Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for those who might not have noticed, this is Ohio day, both from the standpoint of the chairman of the two Appropriations bills being considered today and of the gentleman from Ohio presiding this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to pay a compliment to my ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). This is his first year of being the Ranking Member on the subcommittee, and he has been a partner. We have worked together on the things in this bill in a nonpartisan way. I think it is fair, and I think a lot of this is thanks to the contributions that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) made and also the staff, both his staff and the staff of the subcommittee. It has been a real pleasure to work with the gentleman from Washington on this bill. Mr. Chairman, today I would ask Members in their mind's eye to fast forward to the year 2049, 50 years from now, because their actions and votes on this bill will be the America we leave to our children and grandchildren. We have to ask ourselves some questions: Will it be an America free from the scars of resource exploitation? We have put an extra $11 million for the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to avoid that problem. Will it be an Everglades fully watered and with its unique ecology preserved and enhanced? Again, when it is all said and done, we will have spent about $10 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars to take care of the Everglades. If Members read the language in the bill, they will see we are making a point that we want to ensure that there is an adequate water supply, not just now but 50 years from now. Will it be a Nation with clean air, clean water, with rivers that we point to with pride? Will there be 629 million acres of forests, parks, fish and wildlife facilities and grazing lands, with beautiful vistas, with unique ecological wonders? Will there be an Smithsonian that continues to tell the unique story of our Nation's heritage? Will there be a Kennedy Center that continues to excite millions of visitors with a wide range of artistic opportunities? Will there be a Holocaust Museum that continues to remind Americans and people from many nations that this tragedy shall never happen again? Will there be a National Gallery Of Art and Sculpture Garden that shares the treasures of many nations in addition to our own? Will there be new sources of energy that foster a livable society with a prosperous economy? Will we be a Nation that respects its arts and its humanities? Members get to answer those questions today by giving a resounding vote of yes to this bill. We will soon be voting on a $265 billion defense bill to defend many of the values that this bill represents. Fourteen billion dollars, the amount of this bill, is a small price to invest in preserving these values. We have made a number of important policy changes. The Inspector General at the Department of the Interior told us that the National Park Service was unable to balance its books. We have instituted reforms and turned that situation around in 18 months. This bill continues those reforms. We have made changes in many programs as a result of 18 oversight hearings over the past 4 years. We have heard about the $1 million comfort stations built by the U.S. Park Service. We have streamlined and reformed the way in which the Park Service manages its construction program, and we are not going to have those kinds of activities in the future. According to testimony of the leaders of the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Smithsonian, all of these agencies, that we have a $15 billion backlog maintenance. We have to take care of what we have, and we are doing that in this bill. We continue to work at it, and I think it makes a difference. Our subcommittee recently visited some facilities in the State of Washington. In Olympic National Park we saw a building that was being fixed as a result of fees and as a result of the understanding that we need to take care of maintenance. We are looking into problems of financial and contract management in the Department of Energy, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We have provided for the Everglades restoration effort in this bill. A unique feature, and I think it is one of management, that is that we require the States to provide a 25 percent match on weatherization. Forty-eight of the States have current balances, some of them over $1 billion. I think the States have a responsibility of participating, and frankly, if they do, they are going to be a little more careful how they manage the funds. Now they manage the funds and we provide all the money. Under this proposal, we have not reduced weatherization significantly; we are saying, States, you put up 25 percent and we will be able to do more. We will also get better management of the dollars involved. I think this is a very positive approach to this program. I hope Members will all support it by their votes on the bill. We have added $99 million to the Operation of the National Parks. We hear this mantra, ``they are going to shut down the parks.'' Do not believe it. We have added $99 million to support our national parks over what we provided last year, even though the bill in its present form is $1 million less than the 1999 bill, excluding the supplemental appropriations. It is $200 million less if we include the enacted bill, which would include the supplemental appropriations. So we have been very careful in managing it, but we have tried to emphasize the things that are important to people: their parks, $99 million; $200 million for Indian education and health programs. I think we need to do more, but that is the best we could under the circumstances. But when the American Dental Association testifies that only one Indian has dental care out of four, we need to remedy that. We need to ensure that every Native American has the health care he or she needs, and we likewise need to ensure that they have educational opportunities. We saw the President visiting a reservation last week talking about the poverty there. The way to get out of poverty is to improve education. We have tried to address that as much as we could in this bill. We have provided $205 million for high priority land acquisition. I know people would like to buy a lot more land, but that is the best we can do under the circumstances. What we have tried is where we have inholdings, we have tried to focus on the importance of pulling together the lands that we have, so our priority has been to pick up wherever possible with a willing seller, a willing buyer, inholdings. We have included $33 million additional for national wildlife refuges. I mentioned the Everglades. We have included land acquisition funds, but we have said that we want to guarantee that the water will be there not just tomorrow but 50 years from now, and to that end we have put in restrictive language to ensure that we have that guarantee before we commit vast sums of money from the taxpayers of this Nation. Their focus is on the Everglades. The taxpayers are not putting up $10 billion to $11 billion to provide more development money or more agriculture, they are putting up the money to take care of the Everglades, which belongs to all the people of this Nation. We have tried to recognize that. I mentioned earlier that the AML fund is $11 million more than last year. We want to repair some of the scars we have inflicted on the landscape of America from coal mining. We have level funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. I think that is consistent with the fact that the bill is level funded in terms of the 1999 appropriations. I think all of these programs taken together represent a good management of our Nation's resources, and most importantly, I think they represent policies and programs that every one of us who support this bill will be able to point to our actions with pride 50 years from now, and on into the future as far as the eye can see. I hope that the Members will support the bill, that we will continue this effort that we are making in managing our resources and the dollars to give the public the best possible value received for the money they provide in the form of taxes. overview of bill Mr. Chairman, today I am pleased to bring to the House for its consideration the fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill. While the pressures of the 1997 budget agreement between the Congress and the White House have required us to make some difficult choices in this year's bill, I believe we are presenting you a good bill. The bill provides for $14.057 billion in budget authority and $14.556 billion in outlays. Funding is $200 million below the FY99 enacted bill and $1.1 billion below the Administration's FY 2000 request. Within these limits we are continuing to focus our priorities on operational shortfalls and backlog maintenance in the national parks, wildlife refuges and national forests by providing modest increases for these priorities. Despite our severe funding limitations, we continue the federal commitment for the restoration of the Everglades with $114 million. This funding includes the federal commitment necessary for the purchase of critical lands within Everglades National Park, as well as the other national parks and wildlife refuges, critical to the restoration effort. In providing this funding, we have included specific language to ensure a true environmental restoration of the Everglades by requiring specific water flow amounts and timing for these critical natural areas. Throughout my tenure as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have focused on bringing improved management and accountability to the taxpayer. You may remember that in last year's bill we made changes to the Park Service's Denver Services Center and the way the Park Service manages and funds construction projects, so that the taxpayer will never again be asked to fund a $784,000 outhouse in a national park. This year we have focused on the various trust funds of the U.S. Forest Service. These funds are off budget funds which have not been transparent to the taxpayer. We have included a number of changes to address this situation, and I will enumerate them more specifically when I address the Forest Service portion of the bill. As federal spending for these programs continues to be squeezed by our obligations to the American people to maintain balanced budgets and protect Social Security and Medicare, we must increasingly focus exclusively on our federal responsibility. States must share in these programs as our partners. For this reason, we have not provided funding for the states to purchase lands under the Administration's Lands Legacy program. State continue to do extremely well financially under the excellent economic conditions we enjoy. We call on these same states to make the financial commitment to protect lands of priority to them. In the area of energy programs funded within the bill, we continue this philosophy by asking the states to participate in funding the Weatherization program. Throughout the many years of this program, only the federal government has provided the funding for this program, and in our FY00 bill we ask the states to share in the program with a 25 percent cost share. Like last year, we have funded the bill without the selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to finance its operations. Congress created the SPR IN 1975 to provide a national defense against future oil shocks. This year, we are pleased to report that the SPR is being filled with oil from royalties owed the federal government by entities producing oil from federal lands. This creative relationship between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy is working well, while at the same time adding to our nation's strategic oil defense. The Nation's Lands The Interior Appropriations bill provides funding for the vast majority of our nation's federal lands. I would like to highlight the vast treasures we hold as a nation in the resources of our lands. Together as a nation we hold ownership of nearly one third of the land across this great country, and we cherish the open space and tranquility these vast holdings provide. They include 192 million acres in Forest Service land, 77 million acres within the National Park System, 94 million acres in Wildlife Refuges administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service and 264 million acres in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holdings. Although we often refer to our national parks as the ``crown jewels'' of our public lands which include the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Yosemite, many spectacular gems are also found on these other public lands. Both the Forest Service and the BLM administer their lands under a multiple use mandate, and therefore, these lands are used not only for recreation as our national parks, but also for hunting and fishing, as well as for generating revenues from minerals and oil and gas development. While many people associate the Forest Service as a source for American's lumber needs, it is a little known fact that the Forest Service actually receives three times the number of visitors to its lands for recreational purposes than the national parks. Forest Service lands received more than 650 million visits last year. The American public does not distinguish between federal lands administered by different agencies, and as such, I encourage these agencies to work together on behalf of the public. I would like to compliment the BLM and the Forest Service on their work to consolidate their activities at the field level to achieve savings and provide improved services to the public. The Department of Agriculture and Interior have also achieved success in coordinating their efforts on the development of the Joint Fire Science Plan which provides the scientific aspect of the fuels management programs of the Departments. I encourage all of the agencies to follow these excellent examples and coordinate their services effectively. Revenues from the Federal Lands/Rec Fee Demonstration Program In addition to the growing role as respite to millions of Americans from the everyday stresses of an increasingly urbanized society, these lands also provide a major source of revenues. Revenues from mining, oil and gas leasing and grazing are expected to generate more than $6 billion in fiscal year 2000. These resources belong to the American people, and they are benefitting from the revenues they generate. During my first year as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I initiated the recreation fee program demonstration on our federal lands. This is a concept I have supported for many years; it allows the parks, wildlife refuges, national forests and public lands to collect a modest fee from visitors. This fee stays in the park where it is collected and allows the land manager to use the funds to conduct backlog maintenance or improve services for the visitor on that particular site. We are receiving tremendous support of these fees from the American people, the land managers and from national organizations involved with our federal lands. The fees are expected to generate over $400 million over a five year period and will greatly enhance our ability to reduce the maintenance backlog on the public lands. Other unexpected benefits of the program include a reduction in vandalism which the superintendent at Muir Woods in California called to my attention recently. With Americans making a contribution to the land, they feel they have a stake in its beauty and preservation. Forest Service Lands The National Forest System lands represent about one third of the nation's forest land and historically have produced approximately 20 percent of the total softwood harvested in the United States each year. Much more timber is grown on these lands each year than is harvested. The timber sale program generates revenues for the Treasury and for local timber-based economies, as well as providing the raw material for lumber, paper and other forest products that are critical to our economy. The timber program on public lands, however, has declined from a high of 11.1 billion board feet in FY90 to the 3.6 billion recommended in this bill and the same level as in fiscal year 1999. This number is a dramatic reduction over the decade, and further cuts to it would be an irresponsible act of the Congress and dramatically impact timber-dependent communities. Earlier I mentioned increased accountability of various Forest Service trust funds. Despite continuing concerns expressed by this Committee, the House Agriculture Committee and the GAO about the accountability of these funds, we remain deeply troubled about the way these trust funds are being administered. To address these concerns, this year we are requiring the Forest Service to submit a detailed plan of operations to the Congress for the Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) fund, the salvage sale fund and the brush disposal fund. The plan should include an explanation and justification for the program of work and expected accomplishments at each national forest unit using KV funds. To address ongoing concerns that these funds have been used for purposes other than those for which they are intended, we have limited their use at both the regional and Washington levels to only those activities strictly related to the program. We have specifically prohibited their use for general assessments within either the Forest Service or the Department of Agriculture. The American people deserve to know that these funds are being used for their intended purposes of reforestation together with restoration of watersheds and habitats, and therefore we have also required that these funds be displayed in future budget justifications for the Forest Service. I am pleased with the new requirements we are placing on the management of these funds. We are making a significant commitment to fire-fighting in this bill, with $561 million for wildland fire management. The fund supports preparation for wildfires, wildfire operations and reduction of hazardous fuels. Last year we included the transfer of the Volunteer Fire Assistance program from the Department of Agriculture Appropriations bill to this one. This small grant program, through the State and Private Forestry account, is a tremendous partnership between local volunteer fire departments and the federal government. It allows for enhanced training and equipment to these local fire-fighting agencies and provides for highly trained volunteers should their assistance be requested at federal fire sites. The bill includes $4 million for this grant program, with a total of $29 million in total for the Cooperative Fire Assistance program. Clearly, the bill makes a strong commitment to the fire-fighting needs on the local, state and federal levels. indian health service Health Care for our native Americans is the responsibility of the federal government and remains a challenge for this subcommittee. We continue our commitment to Indian Health Services with total funding of $2.4 billion, a $155 million increase over fiscal year 1999. Within this increase is additional funding of $35 million to meet contract support costs, a growing obligation. Within this increase we have also included an additional $20 million to construct the highest priority hospitals and clinics, thus providing needed access to health care. science The bill includes $820 million for the U.S. Geological Survey. This Department of the Interior agency performs first-class scientific research and analysis in areas including water resources, geology and biological resources. I am pleased to report that our transfer of the Biological Resources Division to the U.S. Geological Survey continues to work very well, and the other bureaus rely on the expertise of the outstanding agency to meet their scientific needs. We have provided $188 million for ecological services for the Fish and Wildlife Service, including $105 million for endangered species work. As we all know, the Endangered Species Act needs to be reauthorized. I urge the Administration to present legislation to the Congress so that together we may address vitally needed reforms for the program. department of energy The Interior Appropriations Bill funds programs at the Department of Energy for research to develop technologies to more efficiently use fossil fuels. Low energy prices and energy efficient technologies are a major reason for our strong economy, so we must continue to support federal energy research programs for fossil energy, coal, oil and natural gas, as well as other sources of energy. Funding for the Department of Energy's programs are cut $209 million below last year's level. With many fewer dollars, we continue to emphasize partnerships between the federal government and the private sector to ensure that there is a commitment to the technologies in the marketplace. Our goals continue to be to develop technologies that meet the highest energy efficiency and environmental standards possible. Fossil energy will remain the cornerstone of our nation's energy supply well into the next millennium and will also be the source of energy for the world's developing countries. Our continued leadership in this research is vital as we become an increasingly global economy. DOE's Energy Efficiency account includes a number of programs, including the Industries of the Future program which is an outstanding public-private partnership as the nation's most energy intensive and highest polluting industries work with government in setting joint goals to increase efficiency and reduce waste as we look to these industries' futures. We have provided $193 million for this program, the success of which will continue to ensure world class economic strength in our leading industry sectors which employ so many Americans. Funding for the state energy programs remains at the 1999 level of $33 million, and we have funded the Weatherization Assistance Program at $120 million, and we are now requiring a 25 percent cost share which I noted earlier. This requirement will allow us to leverage the program dollars and in turn expand the funding and the number of people who may benefit from the program. Finally, we continue to support the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) and have provided $24 million for it. This program is an excellent industry/government partnership in which the private sector works with federal agencies to reduce energy usage by incurring the costs of installing high efficiency equipment in exchange for a share of the resulting energy savings. The program has great potential for energy savings, as the federal government is the largest energy user in the world. national endowments for the arts and the humanities Over the past few years, funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has been a challenge in this appropriations bill. During last year's floor debate on this bill, the House of Representatives voted to continue to provide federal funding for the NEA. This year we have included funding for the NEA and the NEH at the fiscal year 1999 levels of $98 million and $110 million, respectively. I believe the reforms we have put in place at the NEA are working, and the current directors of these agencies are doing a fine job on behalf of the American people. cultural agencies One of the most enjoyable tasks I have serving as Chairman of the Subcommittee, is overseeing the budget for our nation's cultural agencies. These fine agencies, including the Smithsonian Institution, the Kennedy Center, the National Gallery of Art and the U.S. Holocaust Museum all provide wonderful services to the American public not only when they come to visit our nation's capital, but also through numerous outreach programs throughout the states and local communities, as well as on the Internet. For fiscal year 2000 we are providing $438 million for the Smithsonian Institution. This funding includes $48 million for repair and restoration of Smithsonian facilities. ``Taking care of what we have'' is a high priority for me, and I am pleased that the Smithsonian agrees with this priority in maintaining their world class facilities for all Americans to enjoy. Within the constraints of the tight budget, we have provided modest increases for the various cultural agencies within the bill. conclusion Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to reiterate that the bill I present before the House today is a good bill. It reflects the priorities of taking care of the lands and resources of all the American people. It is a responsible bill which keeps our obligation to balance the budget, while meeting the many responsibilities under our jurisdiction. At this point Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert into the Record a table detailing the various accounts in the bill. The table referred to is as follows: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY99.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY99.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY99.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH13JY99.005 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would yield further, would the gentleman agree to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in California so we could beef up the fund?

Mr. REGULA. Does the gentleman have any evidence that any of these 50 States that have surplus balances have given some money to the local communities to build their tennis courts and swimming pools and marinas?

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

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right, it is not that much. Spread over 50 States, it would barely make a dent. About all we would get done is hire the people to administer the funds. I think it is unrealistic to think about $30 million, and yet it would cripple some of these important fossil programs. Furthermore, we have to take care of the maintenance of what we have. We have a Federal responsibility. These funds are generated from Federal lands.

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

Mr. REGULA. So I think it is a little bit out of place in a sense for California to want this money. But, aside from that, am I correct, this is not limited to the purchase of land by the States? They could build marinas. They could build swimming pools. They could build tennis courts.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague, he understands that we have a moratorium on drilling in the Federal waters offshore California that would normally be generating these revenues?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, these are funds are generated beyond the 3 mile limit offshore. The States get the revenues from their own State lands, and they get the revenues from the first 3 miles from offshore. We asked the National Governors Association to tell us how much the States collect in revenues from their own lands, and they would not tell us. They did not want us to know because that would be something that would not be terribly attractive when they are trying to get their hand in the Federal till. But I also might point out that the States now get over $600 million that they share with the Federal Government on royalties and payments to counties and so on. So keep in mind we are already doing a lot, and that coupled with their own State funds from their lands is more than the Land and Water Conservation Fund in total.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I know it is a temptation to dip into the fossil program. It is a little bit ambiguous. If this were the late 1970s, we would not have any such amendments. We would have amendments increasing the fossil research, because when people were sitting in gas lines in the 1970s, when schools were closed down, hospitals were suffering for lack of fuel, we could not give enough money for fossil energy research. Now at this moment we have an adequate supply, so some say let us not worry about next week or next year, just cut the programs. And then if we have another crisis, we will dump a lot of money in. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) one of the reforms we instituted is that on any of these programs, there has to be a match. We are not saying give them the money. That is what happened in the 1970s, when we shoveled money out with no requirement for matching funds. Now companies that want to do research on new fuels, California of course has reformulated gasoline which came out of the fossil program, they have to put up their own money to show that they believe in the program and that it is effective. So I think to just take a cut at fossil is not the right policy for the future of this Nation. And I think some of the arguments that were made earlier are clearly along those lines. We have reduced fossil by 20 percent over the 4 years of our watch in this committee. At the same time, we have increased PILT funding by 23 percent. And I would point out that this bill is flat funded. So if we go to PILT for more money, we have to do less for something else. I understand that communities would like to have this money. But one of the things they do not take into consideration is that when we develop Federal facilities it energizes the visitor base, it energizes a lot of activity that does bring money into the communities other than just from PILT, because they have a lot of tourism, they have those kind of activities that are important to the communities that have Federal facilities. It would be nice to put more money in PILT if we had more money. But given the fact that we have a very tight budget, given the fact that we had 2,000 requests for projects from the Members of this House, we have done the best we could. We recognize that fossil research is important for the future of this Nation and to maintain energy independence. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to tell the Members that the plan is to roll any votes on amendments to about roughly 6:30 to 7 o'clock. Then the votes will occur on whatever amendments are pending. And we may continue some further action tonight, but there will be no more votes after that block that we do at that time. So for purposes of planning, Members can count on that as being the format for the rest of the day. Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman be more comfortable if the State of Oregon, which had a surplus balance in 1998 of $15 million, had spent some of that on local projects? And secondly, would he be more comfortable if this amendment were limited to land purchases and not marinas and tennis courts and swimming pools and any of the other things that they might find desirable?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we were unaware of local opposition to this language when it was inserted in the bill in the other body last year, and we included it this year, and we accept the amendment to strike the provision, and this will enable the parties to negotiate on the issue of moving this facility.

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

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I would just like to point out to my colleagues that even though we are $200 million under the enacted number for fiscal year 1999, we are adding 99 million additional dollars over last year for the parks, $200 million for Indian education and health programs, $205 million for high priority land acquisition, $33 million for national wildlife refuges, $114 million for Everglade restoration, and we have tried hard to have a bill that is balanced, it is nonpartisan, it is fair, and it recognizes the fact that the public lands, which are about 30 percent of the United States that we provide the funding in this bill, are being dealt with in a responsible way. In light of the comments by the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I thought it was interesting: Our subcommittee visited last week Olympic National Forest and park areas, and they have signs up for the various projects. It said, this project up on the Hurricane Ridge where they are redoing the center for the visitors, ``This project being financed by your fees,'' and I think it is a very good way to tell the story of how the fees are being used, which was our intent to enhance the visitors' experience. And I thought it was also interesting that they had a little can there that people can put in some extra money, and it was getting filled up also. So it says the people, in addition to paying fees, are so happy with what is being done that they wanted to contribute some additional money. The other subject that he mentioned, and appropriately so, was the fire issue. We have $561 million in here for wildfire fighting. But I think a program we have innovated that I like, and that is we get the local fire departments, the adjacent cities and villages to participate by providing a training program, $29 million to train these local firefighters how to deal with forest fires, and they can be on call to provide assistance, if necessary, to the firefighters that are part of the agency itself. It is working out very well. And, of course, it is important because fires in a forest or a park for that matter can spread beyond the borders. We have seen that a lot in California. And by getting the local fire fighting agencies as part of a cooperative agreement we really maximize the forces and the ability to deal with what is a serious threat, and it enables the agencies to not commit quite as much of their funds. So, on balance, I hope my colleagues will look at the issues in this bill and judge it for what it is, which is a very good bill, very responsible and very fair.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and just wanted to reemphasize on the Everglades that we have put a condition in here to ensure that in the long haul that the water will be available to protect the Everglades because that is the primary responsibility of the American taxpayer, and the reason they are going to spend 7 to $10 billion of taxpayers' money from all across the country is to ensure the protection of the Everglades, and we tried do that with the language in the bill.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, the United States Institute of Peace held its twelfth annual National Peace Essay Contest and I am proud to announce that Ms. Kelly Phipps of my district won first place in Ohio. Ms. Phipps is a student at Jackson High School in Massillon, Ohio. Students are asked to write about the different measures that can be taken to prevent international conflicts. The Peace Essay Contest is designed to encourage young people to think about international conflict management and resolution. Ms. Phipps wrote her essay on ``Economics in Preventive Diplomacy: The Treaty of Versailles vs. The Marshall Plan.'' I include a copy of her essay for my colleagues to review: Economics in Preventative Diplomacy: The Treaty of Versailles vs. the Marshall Plan When desire for revenge clouds rational policy making, the results are disastrous. A comparison between the Treaty of Versailles and the Marshall Plan demonstrates effects of vengeance in foreign affairs and the need for nurturing economic policies to prevent conflict. After World War I, the harsh measures imposed upon Germany through the Treaty of Versailles not only failed to prevent future conflicts, but fueled the rise of the Third Reich. Under similar circumstances, the Marshall Plan created after World War II successfully rebuilt Western Europe, deterring threats on two fronts and proving that measures to strengthen economies are crucial to prevent hostility. After an armistice was reached on November 11, 1918, Lloyd George of Great Britain, Georges Clemenceau of France, and Woodrow Wilson of the United States led the Peace Conference in Paris ending World WAr I (A.A.I.R. 3, Goodspeed 269). Because of Germany's 1914 declarations of war on Russia and France, fear of further German aggression guided the conference (A.A.I.R. 3, Goodspeed 270). To prevent another widespread conflict, the conference produced the punitive Treaty of Versailles and created the League of Nations for enforcement. The treaty signed on June 28, 1919, devastated the German Empire. Articles 118 and 119 stripped Germany of all overseas possessions, turning them over to the Allied and Associated Powers (A.A.I.R 84). Based on declarations of war on France and Russia in 1914, Articles 231 and 232 held Germany independently accountable for the war and forced compensation for all damages in foreign territories (A.A.I.R. 123). The Treaty required Germany to pay 20 billion gold marks as an initial installment (Goodspeed 273). The total cost of reparations was 132 billion marks, to be paid over 35 years (Watt 503). ``It does much to intensify and nothing to heal the old and ugly dissensions between political nationalism and social democracy,'' warned the editors of the New Republic, claiming the Treaty was ``bound to provoke the ultimate explosion of irreconcilable warfare (``Peace at Any Price'' 184). As the value of the mark plummeted under austere economic penalties, desperation and resentment spread among the German people, setting the stage for the conflict between ultranationalists and democratic Western Europe. By 1923, the mark devalued to 5 million for every American dollar (Goodspeed 278-79). Devastating inflation consumed the saving of the German workers, creating disillusionment in Weimar Germany and a base of support for Nazism within the middle class (Pennock and Smith 562). A few months before the Treaty of Versailles was adopted, nationalistic parties accounted for a mere 15% of the German vote. By 1924, inflation had skyrocketed and nearly 39% of Germans were voting Nationalist (Pennock and Smith 567). In 1924, the United States funded the Dawes Plan, offering limited loans to Germany (Goodspeed 286). The Dawes Plan both reduced the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles and eased Germany's nationalistic tendencies. After 1924, support for these parties decreased from 39% to 30%, illustrating the ties between economics and militant nationalism (Pennock and Smith 567). However, the withdrawal of German nationalism was only temporary; at the onslaught of the great Depression, the festering humiliation from the early 1920's resurged without restraint (Goodspeed 287). The German elections of 1930 revealed increasing Nazi support. Party membership grew from 400,000 to 900,000, and Nazis claimed over a third of the seats in the Reichstag (Goodspeed 295). Nazi leaders such as Hitler used the humiliation and hardship caused by the Treaty of Versailles as a flash point for inciting German supremacy and desire for revenge among the German people (Goodspeed 273). The Nazi Secret Service offered employment to the nearly 6 million unemployed Germans who were turning to Nazism as a more secure alternative to the status quo (Goodspeed 295). Finally, the Enabling Act of 1933 passed in the Reichstag, giving Hitler absolute power for four years. With the entire nation under his whim, the Fuhrer could enact his dreams of a master race and German expansionism (Goodspeed 297). While vengeance motivated the Treaty, moral concerns prevented the absolute destruction of Germany. Incidentally, it may have been this compromise that allowed Germany to reemerge as a global threat. As Machiavelli explains to Lorenzo De' Medici in The Prince, ``Whoever becomes the master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it may expect to be destroyed himself . . . In republics there is more life, more hatred, a greater desire for revenge; the memory of their ancient liberty does not and cannot let them rest . . .'' (48-49; ch. VI). The Treaty was enough to spark indignation in Germany, but not strong enough to prevent revenge. While annihilation of an enemy may be key to retaining power, reducing the humiliation of the enemy through reconstruction is morally superior and can ensure lasting peace. After World War II, the Third Reich was disbanded, leaving the German in the hands of the Allies for the remainder of the year (Shirer 1139-40). The situation resembled the period following WWI, with the addition of threats of Communist aggression from the newly empowered Soviet Union. Reconstruction was necessary, but U.S. funds were scattered among the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Export- Import Bank and the United Nations. Two years and $9 billion later, exports were still down 41 percent from 1938 levels (Hogan 29-30). In 1947, Secretary of State George C. Marshall introduced a plan ``directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos . . .'' (Marshall 23). In his speech, Marshall explained that lasting peace required a cohesive aid program to solve the economic roots of conflict (Marshall 23-24). The Marshall Plan was intended to avoid another German nationalist backlash and to create a stable democratic Europe to deter Soviet expansion (Hogan 27). Both objectives were well-founded in history. First, as a proven by the reduction of militarism in Germany after the Dawes Plan, economic stability checks the threat of militant nationalism. Also, just as German aggression in WWII occurred while Europe suffered from depression, economically weak nations are more likely to be attacked. Finally, Marshall aid would create confidence in capitalism, countering Soviet influence (Mee 248). With the intentions of Marshall Plan logically devised, economic success was all that was needed for the prevention of conflict. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 began U.S. action on Marshall's recommendations (Hogan 89). The Economic Endorsement Act made an international economic infrastructure a prerequisite for American aid; so the Committee for European Economic Cooperation was formed to develop a plan for European self-sufficiency (Hogan 124). Discussion in the 16-nation panel included the agriculture, mining, energy and transportation sectors of the economy, as well as recommendations for a more permenant regulatory body (Hogan 60-61). The resulting Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) included all Western European nations except Germany and directed the use of U.S. aid (Hogan 125- 126). Under OEEC, the United States poured aid dollars into Europe while increasing international trade through most- favored-nation agreements. The U.S. spent over $13 billion on aid--1.2 percent of the U.S. GNP (Mee 258, Wexler 249). Efficient use of funds made economic improvements drastic and swift. Between 1947 and 1951, Western Europe's GNP increased by nearly $40 billion, a 32 percent increase, and industrial production grew 40 percent above 1938 levels (Wexler 250-51). With Western Europe fortified, aid could safely be extended to Germany (Mee 239). In addition to combating nationalism, German reconstruction created a buffer to communist East Germany and added industrial resources to the European economy. Still scarred from past invasions, France refused to allow Germany to sign the OEEC protocol in April 1948. Later, with U.S. pressure, Germany has included in trade and was given funds, making German reintegration a common goal (Hogan 129-130). By the fall of 1948, many issue shad been resolved and the Allies began to draft a framework for an independent, democratic West Germany. By 1964, Marshall aid increased foreign trade by 100 percent, boosted industrial production by 600% and reduced unemployment to a mere 0.4%. In Germany, the Marshall Plan had become more than just an aid package; it had jump-started production, preventing the conditions that spawned the Third Reich after W.W.I (Mee 256-57). Today, American preventive action largely consists of sanctions to debilitate enemies or diluted aid policies that rely on handouts alone. The current situations of America's Cold War adversaries demonstrate the inadequacies of both policies. Like the Treaty of Versailles, America's continuing vendetta against Fidel Castro has produced decades of embargoes and hardship, but no signs of capitalist reform (Leeden 24). In the economically unstable Russia, current policies of IMF aid may seem similar to the Marshall Plan, but missing components will allow the ruble to continually devalue. Increased trade and regulatory body could permanently stimulate production, but dumping aid into a faulty infrastructure is temporary and wasteful (``Other Marshall Plan'' 29). While the iron first of the Treaty of Versailles dragged the world into a second World War, the Marshall Plan broke the cycle of German aggression. Additionally, the reconstructed nations created a power balance that helped keep the Cold War from igniting a full-blown conflict. While they may intimidate some countries, harsh economic measures punish innocent civilians and will always pose the risk of a backlash. Nourishing free-trade policies address the root causes of many conflicts, promoting more permanent peace. History demonstrates the need to remove vengeance from preventative diplomacy and address the world's problems with a more wholistic, stabilizing approach. Works Cited American Association for International Reconciliation. Treaty of Peace with Germany. New York: American Association for International Reconciliation, Sept. 1919. Goodspeed, D.J. The German Wars: 1914-1945. Boston: Houghton, 1977. Hogan, Machael J. The Marshall Plan. New York: Cambridge

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 853.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, today, Chief Warrant Officer Three David Allan Gibbs was laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery in a very moving ceremony. He was fondly remembered by family, friends, and colleagues for his bravery and selfless dedication to his country. David Gibbs entered the United States Marine Corps in 1980 after graduating from Washington High School in Massillon, Ohio. He served in a number of posts both at home and overseas before transferring to the United States Army in 1985. It was in the Army that David was able to pursue his dream of flying, and he soon became a helicopter pilot of the AH-1 Cobra and later the Apache. As a pilot, he served in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm where he earned the Bronze Star Metal. David Gibbs died in Albania on May 5, 1999, serving on Task Force Hawk as part of the NATO mission in the Balkans. He is survived by his wife Jean, daughters Allison and Megan, son David, mother Dorothy, brother Chuck, and sister Pam. David Gibbs represents what is best about this country, that young people follow their dreams, stand up for the ideals in which they believe, and in doing so make us all proud and humble.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I think we are losing sight of the fact that the purpose of this bill is to support our troops overseas. They did not ask to be sent there. But now that they are there, therefore I think we should get the necessary funds to provide the adequate equipment that they need and all the supplies so that they can be protected in performing their duty. And we are getting diverted in this debate. But let me also address one issue, and that is the Byrd provision which was in the Senate bill to establish a loan guarantee program. I think that amendment is important. It would deal with the question of steelworkers and their jobs. But I did not think we would want to lose this bill or have it delayed, since it is so vital to young American men and women in the military, by retaining this amendment. I believe that this should be addressed with a separate bill. That bill with the Byrd language has been introduced in the House by myself. The Speaker has agreed that there will be a vote on it. A similar action is being accomplished in the Senate, and there will be a vote there on the Byrd amendment. I would hope that the Senate will pass the quota bill, as it is the most effective solution to stopping dumping and job loss. It is a problem. Four steel companies have filed for bankruptcy protection since the steel import crisis began. We have 10,000 steelworkers out of their jobs, and that does not include people in the ancillary industries. We can deal with those problems with the quota bill, which would be far more effective in saving steelworker jobs. And I think it is important that we get on with passing this bill to make sure that our young men and women overseas and in the United States that have been called upon to protect their country, to serve their country, are adequately taken care of. I urge the Members to pass this bill promptly.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Now wait a minute. The mining law provides for regulation. This is rather ironic. This administration has been opposed to the 1872 Mining Act, and yet they found an obscure provision in that particular act that the Solicitor used to make his opinion valid. He used the mining law to bring this about. But the point is that all the agencies of this administration had okayed it, and if we think it is wrong, we ought to change the law. We should not allow a company to invest $80 million of investors' money and then change the reules. They should not be required to suffer a huge loss because of this obscure provision that is being interpreted. A Solicitor's opinion is not law, and I think if we just tried to deal with this single issue problem, if it is wrong, we should have a bill put in here and amend the law.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled as to why the Environmental Protection Agency of this administration would approve it under the circumstances the gentleman from Florida has just outlined.