Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York. I want to say, first of all, we extend our sympathy to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] on the death of her sister, and I think I speak for all the Members in that respect. I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] handling this matter for her. Mr. Chairman, we have over a million structures on the National Register of historic places, and all of them have a very deserved place in this Nation's history. But we have a backlog of $500 million in refuges maintenance which this amendment would further exacerbate. Mr. Chairman, this project is not within a unit of the National Park system, and what we have tried to do here in this bill is take care of what we have rather than starting new programs. The Park Service has advised us, in fact, that they cannot even spend these funds without specific legislative language authorizing the project. And as I pointed out earlier, we have a $14 billion backlog of maintenance projects. I will not recite all of those again, but even in the Fish and Wildlife Service we are faced with a $500 million backlog. And if we were to adopt this amendment, we would offset it by decreasing Fish and Wildlife Service resource management by an equal amount of $500,000, and with the backlog that exists in these facilities it would be a very unjustified policy decision to make this action. We had almost a hundred Members of Congress write to the committee in support of increased funding for the refuge system, and we could not answer a lot of those, we could not respond to a lot of those simply because we do not have enough money. So I think, as a matter of policy, it simply does not fit to take $500,000 out of the Fish and Wildlife Service to do this, particularly in light of the fact that it is not a unit of the National Park Service and in light of the fact that we have the millions of designated historic structures that have similar needs. Mr. Chairman, I respect the fact that Susan B. Anthony played an enormously important role in this Nation's history, but nevertheless I think it would be an unwise policy to invade the funds that we now have for Fish and Wildlife Service resource management, and in light of this I regrettably have to urge the Members to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the gentlewoman from Wyoming intends to withdraw the amendment or perhaps not offer it. We have discussed the importance of this project. I think she makes a very powerful case, and I have been assured by the National Park Service that it is a priority to address the problems she has outlined and it will be in the President's budget in the near future. Yellowstone is one of the crown jewels of the National Park System, and this is one of the unmet maintenance needs here and elsewhere in the National Park Service that I am very committed to addressing with the scarce resources that we have. I think she makes a perfect case for what I have talked about in the backlog of unmet maintenance. This is a classic example. We did provide $1.6 million in additional funds for operations in Yellowstone because these parks are getting great pressures from public usage. I hope the fee program will also greatly help Yellowstone. The parks get to return fee revenue now, and I know that that will be something that they can use to address the very problems the gentlewoman has outlined. As I mentioned earlier, the gentlewoman makes a strong case for what we keep talking about, the need to address backlogged maintenance. We are very sensitive to the problem.

Mr. REGULA. Were the Senate bill to fund this project and if the other priority needs for construction are met, I will give serious consideration to the support of the project. It is a good project and deserves strong support. I do look forward to working closely with the gentleman from Vermont to ensure the successful completion of the project.

Mr. REGULA. The gentleman from Vermont raises an important issue. The construction budget for the Park Service is severely constrained. We have to address the critical backlog of unmet maintenance. I mentioned this before. We have a huge amount of that. Because of our backlog of unmet maintenance needs, we have had to delay new construction and new construction at new units in order to help maintain and fix what we already have.

Mr. REGULA. I would be very pleased to participate in a colloquy with the gentleman from Vermont concerning this new unit of the Park Service.

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I commend the gentleman from Chicago for his concern for his community, and I hope he will work with the Department of Energy to address his problem. I have to oppose this because of the impact it would have on the BLM forestry program.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would only point out that these are small, very small companies that do this forestry program in conjunction with the BLM. These are not large companies. It is obvious by the amount of money involved here.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge the defeat of the amendment. I hope the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] will work with the Department of Energy in the urban heat island research programs, but it would be a great mistake of judgment to tamper with the BLM forestry program. I urge defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the committee does support urban heat island research in the fiscal year 1998 budget at a $700,000 level. And would I point out that the Department has proposed a cool communities concept since 1995, and the committee has directed the Department to pursue the program within the context of urban heat island research, which I think you are interested in. The concept of planting trees and painting surfaces light colors in urban communities to cut down on heat problems and create cool communities is a useful concept, but it is not something that I think requires a multimillion-dollar program in the Department of Energy. I have to point out also that the offset here for this proposed amendment is to eliminate $4.6 million out of the total of $5.6 million in the Bureau of Land Management for the Public Domain Forestry Program. Obviously this is a very important program, and this amendment would terminate the Bureau of Land Management's ability to preserve forests on 48 million acres of forest land. This amendment would devastate local communities that depend on timber and vegetative products from the BLM forest lands, and would result in the loss of hundreds of timber-related jobs. BLM would be unable to deliver critical services to local communities, including wildfire control efforts, and prescribed fire planning and control. BLM would be unable to undertake projects to reduce susceptibility to fire, to address overstocking in woodlands and commercial forest areas, and to do forestry stocking. Over $3.5 million would be lost in BLM timber receipts. Because of this amendment, 40,000 permits that are issued for the sale of vegetative products would not be issued, resulting in again an annual loss of $300,000. Obviously, I understand the interest of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez] in this. But to take $4.6 million out of a budget of only $5.6 million for the BLM forestry program would be a serious mistake.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended. The Committee on Appropriations filed a revised subcommittee allocation for fiscal year 1998 on June 24, 1997, House Report 105-151. This amendment would provide a new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee allocation and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. In addition, Mr. Chairman, section 205 of the budget resolution only makes the $700 million available for land acquisition if it is in a reported bill from the Committee on Appropriations. The budget resolution does not apply to floor amendments. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be ruled out of order.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just let me make a final comment. I would hope that the committee, in which the ranking post is held by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], would examine some of these issues in the interim between now and conference. Point of Order

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I thank the gentleman for his comments and I understand his concerns. With respect to the $700 million that was negotiated, I do not think anyone in this room was part of that negotiation, but the $700 million, wherever it came from, is restricted to land acquisition. The problem I have with this is that we are looking at this backlog of unmet maintenance needs of $14 billion. We look at construction projects, and we have heard of them today. Frankly, Indian facilities are a tragedy. What we have let happen to schools and hospitals on Indian reservations is a disgrace. There are so many unmet needs. And today, when the United States already owns nearly 30 percent of the Federal land, I do not think it makes good sense prioritywise to commit another $700 million to the purchase of enormous additional acreage. Before we start buying more, let us take care of what we have. Most people do not realize that almost one-third of the United States is Federal land. And on those lands and on these facilities we have this $14 billion in unmet needs, $14 billion of neglect. To go out and buy land, I think, would be a great mistake in judgment and in establishing priorities, which we have to do on this bill. Now, I would point out to the gentleman from California, he mentioned the New World Mine and the Headwaters Forest, but there is no environmental impact statement at the moment, there is no current appraisal, there is no habitat conservation plan, there has not been a hearing in our committee and there is no comprehensive oversight. The President told us earlier this year that they did not need us. They did not need the Committee on Appropriations; they were going to handle this under FLPMA by exchanging lands and giving the owner of Headwaters a building in Los Angeles and so on. Then, suddenly, they discover they need money. Let me point out again that priority-wise we have a lot of other things: failing sewer systems at Yellowstone and Glacier, unsafe access routes at Cape Cod, at Eisenhower, at Shenandoah, leaky roofs at the native American schools in Oklahoma, Maine, and Arizona, condemned kitchens, inoperative plumbing in Washington and Arizona in detention facilities, fire hazards, deteriorated dams and levees, endangering habitat and public recreation, erosion of water control structures, 100 abandoned mine shafts and the list goes on, all a great danger to the people of this Nation. Prioritywise, to spend $700 million, adding to the 30 percent of America we already own would be a serious mistake in the face of all these needs that face us.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.