[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 154 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2408-E2409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, November 18, 2005

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deserve to 
pass and I certainly will not vote for it.
  That's not because I think all is well with the budget--far from it. 
Even before the hurricane winds and waves arrived and the levees broke, 
the Federal budget was already on a dangerous course marked by tidal 
waves of red ink and towering piles of debt. Since 2001, the budget 
surplus that President Clinton and a Republican Congress bequeathed 
President Bush had been erased and our country was now in debt to the 
tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every American man, woman and 
child.
  And then, as they brought death and destruction, Katrina and Rita 
delivered another blow to the Federal budget--and sounded a wake-up 
call about the fiscal and economic risks we have been running. I had 
hoped that the result might be recognition by both the Bush 
Administration and Congress that now we need to face hard reality and 
not continue with budget policies based on defying the laws of fiscal 
gravity. It's about time. But this bill--which would implement part of 
an overall Republican budget--goes in exactly the wrong direction.
  As it comes to the floor, the bill would cut more than $50 billion 
over 5 years from a wide variety of programs--not because they are no 
longer needed and not because they are wasteful, but because the 
Republican leadership has decided the Americans served by these 
programs must sacrifice in order to help offset the cost of over $106 
billion in tax cuts. And, after imposing these penalties on millions of 
America, the overall plan--service cuts for many Americans, tax cuts 
for relatively few--will not result in a balanced budget, but even 
bigger deficits and more delay in correcting our fiscal course.
  In short, the Republican prescription for our budget problems is a 
toxic compound of misguided priorities and fiscal irresponsibility--in 
other words, more of the same mistakes as before, except worse.
  And it's not like there aren't better ways to approach our budgetary 
problems.
  For example, there is H.R. 3966, the Stimulating Leadership In 
Cutting Expenditures (or ``SLICE'') Act, a bill I introduced last month 
that is cosponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle and endorsed 
by the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens 
Against Government Waste, Freedom Works, the Small Business Enterprise 
Council, and the National Taxpayers Union.
  Its purpose is to promote Presidential leadership and Congressional 
accountability on proposals to reduce other spending in order to offset 
the costs of responding to the recent natural disasters.
  Toward that end, it would authorize the President to identify 
specific items of Federal spending that he thinks should be cut and 
would require Congress to vote on each of those items. It would apply 
not only to regular appropriations, but also to the transportation bill 
that was passed and signed into law earlier this year. In each case, if 
the president proposes a cut, Congress would have to vote on it--we 
could not ignore the proposal, as can be done under current law--and if 
a majority approved the cut, it would take effect.
  As our budget situation has grown worse, there has been a lot of talk 
about ``earmarks,'' meaning funding allocations initially proposed by 
Members of Congress rather than by the Administration. Some people are 
opposed to all earmarks--but I am not one of them. I think Members of 
Congress know the needs of their communities, and that Congress as a 
whole can and should exercise its judgment on how tax dollars are to be 
spent. So, I have sought earmarks for various items that have benefited 
Colorado and I will continue to do so. But I know--everyone knows--that 
some earmarks might not be approved if they were considered separately, 
because they would be seen as unnecessary, inappropriate, or excessive.
  Dealing with that problem requires leadership and accountability. The 
SLICE bill would promote both, and by requiring us to focus on 
individual spending items it would make it possible to weigh the 
relative costs and benefits of each. But the Republican leadership has 
rejected that approach. Instead, they are insisting on bringing up this 
omnibus bill without allowing the House to even consider any 
amendments--except ones they decide they must make in order to pass it 
with only votes by Republican Members.
  That is the wrong approach, and the bill is the wrong result--for the 
whole country, and particularly for Colorado and the West.
  The bill is especially bad for Colorado because of some parts of it--
developed by the Resources Committee--will directly affect our State. 
For example, there is the part that deals with oil shale.
  Oil shale has great potential as an energy source, so it's an 
important part of our energy policy. And it's important to the 
taxpayers, who own most of it. They have an interest in what return 
they will get for this resource. But it's particularly important for 
Colorado, because our State has some of the most important deposits of 
oil shale, and Coloradans--particularly those on the Western Slope--
will be directly affected by its development.
  A new report from the Rand Corporation spells out the great benefits 
that can come from developing oil shale. But it also makes clear it's 
important for the development to happen in the right way. The report 
says oil shale development will have significant effects, not just on 
the land but also on air quality and on both the quality and quantity 
of our very limited water supplies. And it says what Coloradans know 
already--large-scale oil shale development will bring significant 
population growth and is likely to put stress on the ability of local 
communities to provide needed services.
  In short, the report reminds us how much Colorado and our neighbors 
had at stake when Congress debated the oil shale provisions of the new 
Energy Policy Act that's been on the books for just over 2 months now. 
And while there are lots of things in that law I don't like, I think 
the parts dealing with oil shale are appropriate and deserve a chance 
to work before we rush to change them. But this legislation would tear 
up that part of the new law and replace it with provisions that not 
only would be bad public policy but would be a direct threat to 
Colorado.
  That's why in the Resources Committee I offered an amendment that 
would have revised the oil shale sections in several important ways. 
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the committee opposed any 
changes to those sections, and my amendment was defeated.
  What is the significance of that? Well, to begin with, current law 
says the Interior department has to consult with the Governor of 
Colorado and other relevant States, as well as with local governments 
and other interested parties, before going ahead with large-scale oil 
shale leasing The bill repeals that requirement for consultation. My 
amendment would have retained it.
  Similarly, current law permits an orderly, measured program for oil 
shale development. But this bill would mandate a massive development 
program on a crash basis. It says Interior must lease a minimum of 35% 
of the oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming within just a 
one-year period. It's not clear if this means 35% of the three-state 
total or 35% of the oil-shale lands in each state. Either way, it's a 
requirement for a fast and massive commercial leasing program:
  The Interior Department says there are about 16,000 square miles of 
oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming combined. That's more 
than 10 million acres, and about 72% of that is federal land. So, even 
if the intent is to require leasing 35% of the three-

[[Page E2409]]

state total, not 35% in each state, that's more than 2.5 million 
acres--all in one year!
  Mandating leases for that much land, that fast, risks putting a big 
part of Northwestern Colorado on the fast track to becoming a national 
sacrifice zone. It's like a trip in a time machine--back to the 
mistaken crash-development policy of the Carter Administration. That 
was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now. That's why my 
amendment would have deleted that requirement, allowing current law to 
stand.
  Also, current law requires the Interior Department to prepare a 
programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) on oil shale, with a 
tight deadline for completion. That's the right thing to do. Work has 
started on that EIS, and Coloradans look forward to reading it. But 
reading something before evaluating it must be too old-fashioned for 
the Republican leadership, because the bill says that the EIS is 
``deemed'' to be good enough--meaning that it cannot be questioned or 
challenged--and no further environmental analysis will be done for a 
full 10 years--no matter what problems the State of Colorado or anyone 
else may have with the EIS.
  That's like giving an ``A'' grade before a student even turns in the 
homework--it may be good for the student's ``self-esteem,'' but it 
doesn't ensure careful work. And careful work on oil shale is essential 
because the stakes are so high for Colorado's land, water, and 
communities. That's why my amendment would have deleted that and 
allowed current law to stand.
  Finally, current law tells the Interior Department to set oil-shale 
royalty rates that will do two things--encourage development of oil 
shale and also ensure a fair return to the taxpayers. But the bill 
would repeal this, replacing it with specific rates to be charged for 
the first 10 years of commercial oil shale production, and requiring 
that after that the rates must be adjusted according to a formula tied 
to certain oil prices. This is a blatant example of micro-management, 
with nothing to show it is fair to the taxpayers. My amendment would 
have deleted that that attempt at long-term political price-fixing, and 
replaced it with the language of the current law.
  The Congressional Budget Office's report on these oil shale 
provisions estimates that they will not do much to raise revenue or 
otherwise help balance the budget. So, there is no budgetary reason to 
include them in this bill, while from the standpoint of what is best 
for Colorado and its communities there is every reason to change them 
in the way that my amendment would have done--and I cannot support them 
unless such changes are made.
  And that is also the case with the parts of the bill dealing with the 
Mining Law of 1872.
  As Westerners know all too well, that law--dating from the 
administration of President Ulysses S. Grant--still governs the mining 
of gold, silver, and other ``hardrock'' minerals on federal lands. It 
still allows private companies to get a patent--an ownership deed--to 
public lands containing valuable minerals for a mere $2.50 to $5.00 per 
acre, the same prices that were set in 1872, without paying the 
taxpayers a fee like that paid for the Federal oil, gas, or other 
minerals developed under more modern law. Since 1872, more than $245 
billion worth of minerals have been extracted from public lands at 
these bargain-basement prices, and nearly as much land as in the entire 
state of Connecticut has been sold to the mining industry for less than 
$5 an acre.

  Because the mining industry doesn't need patents--they can and do 
mine on unpatented claims and because there are so many problems 
associated with patenting, annually since 1994 Congress has renewed a 
moratorium on the patenting of mining claims. But this bill would 
repeal that moratorium. And while the bill would raise the price of 
patents, it would not require payments that reflect the value of the 
minerals involved. So, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
this provision would raise only about $158 million over the next five 
years. This is not real reform--it is a continued subsidy for the 
``hardrock'' mining industry. But other provisions in this part of the 
bill are worse.
  For example, the bill would allow claim holders to patent land 
without proving there is a valuable mineral deposit as long if they 
already have a permit to mine or have reported to the SEC that there is 
a ``probable'' mineral reserve there. This means that claim holders can 
purchase public land without having to prove that they can or will 
construct a viable mine. And it allows the sale of ``mineral 
development lands''--meaning any land with a valuable mineral deposit 
as well as lands that were once mineralized and were previously mined--
for the purpose of ``sustainable economic development.'' According to 
John Leshy, who served as Solicitor of the Interior and who is an 
expert on the mining law, the result will be to ``put in the hands of 
corporations the keys to privatize millions of acres of federal 
land''--setting the stage for a massive fire sale of Federal lands for 
bargain-basement prices.
  And in Colorado, a state with a long and rich mining history, the 
results could be dramatic. As the Denver Post has noted, ``Coloradans 
could unexpectedly see suburban sprawl on mountainsides they thought 
were protected open spaces . . . It's an invitation to condo 
developers, mini-mansion home builders and other speculators to snatch 
up federal lands that otherwise would never leave public ownership. . . 
. Just in Colorado, old mining patents encompass 123,000 acres. Most 
existing claims are next to or surrounded by national forests, parks or 
other public lands. Many also are near former mining towns that have 
become pricey resorts such as Aspen, Telluride, Breckenridge and 
Crested Butte. Twenty-three of Colorado's 24 ski areas are on national 
forests and so are vulnerable under the proposal.''
  In short, as the Denver Post's editors rightly observe, these 
provisions ``really aren't about mining; they're about real estate 
speculation,'' which is why they have called on us to ``erase them from 
the budget reconciliation bill.''
  But of course, since no amendments are permitted, we can't erase that 
part, or any other part of the legislation. The only choice before us 
is to vote yes or no on the entire bill.
  And, as I said, the bill is just one part of a larger budget plan--
one that insists on pushing ahead on the same course that has led to 
the serious fiscal problems that now confront us--setting the stage for 
more top-heavy tax cuts while we are putting the costs of war and 
everything else the government does on the national credit card. This 
cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to give.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our 
budget policies, including both taxes and spending. But this bill 
reflects a refusal to do that rethinking. And for me the only viable 
choice is to vote no--no on the oil shale provisions, no on the mining 
provisions, and no on all the rest of this very unnecessary, very 
unbalanced, very short-sighted, and very unwise legislation.

                          ____________________