Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

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

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we get the facts out. The committee has heard all of this and we made a balanced judgment. We already have $265 million in that account for efficiency from prior years that is unspent. You add that to the fact that in our bill efficiency gets twice as much as fossil research. With the $265 million that is unspent, energy efficiency would have three times as much as fossil. We need balance. Obviously the committee does not quarrel with efficiency, or we would not have given double the amount of money to efficiency that we gave to fossil. But, on the other hand, we want to have some security. We are spending $200 million a year on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the oil that is there. Why? To be secure from oil shortfalls from the Middle East. We fought a war called Desert Storm. Do you think we would have been there had there not been oil under the desert? No way. So there are a lot of factors that have to be considered. Obviously efficiency is important, but security is also important. I am struck by the fact that for every barrel of oil we take out, we leave two in the ground. Now, with research on fossil energy, we will improve that record. If we could just get two barrels out for every barrel we leave in the ground, we would have a lot more oil, and we would be a lot less dependent on foreign sources for petroleum. It is a matter of balance. Efficiency is great, but I likewise say fossil research is great. Some of the money that would be in the Skaggs amendment and the Fox amendment would go to the big three auto makers. Do you think they need to have additional money to do research so they can make their vehicles more efficient? We found out that simply by mandating the miles per gallon, that we are getting the efficiency and competition from around the world that has brought that about. They do not need to have additional subsidies. Where does this money come from? For those of you that are concerned about the environment, it comes out of the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program. That program has enough problems without reducing their funding. Instead of taking money out of that, we ought to see how we can better manage the BLM wild horse program. It takes money out of the turbine program. Why are we spending money on turbine research? So we can use our fossil energy sources more efficiently. Anyone will tell you we are going to be dependent on coal, we are going to be dependent on petroleum, we are going to be dependent on the fossil sources. So let us concentrate on not only efficiency, but how to make fossil energy more efficient, in getting it out of the ground and making it available. The turbine program is very effective, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has pointed out. The other programs in fossil I think are giving us a better handle on resources. When you look down the road with a growing economy and a growing population, the need for fossil resources will be much larger, and if we do not put money in fossil research, we are going to become more and more dependent on other nations, other sources, for our security, because petroleum is essential to every facet of life. Therefore, I think it would be very unwise as national policy to not just double efficiency, but because of the $265 million in unspent funds, we would triple it. I think it ought to be 50-50, frankly. Fifty percent on efficiency, 50 percent on fossil, and perhaps we should have an amendment that takes some out of energy efficiency and puts it in fossil. Mr. Chairman, we have tried to strike a reasonable balance in the committee, and the Members endorsed this policy as we have it today. I urge the Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Vote for security in terms of our access to petroleum domestically, our access to the more efficient way to use our coal resources, and at the same time recognize that we have a balance in terms of efficiency. I think the bill is a common sense, responsible approach, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Skaggs-Fox amendment.

Mr. REGULA. I am aware of the gentleman from Guam's request that funds be made available for this purpose, and I believe that once such a commission is authorized, consideration should be given to providing funds to meet this need, along with consideration of other territorial needs.

Mr. REGULA. I am aware of the gentleman from Guam's concerns and efforts in this area.

Mr. REGULA. I would be pleased to join in a colloguy with the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) for a colloquy.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am committed to supporting a proposal to save the taxpayer money while protecting the lighthouse. I am currently working with other Appropriations Committee members to provide the appropriate money necessary for the construction of the fourth groin during the conference committee.

Mr. REGULA. The subcommittee has not taken an official stance. However, the subcommittee believes the historical structure can be saved in a more cost-effective way than relocating it inland.

Mr. REGULA. As the gentleman from Colorado pointed out, there are many competing demands on the limited funds provided in this bill. I feel we have done as well as we could. However, I recognize the importance of the National Black Footed Ferret Conservation Center in recovering endangered species as well as its importance to public education. While we cannot meet every request, I assure the gentleman that I will keep his concerns in mind as we reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills in conference.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, for the Members that are asking, it is our plan to roll votes until 5:30. At that time we will catch up whatever amendments would be pending and we may have to rise for a suspension that has to be done today. When we reconvene, we will then roll votes again until 8, or let us say 8:30. Hopefully if everybody works at it, I think we can finish this bill today. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for a colloquy at this point.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear the reforms that have been instituted in the past couple of years. They are listed here, and in addition, there are some others. First of all, we now have six Members of our Congress, three House, three Senate, that serve on the Arts Council: The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) from the House; Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Collins and Mr. Durbin from the Senate. We put a 15 percent cap on funds that any one State may receive in order to ensure a more equitable distribution. We also added a requirement that 40 percent of the funds must go for State grants and set-aside programs. We put in a requirement that there would be a reduction of administrative funds, and we provided authority for the NEA to solicit and invest private funds. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned earlier one of the agreements. We have implemented that agreement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) mentioned about one city getting too much and we put restrictions on this, to broaden it all across America. In response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), in this year's bill there is the establishment of a priority for grants for education for underserved populations and community music, and I mentioned earlier Jessup, Iowa had a group out there. They paid half for this, this small community, the NEA paid half, and they had a string quartet that spent 6 months with students in Jessup. In 1996 Congress eliminated grants to individuals, seasonal support and subgranting so that we would not have a repetition of what happened in Minneapolis. These reforms have had a strong impact on the organization and the kind of grants it supports. In addition, Senator Helms put obscenity restrictions in the NEA legislation in 1990, and just recently the United States Supreme Court upheld these restrictions in the Finley case as being constitutional. So I just want to be sure that we are recognizing the enormous changes that have been made in the NEA.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has said we have heard from the manufacturers of tennis rackets, from the manufacturers of basketballs, tennis balls, guns, you name it, all these sporting goods outfits. Now we are going to hear from the people that work in the parks, that work in the forests, that work in the fish and wildlife, that work in BLM, and I am going to speak for them. The gentleman is asking them to fix the roof in their spare time. He is asking them to go out and repair bridges in their spare time. We saw that when we were out in Yosemite. The employees told us ``we did a lot of the work here to offset the damage from the big flood ourselves in our free time.'' We had oversight hearings this year. We have $10 billion, not million, $10 billion of backlog maintenance. That is not my number. That is a number from the Director of the parks, from the Director of the Forest Service, from the Directors of the Fish and Wildlife Services, and from BLM, $10 billion of maintenance left undone. One of the people testified that, for every dollar of maintenance that is neglected, it costs $5 down the road. Let us not take money out of these programs. If we have extra money, let us address the backlog maintenance. Let us not worry about manufacturers of tennis rackets or baseball bats. That is what UPARR is. Build tennis courts. Build baseball fields. It is nice. But 47 States have surpluses. It is about time for them to come into this program. Let the States work with the local communities to provide these recreational facilities. I have not had any State offer money to deal with backlog maintenance on Federal lands. If you want to take care of those precious crown jewels that we keep talking about, we need any extra money that we have to be spent on backlog maintenance. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's point. Frankly, since the gentleman mentioned it, I am going to take a quick look at that and see if we cannot get that $80 million to put into backlog maintenance. I think that is a wonderful idea.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I just want to comment in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the points that he makes. We have increased the Everglades restoration effort up to $20 million. Park Operations are up $99 million, which is the administration's request. The Bureau of Land Management is up $20 million. These are all increases. BIA tribal priority allocations are up $14 million. The National Wildlife Refuge account is up $18 million. This is all over last year's bill. BIA education and law enforcement, $20 million. In the Indian Health Services, where the administration was requesting less than last year, we have increased it $147 million. We have fully funded wildland fire fighting. I think the steps that we have taken in management with the Denver Service Center will allow us to have additional funds in the future for construction. So I am simply saying it may not be perfect by some definitions, but we have made a lot of very substantial increases and improvements over management in the past years.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman, but I would point out, we came to the floor of the House from the committee with zero funding 3 years in a row; 1997 and 1998 and this year would have been zero had there not been an amendment in the full committee supported by some Republicans. We got to the Senate for a conference on the bill, and the Senate made it very clear that they were not bound by any agreement made by the House.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think the woman the gentleman was thinking of was Frances Bolton.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. I understand. I think he has some legitimate concerns, and I had not really said particularly who should offer the amendment. My mission was to get a clean vote so we would know where 435 Members of this House stood on the basic issue, and, that is, Is it the government's role to fund the NEA? With all the restrictions, we have put on the NEA, most recently the original Senate amendment on obscenity upheld by the Supreme Court last month, plus the fact that we have three Members of the House and three of the Senate sitting on the National Council. I know that a couple of these Members are not very big fans of the arts, to say the least. So we have worked out the arrangement to come to the floor with zero funding, and I think in good faith the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered the amendment in the full committee, not being sure that this agreement would stick in the House. That is what brought us to where we are today. We are going to have the clean vote on the NEA. Let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there is a difference. Had the gentleman from Wisconsin's language been given a waiver, we would have had a series of amendments from this side, to cut the NEA by 2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent. The gentleman from Illinois and I went through that before, with attempts made to cuts it, and then obviously an amendment to take it out completely. What the Committee on Rules has done here is something unique, to give us that clean vote that the gentleman from Illinois and I had agreed was an important element of all this, and, the rule provides for this vote. This makes it different than the Obey amendment, since there can be no amendments to the amendment putting the money back in. That is a different dynamic than would have been the case had there been a waiver on the Obey language. So I think this is an important difference. I think given all those circumstances, I hope my friends will not push the issue on the previous question, that they will support the rule. Other than that issue and it is clear from the discussion this morning, that is the issue in many respects because most of the statements here have been directed to the NEA rather than the merits or demerits, of the rule itself. We are going to have that opportunity. There are a lot of other good things in this bill. It is a very balanced bill, it is very fair, it is totally nonpartisan as I think the gentleman from Illinois would agree. We did not ask on projects or programs, ``Is this a Democratic or Republican program?'', we asked, ``Does it have merit?'' Because we had a limited amount of money. We had $200 million less this year than last year to meet the needs of what probably are the most popular programs in our government, parks, forests, fish and wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management. I hope Members will read the report. We have a section on the recreation on all of our land agencies plus the cultural agencies, the Smithsonian, the National Gallery, the Holocaust Memorial Council, the Kennedy Center, and others. So it is a very good bill. It is very reasonable in the way we have approached things. I think we have been fair in the allocation of the resources and fair to the Members. Most importantly we have been fair to the people of this Nation, because we have tried to preserve the jewels of our cultural heritage, as well as our ecological, our natural heritage. I would urge all the Members to support the previous question and support the rule. Let us have a debate on the merits of NEA. Let us have a debate on the merits of other programs and the way in which we have allocated the funds available to us. I urge both sides to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all I want to say I have been pleased with the debate we have had on this rule. I think we have had many different points of view expressed. I hope that the entire bill will be treated with the same courtesy and respect for the opinions of others. It is clear that one of the major issues in the bill is the National Endowment for the Arts. We have wrestled with this issue, the gentleman from Illinois and myself, for several years. Last year we went through a rather convoluted procedure to get to a final disposition. So I started out 6 months ago doing some missionary work to reach a solution on the NEA. I talked to those on our side who would like to abolish it, I talked to the leadership on the other side and to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). We finally reached an agreement that we would come to the floor with a zero funding for the NEA. There was an agreement that we would get a waiver on an amendment so to put the funding in and the Members of the House could have an up or down vote.