Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I do not have a copy of the letter that I received from the chairman of the authorizing committee last year requesting me to put in a number of authorizing provisions in our bill, since he seems to feel that we abused that privilege. But I am pleased that he feels we should address the backlogged maintenance. It seems to me if the gentleman is saying he wants three to one, he certainly should be supporting this amendment, which is only one for one. All we are saying in this amendment is that as we buy land, for each dollar we spend on land, we should spend $1 on maintenance. Certainly that makes a lot of sense. Here is the list: The National Park Service, $3 billion: toilets that do not work, roads that are not safe, bridges that are not safe, campgrounds that are not safe; Bureau of Land Management, $100 million; Fish and Wildlife, $790 million; the Forest Service, $8.9 billion. Yet, all of these agencies, and particularly the Forest Service, they have tripled the visitor days of the Park Service, and look how this maintenance has been neglected. We have been working at it, but if we take the money away from the Committee on Appropriations, they are not going to be able to address this. The amount the gentleman provides does not help to solve the problem, because we will have many other demands that will be made on the money available to us. What I want to read is a poll that was done by Vox Populi Communications. They did a poll on CARA. I want to read just one paragraph: ``Even more adamant,'' and this is speaking of the people who responded, ``Even more adamant was the opposition to new land acquisition and park creation in the face of a massive maintenance backlog. Simply put, by more than six to one, voters want the maintenance backlog addressed before more money is spent on acquiring additional lands or creating new parks. This desire to address present needs was consistent across gender and party lines, and even Gore supporters saying that we needed to work on current problems before buying more land.'' Yet, this bill would propose us to buy more land. It proposes to give the States money, free money, that they can spend as they choose. We keep hearing a lot about how this will enhance the resources. Maybe it will, maybe it will not. We do not know what the States will do with it once they get it. They are not that restricted under the terms of this bill. As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out so very eloquently, our responsibility is to take care of the 379 parks, the 200 million acres under the Bureau of Land Management, the probably almost 150 million acres in the Forest Service, and all the refuges. We created something like five last year, 30 in the past several years. We have an enormous backlog of maintenance, but we cannot do it without having money available. The bottom line of this bill is that it is going to take that money away, it is going to send it out to the States, and leave us with the lack of ability to meet these very significant needs. It seems to me as responsible government at the very minimum, if we are going to buy more land, as the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) would provide, for every $1 we spend on land, let us spend $1 on maintenance. It makes a lot of sense in view of this $13 billion deficit. Those are safety issues. Those are the enjoyment. Go to a park, and as it was in Yellowstone, one of the campgrounds is closed because of lack of maintenance of the sewer system. That could be repeated many times over. So at least with this amendment, we get a beginning and we make sure that we are balancing off land acquisition with maintenance. I urge support for this amendment. And in view of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) endorsing the idea of maintenance so emphatically, I would hope that he would be very supportive of this amendment because he believes in maintenance.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman's purpose in offering this amendment is good. The need to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is very real. I would point out that it was delayed downtown for 5 days last year. However, the gentleman's amendment does not accomplish his stated purpose of reauthorizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Indeed, it deals with another program all together. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I give him my commitment to work with him through the appropriate venue to reach his goal of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve reauthorization. I think the gentleman's comments focus our attention on this need, and we certainly will do everything possible to get it done. I hope the administration will support it.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman that it was the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations that refused to sell the oil, so it is still there. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would again urge the gentleman to withdraw his amendment. The gentleman has our assurance as well as the authorizing committee that we will deal with this issue. The gentleman pointed out a problem that is necessary for us to take action on, and I commend the gentleman for that.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Nevada's concerns. He is correct that this bill provided the requested emergency wildland fire fighting funds. We will work with the gentleman, and the other body, to see that appropriate rehabilitation needs, including those in the Great Basin area, can proceed.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, since 1983, the United States Congress and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat have 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 convey Members' views on issues of mutual concern. A staff delegation from the United States will be selected to visit Germany during April 7 to April 22 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. Cultural activities and a weekend visit in a Bundestag Member's district will complete the schedule. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States for three weeks this summer. 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. 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 Exchanges 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 why they believe they are qualified, 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, 2309 Rayburn House Building, by noon on Friday, March 3.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that matter. There is no language whatsoever in the Interior portion that provides an authorization for the American Heritage Rivers initiative.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, Webster defines ``perfect'' as being without fault or flawless. He defines ``good'' as being praiseworthy, useful, or beneficial. Well, the document before us is not perfect under Webster's definition. It abundantly does fit Webster's definition of good. It is praiseworthy. It is useful. It is beneficial. In the conference report, we have modified a number of the riders. I believe many of my colleagues will be pleased with our changes. Most importantly, they are fair. I am especially pleased with this report as it continues our commitment to the American people in protecting the environment, in providing for our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and public lands, as well as our cultural resources. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said, this bill is a victory for the environment. It is a bill that will provide pride in America's heritage, not only now, but far into the future. I think it is something we all could take pride in. I urge each of my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth- Hage) for a colloquy.

Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true there is no appropriation for the American Heritage Rivers initiative in the appropriations act.

Mr. REGULA. There is no such authorization or appropriation, Mr. Speaker. The statement of the managers provides a limitation on spending for the Forest Service for purposes related to designated American Heritage Rivers. This is not an appropriation, but provides the maximum that may be spent. It is language of limitation on what can be spent from existing funds. Mr. Speaker, Webster defines ``perfect'' as being without fault, or flawless. He defines ``good'' as praiseworthy, useful or beneficial. While the document before you is not perfect under Webster's definition, it abundantly does fit Webster's definition of good. In this new conference report we have modified a number of the riders and I believe that many of you will be pleased with our changes. Most importantly they are fair. I am especially pleased with this conference report, as it continues our commitment to the American people in protecting the environment and in providing for our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and public lands, as well as our cultural resources. As the gentleman from Michigan said, ``This bill is a victory for the environment to the State of Florida.'' I urge you to support this new bill. At this point Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a table detailing the various accounts in the bill. It is a bill that will provide pride in America's heritage not only now but far into the future. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO99.024

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to explain my vote on this because I am pro- education, but I think there are a couple of things I would bring to the attention of my colleagues here. It is temporary for 7 years. That is not exactly ``temporary'' as I would define it. But the real fundamental concern that I have is that the policy involved, we are establishing a policy that when Federal receipts are diminished, we, therefore, step in and fill the breach. Now, in the case that is outlined in this bill, that may have some validity. But as a matter of precedent, what happens if offshore oil production goes down, because a portion of offshore oil revenues go to the States? Do we then make up the difference to the highest years for the States that are receiving offshore oil receipts? Or how about the States that are receiving revenues from on-shore oil, and you have in this case timber; but we produce a lot of other things on Federal lands. In most cases, 50 percent of those revenues are shared with the States. Now, you can see that as these revenues diminish, and they may well, because our resources are not finite, that then we would be called on to make up the difference. I think that is a precedent that we ought to give serious consideration to today in establishing this as a policy of the Government. I know it is temporary, if you define that by 7 years, but it seems to me if we are going to get into this kind of a policy change, we ought to have a long-term set of conditions that address this in the case of other types of revenues. Also the question of where is it funded arises. The way it is established, it comes out of the Interior budget. I have, along with my colleagues on the subcommittee and all of us essentially, responsibility for the funding of parks and forests and fish and wildlife and Bureau of Land Management, about 30 percent of America's land; and if I would read this correctly, the money to fund it, which could grow as forest receipts are diminished, would have to come out of the Interior budget. That means, of course, there would be less for parks in the U.S. or less for other forms of responsibilities that we have in the committee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the land agencies I mentioned, the cultural institutions here in the city. While I understand the objective here, it seems to me that we may be getting into something that has greater ramifications than we think. I also would point out that the national forests, while the amount of cut has been diminished, do provide revenues to communities through the recreation uses. People come in to hunt, fish, camp, and do a lot of other types of activities. Interestingly, and this is a little known fact, the forests of this Nation generate triple the visitor days of the Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management lands generate double the visitor days of the Park Service. We think of the parks as our recreation dimension, when in reality the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service collectively probably produce five to six times as many visitor days as the Park Service. I say this because as people visit these forests, as they visit BLM lands, they are spending money, for housing, for food, for fishing gear, you name it; and this in turn helps to support the local economy. So for these reasons I think it is maybe premature to try to band-aid a problem that has a greater potential policy impact down the road. If we were to make legislation like this permanent, if we were to make it part of our responsibility, then I think there ought to be a separate source of funding, because I do not believe we should be penalizing the revenues that we have available to the appropriate committees for the parks and the recreation and the ecosystem of this Nation and the many responsibilities that go with the Department of Interior. I understand this and I commend the Members that are supporting this. They are trying to help their school districts. But with the exception of about three big States in terms of forests, it primarily affects about three or four States, about 150 counties, out of the total in the United States. So I believe that we ought to move cautiously in establishing the precedent that is embodied in this legislation, and I hope my colleagues will give some thought to that as we make a judgment in voting for or against this bill.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his comments, and I would say that always in our dealings maybe we disagreed but he has been honorable about it, and I think that is a great quality in this institution. Let me just say to the Members that are here and that are out there in TV land that here is an opportunity to enhance the legacy that we leave, as legislators, an opportunity to ensure that our public lands will be better when we leave than they were when we came here; an opportunity to tell the people of America that we care about the experience they will have; that we want to ensure that they are well maintained and that we enhance them wherever possible and that they can enjoy in the future generations the same experience we have had with this legacy. I saw the smile of the gentleman from Massachusetts who brought up the metaphor of baseball. Being from the Cleveland area, I was not in a position to say a whole lot, but if I had been from New York it would have been a little easier. In any event, let me just close by saying to everyone, we have an opportunity today, by voting ``yes,'' to hit a home run for America.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a valued new member of our subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very valuable member of our subcommittee. (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, for the next several minutes, I wish all the Members would forget about partisan politics, forget about some of the personal things that they might not totally agree with and think what is good for the people of the United States of America. Two hundred seventy million people are depending on us to ensure that they have a park to visit, to ensure that when they go to a national forest they will be safe, that the facilities will be good, to ensure when a group of children go out in a bus to a fish and wildlife refuge to learn about the ecology of this Nation that there will be somebody there to tell about it, to ensure when they visit the Smithsonian, it will be open, that it will be well cared for, that the people will be there to serve them. I could go through a whole list of things. Millions of Americans will go to our facilities over the next 12 months, and the quality of their experience is being decided here. Likewise, think about the generations that are here and yet to come, because the legacy we leave them in terms of our national lands is being decided not by them but by us. Let us forget partisanship for a minute and let us say, what kind of a legacy do we want to leave for future generations as well as for those of today's world. What kind of opportunities do we want them to have. For example, in this bill will be funds to do long distance learning through the Smithsonian, the National Gallery of Art, the Kennedy Center, an opportunity to tell the story of these marvelous institutions to all the young people of America, many of whom cannot travel to Washington. We have a responsibility to them that should transcend our own personal prejudices on this day. We did that on this bill earlier this year, by overwhelming majorities on both sides. We supported this bill. Sure there have been a few changes, some probably better, a little more money being spent, but the basic bill is the same. The basic bill provides the kind of services that the American people expect us to deliver. That is why we are sent here. And we have an opportunity today to reaffirm that judgment that we made several months ago. To vote yes, we are voting for a lot of positive environmental things. We are voting to clean up the streams of America through the abandoned mine law. We have increased it. We are voting to spend $77 million more dollars on the parks as well as allow them to keep the $100 plus million that they earn with the fee program. We are voting to diminish vandalism because through the fee program we have discovered that vandalism in the public facilities, the public lands, is reduced. We have in our hands today 30 percent of the land in this Nation, and we are responsible, each of us are responsible with our vote as to how we treat this wonderful, wonderful asset. It is a legacy that has been provided for us. Just think about New York City. If Frederick Olmstead had not had the vision to save 800 acres called Central Park, there would not be this oasis of beauty in that city. Think what that means to the 10 or 11 million people. Each of us today are going to vote, have an opportunity to do the same, to preserve these facilities. As we become more urbanized, as our cities become more heavily populated, it becomes even more important that we preserve these open spaces. This bill provides funds to purchase 95,000 acres called the Baca Ranch. I have been there. You walk out in the meadows and there are 6,000 elk grazing. They are not there with a halter around them tied to the ground. They are there as free spirits, free standing, because that is the great natural legacy of their existence. We have a chance to preserve that opportunity. We have an opportunity here to make good on a promise this body made several years ago. We said to coal miners who suffered with black lung, who suffered with all kinds of physical problems, we are going to help you, because this is a compassionate Nation, we care about people. So we passed a law to give these people some help. Today, we are providing some additional funds. The fund is depleted. Are we going to say to these people, ``Sorry, we made a promise but we're not going to keep it''? Those are just a few items that are embodied in this bill. Sure, I know we can talk about the riders. But these are important. It is important to the people that live along the shorelines of this Nation, be it California or Florida or North Carolina, that their offshore be preserved. That is a rider. It says there shall be no drilling offshore. It is important that there not be more patents issued to give away our public lands. That is in this bill. It is called a rider. We have a couple of others in here. They are much less severe than was the case in the language that was in the Senate, but in the process of a compromise that represents this report today, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and myself, members from both sides of the aisle, fought to mitigate those riders, to soften them but be fair to the people. We cannot say to a rancher that for 50 years he and his family have been running cattle that just suddenly we are going to cut you off tomorrow. That is not fair. But we do say, once we have done an EIS, if you do not meet the standards, you are going to lose your permit. And we give the Secretary of Interior the right to make that decision. We do not have a lot of time. I am going to stop here. We have others that want to speak. Just examine your conscience and say, What do I want my legacy to be? What do I want my vote to represent? Do I want it to represent enhancing, preserving, taking care of these great assets that are our legacies from other generations that served in this body. These 378 national parks just did not happen. They happened because people had vision, such as Teddy Roosevelt and many others. Today, we are shaping the vision that others who serve here in years that follow us will say, gee, they really cared about the people of this Nation, they cared about preserving their crown jewels, the parks, they cared about preserving their forests for recreation. That is the challenge that we have to meet when we put the card in the slot this afternoon. Today, as we take up the conference report making appropriations for Interior and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2000, you have the opportunity to voice your commitment to America's priceless natural and cultural resources. We can leave our children and future generations no more valuable legacy than our national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and wilderness areas, and our rich cultural heritage which defines who we are as a people and nation. I urge you to vote in favor of this conference report. Don't let politics or a dedication to fiscal austerity cause you to overlook all the many very positive things that can be achieved through this bill. The American people expect you to be the guardians of their most highly prized natural and cultural resources. Don't let them down. Getting to this point has been challenging, with many hurdles to overcome. The President sent the Congress a budget request for fiscal year 2000 that was balanced, only because it relied on budget gimmicks, increased taxes and new user fees. In contrast, this conference agreement sought to deal with real needs and important issues directly, fairly and in a way that best serves the public. This year's appropriation amount is $14.5 billion, a very modest increase of 1\1/2\ percent over last year's $14.3 billion. This is a very small price to pay to protect and preserve the nation's natural and cultural resources. The House and Senate bills contained numerous differences, large and small, reflecting the concerns and priorities of the members of the two chambers. Reconciling these differences provoked spirited debate on all sides of the issues. Conferees argued their positions with reason and passion. But in the end, everyone's willingness to listen and seek common ground prevailed over our differences. As a result, I am pleased to report that the conference report you have before you effectively addresses the priorities Americans care most about. These include $1.4 billion for National Park Service operations to enhance visitors' safety and their enjoyment of America's great natural wonders; $40 million to purchase the Baca Ranch in New Mexico, preserving a unique expanse of the Old West; over $500 million for the Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art so that visitors from across America and the world can enjoy the thousands of marvels of science, history, technology and the animal kingdom and the glorious works of art on display here; $68 million for the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund, which is nearly depleted because of several recent court decisions, to ensure that elderly mine workers and their dependents continue to receive health care. I urge the authorizing committees to take up this issue and develop a long- term solution to this problem. We have continued an important commitment I have made to improve management of the agencies funded by this bill. This year we have worked with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in examining the management of both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We are instructing these agencies to take steps to implement NAPA's recommendations for more effective and efficient management. I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Gorton and his subcommittee members for their willingness to seek common ground to allow us to bridge significant differences in our respective bills. They worked diligently with us to achieve compromises on three key legislative provisions. First, regarding mill sites, the conference report does not prohibit the Department of the Interior from enforcing the Solicitor's decision that establishes a limit of one mill site per mining claim, as the Senate had proposed. Interior may enforce the limitation on new claims, but exceptions are made for existing mining plans of operation (already agreed to by Secretary Babbitt), plans of operation submitted prior to May 21, 1999, and patent applications grandfathered pursuant to the current patent application moratorium in place since fiscal year 1995. Second, the Senate included a provision which would have extended all expiring Bureau of Land Management grazing permits based on existing terms and conditions. The conference agreement clearly states that the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to alter, modify or reject permit renewals following completion of all required environmental analyses is not altered. The agreement also includes additional funding to accelerate the processing of these permits. Third, the Senate had included a provision prohibiting the Minerals Management Service from implementing a new rule on oil valuation through fiscal year 2000. The conference agreement prohibit the rule from being implemented for a period not to exceed 6 months, or until the Comptroller General reviews the proposed regulation and issues a report. There is no prohibition on implementation following the release of the report. In summary, this conference report is not about politics and partisanship. This report reflects our commitments to protecting America's most valuable natural resources for future generations and promoting culture, science and history for the benefit of communities, large and small, throughout this country. Passage of this report means meeting our responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives and continuing essential research to increase energy efficiency and maintain a clean, healthy environment. Again, as strongly as I possibly can, I urge you to vote for its passage. There are three corrections that need to be made to the conference report. The number for the Historic Preservation Fund in the National Park Service should be $75,212,000, the number of Forest Service land acquisition should be $79,575,000 and in section 310, ``1999'' should read ``2000.'' We will take the necessary steps to ensure these corrections are made. Also, in the statement of the managers, the first sentence under the Historic Preservation Fund in the National Park Service should read, ``The conference agreement provides $75,212,000 for the Historic preservation fund instead of $46,712,000 as proposed by the House and $42,412,000 as proposed by the Senate.'' At this point Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a table detailing the various accounts in the bill. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21OC99.005

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2466, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 337, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2466) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.