Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to advise Members about the schedule, at least as we best know it for the time being. We are planning to go forward on the amendments and possibly have some votes prior to 6:30, if we can get some of these out of the way; and then it is my understanding that we will roll votes until about 9:30 because of the Members that are going to the Kennedy Center for an event. I would hope we can keep going and then finish tonight, because I know if we can get finished with this bill, we will do a great deal to expedite the time of getting out of here tomorrow. I know many Members would like to get on their way at a decent time tomorrow night. So if everybody will help and cooperate, I think we can get this bill finished tonight.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I agree with the gentleman that we need and can always use more money in the Forest Service recreation program. However, I do not want to do that at the expense of developing oil and gas technology. We already know that the price of gasoline has soared to over $2 a gallon in some parts of the country; that we import more than 50 percent of our oil and it is estimated that this will rise to 64 percent by 2020. The only answer that we have is to improve the technology for producing oil in this country. It is pretty well accepted in the industry that now we only get about 30 percent of the oil that is in the reservoir with today's technology. If we could double the amount of oil that is produced in a well, it does not take a lot of mathematics to figure out what it could do for the shortages that we are experiencing. I think it is vitally important that we continue developing better technologies not only to increase production but also to reduce production costs. The more we produce onshore, the less we are subject to OPEC pricing. There is no question that the spike that we have seen on oil prices today results in part by the fact that OPEC can more or less determine what the price per barrel should be simply because we are so dependent on the oil that they produce. Now, it is not that we have ignored recreation in the bill. I agree with the gentleman. Recreation is extremely important, and we have recognized that by putting a $25 million increase in funding for the Forest Service recreation program. It is a fast-growing program. It is something that our citizens enjoy. It serves us well. It is quite evident when we look at the numbers that of all the Federal land agencies, the Forest Service has substantially the far greater number of visitors, and we want to continue supporting the recreation program. This is very much a part of the service that the forests provide to our people, but I just do not want to do it at the expense of risking higher and higher oil prices, gasoline prices, and becoming more and more dependent on other countries to supply our petroleum. And one of the most important ways we can avoid that, the higher prices, avoid that dependency, is to continue to do research on oil and gas technology. If we have more funding available down the road, I would like to increase the amount we commit to recreation and all of our land programs because that is a very important asset to the people of this Nation. We have increased it by $25 million. Perhaps conditions will be such that we can do even more. But let us not do it at the expense, as this amendment would propose, of crippling our oil and gas technology research. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 21, line 13, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to return to page 17, line 7, and that this amendment be made in order.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects an agreement between the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and myself on an amendment, and I urge the Members to support it.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we understand the problem here, and recognize that what the gentleman from Utah is raising as a point of order is correct. I would like to just discuss the implications of this situation, because I think it is important for our colleagues to understand what is happening. The Everglades restoration is a major project. It is probably going to involve an expenditure of $10 to $15 billion in the years ahead. I think it is vitally important that the United States government, through the Department of the Interior, have a voice in this project. I regret that our attempt to provide assurances for a vital, high- quality water supply to the natural areas of the Everglades, including Everglades National Park, several national wildlife refuges, and Florida Bay have been dropped. Restoration of the Everglades began 7 years ago as a true partnership among various interests. These interests, Federal, State, and local governments, Indian tribes, agricultural, urban, and environmental organizations, and the public at large, came together as the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force. This entity meets to set priorities and make collaborative decisions on this massive restoration effort. Since the restoration effort began, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee has provided nearly $1 billion in Federal funding with the understanding that critical scientific research, land acquisition, and water planning funding to achieve environmental restoration would be one of the end results of the enormous sums the American taxpayers are being called upon to commit. The committee has provided this funding during a time of declining budgets and at the expense of numerous meritorious projects--projects that our Members here would like to have. Because we were committed to spending what has already been a total of over $700 million to this program, we were not able to do some of the others that we should have done. Mr. Chairman, the language being stripped from this bill ensured that the natural areas would receive equal treatment with other interests as important decisions about water flow and quantity are made. Let us be honest. Without assurances that the Secretary of the Interior, together with the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, has a voice in water decisions, we can no longer call this project environmental restoration. The Federal part of the money in this bill is the environmental restoration of the Everglades. Now, with the result of this point of order, we will not have that voice of the Federal government. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear, I bear no ill will toward the other goals of this effort: continued sugar and agricultural production, adequate potable water availability for the people of Florida, and sustainable growth for the region. However, with the balanced, fair language now being stripped from this bill, the effort is no longer an environmental restoration project. It is no longer a partnership. The project is solely a water development project between the Army Corps of Engineers and the local water management district in ``Anywhere U.S.A.'', and should receive no further funding through the bill of the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. I want to point out something else. We will hear that this water is owned by the State of Florida, but in 1970, under the River Basin Monetary Authorization and Miscellaneous Civil Works Amendments, the following language was incorporated in that bill and is now the law of the United States: That as soon as practicable, and in any event upon completion of the work specified in the preceding provision, delivery of water from the Central and Southern Florida project to the Everglades National Park shall be not less than 315,000 acre feet annually. In other words, the water belongs to the Everglades as part of the 1970 law. Our concern is that unless there is some way in which the Federal government has a voice in the distribution of the water that is going to be gained by all of the activities that have been funded from the money we have spent thus far, the possibility of the Everglades not receiving adequate water supply is very real. I hope we can work out some language, in view of the fact that this is being stripped by the point of order, that will continue to ensure the protection of the United States' investment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we share the gentleman's concern. I think what I would like to do is discuss this with the Biological Research Division of the USGS, and perhaps they could do a study or take a look at it to see how this impacts on the fish population and work with Fish and Wildlife to address these concerns. If the gentleman would withdraw the amendment, certainly we will work with the gentleman in trying to get Fish and Wildlife and the USGS that has the science responsibility, perhaps we can meet with them and discuss ways in which they can address your concerns.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is increases the Park Service's land acquisition by $20 million, and the funding is directed to the high priority inholdings. I think it is very important, as they acquire land, that wherever possible we should purchase inholdings and thereby complete the parks. This funding, of course, is for purchases from willing sellers.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. REGULA. Once again, Mr. Chairman, the ranking member and I have discussed this issue. We are going to take care of whatever has to be done out there, but we are reluctant to see the money come out of the Wild Horse and Burro Program because they are ready to move on that. We have been told by BLM that they need this money. To implement the recommendations of the University of Arizona study, that needs to stay there. So, again, I can only reiterate the fact that we are going to be very sympathetic in conference as the needs emerge.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

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

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, last year I made the commitment to work with Members to adequately fund wildlife programs. I am certainly willing to make that same commitment today. I agree that working together to meet common objectives is a much better approach than having counterproductive floor fights over controversial amendments.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the objective of the PNGV program is to produce ultimately an 80-mile-per-gallon five-passenger automobile by the year 2004. This is not something on which the Federal Government is carrying the burden alone. For every dollar we put in, the auto industry is investing, about $2 of private funding. Particularly at this point in time we recognize how vitally important it is to improve mileage on our motor vehicles. The American people love their cars. We are not going to get people out of their cars. In fact, I think there will be even more and more automobiles, and it is quite evident that the highway departments recognize this. In Ohio, many two-lane highways are being made three-lane highways. Outer belt- ways are adding to it. I am just simply saying, there are going to be more automobiles. The only way we can address the fuel consumption issue, recognizing we are now dependent on importation of fuel beyond 50 percent in terms of petroleum, is to lower that profile and to reduce our dependency. Because of the foreign policy and the defense implications, I think it is important that we continue the research to develop these fuel efficient vehicles. Of course, the reason that we are involved with Federal money is because it is a national policy issue that transcends the question of the private owner of the automobile. It goes to our national security as an essential part of prospective energy policy, and recognizing the fact that we need to decrease the use of petroleum. The spike that we have experienced in prices lately illustrates how much our pricing is dependent on those who make these decisions, i.e., OPEC, that is totally beyond our control. We have invested quite a lot of money already, something like 600 million Federal dollars, and probably double that amount of private dollars. I think to stop at this point and not finish this research would be a mistake in terms of the utilization of our research. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Though I am sympathetic to this amendment, I rise in opposition. I believe that we have tried to address the overall problem of fire by adding $350 million in emergency wildland fire funds. That was a last- minute addition to the bill. And we also have $907 million in nonemergency wildland fire funds for these agencies. I would say to both the gentlemen from Colorado that if the circumstances are exacerbated between now and conference, we would make every effort to provide some additional funding there, because I know that this is a serious problem both in Colorado and in New Mexico. By the same token, I am reluctant to see $4 million taken out of the Wild Horse and Burro program, because we are on the threshold of implementing the research program that has been developed by the University of Arizona for reducing herd size on the public lands and this would go a long way, if the research that has been developed is implemented, in reducing the impact on the health of the land in Colorado and all these western States that have a problem with the wild horses and burros. So I would like to keep that $4 million in there because this money basically will implement what we now know by way of science as a way to address this, but I will give the gentlemen from Colorado the assurance that if the situation becomes more critical as we get to conference, that we will look with favor on adding some additional money.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this is a good example of our working together in a bipartisan way to meet a problem that affects the people that the gentleman from California represents. He is doing an effective job on behalf of his constituents, and that is what this House is all about.