Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Yes. We feel those professionals from the IHS diabetes program who deal on a daily basis with the clinical and public health implementation of issues related to diabetes should have full authority, and all necessary resources given to them by national IHS officials to make decisions and administer these grants, after timely consultation with tribal leaders, which shall be completed by November 30, 1997.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss this important issue with a subcommittee member and cochairman of the House Diabetes Caucus. I understand that the gentleman has developed this colloquy in consultation with the Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. REGULA. Yes.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, yes, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], I have had a couple of requests for colloquies, and I would like to do those now so we can pace our time here.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of the subcommittee, a very valued member, I might add, for a colloquy.

Mr. REGULA. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the provision requiring an authorization is limited to acquisitions of the Federal Government that are purchased through appropriated funds. It would not restrict the acquisition of lands or interest in lands exceeding 5 acres that are received through donation, exchange, or settlements with the Federal Government. For example, this provision would not restrict the Federal Government from enlarging ownership of the Headwaters Forest as a result of settlement involving the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, yes, that is my understanding of the language.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I will be pleased to work with the gentleman from Washington to monitor the provision's implementation.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure Members that are watching this that we are going to stay on schedule and we are going to be done with this before 2 p.m. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my staff and especially Barbara Wainman. Barbara has been with me 17 years working with Interior matters, and she will be leaving us. This is her last time on this, and we very much appreciate what she has done. This truly is a ``Take Pride in America'' bill, as I mentioned this morning. It does a lot of very positive things for the environment, for the culture of this Nation, for the enjoyment of our parks and our forests, and just a lot of positive things. Mr. Speaker, three points: It is $400 million less than last year, if we take out the 700 special amount, so we are managing very carefully yet we are getting a lot accomplished. Second, my colleagues heard the colloquies on the forest issue, and I think it is clear that there is latitude in the forest planning that will meet the needs. Third, on the arts issue, we have constrained the NEA as much as possible in light of the Senate action, and I think all in all the Members should support this bill. It is something I believe we can point to with pride. When Members come over to vote, if they are interested, we have all the sheets about what is contained in the bill. I want to take this opportunity to clarify that the funding provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for habitat conservation planning for the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse applies to four counties in Colorado. These mice range over four counties in Colorado and two counties in Wyoming. However, they are on private land in Colorado and on Federal land in Wyoming. The Habitat Conservation Plan only applies to the private lands in Colorado. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24OC97.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24OC97.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24OC97.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24OC97.003

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 277, I call up the conference report on the bill [H.R. 2107) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 conference report to accompany H.R. 2107, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is the rule on the conference report on the Interior bill. I would urge all Members before we vote on the rule to take a good look at this bill. A lot of groups have worked on it, the White House, the staff from the authorizing committees of both Houses and the Committee on Appropriations and Members from both sides of the aisle, have had input in this piece of legislation. Obviously, there are things in here that people do not like. There are a few things I do not support. But this is the product of compromise. In a democracy we have to arrive at an agreement on legislation that we find is in the best interests of the United States of America. I think this bill very well qualifies. I would point out also the breadth of the bill, that over three- quarters of the districts of the 435 congressional districts are impacted by provisions in this bill. I would urge Members to be sure that they understand the impact that this has on their own district. I call this the ``take pride in America'' bill. There is so much in here that gives us a reason to take pride in our country. Last night the new concert hall, not the new concert hall but the refurbished concert hall in the Kennedy Center was opened. It was a magnificent evening, and a magnificent facility. It is there because of this bill in the past providing part of the money and also money coming from the private sector by way of contributions, a tremendous partnership of the people of this Nation to put together a concert hall we can all look to with pride and point to with pride. They did something that I want to compliment them for doing. This was the opening night of the new hall or the refurbished hall, and they invited the people who did the work and their families to share the evening. What a great idea. Think of the pride those people felt that did all of the different things that made this concert hall, I think, the finest in the world today. They were there with their children, with their families. What a wonderful idea. We should do more of that. I think it is ``take pride in America'' as you listened to that great symphony play and perform and to listen to Vernon Jordan recite the quotations from Martin Luther King with a background of the National Symphony, a very moving evening. We can take pride in America in this bill because we address diabetes problems in our Indian population. It is a care bill. We have extra money in here because this is a problem for our friends in the Indian population. It is a take-pride bill because I noted this morning in the news that we have the highest percentage of home ownership ever in the history of this country, over 66 percent. That is one of the great American traditions, to own your own home. Part of that is trees, not a lot, but some of the trees that come out of our national forests, another great asset of America that is used to help build those homes. It is a ``take pride in America'' because it provides for Indian hospitals, for Indian schools. It means that the native Americans have a chance to break out, to get an education, to get their health needs met. I could go on at great length about this, but I think also it is something we can point to with pride that this bill emphasizes maintenance. We recognize that we have to take care of what we have. So we do not try to buy up everything in sight, but rather to say not only selectively buy land or build facilities, but also let us maintain what is already in place. We have added money for maintenance. We have added money for improvements, such as we had noted last night in the Kennedy Center. I want to address a couple of issues that are of concern to many members, because I think it is very important that we support the rule on this. First of all, the National Endowment for the Arts. I know this has been controversial. A little bit of history. In 1995, we did not have enough votes to pass the rule, so on the Republican side we made an agreement that we would provide 2 years of funding and then eliminate all funding. Let me point out again, the bill that left the House did not have any money for the National Endowment for the Arts. I would also point out, that in every bill since 1995, the other body has said clearly, we do not agree with this, we are not going to be bound by anything the House does, and we are going to continue to put in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. When we got into conference, the Members from the other body insisted on their numbers. I would also point out at this juncture that the total amount of money here is far less than it has been historically. I think at one point we were up around $170 million or more for the NEA. This bill has about $98 million. If we take into account inflation, it is about half of what it used to be. It is almost $40 million less than the President requested. But, also, in view of the Senate's insistence on their position, we put in conditions restricting the way this money would be expended. First of all, we provide, and this is a suggestion from the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], and I think a good one, that there be three Members of each House on the board. We reduce the number of public Members from 26 to 14, add 6 Members of the House and Senate, just as we do with the Kennedy Center and with the Smithsonian. I think that is a very important element. It gives us oversight on a daily basis of the NEA. We also recognize that the States have done an outstanding job, so we provide that instead of the States getting only 34 percent of the money, they will now get 40 percent of the money. We also provide that no State can get more than 15 percent of the total available to the States. We want to spread this across the Nation. We provide that grants have to be made to companies that are not professional. Under the rules of the NEA, historically only professional companies could get grants. We said let's make these small communities across the United States, where they have a volunteer ballet or a volunteer opera company, eligible for a little bit of help. So we have done that. We have put in a strong educational component. We say we want these grants to have an educational impact. I thought, as I listened to the National symphony last night, I just wonder if one of those people performing as part of the symphony might have been inspired by an ensemble that went out from a local community, as they did in ours, and visited the schools. They got a small grant and went out with the small grant, the financing, with an ensemble, to tell students what a symphony is all about. Maybe one of those people last night had that kind of an impact. We also eliminate seasonal grants and subgranting, because a lot of problems NEA has suffered was a result of their giving a grant which was then subgranted to another group or individual. For example, the experience in Milwaukee, that was a lump sum grant to the institution, and they in turn made a subgrant that we found objectionable. That cannot happen anymore, because we have addressed that problem. I could mention a number of other things, but I think those are the important ones. More money to the States, spread this over the Nation, get the education component in, and limit what any one State can get, plus, of course, having the oversight of Members of Congress. I might also add, we have reduced the overhead. We reduced the amount that can be spent on people downtown by $566,000, and there is another feature in here, many of my colleagues who object to NEA say privatize it. Well, we start that. We have a beginning. We give the NEA authority to seek private funds. I think this could lead to an evolution of private financing for the National Endowment for the Arts. I hope that in making decisions on this, that people will consider what we have done by way of restrictions to ensure that the NEA is focused on the cultural heritage of this Nation; that the NEA is focused on inspiring people to do things that are worthwhile, such as what we saw last night with the National symphony. The other area of contention is in the Forest Service area. I want to point out a few things here. First of all, we have one of the lowest allowable cuts we have ever had. Just for example, about 10 years ago, we provided for 11 board feet to be cut. This bill limits it to 3.8 billion, a very substantial reduction. I think this should make those of you who are concerned about the environment very happy with this in the bill. We also provide money to close more roads than we build. That is another very proenvironmental feature of the bill. We provide for forest health. We recognize that we need to have healthy forests for those that want to recreate in our forest, for those who want to enjoy the out of doors. As a footnote, I might say that twice as many people use the National Forests for recreation as use the national parks, and that is one of the reasons that good roads are very important, because we do not want a family going out there with their kids to camp or to hunt or to fish, going off the road. We do not want these roads pushed through by a bulldozer so when you get the first rain the road goes down in the local creek. So we want them built to certain standards. That is the reason there is an element of Federal control. We also want roads that when we have insect problems, disease prevention, fire suppression, that our people can get in in a safe way. So I hope Members will give some thought to that as you make a decision on whether or not to support the rule and support the bill. We also provide significant withdrawal funds for refuge maintenance. This does not get a lot of attention. But we provide money that they can build dikes, that they can make these facilities more accessible. I know that the Ducks Unlimited people are very supportive of the bill for the reason that we do that, and we are going to have the 100th anniversary of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the year 2003 and we are doing everything we can to make sure that the facilities are in first class condition. I think there are a lot of positive things in this bill that I would recommend to Members. One last comment. We have heard a lot about global warming in the last few days, and I think this is another very, very proenvironmental feature of this bill. People are talking about global warming. How do you address global warming? By reducing emissions. What do we do in this bill? Under the energy section, we have a $42 million increase for conservation programs. Conservation, burn less and do it more efficiently. Part of that is clean coal, part of it is the way we use natural gas and many other things. But that is the real world of global warming, and that is conservation. We do it. We have increased by $42 million the amount we can allocate to that. Alternate fuels, new ways. Fuel cells, for example, new technology. Again, this bill provides funding for a number of critical programs, but I want to point out again one feature throughout the bill, and that is we want matching funds. On our energy programs, on the technological developments, we require a match from the private sector, so they, too, have a stake in what is done, and the same thing is true in other parts of the bill. I think that this partnership approach is an important element in everything we do in terms of research. There are a lot of other technological items in here, weatherization, which again is designed to conserve fuel to impact on the problem of global warming. Just let me close by saying to all of my colleagues I am sure that you will find things you do not like about this bill. We all can find things. But we are one Nation, and, on balance, this bill I think overall is good for the United States of America. It is good for the environment. It is fair, it tries to address the problems that we have out there in a way, and we try to do it in a very economical way. That is the reason we were able to reduce the cost $400 million under last year, while at the same time increasing the parks by $79 million, increasing the forest by $42 million, and I could go on. One last feature I would mention is that we provide 100 percent of the fees collected at the parks, at the forests, in the Fish and Wildlife Service, at the BLM facilities, 100 percent stays in the service. It does not go to the Treasury. It used to go to the Treasury so there was no incentive. Now, when the management of the parks collect a very modest fee from those parks or forests or any of those facilities, they get to keep it. If you do not think it is great, just talk to a park superintendent about how they have been able to do things that otherwise they were not able to do because of this. I found one little interesting thing. I visited one of the parks out in California, and the people there told me that since they have had the fee program, vandalism has gone down. Why? Because the individual has got a stake in it. When they are paying something, they realize that there is value to this. They take better care of it, and at the same time visitation was going up. So this is a great policy issue that is part of this program, and this is a good bill. This is a good bill. Members should vote for it. It is important to all of us. It is important to the environmental future. It is important to the recreation future. It is important to the conservation, global warming, all of these things. This bill tries to address them in the best possible way. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for the rule and vote for the bill.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will summarize. There are three important points I would like to make. First, this bill has an initiative to combat juvenile delinquency. This is a growing problem in our society, and we recognize it by increasing the appropriation for this program by 63 plus million dollars. How does it work? It works very well in terms of getting out and developing partnerships. Recently the Attorney General of Ohio, Betty Montgomery, and myself participated in unveiling Ohio's OASIS project: Ohio's Accelerated School-based Intervention Solution. This is designed to establish a partnership among the State officials, the local officials, the schools, the private sector to deal with juvenile problems, and it focuses on early intervention, recognizing that the best medicine is preventive medicine, and if we can reach these young people early on, there is a good chance of helping them avoid trouble later down the road. This program is funded by the monies in this bill. Secondly, there is money in this bill to promote U.S. exports abroad and to enforce U.S. trade laws at home. The Commerce Department's merchandiz- ing export sales statistics from Canton-Massillon, which is part of my district, have increased 50 percent from 1993 to 1995. I think it indicates the importance of exports and ensures that these are done on a fair basis, that they are encouraged, and likewise, to prevent dumping into our own markets. Thus, it is important that we support the International Trade Administration. This bill contains an increase for the Commerce Department to ensure that the ITA will have adequate funds to ensure that trade laws are enforced correctly. The last item is the ``made in USA'' label. Some thought that this could be reduced to 75 percent and still qualify on goods produced in the United States. I think that is wrong. If it is made in the USA, it should be made in the USA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 1997 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations Act. I would like to commend Chairman Rogers and ranking member Mr. Mollohan for balancing the many different functions and programs that are funded in this bill. You have worked hard, Mr. Chairman, to accommodate many diverse and competing interests in the bill. One of the highlights of this bill is the initiative to combat juvenile delinquency. It is disturbing to note that since 1989, arrests of Ohio juveniles for violent crimes have risen 62 percent, and 20 percent of all violent crimes nationally are committed by youths under the age of 18. But, there are many solutions being sought, and this bill contains a $63.4 million increase in funding for Juvenile Justice programs to fund many of these programs. The increased funding is directed not only toward law enforcement initiatives to punish violent juvenile offenders, but also toward quality intervention and prevention programs to help our youth from falling into the delinquency trap. Earlier this month, I joined Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery in unveiling Project OASIS (Ohio Accelerated School-based Intervention Solution), an innovative new youth delinquency intervention and prevention program in Ohio. The program will provide intensive supervision for youth in grades 5-7 who are at-risk for increased delinquent behavior. Project OASIS, which receives funding from the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, represents an effective solution crafted by a Federal, State and local partnership. I continue to strongly support this and other programs that provide specific solutions that work in a particular State or locality to help our youth stay on track and finish their educations. Another issue of importance to north-east Ohio is the important work that the Commerce Department is doing to promote U.S. exports abroad and to enforce U.S. trade laws at home to ensure that U.S. companies have a level playing field in the global marketplace. In recent statistics released by the Commerce Department, merchandise export sales from the Canton-Massillon area in my district have increased 50 percent from 1993 to 1995. We are further told by federal officials that, on average, jobs supported by exports pay 13 to 16 percent more than other U.S. jobs. Therefore, I support the $9.5 million increase for the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration because expending exports, as well as protecting domestic companies against unfair foreign trade practices, are both crucial to creating and maintaining high wage jobs in the U.S. Finally, I would like to highlight report language with respect to recent proposed changes to the ``Made in the USA'' label made by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These proposed new guidelines would allow the ``Made in the USA'' label to be used on products for which U.S. manufacturing costs are as low as 75 percent of the total manufacturing costs. The Committee report urges the FTC to retain the current standard for ``Made in the USA'' which requires that ``all or virtually all'' of the product must be made in America. U.S. consumers should not be misled and U.S. workmanship should not be undersold. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and I look forward to working with the Chairman when the bill reaches conference.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2107) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Gutknecht]. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.

Mr. REGULA. Is it my understanding that this motion to instruct would in no way bind the conferees in terms of conditions that would be put on the grant? I know that the gentleman from Illinois has suggested we have six Members, three from the House and three from the Senate, on the NEA Board so that we have continuing input. There has been some talk about limiting the percentage that any State could receive and also no individual grants even for literature. Is my understanding correct that those types of conditions could be imposed by the conferees, and that this motion would in no way restrict our ability to do so?

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I have not had any requests for time at this point on this motion to instruct. I reserve the balance of my time if the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] would go forward.