Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. As a former elementary teacher and an elementary principal, I am aware of the necessity of a first-rate education and the need to ensure that children have adequate skills before entering kindergarten. You cannot start too soon. My daughter-in-law reads to my 16-month-old granddaughter, and here we are talking about children who are 2, 3, 4 years old. The Head Start program has been a successful program over the years, providing comprehensive services to many children not otherwise reached, and providing students with some of the basics needed to be successful in school. As successful as Head Start has been, I believe that the program can be even more successful by maintaining the comprehensive services already provided and enhancing, that is the key word, the academic component. H.R. 2210 will allow the Head Start program to achieve this goal by emphasizing cognitive development, improving teacher quality, and providing extra help for Head Start programs identified as underachieving. I would like to emphasize, as my colleagues have stated, that there will be no additional testing required of the children in this program. Further, arbitrary performance measures will be eliminated, ensuring that the performances of Head Start centers are more fairly evaluated. Because of the value of the comprehensive services, recently referred to as the crown jewel of Head Start, this legislation will keep the program at the Department of Health and Human Services, preserving and extending the health and nutrition components. The bill authorizes a level of more than $200 million over the current level and limits Federal Government administrative expenses allowing as many as 10,000 more children, 10,000 more to be served by the Head Start program. I would like to add that in the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education that this body recently approved, we provide an additional $148 million. This bill was just approved a few weeks ago. We added $148 million to the program. I might point out that in the last 8 years the Republican majority has more than doubled the amount going to Head Start. I hear conversation about how the program is not getting adequately funded. The facts are the facts. Funding has more than doubled in the last 8 years since we have been responsible. Additionally, the bill contains incentives for States to maintain or expand funding of early childhood education. Education should be seamless. It should start with the Head Start program, go through the elementary into the high school and on to the college level. And I have had a real concern since I have been chairman of this subcommittee about the number of high school dropouts. Many of the major cities are in excess of 50 percent in the dropout rate. That is a terrible waste of human capital; and we need to address it. One of the key elements in this is the ability to read. I do not think decisions are made by young people at the ninth grade or the tenth grade to drop out. Those decisions are made when they do not learn to read at the first, second, third, fourth, fifth grade level. Therefore, the Head Start program as envisioned by this bill will be an added component to ensure that individuals will have skills so that when they reach high school they can participate. They can read. They can comprehend, and they can be ensured that they will get the skills they need to participate in our economy. We hear today about unemployment levels. We hear about people not finding jobs, and the need for skills only grows. Therefore, I think this program is a very important part of the early education of a young person, of a child and on into adulthood. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Give these kids the same chance that others have. That is what it is. It is Head Start. And we want to give them a head start, and this bill will do that.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill and commend Chairman Wolf for a fair and balanced bill that funds the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, the Judiciary and the State Department. I want to particularly commend the Chairman for a hearing that the Subcommittee held on May 22, 2003 regarding the impact of Chinese imports on U.S. companies. As a result of that hearing the bill today includes funding increases for our trade agencies so that they can better enforce existing trade agreements. Many witnesses at the hearing testified that their businesses were being overwhelmed by low-priced Chinese imports that are causing them to down-size and lay-off workers. The Commerce Department must be more responsive to U.S. companies, and particularly those small- and medium-sized businesses, who are being harmed by imports. In my district, I have heard from many small and medium-sized manufacturers who say they have had to lay-off workers because of Chinese imports. According to a recent National Association of Manufacturers report, Ohio has lost 97,100 manufacturing jobs between July 2000 and December 2002. This represents an 8.9 percent decline in just over two years. Ohio had the third largest loss of manufacturing jobs behind California and Texas. I urge officials of our trade agencies to take notice of this manufacturing crisis in Ohio and in the U.S. I will also work with the Chairman to seek restoration of funding for the Manufacturing Extension Program to last year's level as the bill moves forward. This program has been important in allowing small- and medium-sized manufacturers to modernize and remain competitive in the global marketplace. I commend the Chairman further for the restoration of funds for State and local law enforcement efforts to fight crime in our local communities. This funding has allowed for the initiation of an important project in Stark County, Ohio to link the communications systems of all law enforcement agencies within the county. This will prevent the tragedy that occurred last year when an officer in one part of the county was shot even though agencies in the other part of the county knew an armed and dangerous man was on the loose. I urge support of this important appropriations bill that funds our local, national and international security needs.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I agree with what the chairman of the Natural Resource Committee had to say, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo); and I think the problems of concern here can be addressed in a hearing for permanent legislation. So I think the chairman is right on. I just want to point out this past week the National Public Radio had two segments on maintenance in the parks, and they probably overstated the case substantially about how terrible maintenance is, but without the billion dollars that had been brought in over the past 3 or 4 years from the fees, it would be a lot worse. And these fees are to stay in the park or the forest or the Bureau of Land Management, or whatever it might be, to enhance the visitors' experience. We want them to have good restroom facilities, trails, and the things that are important to the visitors. To pass this amendment would confuse the public. Because the fee program is a package. It includes the Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife, and USDA. The Forest Service has received over the period of this experimental program $206 million; and that has done a lot to enhance the visitors' opportunities. But I think the questions that have been raised by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and addressed by the chairman of the Committee on Resources ought to be the subject of a hearing to make sure that the program works well for everyone.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me the time. I want to express my strong support for the fiscal year 2004 Interior appropriations bill. As a member of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, I believe this is a balanced bill that addresses many of our most urgent needs. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and his staff for their hard work in putting together a good bill under very tight budget constraints. Mr. Chairman, this bill addresses a number of important national priorities. It provides funding increases for our four land management agencies, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which provide wonderful recreation opportunities for the American people. To improve the visitor experience, the bill provides focused funding to address the continuing backlog of maintenance on these public lands, including $682 million for our national parks and a restoration of $47 million for our national forests. During my past tenure as chairman of the committee, I made reducing of the maintenance backlog a top priority. We created the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, which allows the land management agencies to raise additional revenues to further address their maintenance needs. Most of the fee stays at the site where it is collected and is used for maintenance and other enhancements to the visitor's experience. This demo program, which would be extended under this bill, continues to be a success. We have collected over $1 billion thus far, which was put most largely into maintenance and enhancing the visitor's experience. It has provided a real benefit for those Americans who have visited our parks, forests and other public lands. The bill restores deep cuts made in the President's budget to the U.S. Geological Survey and further provides a $16 million increase over the fiscal year 2003 level. This funding will enable USGS scientists to better understand the Earth's processes and allow them to provide first-rate scientific data to those responsible for managing and conserving our natural resources. In particular, I want to highlight funding included for the America View program which allows universities to collect remote sensing data and analyze it for both educational and land planning purposes. This bill continues our strong support in Congress for the restoration of the Everglades, providing $68 million toward this project. However, I remain concerned that recent actions taken by the Florida legislature undermine the Federal-State commitment, and it is a Federal-State commitment, to restoration. It is my understanding that we will consider an amendment to condition Federal funding on assurances that the State of Florida is meeting its prior commitments to improve water quality. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment when it is considered. I am pleased that the committee has worked to restore a number of serious cuts in the President's budget for important programs at the Department of Energy. The bill specifically restores funding for fuel cell research in fossil energy to current enacted levels. This will allow the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance initiative, which is developing standardized fuel cell components that would be used in many different types of fuel cell applications, to continue to move forward. I also appreciate the committee's efforts to restore cuts in the President's budget to the Industries of the Future program within Energy Conservation, particularly those relating to steel and metal- casting. These programs support technological advances that make our domestic industries more energy efficient and, as a result, more competitive in the global marketplace. The bill continues our commitment in Congress to implement the National Fire Plan, which is very timely given the serious situation in the West. It provides $115 million above the President's request, including substantive increases for readiness, hazard fuels reduction and forest health. These are commonsense measures that will help us both prevent and more adequately contain wildfires. Lastly, I am encouraged by the committee's work to develop a coordinated national plan for the acquisition of Federal lands. I believe the Federal Government needs to focus less on acquiring new lands and more on taking care of the property and facilities it already has. Under this bill, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture would develop a plan outlining clear acreage goals and conservation objectives for lands acquisition. I believe this reevaluation will provide for better and more focused use of limited funding resources. Mr. Chairman, this is a very balanced bill that Chairman Taylor has produced in the subcommittee, and it funds many important national priorities. I urge its expeditious consideration and passage.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this compromise amendment, which I believe will help ensure that the efforts of Congress to restore the Everglades will be successful. In agreeing to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, the Federal Government and the State of Florida made an $8 billion commitment, equally cost shared, to restore this national treasure. Congress, on behalf of the American people, has already committed $1 billion over the last 9 years toward this effort, and throughout this process the subcommittee has maintained strong oversight of the project to ensure that these funds are spent wisely and true environmental restoration will be achieved. Mr. Chairman, water quality is an absolute key to the success of this restoration. If we fail to address water quality issues upfront, we could potentially invest $20 billion of the taxpayers' dollars on a new plumbing system that pours tainted water into the Everglades, and that is of course why this compromise is vitally important. This amendment was crafted in response to the passage of a law in Florida. It seeks to ensure that the State of Florida will not fail to meet its water quality goals. It will put a string on the Federal dollars that Congress has approved, tying them to compliance with agreements the State has already made. Every year the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army, the Attorney General, and the EPA administrator will have to file a joint report certifying that the State of Florida is meeting its prior commitments to improve water quality. If the report indicates that the State is failing to work toward that goal, they have to take another look at the funding issue. It is unfortunate that Congress has been put into a place that they are requiring these new assurances. However, in order to ensure that Federal funds are truly going towards our shared goal, and this is the money of all the people in these United States and this is a treasure that belongs to all the people, that the environmental restoration, we have to condition their release on assurances that the State of Florida is living up to agreements it has already made. Otherwise, we risk not only wasting billions of taxpayer dollars but also further polluting the Everglades. And I commend the gentleman from Florida for agreeing to this amendment. I realize this is his district, but it is a treasure of all the American people, and I would urge support of the amendment.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I am here on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). The three of us represent the House on the Board of Regents the governing body of the Smithsonian; it is a great institution, something that has won worldwide acclaim for the collections, for the way in which it interprets the history of the United States as well as other parts of the world. I rise today in support of H.R. 2195, the Smithsonian Facilities Authorization Act. As a member of the Board of Regents, I am pleased to see this bill brought to the floor today; and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and also the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for recognizing the importance of a timely passage of this bill and for their efforts to expedite the bill through the Committee on House Administration. H.R. 2195 authorizes a trust fund improvement to the Patent Office Building, most notably the courtyard enclosure. These improvements are critical steps in the renovation of the Old Patent Office Building and to reopening the historic building for the public to enjoy. And certainly ``for the public to enjoy'' is a true statement, because people coming to visit the Nation's capital put a visit to the Smithsonian on a high priority on their list of places to see. Additionally, the bill authorizes funding for planning, design, and construction of the Pod 5 facility at Suitland. This authorization will facilitate the evolving needs of the biological research community at large. One of the lesser-known functions of the Smithsonian is the preservation of all kind of things that are valuable to research people. We have no idea how much how much their collections are used by the research community; and, therefore, it is important that we have adequate facilities to take care of these. H.R. 2195 provides the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution with continuous contracting authority for the Pod 5 project which will make future phasing more efficient and economically sound. Finally, the bill recognizes the efforts of the National Museum of American History to establish Jazz Appreciation Month. Acknowledging the Smithsonian's jazz collections is important to bringing attention to our Nation's oldest and most comprehensive program in this inherently American art form. Again, I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for promptly seeing this bill through the Committee on House Administration, and I look forward to having it passed by this body.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order, and we will work together to solve this problem.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition to the amendment. However, I am willing to accept the gentleman's amendment with the understanding that in preparation for conference we will learn more about its impact on the administration and the Members' priorities. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. We have agreed in the subcommittee that health centers are among our highest priorities. Since I have become Chair of the committee in 2000, we have increased this program by $486 million, or nearly 50 percent. We recognize that in too many cases health centers provide the only access individuals have to our health care system. Obviously, the health centers program within appropriated funds cannot solve all of the overall access problems. Nevertheless, with the continuing challenges to providing access, we will do our very best through the remainder of the process and within fiscal restraints to provide further increases for the program. I certainly will be pleased to work with the gentleman from Texas to reach that goal.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and myself are making every effort to expedite this bill today, I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, through page 91, line 17, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we had this debate on the Committee on Ways and Means jurisdiction on the issue of a tax cut. This is not the proper venue. This is the appropriations bill; and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. In addition, the amendment is a tax or tariff measure and is in violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in the pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.'' The amendment amends existing law. Clause 5(a) of rule XXI states in part: ``A bill or joint resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure may not be reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures. And an amendment in the House or proposed by the Senate carrying a tax or tariff measure shall not be in order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction.'' The amendment is clearly legislation as well as a tax or tariff provision. And it is, therefore, in violation of the House rules. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would be interested in checking with Treasury to find out how many people would voluntarily return their tax cuts. I would daresay it will be few. I want to point out once against that this budget is double what it was 8 years ago when we took over for all of these good things. Having said that, I oppose the amendment. I hope my colleagues will vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I look forward with working with my friend to address these specific concerns in this appropriations bill.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for a colloquy.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. We hear on the Pell grant, I want to point out something, and that is that in the last 2 years, the numbers have increased 25 percent. So even though the level which we have increased substantially in the last 6 or 8 years was the same this year, it is because we wanted to give more students a chance. We have increased the total amount by $880 million that will be available for Pell grants, but there are so many more, and that is good. I like to see more and more students gets involved and use this service, but it makes it a tough budgeting situation. At least that is the reason that we have gotten to the situation we are in. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), a member of the committee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment that in the last 8 years we have doubled Pell grants, and I will also add that we have added $885 million this year. The reason the maximum has stayed stable is that more people are taking advantage of it, and that is good. That is a positive thing. As a naval veteran, I am a product of the GI bill, and I realize how very important these opportunities are. And I would like to do more, but I think we have done a good job, considering the resources that are available. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. These amendments have been picked out of a database that contains a single paragraph on each of 40,000 grants that NIH supports. Now, keep in mind that that represents a winnowing down from perhaps 120,000 applications. How do they pick the one out of three that will be funded? The NIH has an elaborate two-tiered peer review process that is mandated by the Public Health Service Act. Outside review panels of distinguished scientists from universities nationwide gather to review each application, which can easily run on to several hundred pages. I think to pass judgment on these, you would have to read the several hundred pages to know what the ultimate goal is, rather than one paragraph. Then these recommendations are reviewed by advisory councils comprised of scientists and members of the public whose nominations are cleared through the Department. NIH only funds about 30 percent, as I mentioned; and we can be confident that they are very careful because there are so many good objectives in the form of requests. They go through these very, very carefully with top-flight people to ensure that there is a worthy objective to be achieved in doing the research in question. If Members are concerned about NIH funding in certain issue areas, I think they should urge the authorizing committees to review this as they consider the reauthorization of NIH, and that will be coming up. I know that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has been doing an extensive review of NIH actions across a number of areas in preparation for a reauthorization, and I would suggest to my colleagues this would be the appropriate place to bring up their objections to the process that is presently used by NIH because in the reauthorization action they can address what they feel might be a shortcoming. I strongly urge the Members to resist the temptation to select a few grants for defunding because they do not like the sound of them based on one paragraph out of what probably was a number of pages of information. It would set a dangerous precedent and put a chill on medical research if we start to micromanage individual NIH grants. This has worked well over the years. We have had enormous progress because of these grants in achieving medical knowledge and giving the public a better health care system. I do not think this body, this committee, wants to get into the process of reviewing 120,000 grants and trying to pick 40,000 out of that group for funding. I strongly urge the Members to reject this amendment; and I urge my colleagues to take this issue to the proper committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and if they feel that NIH needs to have its processes reformed, then that is the place to do it.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.