Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Well, reclaiming my time, I think the width of the right- of-way would be determined by topography, by the soil conditions, and a whole lot of variables in Alaska. And I think that that is a decision that should be made. The original we had in the bill was 500 feet. We agreed, by amendment from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in the full committee to reduce it to 250 feet.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, would the gentleman agree, though, that they are entitled to the easement? Negotiations are underway. They are going to comply with the environmental requirements by the end of this year. Do we agree on that?

Mr. REGULA. That is correct.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) was talking about the same language we have in the bill. I would point out some things. The statement was made that they need time. Well, they have had since 1971. That is when the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was given and that is when this right-of-way was given--1971. The Secretary of Agriculture agrees that they are entitled to this easement, and both gentlemen likewise agreed. And in 1982, there was an agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture. So here we are, 16 years later. I think that is enough time. The Chugach Alaska Native Corporation has been complying with the appropriate environmental requirements and will complete those on schedule by the end of December, 1998. Now, in the full committee, the language was further amended by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) to include the following: The easement was reduced from 500 feet to 250 feet. Secondly, access was changed from private to public. And, thirdly, the easement must be consistent with all environmental laws. I believe the gentlemen over there expressed a concern that this easement comply with environmental laws, and that is incorporated into the language.

Mr. REGULA. That is correct.

Mr. REGULA. Right.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, just to advise Members, we will return to the Interior bill shortly. There will be no more votes tonight. However, I repeat, we will take all amendments tonight and stack votes until tomorrow. We intend to read through the end of the bill. It is important that if Members have amendments, they must offer them tonight. Tomorrow will be too late. This understanding has been worked out with the minority. Tomorrow we will only vote on the stack of amendments, plus final passage.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just want to advise Members that we are going to rise temporarily for a matter, and then we will renew our efforts in title III after that. We are going to finish the bill tonight. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I might say to the gentleman from Illinois, I am very sympathetic because Ohio's elms have been devastated by the Dutch Elm disease, which is an infestation carried by beetles. The gentleman understands that limited resources are available to the Forest Service for this purpose. However, I recognize the threat posed by the Asian Longhorn beetle, and we will encourage the Forest Service to examine this situation, along with other similar problems, because one of the things that makes our cities beautiful are the trees.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we get the facts out. I understand the concern of my colleagues who would like to have more payment in lieu of taxes, but let me point out that their public lands generate an enormous flow of visitors, all of whom spend money and pay taxes on the purchases they make which flow to the respective governments. Two hundred seventy-eight million visitor days in the Park Service, 850 million visitor days in the Forest Service, 30 million visitor days in the Fish and Wildlife, 65 million visitor days in BLM. Let me point out something else. This committee has cut fossil energy research by over 30 percent over the past 3 years in spite of the fact that we have become less secure as far as our energy needs. At the same time while we were cutting fossil research by 30 percent, we were adding 18 percent to PILT. It would be nice to have more PILT money obviously, but we have to strike a balance. We have to be less dependent on other resources around the world. We have to make our country's energy secure. None of this will mean anything if we do not have security as far as the access to energy. Electric utilities have made dramatic reductions thanks to fossil research. Let me point out that the fossil research is all matched. It is not all Federal money. That is the reason that the gentleman's amendment puts $20 million into PILT but takes $50 million out of fossil, because PILT spends out every dollar. Fossil will be spent out over a period of years as the research develops being matched by the private sector. This is not an unfunded mandate that we are addressing. That is an erroneous use of a term. This is giving counties money to compensate. These Federal lands do not send children off of the lands into the school system. They do generate an enormous flow of money from the visitors that come into the communities. Therefore, I think it is important that we keep the fossil programs going. EPA is proposing to reduce the small particulate requirement from 10 to 2.5 PM. That is .04, the diameter of a human hair. How are we going to get to these mandates, imposed by EPA unless we continue a program of fossil research? Keep in mind we have reduced it already 30 percent over the 3-year period while we were increasing PILT by 18 percent. In 22 eastern and midwestern States, the regulations will require a reduction in ozone and smog. How are we going to keep these plants operating unless we continue the research? Certainly, the private sector is committed to this. They match the money that we put into energy research dollar for dollar. I think it is vitally important to this Nation's future that we maintain this research in fossil. The new regulations are going to cost utilities $7 billion. You talk about cost to your taxpayers if we do not give them more PILT. They are going to pay it in the electric bills if we do not do the fossil energy research. One of the great values of fossil energy research is the fact that we are holding down the cost of gasoline at the pump. We are holding down the cost of electricity, items that contribute substantially to the cost of living. That is a benefit to everybody in the United States. We have the world's strongest economy today on a per capita basis. Why? Because we have cheap energy, because our industries have modernized, because the people in this country work hard and they work smart, as one Member said earlier. But to do this we need to support the fossil energy research programs. I do not think it makes good sense in terms of national policy to reduce energy research further. We already are cutting it by 30 percent over the past 3 years. I understand why the Members who have public lands would like to have more money for their programs. But nevertheless we have to strike a balance. That is what we have tried to do in this subcommittee. I would urge Members to vote against this amendment. I do not think it is responsible public policy in terms of the 265 million Americans that would be affected adversely by failure to continue a strong program of fossil energy research.

Mr. REGULA. I understand, but the gentleman from California is not offsetting. But if that money is available, we would like to get it and use it for public lands.

Mr. REGULA. I think that is a logical place to put it rather than to take money from our parks and our forests.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am going to suggest to the National Governors' Association that they adopt the Miller amendment. I think, with their surpluses and all but maybe a handful of States, 47 to be exact, they ought to take care of this. I do appreciate the gentleman calling to my attention this money that is available.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, would not the gentleman agree, though, that if we spend 3 dollars on conservation efficiency, for every 1 dollar we spend on fossil research, that that is a pretty hefty balance in favor of efficiency. They have to go together, because the boilers, for example, will allow us to burn coal, get more Btus out of a lump of coal, and it gives us more security rather than depending on imports. We are faced with 60 percent of our petroleum coming from offshore here in the very near future, and we do not want that to happen.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct.

Mr. REGULA. Yes.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, 30 minutes has been allowed in the rule.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, let us move on and dispose of this issue. Most of the speeches thus far have been on that issue, so I think it is important that we deal with it expeditiously. It will not affect in any way the gentleman's ability to offer amendments.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I am familiar with it, and I certainly will look with interest at his suggestions and look forward to working with him in an effort to keep the Elwha project moving ahead.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate the gentleman from Washington's leadership on this issue over the past 3 years. It is very clear that the gentleman is deeply committed to seeing this project through to the end. I hope we can continue to look for ways to build on the support for the Elwha project.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, yes, I will be happy to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we will urge them to do that. I do not know if the gentleman heard my opening statement, but I pointed out that we have pushed all agencies to coordinate wherever possible to gain efficiencies in the expenditure of monies as well as to serve the public better. So this is an example, I think, where two agencies can coordinate their efforts to meet the needs that the gentleman from Illinois has outlined in his remarks.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that yes, it is. I can assure the gentleman from New Jersey that it would be my intent, and I think my colleague in the Senate feels the same way, to spend these funds this year on high priority land, such as in-holdings, high priority land acquisition and backlog maintenance projects.