Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, eliminating the $26 million is not going to solve the problem.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, in the interim, we have received statistics from IHS. I think the problem here really is that the other body put zero in their mark. We have $26 million. The $26 million will address the problem, because there are 250 tribes now receiving contract support and 23 not receiving it. So the $26 million will not only take care of the 23 we want to get in under contract support, but will probably result in tribes such as yours getting a cost of living increase above what they are receiving now. I think what they are doing in the letter is addressing a problem created by this bill in the other body, which is zero, and not addressing it with the $26 million we have in our bill. This is something we have to resolve in conference.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I cannot agree with the gentleman on that. What we have tried to do is to get more of the tribes, encourage more of the tribes to go to self-determination contracts, which as the gentleman points out is the right way to do it. It is not necessarily saving us a lot of money because we still have to pay for their health care costs, and what this money does is to help pay the administrative costs. It will not reduce that. We used the $26 million number as a way to take care of those that were already on self-determination contracts, while at the same time encouraging other tribes to take the same steps. We have historically tried to make the Native Americans more self- dependent. We have to resist the amendment because what we have tried to do is accomplish what we thought was fairness in the way we have constructed the bill.

Mr. REGULA. That is right.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what we are trying to do is get more tribes to go on the self-determination contracts, and that is the reason for the $26 million, and in the process not penalizing your tribes or those that are already on self-determination contracts. I wish we had enough money that we could make everybody whole. We do not know. The IHS says with $26 million it will be minimal. They do not give us a number. I am not sure where your $900,000 came from. But, I will yield. I do not want to prolong the debate.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

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

Mr. REGULA. I cannot say one way or the other, because I can only take the information from Indian Health Service. I, like the gentleman from California, have no tribes whatsoever in the State of Ohio, certainly not in my district. What we are trying to do is get a fair distribution. We are just trying to solve a problem that everybody is ducking, that is the bottom line, and do it in the fairest way we know how. I think if the amendment prevails, it means that many of these tribes will get nothing or very little to help them develop the self- determination contracts. I think the bottom line is the body has to decide whether they want to be fair and across-the-board, help maybe 100 tribes or help whatever number is. Some of the tribes have taken an initiative and have gone ahead on this self-determination. I can understand what they are saying. But I hate to close the door on all the rest of them by giving those that are already getting this money and letting them keep it, and we have the $26 million to improve the base.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand. We did have the letter from the American Congress, and they asked us to fix it, and we tried. We added $26 million, but that is not quite enough to accomplish I think what the gentleman would find desirable. What we would find desirable would probably take $60 million. The only difficulty is we did not have $60 million.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I reluctantly have to oppose the amendment simply because, as the gentleman from Mississippi points out, there is a serious problem here. The difficulty is that if we strike the language, it will result in one tribe maintaining their level of funding while perhaps 100 other tribes will get a shortfall, or nothing. What we have tried to do is have equity in the distribution of the money that is available to the tribes to administer their programs and their self-determination contracts. In fact, in order to try to address the problem, we added $26 million to the Indian Health Services for this specific purpose. We are not sure. It may be that the tribe of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) would end up getting as much under the new system as the old, or possibly a little less. But the difficulty is that you have at least 100 other tribes that get a shortfall. I think in fairness to all the tribes there has to be an across-the-board distribution, rather than to give just those who happen to be up at the starting gate early. I recognize that they did take a responsibility for their own self- determination and that they were out front on that, and I certainly commend them. It is a challenge to try to be fair to everybody involved here. The administration, frankly, ducked the issue. If you look at the request they submitted to us, they took a pass on it because they did not want to recommend the money that was necessary to solve it. So we took it on ourselves in the committee, in fairness to the tribe of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) and all the rest of the tribes, to try to reach some kind of an equitable solution. I will say that BIA is doing this now. They try to spread it across the board to give everybody a little help. The bottom line is, if we adopt the Parker amendment we are going to shortfall probably 99 or 100 other tribes. I can understand the gentleman's desire to help his tribe.

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

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, it will also help us substantially in weatherization.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer these amendments on behalf of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), a valued member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and myself. The gentleman from Colorado, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Texas have worked tirelessly to find an acceptable offset for increases in energy conservation and have in coordination with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget identified excess receipts that can be used for that purpose. The amendment also partially restores cuts to the fossil energy research and development program. I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Colorado, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to offer amendments en bloc, which are at the desk, notwithstanding that they address portions of the bill not yet read, and without prejudice to further amendments to that portion of the bill that is pending.

Mr. REGULA. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, they ducked the issue. So it is not a question of privatizing, it is a question of trying to help all these tribes, to encourage them to do self-determination contracts.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 4193, pursuant to House Resolution 504, no further amendment shall be in order in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I understand that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) supports the amendment and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) accepted the amendment.