1997, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 1211,
with amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
committee oversight findings
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
committee on government reform and oversight findings
No findings or recommendations of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
new budget authority and tax expenditures
Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House rule XI applies because this
legislation does provide new budgetary authority or increased
tax expenditures. See Congressional Budget Office letter.
congressional budget office cost estimate
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 1211, the following
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 24, 1997.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed H.R. 1211, a bill for the relief of Global Exploration
and Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-
McGee Chemical Corporation, as ordered reported by the House
Committee on the Judiciary on July 23, 1997. The bill would
require the Secretary of the Treasury to make two payments
totaling $19.5 million. We expect these outlays would occur in
fiscal year 1998. Because the bill would increase direct
spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is John R.
Righter.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
constitutional authority statement
Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
agency views
The comments of the Department of Justice on H.R. 1211 are
as follows:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 2, 1997.
Hon. Lamar S. Smith,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment
on H.R. 1211, a bill ``for the relief of Global Exploration and
Development Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee
Chemical Corporation.'' We have no objection to the relief H.R.
1211 would provide if the bill is modified to reflect that it
would implement the settlement of disputed claims and would not
be an admission of fault.
H.R. 1211 is intended to resolve litigation between the
Federal government and Global Exploration and Development
Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee Chemical
Corporation. This litigation was based upon the corporations'
allegations that the United States improperly failed to grant
or approve leases or to allow phosphate mining by Global and
the Kerr-McGee corporations on the Osceola National Forest.
After a six-week trial before the Court of Federal Claims
but before the court could issue its opinion, the parties agree
to a joint stipulation of settlement and submitted this
stipulation to the court. On November 18, 1996, the court
published its recommendation to Congress that the disputes be
settled for the amounts set forth in H.R. 1211. See 36 Fed. Cl.
776.
The court's recommendation to Congress was not based upon a
finding of any wrongdoing by the United States in its dealings
with Global or the Kerr-McGee Corporations. Rather, the court's
recommendation was based upon and limited to a finding that an
equitable claim against the United States existed and that, it
was in the best interest of all parties to settle this claim
for the amounts set forth in the bill.
While we generally have no objection to the bill, we
believe that the language of subsection 1(b) could be
interpreted as an admission or finding of liability on the part
of the United States. Therefore, we recommend substituting the
current language of subsection 1(b) with the following:
(b) Condition of Payment.--(1) The payment authorized
by subsection (a)(1) shall be in settlement and
compromise of all claims of Global Exploration and
Development Corporation, as more fully discussed in the
Court of Federal Claims' recommendation to Congress set
forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776.
(2) The payment authorized by subsection (a)(2) shall
be in settlement and compromise of all claims of Kerr-
McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation,
as more fully discussed in the Court of Federal Claims'
recommendation to Congress as set forth in 36 Fed. Cl.
776.
Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we may be of
further assistance. The Office of Management and Budget has
advised this Department that there is no objection to the
submission of this report from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Andrew Fois,
Assistant Attorney General.