Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to say that the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member and the staff have done an excellent job under the constraints that were put on the subcommittee in terms of the amount available. Mr. Chairman, this funds a very diverse range of projects. I would just like to address a couple of them that I think are very important. But first, I would mention embassy security and additional Border Patrol agents. Those are certainly two items that needed additional funding and received it. The two I want to mention, one is the JASON program and the other is our trade functions. The bill provides an additional $1 million in funding over last year's base for the U.S. Trade Representative's office, because this is a very important function in terms of opening up markets for U.S. goods. I think Ambassador Barshefsky has done an outstanding job as the USTR and has been very aggressive in getting markets open to U.S. products, and I am pleased that we can not only support them with last year's numbers, but add $1 million to their budget. The second item under the trade issue is the ITA, the International Trade Administration. They too, as part of the Commerce Department, have continued with the important programs, including the Import Administration, which enforces our U.S. trade laws. We have had a number of cases in which they have ruled in favor of American goods to prevent unfair trade practices and dumping into our market and taking jobs away from American workers. Those two things, opening foreing markets and protecting U.S. jobs against unfair trading practices, are critical to the expansion of our economy and the job base and maintaining well-paying jobs. The other item is the JASON project. This is an exciting program. JASON is pioneering in terms of interactive TV. This is the way in which a classroom in Ohio or Kentucky or New York can take the electronic school bus to sites all over the world. Thus far, JASON has taken students to the Yellowstone National Park and compared the thermals there, with thermals in Iceland. They have taken students to the bottom of Monterey Bay. They have taken students to the rain forest in Brazil. So students in a classroom, in our case in Ohio, could interact through the medium of TV to talk to these people in Monterrey Bay or in the rain forest. This is an exciting program, and I think it is going to be the future. I can see when the agencies around this city, the National Gallery, the Smithsonian, the Kennedy Center, the Holocaust Museum will be doing a lot of this type of work with classrooms throughout the Nation. We provide $2 million for the JASON program. Next year they hope to take students into outer space and deep sea laboratories and juxtaposite the outer space with the deep sea laboratories in one program, so students can compare what is not only happening up in space, but what is happening on inner space, namely the bottoms of the oceans or in the deep sea areas. So it is a great project. I am pleased that we have the funding for this in the bill. This is the third year, and I believe it is a pioneering effort that will bring great benefits to the education programs of this Nation. I would like to commend the Chairman for putting together a bill under very difficult circumstances this year. The Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill contains many diverse functions from Federal law enforcement programs, to trade negotiation and enforcement programs, to diplomatic functions, to the funding of our Federal Judiciary. Under the tight funding caps, an effort was made to keep most programs and agencies at last year's levels so that no program or personnel reductions would be necessary. There are program enhancements to ensure embassy security and to provide additional border patrol agents, in addition to the funding needed to do the enhanced Census work required by the recent Supreme Court decision. I would like to discuss two issues of particular interest to me-- funding for our national trade functions and funding for an innovative educational partnership with the JASON program. The bill provides an additional $1 million in funding over last year's base for the U.S. Trade Representative's office so that the important work of opening foreign markets for U.S. goods is continued. The U.S. market remains the most open market in the world and it is critical that we ensure that other nations reciprocate by opening their markets to U.S. goods. The Commerce Department also contains important trade functions within the International Trade Administration (ITA). The bill provides funding sufficient to continue the important program within ITA including the Import Administration which enforces our U.S. trade laws against unfair foreign imports. Also with ITA is the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service which provides technical and practical assistance to help U.S. companies enter foreign markets. Expanding markets for U.S. goods and protecting domestic industries against unfair foreign imports are two important functions of our Federal Government. These functions are critical to ensure a level playing field in the global marketplace and to maintain well-paying jobs for American workers. The bill also provides $2 million to continue the exciting educational partnership that has developed between the JASON program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The partnership allows Federal research on oceans to be used in the interactive educational JASON program. This program seeks to excite our elementary, junior high and high school students into pursuing careers in the sciences. Next year the students will be studying ``extreme environments'' focusing on outer space and deep sea laboratories and comparing the science related to both of these environments. Every year after studying the course materials, the students take the electronic school bus on a virtual scientific expedition using interactive communications technology. This innovative program represents the future of our education system. I urge members to support the Fiscal Year 2000 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill.

Mr. REGULA

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am just trying to lay out the facts.

Mr. REGULA. As the gentleman understands the costs, and I think this would be part of what the gentleman outlined, the costs are in LIHEAP. They would only be addressed with LIHEAP.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, for the Members who would like to get the facts on this one, the other body has had an amendment identical to this. What happened in the conference on the supplemental a few months ago was that Senator Enzi had this amendment, and then he decided to withdraw it on the strength of a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, that he would take no further action until such time as this issue is resolved by the courts; that is, as to the authority of the respective parties. What basically is at issue here if this amendment were to pass, would be that the governors would have the last word. So if an Indian tribe were to want to start a casino, they would have to go to the Governor to get approval. Under the present law, they can go to the Secretary of the Interior as an alternative. All I want is to make it clear to the Members what the situation is as they try to make a decision as to whether or not they think the Governors should have the last word, which would be the effect of the amendment, or whether they think that we should wait. What we decided in the conference on the supplemental is that we should wait until the courts have ruled on it. I will say that the Secretary of the Interior did state in a letter that he would not grant any applications until such time as there was a final ruling by the court, and then at that time we in the Congress would need to address this as to what we think the policy should be. If Members agree that the Governors should have the last word, then I think the Barr-Weldon amendment does that. If Members think we should wait until the court makes a ruling, and that was the decision in the conference on the supplemental, then we would wait until that time. Then, depending on what the court would rule, we will have to decide as a matter of policy whether we in the Congress think the Governors ought to be the final arbiter of the issue of a casino, or whether it should be an appeal process to the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think there is probably a little more at issue in the courts. That is the issue of sovereignty. That becomes a question of what rights the Native Americans have by virtue of treaties as to their sovereignty. It is kind of a murky area, frankly. We keep trying to address it. We have the issue on the right to not pay any taxes at stores, and there is another issue as to whether or not a tribe could go out and buy a piece of land away from the tribal lands, and then consider that to be tribal lands for purposes of building a casino. I think we concluded in the supplemental conference that there were so many issues that we did not feel we could address them at that moment. So everyone understands what the question is here, the amendment would leave the responsibility with the Governors on that issue.

Mr. REGULA. I would point out to the gentleman that in the LIHEAP program, 15 percent of that goes for the weatherization programs, in addition to paying the bills. So it is a double dip in a sense, the weatherization program.

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

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this proposal to my attention. This energy conservation project sounds very interesting, and it appears as though its continuation would fit appropriately with the work of the Department of Energy. I will be happy to work with him and with the Department of Energy to explore continuation of this effort as we move to conference on the Interior bill.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the issue is whether there is a multiplicity of 5-acre sites by one claimant. The gentleman's proposal is a limitation so it is not subject to a point of order, but I believe the gentleman's proposal would limit a claimant to one 5-acre site, and the BLM standard does not do that. That is where there is a difference in what the BLM requires versus what the gentleman would require in his amendment of limitation.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to be equally divided. And let me say that I am just trying to expedite things here. We want to finish this bill tonight, and we have a number of amendments yet to go.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, has he checked with Secretary Richardson as to whether or not he agrees that this money should be taken out of SPR? Because I know that he has advised us that he wants to add oil to SPR, rather than to take it out. The gentleman's money deals with the operation of the SPR account, but we are already short there. The pumps are not working properly. My question is, has Secretary Richardson endorsed the idea of taking money out of SPR?

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from West Virginia knows, he and I have seen eye to eye on a number of the proposed mining law changes, and recognize that this is a matter that should be addressed by this body and the other body. My concern with this amendment is that we are letting one person in effect make law for the United States. I have always been of the opinion that the Constitution says that legislation should be passed by both houses and signed by the President. I think that is the proper way to do it. I do not believe that the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior should be given the privilege of making law, taking our responsibility. That to me would be a derogation of power that I think would be totally wrong. I would point out that the BLM manual, and the BLM has been under the control of the Democrat party and the presidency as part of the executive branch, says, ``A millsite cannot exceed 5 acres in size,'' which is what the attempt to do here is. It also goes on to say, ``There is no limit to the number of millsites that can be held by a single claimant.'' Further the United States Forest Service Manual provides, ``The number of millsites that may be legally located is based specifically on the need for mining or milling purposes, irrespective of the types or numbers of mining claims involved.'' These are policies. I think the public is entitled to conform with what is the policy of this Administration as set forth in the BLM manual and the United States Forest Service Manual. I agree with the gentleman from West Virginia. There ought to be changes. We have joined in legislation in the past to do so. That is the proper way to do it, because these are policies that require a legislative solution and not a decision by the Solicitor that this should be the policy of the United States. That the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior should be making laws and not the Members of this Chamber and the other Chamber is not acceptable. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment. I would hope that the gentleman from West Virginia would offer this as a legislative bill to be heard in the authorizing committees and achieve the changes. In some of those I would join him. But I just think it is the wrong policy to let one person in our government decide what the policies should be that are the responsibility of this legislative body.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to advise the gentleman that there has been a moratorium on patenting mining claims since fiscal year 1995. So Grannie has not been able to get a patent because of the appropriations riders. Please tell Grannie there are no more patents.

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

Mr. REGULA. That is true. What we are trying to do, and would agree to, in a way, to help these people, would be to agree to level funding but keep the requirement that the States put in the 25 percent, which of course would mean that there would be another $28 million available for the program. It would seem if the States believe in this, and they administer it, and they are all in a budget surplus position, that they would want to do this.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, and I will mention this on my own time, but what we are trying to do is get more money into weatherization, but we feel the States ought to participate in this program.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform our colleagues who are watching in their offices that, after we have completed the next Stearns amendment, we will have two votes. One will be on the amendment from the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) raising the amount of funding for the arts and the humanities, and then a vote on the amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) cutting the arts and humanities. I would say to my colleagues I will vote no on both of those. I say that because I think we have a balance that we have achieved here. Our bill is slightly under last year's number overall, and yet we kept both the arts and the humanities at last year's level. I think it recognizes a balance that we hope would be acceptable to all the Members. Therefore, I urge Members to vote no on both of the amendments. I am particularly concerned that the amendment to raise the arts and humanities by $10 million each would come out of SPR. We have already taken $13 million out of SPR. I believe that would be a mistake in terms of our energy security. I would say to the supporters that the opponents did not raise the point of order, which they would be entitled to do without a waiver, and they are giving us an opportunity to add to or take away. But in the final analysis, I would urge the Members to vote no on both. I would also say that both Mr. Ivey and Mr. Ferris have made a real effort to reach out. We had the issue of congressional districts not getting any programs. Part of the reason is they do not apply. I would hope that in their newsletters, and however else, the Members would say to the small schools, the small communities around this Nation, that they should apply for these programs. I know Mr. Ferris at the National Endowment for Humanities and Mr. Ivey at the National Endowment for the Arts would like to spread the programs across a broader spectrum. The language that is in the bill urges this result that we put in a couple of years ago. So here is an opportunity for Members to provide assistance to their constituents by letting them know that these grants are available. Again, I appreciate the very good way we have handled this. I have been here when it has not been quite as easy or as amicable in terms of the debate. I think parties on both sides of this issue have been very positive in the way they have presented their cases. But I do hope we can maintain the amount in the committee. I think it is a fair resolution of these programs.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my support for the restoration programs. If more funding becomes available, I would be pleased to consider adding some of it to these accounts.

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