Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it would in no way affect the other amendments. We are doing this at the request of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), who would like to deal with the issue of NEA, is my understanding.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to move to page 88, line 8, through line 6 on page 89, for the purpose of making a point of order.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 4193) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, which we are about to consider, and that I may be permitted to include tables, charts, and other material.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. We kept our part of the bargain. We came with the zero.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, it is rather difficult. The Senate has dug in, the other body, and also the President made it very clear that a $14 billion bill, which affects a lot of things in your State as well as others, would be vetoed over this issue. So it is pretty complicated.

Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is a very persuasive teacher.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce my statement with a quote from the Indian lore, from the Native Americans, and I think it sums up what this bill is all about. I quote: ``We do not inherit this land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.'' That is a profound truth, and that is what we have tried to keep in mind as we have dealt with this legislation. I like to call this bill the ``Take Pride in America'' bill, because we can take pride in what has happened in this great land of ours, in the preservation of our great natural resources. Several members of our committee had an opportunity to tour some of the parks in the system this last month, and I think we agreed that we found great pride on the part of the people that staff these facilities. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would agree. He was part of our delegation, and saw that people in the land agencies are proud of their work and they put in a lot of extra time. We saw this in Yosemite where the storm damage has been repaired, a lot of it on time donated by members of the Park Service staff. I also think that the record of volunteers in the land agencies is enormously impressive, and something we can all take pride in. Mr. Chairman, 94,000 people volunteered to work in our national parks without any compensation, but because they care about the land, they care about the parks. Mr. Chairman, there are 112,000 volunteers in the Forest Service; 28,000 volunteers in Fish and Wildlife; 17,000 volunteers in the Bureau of Land Management; and we of course are talking about a total of 617 million acres of the United States, about 30 percent of the land area. We get a lot of foreign visitors. In our meeting with park officials, we learned that people come here from all over the world to view the national treasures, to view the unique ecological characteristics of our national parks, forests and other facilities. We have extended the recreation fee program for two. We will talk more about that in general debate. It is anticipated to generate $500 million over a 5-year period. This is additional money, in fact, and the public has accepted it. One of the superintendents told me on our trip that people often want to give more. They say, ``That is not enough,'' $2 to visit a park or $20 for a car load of people. They say, ``We would like to contribute more.'' The same park people said that vandalism has been reduced because people become stakeholders. We can take pride in that. We can take pride in the fact that as a Nation we commit almost $8 billion to programs for the Native Americans, not all in our bill, but across the board in many different bills. Now, this has been a remarkable success story. I do not mention this in terms of just today, but I want to say it is there because of the leadership over the years of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade). They are both going to leave the committee, and I think that is something we should note. I could say a lot about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and his leadership. I have served 24 years with him. We have been partners, and as partners often will, we may have disagreed on policies, but never in a disagreeable way. He served on this committee for 48 years, 20 years as chairman. Just to illustrate his leadership, I will give my colleagues a couple of instances. I remember the hearing on the National Endowment for the Arts when the gentleman brought in a group from Jessup, Iowa. Now, that is not exactly New York City; Jessup, Iowa is a pretty rural community. These young people came to our subcommittee and testified on how a string quartet had been sent there for a 6-month period, funded one- half by the National Endowment for the Arts, the other half by the local community. Obviously, this would not be a wealthy community, and yet they were willing to put up half the money to bring this cultural experience to their students. We had one of the students testify from Jessup about what an impact this grant, along with what his own community had spent, had made on the students in Jessup, Iowa. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) brought many examples such as this one during our period on the committee. Likewise, in terms of our natural resources, the redoing of the minerals management system was leadership that the gentleman provided. He really has truly lived and personified in his role on this subcommittee of the Indian saying, that we borrow this land from our children, and I know that he has always had a concern for it. Likewise, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), who has been a member of this committee for 20 years. He always brought to the committee a desire to enhance the natural heritage that is a legacy for all of us and has given us wonderful service. We will miss these two individuals a great deal in terms of the subcommittee and the leadership they have provided over the years. Also, we have had the thoughtful work of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), our friend who always brings to this committee intellectual curiosity. He always says, ``is this the right thing to do?'' and always I felt challenged as a chairman. Many times, after reflecting on what he had to say, I might disagree, but always he made a very good point in bringing a concern that he might have for some of the activities of our subcommittee. Well, we could spend a lot of time on the three Members who have done so much to contribute to the strength of our committee and to the good work that it has done. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will be missed from the committee's thoughtful deliberations. Finally, I have some of charts, which will illustrate what we have done on the Native Americans. I think it outlines it very well. We do not have a lot of time to spend on the various activities of the bill. I would say at the outset, we were given $14 billion-plus in budget authority and $13 billion-plus in outlays. We have tried to manage our resources carefully. In fact, we are spending $2 million less this year than last. And that in the face of enormous backlog maintenance problems, in the face of great needs to expand the programs within the parks. One item I would like to mention is that we have included the money to complete the Appalachian Trail, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a leader for many years. Here we have a trail that is over 2,000 miles long and, thanks to the gentleman's leadership and follow-up as my partner, our team effort, this will be the last payment in the Appalachian Trail which is one of the great resources of the trails program in this Nation, and it will be totally public in terms of its land access. I want to mention the recreation fee program in more detail. We extend it for 2 years, because we have had great support from the public, from the park leadership. Over a 5-year period, it will provide $500 million which will be used to enhance the visitor experience and will be used to deal with some of the backlog maintenance problems. In terms of management, we are changing the structure somewhat. We do not want any more Delaware Water Gap outhouse projects. I say that because it is debilitating to the public support for the parks. And, therefore, we need to manage the construction programs in a way that people have confidence in the continued leadership. Thanks to Members on both sides of the aisle on the Forest Service issue, we have eliminated the Purchaser Road Credit. This was always a problem in the past. This year we will not have any amendments on Purchaser Road Credit, because we took it out. I must say these things were something that, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) always called me ``a partner,'' and I likewise call him a partner, and it is just that we have agreed on that for good management. With regard to SPR oil, we are no longer going to create money. We are not going to go in and invade the SPR oil account and sell oil just to provide us some additional funding. And, of course, because of that, in part, we are funding this bill with a reduced amount of money. The ``crown jewels,'' the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Yosemite, are being protected. We are recognizing their needs. But also, I think in the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, we recognize the potential there for recreation. I would urge all Members to see the section in the report dealing with recreation. This is a new section, and it is a recognition that there has been an explosion of recreation usage by the public. We often think of the Forest Service in terms of America's lumber needs. But in reality, the Forest Service has the largest number of visitor days, and the reason being that they offer a wide variety of opportunities to hunt, fish, snowmobile, camp, bird watch, whatever the desire might be in the use of public lands. And they have 192 million acres in federal land. I think we have tried to have a responsible harvesting of fiber in the national forests. About 20 percent of the lumber used in the Nation comes from the national forests. And so I think it is important that we manage this resource carefully. We have vastly reduced the cut. About 7 years ago, the allowable cut was 11 billion board feet. We have reduced it to 3.6 billion, because we recognize the public is concerned about the environmental impact of heavy cutting. But I would point out that we are growing 20 billion board feet every year. So even though we might harvest 3 billion-plus board feet, we are getting an additional 17 billion added to the stock of our national forests. So this is important as we talk about reducing CO2. There is no better way to reduce CO2 than to have a tree, because it takes in the CO2, and gives off oxygen. And that is part of what the Kyoto Agreement is all about, to reduce CO2. I think we need to continue the expansion of our national forests. The BLM lands get very little attention, but they had 65 million visitor days last year. One-third of the Nation's coal supply comes from BLM lands. That is from the public lands. Also, they preserve a lot of our recreation, natural historical and cultural resources, and they do have a very broad scope of land opportunities. Something that I am very pleased to see happen is that our agencies are working together. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are consolidating their activities at the field level. They realize we all serve the same taxpayers, we all have the same mission, which is to preserve our public lands, and the public does not know whether this has a tag on it that says BLM or Forest Service. They just want this land to be taken care of. In terms of saving money, this is terrific, I think, that they work together. And, likewise, the Department of Agriculture and Interior are coordinating their efforts on the Joint Fire Science Plan. This is good management, and it is good for the way in which we use our public lands. Revenues, this is one of the few bills that produces revenues. Sale of the resources from our public lands totals about $8 billion. And that goes into the Treasury, helping defer the cost of providing the services that are part of our land usage. I have mentioned the recreation fee program and we are getting a growing land usage. One of the things that we observed when we were visiting the parks this summer as a committee is the pressures that are growing for parking space, for traffic management, for the use of the facilities. One of the things that we hope to address prospectively is ways in which we can better enhance the visitors' experience and avoid some of these problems of too many people loving their parks too much. We want to manage the parking problem. We want to manage the traffic problem so that the visitors can get the maximum amount of enjoyment out of their asset, the national public lands. We looked at some of the construction needs of our parks. Housing is one that requires attention so that we can give the employees of the Park Service, the Forest Service, and the other land management agencies, an opportunity to live in a comfortable way. We are changing the way in which we manage construction. Historically for the parks, the Denver Service Center has done this and their fees have come from overhead on the project. That does not provide a desirable accountability. So we are going to reduce the numbers of employees there. We found that there are 500 people at Denver, whereas the other land management agencies have about 25 people each. We are putting them on- line, so that their budget will be part of the line-item budget and will have accountability for what they do. These changes are the result of recommendations from the National Academy of Public Administration, who did an extensive oversight of the way in which we manage construction project. Again, this is an effort to stretch our dollars. Prospectively, we will require the Park Service to contract out 90 percent of construction projects to local architectural and engineering firms. Hopefully, we will get more efficient use of these construction dollars. I mentioned the Purchaser Road Credit, we have eliminated it. But I want to point out also that we have include $91 million for road maintenance and decommissioning. That is to eliminate these roads which are of concern to people. We put an increase of $6 million for road reconstruction and $93 million also as part of the road reconstruction program. This is an increase over last year, a statement that we recognize that these roads are important to the recreation user and we want them to be able to get in and out of the forest in a safe way. We only have $1 million for new roads and we provided $5 million for road obliteration. I think that is a positive direction in terms of those who are concerned about the environment. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned about the amount of board feet that come out of the national forests, part of our resources, which allows us to reduce housing costs. In terms of fire, we heard discussion on the fire issue in the debate on the rule, but we had put in additional money fire suppression and fire science so that we can deal with fire in the best possible way. There is a substantial amount of money left over from previous years, and I think we have very adequately taken care of our fire needs. $2 million from the Department of Agriculture bill has been added to this bill to help with volunteer fire companies, recognizing that in communities where they have volunteer firefighting units, they need a little help, and they, in turn, can help the forestry people in dealing with fires. And we had $21.5 million in fire assistance to the States, places like Florida. I think it should be pointed out that the Florida fires are pretty much on State lands, but nevertheless the Federal Government is helping as much as possible. On Native Americans, I was disappointed in the administration's request. They reduced the amount on Indian Health Services and had we funded at the administration's level, only 25 percent of the Indian population would have dental services. This is from testimony from the American Dental Society. We have tried to correct this gross inequity, and we have increased Indian Health Services by $147 million. And we have increased $50 million for facilities, clinics and so on and recognized our responsibility. Some of you will remember some years ago we transferred the Biologic Resources Program to U.S. Geological Survey and I think they are doing a remarkably efficient job of providing science to all the land agencies. We tried to meet their budget needs, as well. In Ecological Services of the Fish and Wildlife Service, we have included funding for the Endangered Species Act, to administer it. I hope the administration will come up with a bill to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. It is not authorized. It needs reauthorization, and I would hope that we can get a bill from the administration, along with others that have offered bills, to deal with this problem because we have to just appropriate in light of the absence of an authorization program. Energy programs. Obviously to meet the needs of the parks and the forests and the other agencies, we did cut back on the amount of funding in energy. And I might mention at this point that one of the things that we have emphasized in our programs is matching funds. We have said to those who want to have experimental programs in energy, for those who want to have other programs, ``Okay, we will put up a dollar, but you have to put up a matching dollar from the private sector, or from a State, or whatever it might be.'' Therefore we have maximized considerably the amount money that we have had available to do energy programs. Obviously, everyone who goes to the gas pump know that energy prices are relatively low. Part of this is the result of efficiency in the production of gasoline. I think the fact that we have low energy costs contributes very substantially to our strong economy. We have to keep this success going. It is not a given. We are importing over half our petroleum. And, therefore, it is important that we maintain the SPR oil. And I think it is important that we maintain the programs that will give a more efficient use. I was struck by the fact that for every barrel that is extracted from wells, two barrels are left there. And if we can develop technology to get at least part of that extra two barrels, we will tremendously expand our domestic resources of petroleum. Again, we have emphasized partnerships in these programs in terms of energy efficiency. We have increased energy efficiency funding 14 percent since 1996, and we recognize that energy efficiency is important in terms of using the resources to the best possible advantage. In terms of weatherization, we have flat-funded it. The Federal Energy Management Program has got an increase because, again, this is a partnership that has been very effective in working with Federal agencies. National Endowment for the Arts. We will have plenty of opportunity to debate the NEA later on, so I will not take time on it now, other than to say to all the Members that they will have an opportunity to vote up or down on whether they think it is a proper function of the United States Government to provide funding for the cultural heritage of this Nation, for the enhancement of it, for the expansion, for the education of young people in terms of what they have as a cultural heritage. We will have that vote, and I will mention at that time the fact that we have changed the NEA. We have six Members of the Congress that serve on the Council. We put a cap on funds that can go to any one State. Forty percent of the funding goes for set-aside programs for State grants. We have reduced the administrative funds. We have established priorities for grants for education, particularly in music. And I would point out also that the obscenity restrictions adopted in 1990 are still part of the law. The Supreme Court, most recently in the Finley decision, upheld these obscenity restrictions. And we have eliminated grants to individuals for seasonal support and subgranting. I think I can say categorically that there will be no more Maplethorps; that there will not be a ``Corpus Christi,'' as has been alleged. That cannot happen under the restrictions that we have put on the National Endowment for the Arts. And I think one of the Members on our side that has been appointed as one of the three appointees will have something to say on the functioning of this. Very briefly I would like to highlight the cultural agencies. We have funded the Smithsonian. We have tried to address backlog maintenance as much as possible. But what I really find pleasing, and this is the result of our subcommittee members working together, is that our cultural agencies are expanding their outreach. Secretary Heyman, from the Smithsonian, testified that their web site gets over 12 million hits per month from all over the world. People are benefiting from the scientific research that is done there, and benefiting from the cultural dimensions of this institution. In tribute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) have all been strong proponents of these programs. This wonderful, asset is more than an asset for the District of Columbia. It is a world asset because of the outreach that they are doing. Twelve million hits per month. Imagine how many lives and how many individuals are being touched by that. Twenty percent of these internet hits are from overseas. Likewise, the Kennedy Center has developed an outreach program called the Millennium Stage. They provide a free performance each day in the Kennedy Center. I think it is at 6 o'clock in the evening. Because we forget that the Kennedy Center is more than just the opera house and the film institutes. The Kennedy Center is a monument, in addition to other things. When people go there, most of them do not go to any performance, they go to just see the Kennedy Center. In fact, they wear out the carpeting with so many visitors, and we have to provide for that. And, again, these are things that were brought about under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) much more than myself or others on this subcommittee. Last year 130,000 visitors to this city, as well as people who live here locally, went to the free performances at the Millennium Stage, and at the anniversary in March, they had 10,000 people. I do not know how they got 10,000 people in that hallway for this Millennium program, but I think it is wonderful that these agencies are reaching out to the people all across the Nation. And I know they too have a web site where people can plug in. The National Gallery of Art and the Holocaust Museum both offer extensive outreach programs, and, of course, the Holocaust Museum was directly there as a result of the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois. I guess when it is all said and done, we know he will be sorely missed because he has been such an important part of providing a legacy for future generations. Over 23 million people receive services of the National Gallery's extension programs. They loaned over 150 different programs on the Gallery's permanent art collection. The Holocaust Museum has a traveling exhibition. They were in Canton, Ohio, recently, attracting an enormous crowd. Canton, I might mention, is in the 16th District, and many of my colleagues already know about the Pro Football Hall of Fame, but we do have other things. We have a great art institute. We have a great symphony. We have a lot of strong cultural enrichment programs. The Holocaust Museum brought ``The Nazi Olympics: Berlin 1936,'' to Canton. People came from all over Ohio and even from other States to view this exhibit. The Holocaust Museum has four traveling exhibits going around the Nation telling the story to remind people of how important the message is. This is a good bill. It is fair. We had input from every member of the subcommittee. We had the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois and other Members on the minority side. We had the challenges of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), did yeoman's service in solving the problem of the timber and the purchaser road credit so we do not have that issue this year. On balance, I would urge the Members to support this bill. And let me just close again with a quote from our Native American friends. This is repetitious but it bears repeating: ``We do not inherit this land from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children.'' And I want to say that the members of our subcommittee live that every day as we deal with the challenges of this committee. This truly is a bill in which we can take pride in America. At this point I would like to submit a table detailing the various accounts in the bill. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY98.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY98.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY98.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY98.004

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. The gentleman from Illinois is correct.

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

Mr. REGULA. Yes, that is true. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Interior, I do have the authority to require that the administration separate national park funding from the other units under the National Park Service. I am pleased that the gentlewoman from Washington brought this to my attention and agree that creating a separate category for the national parks will greatly benefit the ability of the public to understand what is happening. In addition, it will enable them to more easily discover that this Congress is committed to taking care of what we have in the public trust. This year, we have again increased the operating budget of the National Park Service. Under this bill, the National Park Service will receive $99.3 million more than last year. This subcommittee will continue to make every effort to spend the taxpayers' dollar wisely and exercise appropriate fiscal constraint in carrying out programs financed by the public. We will also continue to encourage the administration to do the same as they compile and submit their budget to Congress. The gentlewoman from Washington State has my assurance that I will make this request of the administration before the next budget cycle begins.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me say before responding that we have put substantial funding in the trails generally, and I am a strong proponent of trails. As I mentioned earlier, we, this year, thanks to leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) and past years, we are making the final payment on the Appalachian Trail, and I think it ends in Georgia, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. REGULA. That is, the glass is half full or half empty. The gentleman understands that there are limited resources available to the committee. However, due to the increasing population growth in Georgia, we will encourage the U.S. Forest Service to consider extending the Pinhoti Trail into the Cohutta region of the Chattahoochee National Forest.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are talking about open spaces on Federal lands too. And we are talking about all those millions of visitors that want to go to our Federal lands, and I think it is the responsibility of the cities to fund these programs. Most of them have income tax programs, they have other sources of revenue. And from what I read, many of the cities are doing pretty well and the States are doing well because the economy is strong. One of the reasons the economy is strong is because energy is cheap. Of course, the gentleman was not here, but if he had been here when we had these debates, when gasoline was $1.50 a gallon, he would understand that this is an unwise proposal.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, how quickly we forget. I can remember not too many years ago when people stood in this well wondering where were we going to get energy, when we had OPEC tying up petroleum, lines at the gasoline stations. We said, let us not let that happen again. We had a special commission meeting all hours of the day and night trying to address the problem. Industries closed down, hospitals and schools were suffering problems. How quickly we forget. We forget we sent soldiers, disrupted families, spent billions of dollars in Desert Storm to protect our energy supply, and now we want to take another hit at energy conservation. These programs result from the experience of OPEC tying up our energy supply. They result from an understanding that we have to conserve. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) not long ago was making a strong case for energy conservation. Here we have a bill that says, let us take another bite out of energy conservation to fund local facilities, golf courses. We remember when the Land and Water Conservation funds went to the States. It was easy money. It came from the ``Federal Government.'' So they did not worry too much. The State built swimming pools, golf courses, tennis courts. That is not a wise investment when we are threatening the energy security of this Nation. That is what this amendment boils down to. We have enormous needs in our Federal lands. We are the Federal Government. Forty-seven States advised the National Governors' Association that they have surpluses. If they have surpluses, they should be building the tennis courts, the swimming pools and the golf courses in their communities. We have $10 billion of backlog maintenance. This is the testimony of the administration. We have land management agencies that are trying to deal with in-holdings. We need whatever funds we can get to buy in-holdings where people are living in the center of parks and forests and other government facilities. Given the backlog of maintenance of $10 billion, given the backlog of in-holding purchases that we should make of $8.6 billion, it certainly makes absolutely no sense to take money out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We do not have enough. See that stack of three looseleaf notebooks? They represent requests from Members of this body, some 2,000 letters we received, many of them are multiple, of course, from Members saying, buy this land, do this project. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) is here, and he hears the same thing over in the Committee on Resources. We are already, woefully short of the funds that we need to meet the needs brought to our attention by Members in testimony. We had an entire day of Members testifying in front of our committee about the needs in their districts on Federal programs, and 47 States with surpluses, and we are proposing to give them money to build golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools? Forget it. And to take it out of energy conservation?

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think while this is a noble cause, and while it would be nice if we had the money, we do not. We do not have the money to meet the Federal responsibility. We do not have the money to do the backlog. We do not have the money to buy the in-holdings. We do not have enough money to meet Federal needs, as evidenced by those hundreds of requests from all of my colleagues for additional programs. If we had a great amount of money, it would be different. If we had energy security, it would be different. If we had a stable Middle East, which is an enormous source of petroleum, it would be different. But I hope we have learned our lessons in the past, and I would strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. REGULA. Yes, it is. As the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, there are many competing demands on the limited funds provided in this bill, and I feel that we have done as well as we could. However, I certainly recognize the importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, particularly in meeting the need for purchase of in- holdings and in meeting ongoing acquisition needs, as well as its importance to many Members of this body who support projects in their district. Here is an example, all three of these are Member projects letters. While we cannot meet every request, the subcommittee will certainly strive to work with the Senate to reach a more adequate funding level in conference. And let me say parenthetically that we imposed moratoria on a great deal of offshore drilling which, of course, substantially reduced the flow of money into the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota is correct in his understanding. Recognizing the level of commitment on the part of the State of Minnesota and the community of Wabasha, as well as the national interests served by this center, I will work with the gentleman from Minnesota in his efforts to include supportive language in a statement of managers to accompany the conference report on the Interior bill.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 55, line 14, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.