Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, they get to use a lot of facilities: Three forests, a park, and the BLM land.

Mr. REGULA. Well, obviously, the gentleman has the right to object, so he can call it. I was hoping we could get it for 20 minutes, but if 30 is all I can get agreement on, then it has to be 30.

Mr. REGULA. No, total.

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

Mr. REGULA. How about 20 minutes?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. REGULA. I understand. And the forest is working on developing a universal pass. This is an experimental program. They want to address it. Let me read the editorial. This says it more eloquently than the words I could use. This is from the Idaho Statesman in Boise, Idaho. Headline: ``Keep User Fees that Restore Trails and Improve Parks.'' ``When a test of user fees was initiated a couple of years ago in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, there was some grumbling. `We pay taxes, don't we? Why is it even more money to visit public lands?' but the fee projects were approved and even extended a few years ago by Congress. Why? Because people don't mind. They even seem to want to pay the fees, and because the money is put to good use.'' In fact, in Olympic National Park they had a little jar and even though they paid a fee, they were still putting money in as an extra contribution. That shows how the public feels about it. ``Why not make the fees permanent? Give credit to three important steps of the success of the fee program: One, the money collected has stayed on the ground. Those paying the fees can see their money at work.'' That was true. We saw that several places. ``Two, the fees have remained reasonably priced and are getting less complicated.'' And I might tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that they are getting less complicated. I believe probably in short order the Forest Service will have one pass that will work in all the forests in the area, and I would hope they do that and maybe even include the parks and the BLM. That is the goal, to have a universal pass, that visitors pay a modest amount and can use it anyplace for a period of a year. And thirdly, ``Forest managers are listening to visitors and addressing their concerns.'' And I hope the managers in the gentleman's district are doing that. ``So far, for the SNRA, the fees have paid off. More than $162,000 has been collected since the start of the project in July, 1997. The money has been used to maintain hundreds of miles of trails, open new restrooms, hire additional visitor center staff,'' and so on. And the article concludes, ``When compared to many other family entertainment or vacation options, parks and recreation areas, even with the fees, remain a tremendous bargain.''

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this program has worked. If we talk to superintendents across the country, in the forests, the parks, the Wildlife refuges, the BLM lands, they are happy. They get to keep the money. They used to have to send any fees they collected to the Treasury and never saw it again. Now they keep it. They invest it in the facility. We were at Olympic National Park recently. They are doing some work on a magnificent chalet that the public loves to see and enjoy, and look out over the mountains. They had a sign up, ``This work is being done with user fees.''

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

Mr. REGULA. I understand. I am going to read an editorial about the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. The paper was against the fee and is now for it because it has worked so well. Let me say this. The superintendent of the Olympic National Park said this: ``Morale is affected. People feel good to know that the public is participating, and they care about this facility. Vandalism is down because those who pay a little bit get a sense of proprietorship.'' I hear that story all over, from the forests, the parks, and other facilities. In the period of time that this will be in place, it will raise $400 million. It does not affect their budget. This money is used for things that otherwise would not happen, for visitor enhancement, to make the visitor experience better. In Muir Wood, for example, the superintendent said she was able to improve the trails, put up signs. And we talked to people in the facilities and asked them. They said, we do not mind paying a modest amount. It is less than a movie ticket, and the money stays there. They get to use it. They get the benefit of it. The people that the gentleman is talking about, I would say to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), they are using it every day. They can buy an annual pass. How much is the annual pass?

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the speeches, and I think, of course, that they have some positive merits. I think that the National Endowment for the Arts, under the rule changes that we have made, has been much more effective. I believe that Mr. Ivey, as chairman of the NEA, has done a good job of trying to reach out across the Nation to ensure that the money is used to stimulate art activity in small villages, small cities, as well as in the large cities. I think the program has done some very positive things. I have to point out that this bill is flat funded. We did not have any increases. We did have increases in the parks, but we had to decrease elsewhere. By and large, we have only been able to flat fund all of the programs. For these reasons, I think that what we have in the bill is a responsible number. It is not an increase, but it is not a decrease. And there are different shades of opinion in the House as to increasing and decreasing the arts number and more so with the arts than with the humanities. It would be nice if we had a lot of money to provide for some increases. But in the absence of having a larger allocation, I think what we have tried to do is fair to the NEA and the NEH. I am pleased that the conditions that we have put in in the last several years have worked well in ensuring that the money spent does not go to projects that are offensive to the American people. I give credit to Mr. Ivey, as well as others who have worked to ensure that that happens. I think our representatives on the board, and I might say this was a suggestion of Mr. Yates, as a matter of fact, that we have three members from the House and three from the Senate to be on the NEA board. I would say, and I hope Mr. Yates is watching this because he was the champion of the arts and the humanities, and his suggestion, which we adopted, of having six of our Members and of the other body has worked out well. I think if my colleagues would talk with them, they recognize that the programs have worked as we would hope they would. I have to say that I would oppose this amendment simply because I think what we have done is fair in light of the allocation that was made to our committee. Right now, we are about a million dollars under last year. And what we have done with the arts and the humanities have kept them at last year's level, so that I would like to see it stay at that level. I would also point out that if we take more money out of SPR, we have already taken $13 million out of SPR in a recent amendment, this would add to that another $20 million and we are talking about $33 million coming out of SPR. I do not think it is good policy for our country to take that much money out of SPR, because this is our insurance policy that we are not going to be trapped in another embargo that was so difficult and created so much in the way of problems in the 1970s. Still, as I said earlier, the fact that it is there, I believe, is a deterrent to an embargo such as OPEC imposed on the United States. So, for all of those reasons, I hope that we will maintain the level of funding that is in the bill. There will be some amendments to cut NEA and NEH funding. I will oppose those, also.

Mr. REGULA. I certainly will agree to work with the gentleman from Texas to address this important issue in conference. I am also willing to work with him right now to get to the bottom of this issue with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Just let me say there is never a right time for anything, but if there is a right time, this is it. I think it is about time that the States take some responsibility. We have federal-state partnerships. We have partnerships in Medicaid; we have partnerships in the welfare programs. This is very consistent with that. And to say the States cannot handle it, let me just point out that every State, every State, all 50, project a surplus for 1999. Forty-nine States had a surplus in 1998; 13 States had surpluses in excess of $1 billion; 21 States had surpluses in excess of 10 percent of their annual budget. So when we look at these numbers, the States are perfectly capable of doing this. And if they believe in the program, that is the key, if they believe as much as the gentleman from Vermont said, they are going to come through. Now, it is not something that will happen next week. This program has a lag time. The money for the 1999 budget will be distributed at the end of the year. So the States have plenty of time to accommodate to this program. Obviously, the legislatures, as they meet this year or next year will be able to address this if they believe in the program. That is the key. If they believe in it, they are going to come up with their 25 percent. And just as important, I think they are going to do a better job of administering the funds. If we want to help the people who need this program, as pointed out by the gentleman from Chicago, we should vote against this amendment because, as the language in the bill reflects, that will result in people having more weatherization money. True, the States will have to contribute, but there is no reason in the world, with the kind of balances they have, that they cannot be a partner with the Federal Government in providing and meeting the needs of those people who are beneficiaries of the weatherization program. Now, let me emphasize again, this is not LIHEAP. LIHEAP is in the Health and Human Services budget. That money will be dealt with at a different time. We are talking about putting on storm doors and storm windows and fixing the roofs of those homes that need weatherization programs. I think it is imperative that this Congress, this body, address a problem of ensuring that there is more money available for those who need help, and certainly with the kind of balances that the States have, there is no reason they cannot share in serving the people of their State along with the Federal Government. We are still talking about 75 percent of this being Federal taxpayers' money, and certainly the States can meet their share. So I would urge my colleagues to not vote for this amendment. Vote against the second Sanders amendment. Let us make the States a partner in a program that is very important to the people of this Nation. Let us ensure that there will be more funding available for weatherization than we presently have. This amendment is structured in a way that the States will have plenty of time to accommodate. I have not heard one word from a governor, neither have my colleagues on the subcommittee, and yet this has been in our subcommittee mark for several weeks. We had no comment in the subcommittee markup; no comment, as the gentleman from Tennessee pointed out, in the full committee. It is not a surprise. We are talking about something that is historically part of the Federal-State partnership. We all serve the same people. Here is an opportunity, by voting against this amendment, to give the people in all our States more help for their weatherization problems.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would make a couple of points. One, this is not a LIHEAP. LIHEAP provides the financing for the programs and also provides 15 percent of the money, and LIHEAP goes to weatherization. Number two, this amendment would take money out of SPR. I want to emphasize that because we have SPR to give us energy independence. There will not be any heat for anybody if we do not have oil. Having oil, I believe, prevents OPEC blackmail. I think it is a big mistake to erode the SPR program at this point by not providing the money to properly maintain the equipment. That is exactly what would happen if this amendment were to pass. We will have less money. We already are on the low side on the maintenance of the SPR, and this would be very damaging to that fund. So I think that Members, in making their decisions on this vote, ought to remember that they have to look at the total picture. It may sound good to put money back into the weatherization program, but in the process, we are denying this Nation a greater potential for energy independence. Some of us here remember the 1970s, probably quite a few. We do not want to repeat that. We want to have a sense of security that SPR gives us. Again, I thank Secretary Richardson's program. He wants to bring the supply up to 90 days. That is all the more reason that this equipment has to be maintained in first-class condition. A vote ``yes'' will be very damaging to the SPR equipment. A vote ``no'' will preserve the program we have to maintain and keep it up to first-class conditions.

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

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) the next time he has Mr. Lyons in for a visit, invite me and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and we will come and see if we cannot resolve these problems.

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, will the gentleman yield?