Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

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. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, he would probably already have a larger amount in the bill. I understand. But, as the staff just reminded me, Mr. Yates is also a strong supporter of SPR, so he might have some concerns about where the offset is located.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

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

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. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Vermont will agree, though, as a point of clarification, that the $13 million will come out of SPR.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have an offset. It is the 25 percent the State will put in.

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, if the gentleman would continue to yield. I think that we should not be tampering with SPR because, if we have another crisis, that is going to be a vital part of our energy independence and, therefore, our Nation's defense. If we cannot pump it because we have not provided the money to keep the equipment operating, one can understand the problem. Mr. Chairman, let me also point out that Wisconsin has a $6 million surplus this year, and I would think that they would want to help take care of the needs that the gentleman has outlined.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, what we have tried to address is just the fixed costs that they have. I appreciate that the gentleman brings these things to our attention. I think it is probably a very small part of the budget, but we are going to have some discussion on the issue. But he mentions our children and grandchildren. We want to leave them healthy forests. Because more and more of the forests are a very important part of the water supply system of this Nation. That is our real concern, the health of the forests.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. It would be two votes unless it is worked out. Regardless, it would be two votes. One is to restore the $13 million to bring it to fiscal year 99 level. The other vote will be on the question of whether States should contribute 25 percent of the costs.

Mr. REGULA. Well, the conferences have some pluses I must say. But I hope the Members will maintain the level that we have in the bill. I think it is a responsible amount. Again, I commend the chairman of NEA and also the chairman of NEH. Both have provided excellent leadership for the programs, and that is very important in maintaining public acceptance and Congressional support.

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this is a classic example of making the States partners. We are not saying 50 percent. We are saying 25, so we can preserve the security of SPR which is very important to all the States and very important to all the people of this Nation. I can remember in the late 1970s when I had businesses that closed their doors because they did not have hydrocarbons. I can remember the long lines at the gasoline stations. That is why we have a SPR. Let us not tamper with that when the States could very easily contribute to weatherization to help people with these problems. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and against the subsequent amendment that would take out the provisions that the States contribute 25 percent.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, I understand the gentleman's concerns. We likewise have a concern. We feel that we have a responsible way to address this situation by saying that in view of the fact that we have so little money to work with in terms of our responsibilities under this bill. As I mentioned yesterday, we had over 400 letters, more than 2,000 requests, and we have had tried to balance it out in every way possible. So what we have proposed was a very small reduction, relatively, in the weatherization program and give the States the ability to match with a 25 percent amount on their part. I think that is a very responsible way to do this. They match in Medicaid. They match in a number of the other programs that are part of our social support system. I see no reason they could not match on this one at least 25 percent. I think the percentage in Medicaid is higher than that. Plus, if the States were putting money in, I think they would do a more efficient job of administering the program. They would be stakeholders, and they would perhaps make a greater effort to ensure that the monies would be spent wisely. On balance, what we have proposed in the combination of a slight reduction plus the 25 percent match would increase the program $17 million over level funding, and this would be an increase of about $28 million or more over the bill number. So I hope that the Members will give this some thought, because I know that States always want to get in, and it is nice to get the free money. But we have a Federal responsibility. We have a responsibility to a whole host of things, parks and forests and just dozens of things. Therefore, I think the States should certainly take some measure of responsibility in this. Mr. Chairman, I would have to oppose the amendment, in the absence of making an agreement to not offer the second amendment on the 25 percent match, because I think the two fit together. Overall we are saying, in effect, we want the States to have more money to spend in weatherization, to increase the program, but that they at least take a reasonable share of the cost. I do not think that is asking too much of the States. In the absence of that, we would have to oppose this amendment because, of course, to take the money out of the administration of the SPR account does not make good policy at this juncture. Right now we are in good shape on energy, but a few of us remember the late seventies when we were not so good. We have created SPR, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to give us energy independence. To take money out of that account which is designed to administer the SPR program, to make sure the pumps are working, it is not much value to have these millions of barrels of oil in the ground if we cannot pump it out in the event of a crisis or in the event of a shortfall. In my judgment, the fact there is an SPR has probably helped avoid another OPEC blackmail because those who would do something of that type of action again know that we do have a means of responding. We do have a reserve. Something like 60 days worth of oil. And I think it would be a grievous policy mistake to not allow us to keep those facilities in operating condition. Secretary Richardson advised our subcommittee that he wants to put more oil in the SPR reserve to give us a greater energy independence. We see how volatile the events are in the Balkans where, of course, as well as the Middle East; and I hope the Members will weigh carefully taking money out of an account that is very important to our energy security. We are spending $265 billion to have security with airplanes and tanks and so on. But if we do not have petroleum, we do not have much security; and, therefore, I would urge Members to vote against this amendment unless we can work something out to establish a requirement for the States to participate. Let me point out again that the States at this point, 50 States, it was 49 last year, have surplus balances and $28 million would be a very small amount spread over the 50 States for them to contribute. And I again have to emphasize that if the States are administering the program, they are responsible for it, at the very minimum they should be participating. We hear a lot about partnerships today. That word is used repeatedly on the floor of this House.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this amendment does not go to the question of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It goes to the question of operating it, to keep the pumps operating. It is very expensive to be ready to go if there is a need. And I would also point out that the supply goal we set in the 1970s when we created SPR would be a 90-day supply. It is down to 60 days at this time. To the credit of Secretary Richardson, he has worked out I think a rather imaginative solution whereby he is taking the government's share of revenues in oil and putting it in SPR. And part of this is to replace what was sold in order to meet a crisis.

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. 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. 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. 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.