Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I do not want to be repetitive, they had it exactly right. There are a couple of other things I would like to point out and, that is, this takes money from research on pipelines. Last year, in connection with the Northeast heating oil program, we put tanks in New York Harbor because there are not enough pipelines in the Northeast to deliver fuel. Here we have a chance to do research on putting these pipelines in without disturbing the surface. That program of research is cut. Something else I want to point out, and that is that in the LIHEAP program, which is in the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education bill, 15 percent of the LIHEAP money goes to weatherization. So the effect of the $300 million that we added in the supplemental this week actually provides 45 million additional dollars for weatherization. What we are talking about here today in effect is a double dip. I think this is a bad amendment. It takes money from research that is vitally important for fuel cells and for other forms of alternative fuels. As we face an energy crisis, one of the great hopes we have is to develop alternative ways of providing fuel rather than to just scatter this in other programs. For all the reasons, and particularly as they were outlined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), it is a bad amendment in terms of our overall energy policy; and I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to compliment Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris. I think both Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris, and they will be leaving in the next several months, have done a great job of administering these agencies. The fact that we are here debating the amount of money is indicative that we have had a good administration. We are not talking about egregious projects. It is just a matter of priorities in the expenditure of Federal funds. What I am somewhat concerned about here is the fact that we still have a $5 billion backlog of maintenance in the national parks. Art takes on many forms. Art is also to go out in a national park, such as the Grand Canyon, and look down in that enormous landscape in terms of the beauty of it, or to go to Yosemite. So I think we have to make priority judgments, and it is not a matter of one art against the other. You have the visual art, but you also have the natural art that is part of our national parks, national forests, all these wonderful resources. When we have a $5 billion backlog of maintenance, when people will necessarily have to be RIFed in the Park Service because there is not enough money here to give them an adequate pay raise, I think probably priority-wise that we are not in a position to be spending more money on these projects now. As we all know, we did increase art funding in the past year, and I think the gentlemen who have led these two agencies have done a good job of using the money very wisely. But I think in terms of the priorities of this Nation, that our first priority has to be to take care of what we have in our parks and forests, to ensure that future generations will have the same pleasures that we do in visiting these facilities. It seems to me that before we start adding to the expenditures, and I think the committee did a balanced job in making the priority choices, that we ought to weigh carefully whether we want to limit the amount of pay increase for our people that serve us in the national parks and forests, whether we want to continue addressing the backlog of maintenance. When we are talking about maintenance, it is trails, it is roads, it is camp facilities, and I think probably priority-wise we should leave this bill as it is as far as the numbers for the humanities and for the arts and address some of these other needs, because a beautiful vista in a national park or a national forest is every bit as important as a piece of art. I hope prospectively that the resources will be enough that we can make the priority judgments to do both. I think there is an opportunity to expand the arts and humanities. But in terms of our priorities, I believe the committee made the right judgment in saying, to start with, we need to emphasize the maintenance of the facilities we have; we need to give these people who serve us in the national parks and forests an adequate pay raise, because they are very selfless to begin with. If you visit the parks and some of the facilities that people have to live in and housing and so on, you realize that those that are public servants in parks and forests are truly dedicated, that they do this as a labor of love, and, therefore, I think it is important that we adequately compensate them. I do not have any quarrel with the need to have more money, but it is a priority choice, and I believe today we should stay with the committee's numbers.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern which is shared on this side of the aisle. The Pell Grant program is the bedrock of student aid programs. I am pleased to say that this Congress has increased the Pell Grant program to the highest level in history by providing an increase of 60 percent in the maximum grant from $2,340 in fiscal year 1995 to $3,750 in fiscal year 2001. Offsets are necessary to keep the overall bill within limits, but should additional funds become available through the supplemental process, we would certainly consider providing extra funds to the Pell Grant program.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, just let me point out a few of the cuts; $67 million on medical research, if there is ever a time in medical research that it is important, it is now. There is $25 million from special ed. Most of the Members say we should put more in IDEA. Here we are proposing to cut $25 million from the programs for these kids that need special education. We heard about LIHEAP earlier. There is $5 million cut from LIHEAP when we have an energy crisis. There will $3.8 million cut from community health centers where people can go instead of loading up and clogging up the emergency rooms, where the poor people can go and get some help; yet we talk about cutting it. A lot of that is done with volunteers. There is $2 million cut from the immunization program of the Centers for Diseases Control. Many of our colleagues saw the news in my district recently about the meningitis scare. Two young people died; another young lady came close. So as a result, we vaccinated 10,000 students against meningitis. Yet we are talking about cutting it. We remember the shortage of flu shots.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I recognize, of course, that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the proponent, is concerned; but let me say that we also recognize there is a need out there. The President recommended 150 million extra dollars and in the subcommittee action as part of the full committee, we doubled that to $300 million. And effectively, what this means that we have committed for fiscal year 2001 a total of $2.5 billion. Obviously, you add and add and add; but at some point we have to say this is a reasonable amount, and this recognizes the responsibility of the government and does provide a reserve for the balance of this fiscal year of 300 additional million dollars, plus what was already in the bill. Last summer, we only used $35 million of the $600 million that was provided in emergency funding, and those remaining funds are carried into 2001, and they are available for this year's program. I think that what we have done is recognize the importance of LIHEAP to those who have fuel problems, and I think in putting in 300 million additional dollars, we understand that and have been very generous in trying to meet those needs. Mr. Chairman, no one knows exactly what the weather is going to be, but it seems to me that the $300 million represents a very reasonable amount. It is double what the administration recommended. Again, I think it expresses the concern that the members of the Committee on Appropriations have for this program. I would say to my colleagues that I believe we have been very responsible in providing the $300 million and would reluctantly oppose adding any more to this, because the supplemental is already approaching a large sum of money. On the issue of advanced appropriations, and that is also part of this amendment, it provides for an advanced appropriation of $2 billion for the LIHEAP program. While I understand there is a desire on the part of the States to have as much advance notice on the funding level as possible for the next fiscal year, I do not think it is a responsible approach to advance appropriate that amount. Obviously, when we get to the 2002 budget, and I am sure that the gentlewoman understands that, we are going to be as generous as possible in providing for LIHEAP funding for the fiscal year 2002, but I think it is a little premature to put the money out now until we know what the fiscal condition of the government will be; and what happens with the extra money we put in for this year will give us a better feel for what will be needed next year. Fortunately, energy costs are coming down in many areas; and I believe this, too, will be a factor. We probably will be doing a markup in September, and at that time the Committee would be better able to evaluate the needs of 2002 rather than to start at this point and advance fund the program. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I mentioned, I would urge my colleagues to not vote for this particular amendment, because we have already gone the extra mile in putting in the $300 million for this fiscal year.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, after 42 years of government service, the last 28 of which was with my office, Grace Ann Murphy has earned a well-deserved retirement. Grace began her government career at the Navy Department, followed by employment at NASA. In 1970, she came to Capitol Hill to work for Rep. Frank Bow, my predecessor in Congress. When I came to the House in 1973, I was pleased to have Grace continue her service to the constituents of the 16th district. She is well known to residents of the 16th district having advised them on traveling to our Nation's capital, helping to set tours of the Capitol and the White House, and responding to a myriad of constituent requests. With her vast knowledge of how the Hill works, Grace's skills were particularly appreciated during office moves and Presidential Inaugurations, both events having taken place recently. Grace is extremely knowledgeable about Washington, DC, as she was born and raised here where she graduated from Anacostia High School. She spends her spare time keeping track of all of her fellow classmates for class reunions. My staff, my constituents, and I will miss Grace not only for her many outstanding contributions in helping to keep our office running smoothly, but especially for the way she made the various holidays special with the appropriate decorations and foodstuffs. We wish her well in her retirement as it is richly deserved.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 810 to retrocede the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland, minus the Federal portion of the city. The city has the bumper slogan of ``taxation without representation.'' This bill will provide taxation with representation for the residents of D.C. I think that this would be a great move forward for the people of this community. It would give them access to all the services of the State of Maryland and also an opportunity to elect a Congressperson, to vote on two United States Senators and to vote on members of the State legislature in Maryland. The retrocession would create the fourth largest regional market in the United States between Baltimore and Washington. Does it work? In Canada there is a prime example of how this proposal could and would work. Its capital, Ottawa, lies in the province of Ontario and sends representatives to the provincial parliament in Ontario as well as the federal parliament as part of the Ontario delegation. It works very well for our neighbor Canada and I think it would work very well for the United States. Most importantly, it would give the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote, to have taxation with representation. Mr. Speaker, two hundred years have passed since District of Columbia residents lost their right to vote. Despite the ratification of the 23rd Amendment in 1961, which returned their right to vote for President, District residents still lack voting representation on the floor of Congress. To increase national awareness of this situation, the District recently changed the slogan on its automobile license plates to read ``Taxation Without Representation.'' Today, I am once again introducing a bill that I strongly believe is the best solution to this problem, especially given the failure of other alternatives. This legislation would return the District of Columbia, barring a small federal enclave, to the State of Maryland. The District of Columbia was originally comprised of territory ceded by the states of Virginia and Maryland. The Virginia portion was retroceded back to that state in 1846. Under this bill, the remaining territory, excluding a small enclave encompassing the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and most executive agencies, would be returned to Maryland. Retrocession would be mutually beneficial for both the District and the State of Maryland. It would finally give District residents a voting U.S. Representatives as well as two U.S. Senators. In addition, they would have further representation on the state level in Maryland. Beyond these political gains, District residents would stand to benefit from Maryland's larger and more established state infrastructure of facilities, services and assistance programs. Maryland stands to gain as well. It most certainly would receive an additional seat in the House of Representatives, thus increasing its influence in Congress. Economically, Maryland would gain an area that boasts the nation's 2nd highest per capita income. Retrocession would create the 4th largest regional market in the country between Baltimore and Washington. Canada offers a prime example of how this proposal could and would work. Its capital, Ottawa, lies in the province of Ontario and sends representatives to the provincial parliament in Toronto as well as the federal parliament as part of the Ontario delegation. We need to come up with a practical and realistic solution to restore the full democratic rights of District residents. Efforts to give the District delegate full voting rights have not succeeded. I believe this legislation is the only reasonable option left to end Taxation Without Representation in the nation's capital.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, since 1983, the U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat has conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about each other's political institutions and interact on issues of mutual interest. A staff delegation from the United States Congress will be selected to visit Germany during April 1 to April 15 of this year. During the two week exchange, the delegation will attend meetings with Bundestag Members, Bundestag party staff members, and representatives of numerous political, business, academic, and media agencies. Participants also will be hosted by a Bundestag Member for a district visit. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for two weeks in July. They will attend similar meetings here in Washington and visit the districts of Congressional Members. The Congress-Bundestag Exchange is highly regarded in Germany and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. This exchange is funded by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag reciprocates by sending senior staff professionals to the United States. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite U.S. delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern in Germany and the United States such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, immigration, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two Bundestag staffers in their Member's district in July, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants are selected by a committee composed of personnel from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State and past participants of the exchange. Senators and Representatives who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state their qualifications, the contributions they can make to a successful program and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications may be sent to Connie Veillette in Congressman Regula's office, 2306 Rayburn House Building by noon on Thursday, February 15.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the conference report for S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act, and would like to emphasize my support specifically for the Everglades language. As many of my colleagues have already stated during this debate, the Everglades provisions represent a major step toward restoration of this unique ecosystem. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, I have become involved in this restoration effort as it directly impacts the natural areas in Federal ownership, including Everglades National Park, Big Cyprus Natural Preserve and several national wildlife refuges. Their future and that of the numerous species who make the Everglades their home depend upon the success of this effort. Only if the Corps of Engineers carries out their restoration initiative properly will they survive. I might say that, in our committee, we have appropriated $738 million as our share of this project with a total of about a $1.35 billion thus far for the Federal Government. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for recognizing that the environment must be the primary beneficiary of the water made available through the comprehensive plan for the restoration. The object of the plan is to restore, preserve, and protect the natural system while also meeting the water supply, flood protection and agriculture needs of the region. I might emphasize I think this is very commendable that the point of protecting the water supply for the Everglades is a primary objective here. As we make our way through this massive ecosystem restoration, I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we remain focused on the restoration of the natural areas. I commend the Members on their bipartisan work in bringing this legislation to the floor today and urge the Members of the House to support and pass it.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, the legacy of Bill Archer is a gift of responsible government to the American people in a great diversity of actions. Many times I have heard the cry for a national industrial policy. In truth, the tax code is the nation's industrial policy. Bill's ``steady as you go'' leadership has made our code far better than it would have been without his strong role of participation. I did smile when Phil English mentioned President McKinley, who represented my home county of Stark as a congressman, as one of Bill's distinguished predecessors as chairman of Ways and Means. McKinley was a dedicated protectionist, however, in his last speech in Buffalo, he repudiated this policy. I think Bill would have liked the reformed McKinley rather than the congressional McKinley. The people of this nation are in your debt for dedicated service for them. My best to you Bill and Sharon for good health and many fruitful years of happiness.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this bill. There are a number of very good features in it. It provides State and local law enforcement officials the necessary resources to bring down the level of crime. Secondly, it funds the international trade functions of the government at the necessary levels to open foreign export markets to U.S. goods, and, at the same time, protecting domestic industry against unfair foreign trading practices. Thirdly, it protects our interests at home and abroad by funding counterterrorism measures and embassy security measures at increased levels. I think, in view of the events in the last several weeks, that becomes even more important. Fourthly, it funds the JASON project, which is the cutting edge in long-distance learning. It is a tremendous tool, and I think we will find that more and more of our schools will use the facilities of JASON. I also want to thank the chairman for including report language for the Census Bureau that makes the expedited steel import monitoring program more effective. The early warning system allows domestic manufacturers to have information on steel imports on a more timely basis. Lastly, I noticed a typographical error, alloy steel should say alloy tool steel. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the District of Columbia Appropriations for fiscal year 2001, which also includes the agreement for funding the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. As a member of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, I would like to commend the Chairman for putting together a bill which: (1) provides our state and local law enforcement officials the necessary resources to continue to bring down the level of crime in this nation, (2) funds the international trade functions of the government at the necessary levels to open foreign export markets to U.S. goods, but also to protect domestic industry against unfair foreign trading practices; and (3) protects our interests at home and abroad by funding counter-terrorism measures and embassy security measures at increased levels. I thank the Chairman for continuing the important partnership between the JASON project and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that encourages middle school students to pursue their education in the sciences. The JASON project is a state-of-the- art education program that brings scientists into classrooms through advanced interactive telecommunications technology. Last spring one of the sites of the electronic field trip for students was NOAA's Aquarius Underwater Laboratory off of the Florida Keys. Our students need an effective science education in order for the U.S. to keep its competitive edge in the global marketplace. I also want the thank the Chairman for including report language for the Census Bureau that makes the expedited steel import monitoring program more effective. This early warning system allows domestic manufacturers to have information on steel imports on a more timely basis. It is critical that this program provides the necessary trade statistics as we once again face near-record levels of steel imports this year. I noticed that there was a typographical error in the report language. The two new specialty steel categories are: alloy tool steel and silicon electrical steel. The word ``tool'' was inadvertently left out of the report. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my accolades for my Ohio colleague, John Kasich. John has been a member of the Ohio delegation of this body for the past 18 years. As dean of the Ohio delegation, I have worked with John on numerous issues of importance to the State of Ohio. He always brought his determination to help people with his unfailing enthusiasm to the task at hand. Throughout this time he has played an important role in leading this nation toward sound budgeting and fiscal responsibility. When John assumed the chairmanship of the Budget Committee, he was determined to reduce the size, scope and intrusiveness of government in people's lives. To do this required skillful use of the reconciliation feature of the Budget Act. As John's fellow Budget Committee members have attested, he brought a single-mindedness of purpose of the job. His was not a reactive approach, but proactive one, annually proposing his own budget alternatives to those of the White House. While he presided over the Committee, our budgets have gone from perennial deficits to annual surpluses. His steadfast leadership of the House Budget Committee has educated many of our constituents across the country on the budget process and its effects on us all. We owe a great debt of appreciation to John for his dedication to this effort and for the positive outcome which has resulted. The impacts a balanced federal budget have on our economy and our ability to prosper individually and as a nation are truly the result of this dedication. And John has accomplished this with his own special flair. Who else could negotiate budget numbers with the White House one day and start a book signing tour the next, run for President, and hang out with rock stars. Now John embarks on a new phase of his life. I am certain that it will be as rewarding as his congressional career has been. As a husband and father of twins, John will have many important projects of both a personal and professional nature. John, as you leave this institution for other endeavors, we wish much success and happiness to you, your wife Karen, and your beautiful twin daughters, Reece and Emma.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to our colleague, Mr. Packard, of California for the many years of service and dedication he has given to this body and to the American people. Mr. Packard is retiring from this House after 18 years, and during these years we have served together on the House Appropriations Committee. He has risen in service to Chair one of our most important subcommittees, and he has displayed outstanding leadership for the nation in this capacity. Water resources and energy resources are vitally important to the quality of life for our citizens, and Ron's leadership has moved the U.S. to new levels of achievement in addressing those needs. The confidence of those he represents was well exemplified by the fact that Ron was only one of four in the history of our nation who was elected by a write-in vote. Ron, I join your many friends in the House in wishing you and Jean years of happiness and good health.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As cofounder and cochairman of the Older Americans Caucus, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 782, the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000, and would like to express my support for this most important piece of legislation. America's population is aging, and more people are in need of special services and programs that provide them with opportunities to continue living healthy and productive lives. Recently, I met with the 50 State representatives of the Green Thumb Program. It was very inspiring to hear their success stories achieved as a result of the Older Americans Act. One gentleman was over 100 years old and still actively working. After much work, dedication, and compromise, we have before us today legislation that amends and reauthorizes the Older Americans Act of 1965. Passage of this legislation will, among many other important things, enhance opportunities for seniors, while wisely using taxpayer dollars. I especially commend the chairman of the committee and all who worked on this legislation for doing an excellent job.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and would like to emphasize my support specifically for the Everglades language contained in it. As many of my colleagues have already stated during this debate, the Everglades provisions represent a major step toward restoration of this unique ecosystem. As Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have become involved in this restoration effort, as it directly impacts the natural areas in federal ownership including Everglades National Park, Big Cypress Natural Preserve and several national wildlife refuges. Their future and that of the numerous species who make the Everglades their home, depend upon the success of this effort. Only if the Corps of Engineers carried out the restoration initiative properly will they survive. I commend the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for recognizing that the environment must be the primary beneficiary of the water made available through the Comprehensive Plan for the restoration. The object of the plan is to restore, preserve and protect the natural system while also meeting the water supply, flood protection and agricultural needs of the region. As we make our way through this massive ecosystem restoration, I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we remain focused on the restoration of the natural areas. I commend the Members on their bipartisan work in bringing this legislation to the floor today and urge the support of the House in passing it.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I know John Porter as a friend and as a member of the Appropriations Committee. We have served together on the committee during his entire twenty year tenure in Congress. John Porter will be remembered as one of the most consistent fiscal conservatives on the Appropriations Committee during his service in office. During his first fourteen years as a minority member of the Labor-Health-and-Human Resources Subcommittee, John worked tirelessly to assure strict oversight of the agencies under his jurisdiction. During that period, we looked to his leadership to hold the line on excessive spending by that subcommittee. Also during our period together in the minority, John worked hard to reform a budget process which he thought contributed to excessive Federal spending. As a member of the majority, John has continued fighting to reform the budget process during the past six years. He has argued throughout his career that adopting a bipartisan budget resolution in March of each year would help restrain domestic spending at the end of each year. We will remember his thoughtful and wise counsel on how to use the budget process to control Federal spending. As Chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee John has worked closely with the minority. He is respected equally by both Republicans and Democrats on the committee for his bipartisan approach. John has worked effectively with the minority to manage and control Federal appropriations, and to establish and impose performance measures on Federal agencies. He has gained the respect of all of those who have worked closely with him. Some of our colleagues will remember John for his strong commitment to medical research. John has championed medical research because of his belief in a better society for our children. His leadership on funding for medical research reflects his concern for the well being of all people. He has used his position on the Appropriations Committee to make the Federal Government more accountable to taxpayers. John has insisted, like his subcommittee predecessor Bill Natcher, on attending every oversight and public hearing. In order to ensure that all of his colleagues have a chance to amend the Labor-HHS bill, he has insisted on bringing the bill to the House floor every year. John has managed the Labor-HHS in a manner which reflects the principles of our representative democracy. We will miss John's integrity and his independence. John's work in Congress during the past twenty years will contribute to a stronger democracy for future generations. We will miss him as a leading member of the Appropriations Committee, and we hope that he will stay in close contact with all of his former colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2570, the Lincoln Highway Study Act. This legislation will provide for an evaluation of the significance of the Lincoln Highway in American history, options for its preservation, and interpretation of its significant features. Several years ago, Congress passed similar legislation for Route 66, followed by passage in 1999 of the Route 66 Corridor Act. While Route 66 certainly has historic and cultural significance to the development of the United States, I would suggest that the Lincoln Highway merits equal consideration. The Lincoln Highway was established in 1914 and comprises more than 3,000 miles of roadway, from New York City to San Francisco. Beginning in Times Square, it transverses the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada before ending in California. Many people are surprised to learn that it was America's first coast- to-coast roadway, opening the country to bicoastal motoring. As the first transcontinental highway, it played an historically significant role in providing motorists with the first paved route and allowing vast portions of the country to be accessible by automobile. Although some parts of the Lincoln Highway have disappeared or have been realigned, the many historic cultural and engineering features and characteristics of the route still remain. These features and cultural attractions along its route have become popular tourist attractions in many areas, and contribute to the economic development of the communities along the highway. The American Automobile Association now provides the route of the Lincoln Highway on their maps and brochures of the States it crosses. In a letter to Members of Congress, the AAA stated ``With renewed interest on the part of tourists to explore and experience our rich cultural heritage, we are missing an opportunity by not fully recognizing the role this highway played in our history.'' The National Lincoln Highway Association, located in Illinois, works with the State chapters to sponsor events to commemorate and preserve the highway. Some State governments have already undertaken studies within their States. Given the interest by organized groups and State governments in the preservation of features associated with the Lincoln Highway, the route's history, and its role in American popular culture, a coordinated evaluation of its historic contributions and preservation options should be undertaken. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, the Lincoln Highway Study Act.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, myself, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), serve as members of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. We have, together, sponsored the legislation that is the House bill, and, of course, it parallels the Senate bill which we are working on today. This legislation is introduced as a result of the approval of the name change for the museum at the September meeting of the Board of Regents. The regents believe this name change makes a clarification in the minds of many Americans who visit Washington, who are enthusiasts of American art, that the museum is part of the Smithsonian Institution. With this name clarification and the true connection in people's minds with the Smithsonian, the regents believe that more visitors will want to explore the treasures of the museum. We further hope that both attendance and private support for the museum will increase with this change. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to adopt the Senate bill.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said earlier, this conference was a great example of a lot of give and take, some of it a little testy at times, but in the final analysis I think we have a product that is good for the future of these United States. I would like to close and just quote one section from the conference report. Section 141: The building housing the visitors center within the boundaries of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge on Assateague Island, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the Herbert H. Bateman Educational and Administrative Center, and shall hereafter be referred to in any law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States, as the Herbert H. Bateman Educational and Administrative Center. I think our beloved colleague would be proud to have a building that is an educational and administrative center bear his name, and I am pleased that we could do that in our bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge all our colleagues to vote for this landmark gift to the American people.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and a gentleman who has given this committee great leadership this year. The House has moved its bills expeditiously, and a lot of this is thanks to the chairman of the Committee and the way in which he has handled the responsibilities of leadership.