Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I know this has some attraction, but let me point out we are choosing in a sense whether we want to send the money to the State bureaucracy or whether we want to support energy efficiency research and development. Let me read from a letter from the administration: Notwithstanding that, we are concerned that the reductions proposed in the Parker-Fox amendment would severely compromise vital research and development programs, which have already taken substantial cuts, as was pointed out by the gentleman from California. As the gentleman said, the weatherization programs are good. We put $125 million into weatherization and state grants. Let me also add, because we have heard some tales of woe about the impact on low-income individuals, that this morning, as I understand it, the full Appropriations Committee approved the Labor, Health and Human Services bill that includes $1.2 billion for low-income heating assistance. It is not as if we do not have money to provide warmth for those who are in financial difficulties. We put $1.2 billion in to pay their fuel bills. In addition, we have $100 million in our bill for weatherization. So I think we are very sensitive to the problems of the low-income in terms of providing heating, because the total would be $1.3 billion. As was pointed out by the gentleman from California, we have already cut energy conservation severely over the last 2 years. These are programs that provide for pollution control, for clean air, for energy efficiency, for making automobiles more fuel efficient, programs that are absolutely vital to the future. If you improve energy efficiency, the LIHEAP money that we spend will go further in terms of home heating, in terms of the automobiles for those low-income people that need to get to work. In the long-term benefits to society, energy conservation research is vitally important to every American. It gives us independence from other energy sources outside the United States. It gives us cleaner air. It will give us more fuel efficient automobiles. It is not as if all this money is coming from the Federal Government. A great amount of it is coming from the private sector. This is a case of the Government providing a helping hand, and this is consistent with what many of our Members talk about: Let us get the Government out of 100 percent. We have done that. We have said on these programs they have to be matched at least 50 percent, in some cases more, by the private sector. Mr. Chairman, I think in terms of national policy and even for the poor that it would be much better to approach it the way the committee has. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Parker-Fox amendment. amendment offered by mr. sanders

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to point out to our colleagues on our side of the aisle that I have received a letter from 31 of the Republican Members supporting the $110 million that is in the bill, and I think in fairness we just want to make that information known to the Members on our side.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I hope that as you evaluate both this amendment and the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker], that you give some thought to the importance of these two amendments to national policy. Weatherization is popular. It is popular with the people who get to do the jobs, to do the weatherizing, it is popular with the State administrators who get to parcel out the money, because this weatherization money goes out to the State and the State bureaucracy gets the pleasure of handing out our Federal dollars. So it is popular, and it is billed as an environmental vote. But let me give you the downside of all of this. In the case of the Parker amendment on weatherization, it is going to hit the research that is being done in conservation of fuel. That has got to be popular, too, with the environmental groups. The technologies being developed will reduce pollution. It will give us fuel efficiency. It will clean up air. It will make our automobiles more fuel efficient and environmentally benign. Part of that money goes to develop a new generation of fuel-efficient automobiles, in partnership with the auto industry, and they are spending far more dollars than we are. It will give us turbines that are a lot more fuel efficient. Do you want to trade those off for putting some storm doors on properties? Long term, the conservation research program will be far more beneficial, in terms of impact on all of the American people, as opposed to a handful that benefit from weatherization. I know it is popular, but we are talking about national public policy, and we should be thinking long term. Now, the amendment that is before us right now takes the money out of the Naval Petroleum Reserve. We have decided to sell it. Well, if you are going to sell the house, you do not let the boiler and the electrical system deteriorate. You take care of the house until you sell it. That is what we are talking about here. If we take this money out of the Naval Petroleum Reserve, they will not be able to manage that property efficiently, and it will result in a loss of perhaps $1 billion in the sale of this very, very valuable property. Is that good management? No way. Keep in mind, we are the Board of Directors of the USA, and we have to make decisions that are important in terms of management of our resources, for all the people. I do not want the taxpayers of this Nation to be deprived of a possible $1 billion from the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve because we, here to get an environmental vote, decided to take the money out of that for weatherization for the next 12 months. Keep in mind that we need to take care of this property. We do not have a lot in here. We have the minimal amount to manage that property well until it is put up for sale, a sale that was determined by this Congress should be made. So I think in both of these amendments we are running the risk of very bad policy, one on Parker in the case of conservation research. We have already taken a big cut out of it. We should not take more or we are going to damage a lot of very important programs to the people of the United States. In the case of the Sanders amendment, we are going to potentially reduce the value of the Naval Petroleum Reserve when we sell it in the near future by many millions of dollars. Bad public policy. I know it has a great appeal to go home and say, I voted to put storm windows in for somebody or insulate the roof. That is all fine, and we already have $100 million in this bill. It is not as if we shortchanged weatherization; but to dump more money in it and, at the same time, get bad public policy, would be damaging to the long- term effort to develop fuel efficiency, to become independent of other countries. We are already getting half of our petroleum from overseas. This Congress may in the future have to vote again to send our military people around the world to protect our oil supplies. Members should think about that when they vote on the Parker amendment, and think about the potential loss of value on the Naval Petroleum Reserve when they vote on the Sanders amendment. These will be coming up. They are rolled, and therefore, both of them, each in its own way, has a real downside. I recognize, of course, the political appeal on weatherization. The administration said they strongly support weatherization but not at the expense of other energy programs. Let me say again, we have taken a real hit on energy. Let us not exacerbate the problem by voting for either of these amendments. Let me urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on both of the weatherization amendments. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment, and I have not seen the film. I have read descriptions of it, and I think it probably represents an abuse of discretion in using Federal funds to provide support for this. Obviously the first amendment runs to the right to free speech, but I do not think it necessarily means that in the use of public money that you can be careless in the way in which it is expended. I might tell the gentleman in response to his concern that in this report, the following language appears: This appropriation is consistent, we are speaking of the amount that has been appropriated for the National Endowment for the Arts, which is the same for this year as it was in 1996. This appropriation is consistent with the agreement reached on the floor of the House during debate over the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriation bill in terms of the proposed reauthorization by the House legislative committee of jurisdiction to phase out Federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts over a 2-year period. The committee has provided bill language to allow funds to remain available until expended and this gives them the flexibility to close out the agency. But an agreement was reached by our leadership to terminate the agency in 2 years, and this bill reflects that agreement.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have to deal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the native American problems. Let me read to you from the law of the United States. Title to any lands or rights acquired pursuant to this act shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the Indian tribe or individual Indian for which the land is acquired, and such lands or rights shall be exempt from State and local taxation. The point is, we should deal with this in the authorizing process. There should be hearings. There have been no hearings. The 557 recognized tribes have had no opportunity to present their case. They should. I think it is a serious problem. The problem of gaming, the problem of taxation in these places of business are serious problems for a lot of States. I would urge the authorizing committee to hold hearings, let everybody have their say, and then decide what the policy of the United States should be.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, am I correct in understanding that the votes will now occur on those amendments that have been rolled up to this point including the one from last night of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. That is the committee's position.

Mr. REGULA. That is the committee's view.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], the vice chairman of the committee, who has done a great job as a member of our committee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to my colleagues that we have funded PILT at the same level as last year. We did not cut it. It is $135.5 million. We are $12 million over the President's request for PILT. I think we have been as generous as we could given the balances that we have to achieve to get the deficit reductions. I know this is put in to attract a certain amount of votes, but keep in mind that we are at last year's level which is $12 million over the President's request. The energy account is $58 million below the President's request. I have spoken to this several times today and yesterday that fossil energy has been cut, and it has been cut dramatically in the last 2 years. These are very important programs. We have contractual obligations where we have said to private sector companies, ``We will put up some money, you put up some money to achieve innovative breakthroughs in technology.'' Energy is vital to the future of this Nation. You cannot farm those fields if you do not have gasoline that you can buy at a reasonable price. We saw the impact a few weeks ago when suddenly gasoline, I noticed out in my area it was $1.39 a gallon, up probably 20 cents. That is just the forerunner of what could happen. That is why fossil energy research is so vitally important to this Nation's future. Let us not throw away the long-term need to develop new and innovative technology in the use of energy that is nonpolluting, that will reduce the air emissions, that will give us energy independence. I have been over this record before, but it is extremely important in terms of this Nation's future for all the people. We would have to oppose this amendment strenuously.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is the committee's belief that we should avoid below cost timber sales on the Shawnee, but the removal of pine to restore hardwoods may be done at the lowest cost possible.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on the Judiciary; Committee on National Security; Committee on Resources; Committee on Science; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.