Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize a young man in my district who should truly be an inspiration to us all. His name is Joel Bone and he is from Glenwood Springs, CO. Jeol attends Glenwood Springs High School and has worked diligently in recent months to organize the Prime Monday Sports Club which is a forum he creates in order to bring together special needs students and teachers so they could get to know each other outside the classroom. Joel was recently recognized by the National Downs Syndrome Congress for his efforts and presented with their Outstanding Citizen Award, which is traditionally given to young adults who exhibit a high degree of selfadvocacy. The award was presented to Joel at the 25th annual convention of the National Downs Syndrome Congress in Phoenix, AZ on August 8. Joel was given the honor of being seated at the head table and then read his acceptance speech in front of 2,000 people where he himself praised all the risk takers in the audience. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today to tell the entire House of Representatives about this fine young man from Glenwood Springs whose attitude and work ethic is a lesson to us all.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct. Vote ``yes'' on the Fazio amendment.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Yalta Dunbar of Gunnison, CO, who will turn 100 on August 9 of this year. Ms. Dunbar has been a longtime resident of Gunnison and her knowledge and experience is a source of wisdom and guidance for all those around her. Her loving family will be putting on a celebration in her honor which will be held at the Elks Club in Gunnison. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ms. Dunbar for the many years of service she has provided to her community and hope she serves as an inspiration to all of us. Ms. Dunbar is the embodiment of hard work and healthy living which we pride ourselves on the western slope of Colorado. I wish her the very best on this special day and congratulate her on 100 fantastic years.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, the concern that we have about the amendment that my colleague has placed out as his amendment, while there are negotiations going on in Colorado, the Romer negotiations, your amendment gives tremendous leverage to the opponents of the project. Our position is that we should maintain the status quo in the House and that if a compromise is reached by these parties, that that compromise be free to go forward. We are under a time limitation, a contractual time limitation, to deliver this project to the Native Americans to avoid being in breach of contract.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise to address the substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from California. The gentleman from California has been very cooperative. The gentleman from California understands the history of the Animas-La Plata project. The gentleman from California understands the importance of bipartisan support, which this project has had through a number of Congresses, through a number of Presidents, through a number of State legislatures. This project is in compliance with an agreement made by the United States Government with the Indian tribes of this country. We gave the Native Americans our word that we would comply with an agreement if they simply would not sue us in the courts to get the water that we originally promised them. Let me quote from an article from a good friend of mine, Bob Ewegen, from the State of Colorado. It involves a fellow named Otto Mears: `` `The Utes, for whom the San Juans had been home for generations, naturally resented the rush of the white man to the lands they considered their own. Otto Mears made removing the Indians to smaller reservations in the west his first order of business, thereby opening his area to settlement. He played a prominent role in drawing up the various treaties by which the Utes lost their lands. The first was the Brunot Treaty of 1873, named for Felix Brunot, the United States Indian Commissioner, in which the Utes gave up their San Juan area,' that is a massive area in the State of Colorado, `for a payment of $25,000 a year. `` `. . In 1880 Mears was asked to serve as one of the five commissioners to make another treaty with the Utes. The government was prepared to pay $1.8 million to the Indians for the balance of their land, 11 million acres on the Western Slope' of Colorado. `Mears had a better idea. He gave each Indian $2 to sign the treaty, thereby saving the government, the United States Government, practically the total sum that it expected to pay.' ''. ``Promise them $1.8 million. Give them two bucks. How typical of the United States Government. Unfortunately, things haven't changed much since 1880. In 1988 Congress passed the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act to honor water rights that were granted the Utes more than a century ago in 1868.'' Ever since, we have worked hard to pass the Animas-La Plata water project in compliance with that agreement. ``The only way that this would be is to convert these legal rights into `wet water' that the tribes can actually use. But ALP, the Animas-La Plata, ``has been blocked by a coalition of fiscal conservatives,'' theoretically, ``and what I call `theme park' environmentalists.'' And the article goes on. The intent of the article is the reflection of the history, the sad history of the way that the Native Americans have been treated in this country. And once again, this Congress, through the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] is about again to add to that sad history, and that is to break the word that we gave to the Native Americans. Now that water that we stole from them originally, we agreed to give the water back to them. We did not give it back to them, so they sued us. We asked them to drop the lawsuit. We promised them we would give them wet water, not money, not beads, not an ax handle. We would give them water, a water project. We agreed to it. This Congress agreed to it. The previous Congress agreed to it. The previous Congress agreed to it. Previous Presidents agreed to it. And now, once again, here we are on the verge of breaking the word and the honor of the United States Government. Do not support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, because all we do is put into effect a participatory breach of contract with the Native Americans. I urge everyone in the Chamber to support the substitute amendment of the gentleman from California. That is what is fair. That is what is just. And frankly, that is what keeps our word with the Native Americans.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, there are a few things that I think we should clarify. I am glad to see that the floor has settled down. It seems that both sides here are attempting to negotiate. But I do think it is important to discuss what the function is of the Committee on Rules. The primary function of the Committee on Rules is to manage bills on the House floor. In doing that, of course we did have a Committee on Rules when the Republicans were in the minority, and that was run by the Democratic Party. In fact, during that period of time when the minority, which was the Republicans, had a motion to recommit, they were not allowed at times to offer that motion to recommit with instructions. We changed that. The Republicans changed that because we wanted to see more fairness on the floor, more openness on the floor. When we took office, what we did is we always guaranteed the minority a motion to recommit with instructions. What does that mean? That means that the minority has the right to be heard. Under the type of governmental system that we have in this country, the majority has the right to rule, but the minority has a right to be heard, and that is exactly what that motion to recommit does. We have heard from a couple of people, frankly from the State of Massachusetts, who complained about the fact that the tobacco amendment was not going to be heard. In fact, it is going to be heard. It has got as much time or more time than any other amendment that is going to be on there. But the fact is that both of these gentlemen on a continuous basis talked about how important it is that we immediately hear the tobacco amendment, that we not be evasive, that we put this to the forefront, and then they continue to vote for motions to adjourn. The reason we went to the Committee on Rules last night is because we in good faith, the Committee on Rules, determined not to put a rule onto this bill, go ahead, put the bill out on the floor and let it run its course. Well, what happened is we ran into delay tactic after delay tactic. I hope now that these negotiations calm the floor down, allow us to pass this rule and allow us to get on with the business of the House, which is the business of the people that we represent. This time that we are wasting is precious time that we cannot recover. We have a lot of major issues, including the tax cut that is sitting out there, the children's tax credit, the education tax credit, the capital gains reduction, the death tax exemption, raising up the exemption. Instead of addressing issues like that, we see people up here continuing to delay and delay. I do not know how many motions we have had to adjourn or motions to rise, which of course takes a half- hour to an hour each time that is made and a vote is requested upon it. It is important for us to remember that when that Committee on Rules met last night, it was not because it was a regularly scheduled Committee on Rules. It is because we were forced by a few individuals who wanted to do delay, delay, delay, and that is why we met, to bring some order to the floor. This Committee on Rules meeting was not held in the middle of the night, not at all. It obviously was an open meeting. The minority had their chairman up there. In fact, we sat in our chairs up there waiting for 30 or 40 minutes for the printing process to be done. So last night when our committee met, it was forced to meet. I used to be a police officer. I would see somebody speeding. Most of the time if the speeding was not egregious, I would give a warning. Time after time after you give somebody a warning, at some point you have got to do something. In this case, you give them a ticket, and then the person that gets the ticket is complaining. Here is what has happened in the last few days. We have warned and warned this body. The Committee on Rules has determined that the business of this House must move forward. The American people are demanding we do something, quickly, on this tax cut. We need to move on these appropriations bills. It is important for the lives of the people that we represent. And if some Members out there continue to stall and stall and stall, we will have to adjourn, we will have to go upstairs to the Committee on Rules, have an open committee hearing where the minority is represented as well as the majority, put out a rule which manages this bill, and that is exactly what happened. It is not unfair. It is certainly not unnecessary. It became necessary as the result, frankly, of abuses that we observed here on the floor. Now, that meeting, and I want to stress this because it came up several times. I heard that somebody called it the mesh meeting. Somebody called it in a dark room in the Capitol. Somebody said it was unannounced. One member of the committee itself said, we wondered why they were not there, they said they did not get notice. They sure did get notice. Everybody on the Committee on Rules got notice. It is necessary. Again, I want to soften my comments by saying that the comity that we are now seeing on the floor, frankly it is about time. The Republicans feel it is very important for us to move forward with this business. The Republicans feel very strongly about this tax cut that we want to deliver to the American people. In order for us to deliver a tax cut to put money back into the taxpayers' pocket, we need to get on with the House's business. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 187 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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, this is a very simple resolution. The proposed rule is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The resolution waives points of order against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(L)(6) of rule XI relating to the 3-day availability of the report. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. Furthermore, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the name of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides the Chair may accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, under the proposed rule, each Member has an opportunity to have their concerns addressed, debated, and ultimately voted up or down by this body. House Resolution 187 was reported out of the Committee on Rules by a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, what the good gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has said is absolutely correct. This is the recommendation of the Department of Energy and I urge my colleagues to support it. It makes budgetary sense, and again, it follows the recommendations of the Department of Energy.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill. I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman on forest and forest health, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], and I would also like to thank the gentleman from American Samoa for both of their assistance and rapidly bringing this legislation to the floor. H.R. 985 has already been described, but let me tell my colleagues that it has strong support from Summit County Open Space Advisory Counsel, the Summit County Board of County Commissioners, the Wilderness Land Trust, the Sierra Club and a number of other organizations. This bill makes a lot of sense. I do not know of any opposition that exists out there, nor do I know of any reason for any opposition to come forth, and I think the bill will pass unanimously. This noncontroversial legislation, as I have stressed, provides that a 160-acre Slate Creek Parcel of Summit County will be added to the Eagle's Nest Wilderness and administered as a part of the wilderness area. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a good, good bill.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1019. I would also like to comment briefly on H.R. 1020, but prior to that I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], subcommittee chairman, for rapidly moving this legislation forward. I would also like to thank the gentleman from American Samoa for his courtesies and support in regard to H.R. 1019. Briefly on H.R. 1020, that is also a noncontroversial issue and ties into this. It adjusts the boundary of the White River National Forest to include all the National Forest System Lands within Summit County, CO, which are currently part of the Arapaho National Forest, being the Dillon Ranger District. The White River National Forest has administered these lands for a number of years. Therefore, the inclusion of the Dillon Ranger District within the White River National Forest will more accurately depict the administration of these lands. Furthermore, the inclusion should reduce confusion within the general public as to who administers the Dillon Ranger District. The legislation will not alter the current distribution of forest receipts to the affected county governments. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and again H.R. 1019, once again expressing my appreciation.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, it stand adjourned to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, May 30, 1997.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, Friday, May 23, 1997, it stand adjourned to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 27, 1997.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Tuesday, June 3, 1997, the Speaker, majority leader and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, May 30, 1997, it stand adjourned to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 1997, for morning hour debates.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that for today all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in that section of the Record entitled ``Extension of Remarks''.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, June 4, 1997.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 150 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] 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, this is a very simple resolution. The proposed rule is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate equally divided, controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. Furthermore it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 150 provides that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by division rather than section. Moreover, points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of a manager's amendment, if offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] or his designee, which shall be debatable for a period of 10 minutes. If this amendment is adopted, the amendment will be considered as part of the base text for further amendment purposes. Furthermore, this rule provides that the Chair may accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, under the proposed rule each Member has an opportunity to have their concerns addressed, debated and ultimately voted up or down by this body. House Resolution 150 was passed out of the Committee on Rules by voice vote. I urge my colleagues to support the open rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. No. I will withdraw the point of order. Is it my understanding that the Chair will not take a parliamentary inquiry at this point in time, or the Chair will accept a parliamentary inquiry?