Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, no, I will not yield on my time. I do not have enough time remaining.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 56 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 256 is a simple resolution. The rule simply makes it in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill S. 395 which authorizes and directs the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration, and to authorize the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration shall be waived. This resolution was reported out of the Committee on Rules by an unanimous voice vote. The purpose of the underlying legislation, S. 395, is to lift the ban on the export of crude oil produced on Alaska's North Slope and to provide for the sale of the assets of the Alaska Power Administration. Additionally, the conference report contains a targeted royalty relief provision which, according to the Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary, will ``lead to and expansion of domestic energy resources, enhance national security, and reduce the deficit''. This legislation has broad bipartisan support, including the support of the Clinton administration. By lifting the ban on exports we will create thousands of new jobs in this decade, and we will generate millions in receipts to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that quorum is not present.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration. The clerk read the resolution, as follows: h. res. 256 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 395) to authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration and to authorize the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I too support the rule, and urge my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I have no further speakers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would hope the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] stays on the floor long enough to hear some rebuttal, because the gentleman from Florida has very little basis, especially using the kind of strong language that he has used. I think we may have an honest disagreement here. I do not think either side in this situation is lying, as the gentleman from Florida might put it, or telling an untruth. In fact, the CBO has been I think fairly clear on its scoring of this. This will add to the Federal Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. [[Page H 11859]] Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter that we have just received from Citizens for a Sound Economy, and as we all know on both sides of the aisle, that is a very economically conservative organization. It watches very carefully for any type of legislation that would be a drain on the Federal Treasury. Their position on this, and I quote: Providing some degree of royalty relief creates economic incentives to make such risky undertakings more feasible, while increasing the supply of a vital natural resource and providing increased employment opportunities. Moreover, the royalty relief is not corporate welfare. It does not place a burden on taxpayers or contribute to the deficit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. ARCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]. (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, clearly the gentleman from California and I disagree as to the value to the Treasury, but I would stand by my comments, as I think the majority of the people on both sides of the aisle will stand by, and that is that this is a positive. This puts money into the Treasury. At a time when we are facing this deficit, I think we need to look at that. It encourages jobs. It is a win-win deal. We have got jobs, we have money for the Treasury. I think we are going to have support from both sides of the aisle, in addition, of course, to the support from the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration has come out and endorsed this theory, this issue, and the way it has been put on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield I minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman from California that I was in the chair when we last heard these arguments. Frankly, I was convinced by what the gentleman said. In fact, I supported the gentleman from California, because, and I quote the gentleman's statement, he said it was simply a raid on the Treasury by the Senate and major oil companies. Again today I hear the gentleman from California, and, in fact, I think he used the figure $500 million. After that vote, I had time to further examine the issue. In addition to that, I looked at what the CBO score did. I went through that accounting. I can tell the Members that the representation by the gentleman is not the way that I interpret that particular statement. In fact, according to the Secretary of Energy, who has also assessed the CBO score, the deep water language will actually put the Federal Treasury $200 million ahead. Let me repeat that language: The Minerals Management Service has estimated that the revenue impacts of the new leasing under section 304 of Senate 395 for lease sales in the central and western Gulf of Mexico between 1996 and 2000, the deep water royalty relief provisions would result in an increased bonus of $485 million, $113.5 million in additional bonuses on tracts that would have been leased without relief, and $350 million in bonuses from tracts that would not have been leased until after the year 2000, if at all, without relief. This translates to a present value of $420 million if the time and value of money is taken into account. However, the Treasury would forego, and I think this is the number that the gentleman from California is using, ``an estimated $5.53 million in royalties that would otherwise have been collected through the year 2018.'' But you have to complete the formula. But again, taking into account the time value of the money, this offset in today's dollars is only $220 million. Comparing this loss with the gain from the bonus bids on a net present value basis, the Federal Government would be ahead by $200 million. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to look at the CBO score. I intend to support that today. I think the rule is fair, but I think we have to look at that score accurately. We have to disclose all the numbers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. Both of these gentlemen have worked extensively with myself and my staff as well as the staff of our Senators and other members of the Colorado delegation, to come to some type of compromise. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for his cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I would rise to commend the remaining conferees on the energy and water appropriations bill for the action on the Animas-La Plata water project. The conference committee, led by the able gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Myers and the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bevill, Senators Domenici and Johnston, have taken a decisive step toward expedient completion of the Animas-La Plata water project. The United States has an 1868, 1868 treaty obligation to provide water to the Ute Mountain, Ute Tribe, and the Southern Ute Tribe. In the Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, the U.S. Congress reaffirmed this obligation and determined the Animas-La Plata project was the only viable alternative to providing water to the Ute Tribes and directed the Secretary of Interior to begin construction of the Animas-La Plata project. Today, 7 years after Congress directed the project be built and over a century after the original treaty was signed, the tribes are still waiting to receive their water. In fact, they are still waiting for construction to begin. It is that failure to execute the terms of the 1988 act in a timely fashion which led the conferees to include section 507 in the appropriations bill. This section provides, in order to ensure the timely implementation of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Act of 1988, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to proceed without delay with construction of those facilities in conformance with the final biological opinion for the Animas-La Plata project in Colorado, and New Mexico, dated October 25, 1991. I would at this time, Mr. Speaker, like to engage in a very brief colloquy with the chairman about the intent of this language. First of all, does the chairman agree if the construction does not begin in fiscal year 1996 that the water rights settlement is in jeopardy?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record a letter dated September 27, 1995, from the Southern Ute Indiana Tribal Council, as follows: Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council, Ignacio, CO, September 27, 1995. Representative Scott McInnis, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Re HR-1905, 1996 energy and water development appropriations bill. Dear Scott: In the very near future, the United States Congress will be considering HR-1905, the 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. Sufficiency Language may be included in that legislation which will, at long last, enable the United States government to fulfill a trust responsibility to the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes by allowing the Animas-La Plata Water Resources Development Project to move forward, as promised by the Congress under the provisions of the 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. When you served in the Colorado legislature in the 1980's, you were an important part of the Settlement Agreement. With your assistance, the Colorado legislature appropriated almost $60 million as the State's share of cost sharing with the federal government for construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. $42 million of those funds still remain in escrow, ready to be spent to fulfill the State of Colorado's commitment to the settlement of the Colorado Ute Indian water claims. Now that you are in Congress, we are again seeking your assistance to encourage your fellow congressmen to support fulfillment of the 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. I know how my ancestors must have felt when the United States government repeatedly broke treaties with the Colorado Ute Indians. First in 1863, then in 1868, 1873, and finally in 1880. With each treaty the homelands of the Utes were reduced in size. Finally, in 1880, Congress confiscated all of the Ute lands in Colorado--over one-third of the State of Colorado. In the 1930's a small remnant of our aboriginal homelands in Southwestern Colorado were restored to tribal ownership. Now the national environmental groups would have the United States government breach the agreement that was entered into in 1988. At that time, the Colorado Utes chose to negotiate rather than litigate and entered into another treaty, or contract with America, in return for deferring the Colorado Ute senior Winters water rights on rivers in Southwestern Colorado that cross the reservation. Congress and then President Reagan said, ``We will build the Animas-La Plata Project. The Utes will have wet water--not paper water rights.'' Upon passage of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, the legislation was hailed as a model for all tribes to follow--negotiate, do not litigate. Since passage, the states of Colorado, New Mexico, the water districts, the municipalities, and the Indian tribes, have been strangled in a swamp of red tape and bureaucratic backpeddling. Now comes the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, not unlike the Indian givers of the last century. Do not honor our commitment to the Indians. Ignore the trust responsibility the United States government has under the Constitution of the United States. Sacrifice the Indian water claims on the alter of economics. It is too expensive to build the Animas- La Plata. Let's give the Indians ``wampum'' instead of water. My ancestors were all too familiar with the ``beads for Manhattan'' mentality of the early Indian traders. Colorado Ute Indian tribes honorably negotiated the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, which mandates construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. In his inaugural message to the Congress, President Bush said ``Great men, like great nations, must keep their promises. The Colorado Ute Indian tribes expect this great nation to keep its promise and construct the Animas-La Plata Project.'' Sincerely, Leonard C. Burch, Chairman, Southern Ute Indian Tribe.

Mr. McINNIS. What would the conferees expect from the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the section 507?

Mr. McINNIS. I thank the chairman. I would again like to acknowledge the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], not only on the merits of what you have said but on the importance that you have placed on the word that we gave to the native American tribes.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee Yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 248, a rule which waives all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1905, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for fiscal year 1996. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this rule, and I want to briefly discuss section 507 of the conference report. Section 507 provides that ``[i]n order to ensure the timely implementation of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to proceed without delay with construction of those facilities in conformance with the final Biological Opinion for the Animas-La Plata project, Colorado and New Mexico, dated October 25, 1991.'' This language does not seek to waive environmental requirements. However, the conference came to the judgment that this project has already more than satisfied environmental requirements. For example, two separate biological opinions under the Endangered Species Act have been completed. One section 404(r) permit exemption under the Clean Water Act was granted. Furthermore, an environmental impact statement and supplemental draft environmental impact statement under NEPA have occurred, and there are still more reviews currently underway. This project has been the subject of lengthy environmental consideration, and we are simply saying, Enough is enough. It is time to move forward. The simple fact is that the construction of the Animas-La Plata project must begin immediately in order to possibly meet the terms of the 1986 settlement agreement between two tribes of native Americans, the United States, and other parties. If the two Ute tribes do not begin receiving water by January 1, 2001, then they have an option until January 1, 2005, to reject water from the Animas-La Plata Project and to institute litigation to obtain direct flow rights to the water with a 100-year-old priority date. That litigation will have a severe economic impact on the rural and urban economies of Colorado and New Mexico, jeopardize the water rights of countless of people throughout the Four Corners region, and cost the U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. This Congress cannot want to see further litigation and we do not want to break our word to these native Americans. That is why section 507 was included. Second, a question may arise as to what the conferees meant by the words ``timely implementation'' and ``without delay'' is simple. Timely implementation means, right now. That is why they choose the words, ``without delay.'' They could have said, without one year's delay. They could have said, without undue delay. Instead, they chose the unambiguous, without delay. The Secretary should have no trouble interpreting this unambiguous language. I reiterate that this is primarily an issue of fair dealing with native Americans. Nearly 125 years ago the United States promised these two tribes water to make their reservations a homeland. In 1988 Congress reaffirmed that promise and, in return for this promise, the tribes set aside their most valuable tribal asset--their senior water rights in exchange for the promised project. They in good faith agreed not to seek to take water away from their non-Indian neighbors, but instead to share water with them. Congress now must ensure that the United States lives up to its end of the deal. The Secretary of Interior has the responsibility under the 1988 legislation to build the Animas-La Plata project. In hearings on the fiscal year 1994 Energy and water development appropriations bill, Secretary Babbitt stated: ``I understand that Congress has mandated that this project get going, and I will comply with that mandate.'' The Secretary now has yet another mandate from the Congress. Section 507 provides him with the necessary tools to move forward and build this project in accordance with obvious congressional intent. I urge Secretary Babbitt to move forward and build the Animas-La Plata project immediately so that the United States may preserve the integrity of the water rights settlement. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following: A-LP Foes Are All Wet It's been suggested in some quarters of late that supporters of the Animas-La Plata water project near Durango are trying to slip something past the public and the Congress. What hogwash. In reality, the efforts under way this month are aimed at keeping on track a project that was long-ago approved--and has subsequently been re-approved--by Congress, by the states of Colorado and New Mexico, by voters in the local water district and by two Ute Indian tribes. Environmental groups, led by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, continue to work behind the scenes and in court to halt a project that has been legitimately approved by both houses of Congress and signed into law as a treaty obligation to Colorado's long-suffering native Indian tribes. The current debate, like much that has surrounded the Animas-La Plata since it was authorized by Congress in 1968, is filled with misinformation and half-truths. For example, one Front Range newspaper said that before Congress approves the project it must be certain that it isn't adding to the list of broken promises to the Indians. There are several things wrong with that. First is the fact that Congress has already approved the project, initially when it was authorized in 1968; later, through annual appropriations bills; and most importantly, when it adopted the 1988 Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. Secondly, the 1988 act wasn't approved only by Congress, but by the states of Colorado and New Mexico, and by the Ute Mountain Utes and Southern Ute Indian Tribes. Essential to that act is the construction of the Animas-La Plata to provide water to the Indian tribes, a provision the Indians accepted in return for dropping their long-standing claims under the Winters Doctrine to water in rivers of the region. If Animas-La Plata isn't built by the deadlines set in that agreement, the Indians are free to go back to court and win a much more costly settlement from the U.S. government. But the Indians have said repeatedly that they want the water the project will provide, not a prolonged court battle. Much is also made of the fact the Animas-La Plata will be built in two phases, and there is no guarantee the second phase, which won't have federal involvement, will ever be constructed. Therefore, critics charge, there is no guarantee the Indians will get the water due them from the project. But the Indians will receive 60,000 acre feet of water from Phase 1 of the Animas-La Plata project, no small amount of water currency. (It's instructive to note that when critics talk about the cost of the Animas-La Plata, they use the most recent figures for both Phase 1 and Phase 2, approximately $710 million, not the roughly $525 million for Phase 1. But when they talk about the benefits of the project, they only mention Phase 1.) In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged that the primary features of the project could be constructed with no threat to the endangered Colorado squawfish and issued a final biological opinion stating as much. The sufficiency language now proposed in Congress would simply require construction of what was allowed under that opinion. However, the 1991 opinion was a disappointment to Sierra Club officials, who have vowed to keep the project tied up in litigation for 40 years. They immediately filed a lawsuit claiming the project violated the National Environmental Policy Act on the grounds that ``all reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to the project were not adequately examined. Unfortunately, the Sierra Club got a federal judge to agree, forcing the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to halt its construction plans and file a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. That supplement is expected to be completed later this year. This project has had agonizing environmental examination, as well as broad-based official approval. Congress should adopt the language in the appropriations bill and allow the project to proceed.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. What? Are you putting your head in the sand and forgetting the deficit: This country is facing a deficit at a rate of $37 million an hour. I ask the gentleman from California go out and show me one of your constituent families out there that can overspend their budget at the same percentage rate or proportionate to their own budget as this Federal Government overspends its budget. When are you going to come to your senses, my colleagues? We got to get this budget in balance. If we do not, there is no greater threat to the future of this country. There is nothing greater that is going to break the backbones of the working people of this country than allowing this country to continue to spend, and spend, and spend, and spend. You can divert all the attention you want to away from what I am saying, but the fact is, if you do not do something about this deficit, the people in this country are going to face a fiasco, a financial fiasco the likes of which we have not seen. Now the gentleman talks about Medicare, how horrible that we do something about a Medicare. My colleagues, we better do something about Medicare. It is going to be bankrupt. It was this body that created Medicare. It is a good program, it was intended for good purposes, but, as many other Federal programs, it has gotten out of hand, the spending has gong crazy. The trustees, bipartisan by the way, Democrat and Republicans, some of the trustees appointed by President Clinton, have come to a mutual agreement, and that is if we do not do something with Medicare, if we do not reform Medicare, that system will be bankrupt, bankrupt by the year 2002. Now sure it is easy to stand up here, and use lots of fancy charts, and quote this newspaper and that newspaper, but who is doing the hard work back here to stand up to government spending and say, ``Enough is enough; you can't spend more than you bring in''? I stopped one time a rancher. He told me in Colorado; Meeker, CO; said to me, ``Scott, before you put any more water in the bucket you better plug the holes,'' and I venture to say to the gentleman from California that is exactly what this Republican bill does. The Democrats have had an opportunity to bring this budget in balance for 25 years. They have refused to do it. We are not going to refuse to do it. Sure we are going to take heat from you, sure we are going to take cheap shots about this and that, and sure we have to make tough decisions, not necessarily between good and bad programs, but between good and good programs, but we are willing to make those decisions because, if we do not, you will not, and if you will not, this country faces a fiscal disaster. Mr. Speaker, the people of this country deserve a government that can control its spending. The people of this country deserve a government that knows how to balance its checkbook. The senior citizens of this country deserve a Medicare Program that is not going to go bankrupt in 7 years. The people of this country can expect their Congress to act in a responsible, a fiscally responsible manner. I would urge all Members to set aside the partisan politics and take a look at the best interests of this country. The best interest of this country is that this country quit spending more than it brings in.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I absolutely agree with the gentleman. This should not be the decision of the President of the United States. The President of the United States should come to the U.S. Congress and ask us for our permission. Frankly, I am going to be leading the charge against it, because while I have not been to Bosnia, I have an 18-year-old son.