[House Report 106-747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-747
======================================================================
OREGON LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2000
_______
July 17, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1629]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 1629) to provide for the exchange of certain land in the
State of Oregon, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of S. 1629 is to provide for the exchange of
certain lands in the State of Oregon.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
S. 1629 authorizes two exchanges of public and private
lands in Oregon: the Triangle Land Exchange and the Northeast
Oregon Assembled Land Exchange. Approximately 54,000 acres of
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service land is
proposed to be traded for nearly 50,000 acres currently held by
private landowners in northeast Oregon. The bill requires that
the lands to be exchanged be of equal value, or equalized by
cash payments or a reduction in the amount of private land
acquired.
Both the United States and the private landowners will
benefit from this exchange. The BLM and Forest Service will
acquire sensitive river corridors which will improve the
efficiency of their protection efforts for threatened and
endangered fish. Currently, many of these lands are
intermingled with private parcels and make resource management
difficult for the agencies. The improvement of fish-bearing
streams and riparian areas is critical to the survival of many
struggling species of fish in the Northwest.
Communities and landowners will also benefit from these
exchanges. The consolidation of ownership patterns and the
release of previously inaccessible forest lands will boost
local economies and enhance the ability of the private sector
to manage its own lands.
The House of Representatives companion legislation to S.
1629 is H.R. 2950, authored by Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR).
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 1629 was introduced on September 23, 1999, by Senator
Gordon Smith (R-OR). On April 13, 2000, the bill passed the
Senate by unanimous consent. The bill was referred to the
Resources Committee and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands and the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. On May 24, 2000, the
Full Resources Committee met to consider S. 1629. The two
Subcommittees were discharged from further consideration of the
bill by unanimous consent. No amendments were offered, and the
bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by voice vote.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section (1) contains the short title, the ``Oregon Land
Exchange Act of 2000.''
Section 2. Findings
This Section contains Congressional findings.
Section 3. Definitions
This Section defines terms used in the bill.
Section 4. BLM-Northeast Oregon Assembled Land Exchange
This Section requires the Secretary of the Interior, upon
request of the Clearwater partnership, to exchange
approximately 50,320 acres of federal lands administered by the
BLM for approximately 44,150 acres of private lands, as
provided in Section 6. The lands to be exchanged are identified
on the referenced map.
Section 5. Forest Service-Triangle Land Exchange
This Section requires the Secretary of Agriculture, upon
request of the Clearwater partnership, to exchange
approximately 3,901 acres of federal lands administered by the
Forest Service for approximately 5,700 acres of private lands
as provided in Section 6. The lands to be exchanged are
identified in the referenced map.
Section 6. Land exchange terms and conditions
Subsection (a) requires the land exchanges to be conducted
in accordance with Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act and other applicable laws.
Subsection (b) provides that any exchange of land may be
accomplished in a single transaction or in phases.
Subsection (c) requires completion of exchanges within 90
days of an agreed upon appraisal.
Subsection (d)(1) requires appraisals to be determined by
recognized appraisal standards. Paragraph (2) requires all
appraisals to determine the best use of the land in accordance
with the law of the State of Oregon, including use for the
protection of wild and scenic river characteristics. Paragraph
(3) requires appraisals to be completed and submitted to the
appropriate Secretary for approval no later than 90 days after
the date Clearwater requests the exchange. A summary of each
appraisal will be available for public inspection. Paragraph
(4) requires that after the appropriate Secretary approves the
appraised value of the land conveyed, the land shall not be
reappraised or updated.
Subsection (e) requires that the values of the offered land
and the selected land shall be equal or if not equal, shall be
equalized. Cash received by the Secretaries may be used to
purchase land from willing sellers.
Subsection (g)(1) requires that the land acquired by the
Secretary of Interior shall be managed in accordance with laws
and regulations applicable to BLM lands. The land acquired by
the Secretary of Agriculture shall be managed in accordance
with laws and regulations applicable to National Forest System
lands, except lands within the North Fork of the John Day
subwatershed shall also be managed primarily for fish,
wildlife, and public recreation. Other uses may occur if the
Secretary determines that such uses are consistent with, and do
not diminish, these purposes. This requirement will provide
additional protection beyond that provided in other applicable
federal land management regulations and statutes.
Section 7. Authorization of appropriations
This Section authorizes the appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary to carry out this bill.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of the report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8, and Article IV, section 3 of the
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority
to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
enactment of this bill would create new direct spending, but
``that any such spending would be negligible.''
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 30, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1629, the Oregon
Land Exchange Act of 2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Megan
Carroll (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the
state, local, and tribal impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 1629--Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2000
CBO estimates that implementing S. 1629 would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. Because S. 1629 would
create new direct spending authority, pay-as-you-go procedures
would apply, but CBO estimates that any such spending would by
negligible. S. 1629 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
and would have no significant impact on the budgets of state,
local, or tribal governments.
S. 1629 provides that upon the request of Clearwater Land
Exchange--Oregon (an Oregon partnership), the Secretaries of
the Interior and Agriculture shall exchange certain federal
lands in the state of Oregon for certain private lands in the
state. Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior would convey
about 50,320 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in
exchange for about 44,150 acres of private land. In addition,
the Secretary of Agriculture would convey 3,901 acres of
federal land within the Malheur National Forest in exchange for
about 5,700 acres of private land within the Malheur, Wallowa-
Whitman, and Umatilla National Forests. Information from the
two agencies indicates that the exchanges could affect grazing
allotments, but CBO estimates that any impact on grazing
receipts would be insignificant.
S. 1629 would give the Secretaries the authority to retain
any cash equalization payments received in these exchanges and
to spend them, without further appropriation action, to
purchase other land in Oregon. The Secretaries do not have such
authority under current law. Therefore, enacting S. 1629 could
result in new direct spending if the private parties in these
exchanges were to make cash equalization payments to the
federal government to complete the transactions. According to
BLM and the Forest Service, the land exchanges are intended to
be of equal value and no cash equalization payments are
planned. Based on that information, CBO estimates that this
legislation would have no significant effect on direct
spending.
On March 8, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
1629 as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources on February 10, 2000. The two versions of the
legislation, and their estimated costs, are identical.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Megan Carroll
(for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the state, local,
and tribal impact). This estimate was approved by Robert A.
Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
compliance with public law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
preemption of state, local or tribal law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
changes in existing law
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
While attractive conceptually, exchanging public for
private land raises a number of serious concerns in practice.
These concerns persist despite the existence of standards set
forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA) (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and critical assessment of the
administrative exchange process, most recently by the General
Accounting Office \1\. Unfortunately, S. 1629 completes two
relatively large exchanges legislatively, bypassing many of the
safeguards provided by the administrative exchange process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See: United States General Accounting Office, Report to the
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives, BLM and the Forrest Service: Land Exchanges Need to
Reflect Appropriate Value and Serve the Public Interest, GAO/RCED-00-
73, June, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two exchanges to be completed by this legislation
illustrate the difficulties of exchanges in general. For
example, FLMPA mandates that exchanges involve lands of equal
or nearly equal value. However, the appraisal process employed
by federal land management agencies frequently fails to achieve
this central goal, allowing exchange proponents to fund
appraisals for public lands they have selected and to keep
those appraisals secret after the lands have been exchanged. As
a result, it is frequently unclear if the land being acquired
by the public is as valuable as the land being traded into
private hands. In some cases it clearly is not.
S. 1629 requires further appraisals but specifies that the
values are to be determined ``in accordance with the law of the
State of Oregon'' rather than federal law, requires the
appraisals to be completed within 90 days and limits public
access to the appraisal results. Therefore, as in many
exchanges, the public is denied the information required to
determine accurately whether valuable resources, in this case
disappearing ``old growth'' forest, are being properly valued
and this legislation deepens that concern by instituting an
arbitrary time limit, unusual standards and increased secrecy.
The involvement of third-party exchange ``facilitators''
has also raised questions about the integrity of the exchange
process in general, and this exchange in particular. Is the
public well served when a third party selects the public lands
to be exchanged, rather than the land managers, and then
oversees all aspects of the exchange process? How can the
taxpayers be certain that the goals of the facilitator are
consistent with the public interest? Clearwater Land Exchange,
a private, for-profit, real estate firm, plays a central role
in the transactions covered by this legislation.
While the Administrative exchange process is flawed,
allowing that process to run its course might have addressed
some of these questions. At the very least, completion of the
assessments required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) would provide a higher level of
confidence that the public interest is being well served by
this exchange. While compliance with NEPA is waived by Congress
far too often, halting the process midway through completion is
unwise.
The House should consider improvements to this legislation
during consideration of S. 1629. In addition, the Congress
should heed the concerns raised by the most recent GAO report
on land exchanges and refrain from legislating further
exchanges until significant changes in the existing
administrative exchange process have been made.
George Miller.
Rush Holt.
Frank Pallone, Jr.