Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this language would not be inconsistent with the telecommunications bill; that there is a provision for public comment, and I think that we should have language in the statement of managers that reinforces what I have been advised is part of that bill. I think what the gentleman is talking about is very important, because these facilities can be placed on our public lands, parks, and forests, grazing lands, wherever Fish and Wildlife facilities are, and I think allowing for public comment ensures that it will not be detrimental to the public's right to use those facilities. I would certainly think we would consider that in conference.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the Committee on Science. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to advise the gentleman we are always happy to save $13 million, and we are prepared to accept this amendment and congratulate the gentleman for his statesmanship.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] have 3 additional minutes.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, while I have the floor, I want to advise my colleagues that we are very close to votes on the four amendments that have been rolled over. When those are completed, we are moving toward final passage. So thanks to a lot of cooperation today, we are getting along in pretty good shape. Now, for the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], I would be glad to work with the gentleman on this proposal.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that before the Committee of the Whole resumes its unfinished business on the demand for recorded votes on the amendments regarding weatherization offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] that there be an additional 10 minutes of debate on each amendment equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself.

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

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

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the act said, and I quote: The scope and content of the documentation and information prepared, considered and relied on under this paragraph is at the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned. If I read that correctly, the Secretary has sole discretion to approve or disapprove a sale.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the committee is aware of the smuggling epidemic existing on the Federal lands within this region of eastern San Diego County. It is certainly our intention that the BLM and National Forest Service should accommodate Federal law enforcement agencies by allowing those agencies to construct fences and roads along our international border with Mexico. Further, please be aware of the committee's intent to strongly monitor the BLM and Forest Service toward these ends.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn], an excellent member of our subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have already done much better than this amendment proposes. We have cut the budget 4 percent from last year, and we have cut the budget 8 percent from the previous year. Just look at it. We are down $500 million from 1996. In 1996 we were down $1 billion from 1995. That is a total cut on very, very popular programs: parks, forests, grazing lands, fish and wildlife facilities, Smithsonian, National Gallery of Art, Kennedy Center, Bureau of Indian Affairs; all very important programs to people. And we have cut from the 1995 appropriation level $1.5 billion. If every committee did that well, we would be well on our way to reducing the deficit. And a very important feature in what we have done is not only have we cut $1.5 billion, but we have eliminated programs that would cost us money down the road because we want to put this country on a glidepath to a balanced budget. We eliminated, totally eliminated the Bureau of Mines. We were spending about $150 million a year on it. We have eliminated a lot of other popular programs because I recognize, and my colleagues on the subcommittee recognize that the way to get to the balanced budget is to do the things that will reduce costs in the future. That is why we went down $1 billion. Now we are down another half a billion dollars. The problem with this is it takes a slashing cut across the board. It means, of course, that for example in the native Americans' case, this would cut the ability to open Indian health services. These are treaty obligations that we would provide health services to the native Americans. Mr. Chairman, these are coming on line. We have the hospitals built, and we would not have the money to staff them. That is not good management. It would eliminate funding in the Bureau of Indian Affairs for children in the school system; 50,000 Indian children would be cut off from their opportunities for education. Mr. Chairman, all I am saying to my colleagues, this sounds good, and I know that what the gentlemen are trying to do is to replace the money that was lost in budget conference. As I understand it, they are going to offer this amendment to every appropriation bill henceforth. It just happens that we are the first one in which the opportunity has arisen. But it is a poor one to start on, because we have already done the job. We took the 4 percent this year, we took about 8 percent last year. We have been trying to do exactly what the gentleman wants us to do. We have responded to the House budget numbers, not the Senate, but the House budget numbers. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. While I understand the intent is good, it has a devastating impact on people, on people programs, such as the native Americans, such as the ability of people to access the parks. We have tried to do self-help. In our bill last year, in the bill this year, we have provided that the agencies, Fish and Wildlife, Forestry, Parks, that they can levy fees. We have worked toward partnerships on the HCP's in partnership. It is a partnership of State and local to deal with endangered species. We are pushing in the directions you want to go, believe me, as rapidly as we can, but we have treaty obligations. We have obligations to keep the parks open. We do not want people going out to Yosemite and have the sign hanging out, ``Sorry, closed.'' So we are trying to do a responsible job. I hope my colleagues would vote this amendment down, recognizing that we are making every attempt to address the concerns that the sponsors of this amendment have. We will continue to do so.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, first of all, for the Members, I would advise we plan to roll this vote and the next three for a total of four votes. We are doing this to expedite the bill and the time, so we can get finished in a timely manner. So there will not be any more votes until we have had three more amendments in addition to this one. Quickly, I want to emphasize that the language in the bill says: The scope and content of the documentation and information prepared, considered and relied on under this paragraph is at the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned. This was a compromise when this legislation was passed to give the Secretary sole discretion to determine what sales would move ahead under the salvage provisions. I think that is a great safeguard that should allay fears that some have and that precipitate this amendment. Second, here is a 2 by 4 that was sent to me. In 1989, this 2 by 4, per foot, cost 22 cents; 1995, 38 cents. Today, it is probably 45 cents. Now, what does that mean? That means that young people that want to build a home are paying double, almost double for a 2 by 4. It drives up the cost of housing and housing is vital to Americans. That is why it is important that we salvage this timber. Let me lastly say, I went out, I took a trip and went into a forest in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], and actually went up and looked at salvage operations, and they were working exactly as we anticipated in the legislation. They had devices to stake out the dead trees, which I was advised were worth about $1,000 to the taxpayers because that is the sale price of a Douglas fir, and that means that that will help to hold down the prices of these 2 by 4's, although this is pine, for the homebuyers and, particularly, young people that want to get into a new home. So I urge Members to defeat this amendment. I think that it flies in the face of what we have tried to do to help people and to salvage something of great value to the American public.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, so that the Members understand what is going to happen, we are going to have three votes that have been rolled. The first vote will be on the Parker amendment, which adds $18 million to weatherization and it cuts $18 million from conservation research. The second vote will be on the Sanders amendment, which adds $11.7 million to weatherization and takes $11.7 million from the Naval Petroleum Reserve. The third vote will be on the Shadegg amendment, which cuts the National Endowment for the Humanities by $12 million. Let me say to my colleagues if you vote for both weatherization add- ons, you would be adding a very substantial amount to this program over last year's level. I would urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on Parker and to vote ``no'' on Sanders. On Parker, I think that taking money from conservation research to put into weatherization is not a good long-term national policy. Let me point out again, I am not hard-hearted at all, but we have $1.2 billion in LIHEAP. This is low-income heating assistance. So the people who need this help will get their fuel bills paid, be it electricity, gas, oil, whatever is the case. We also have $100 million in weatherization, and under our budget constraints, I think these are very fair and very reasonable amounts. Energy conservation is extremely important to this nation's future. On the Sanders amendment, I think the problem there is we are going to sell the Naval Petroleum Reserve. It is worth billions of dollars. On the short term, the administration advises us that they will lose $14 million in revenues. So we are going to take out $11 million and lose $14 million. Not very good management, and we are the managers of this enterprise. Second, it will be detrimental to the value of the property which will be sold in the near future. To do that is not good management. To put additional money into weatherization, which already has $100 million, and do it in a way that is detrimental to the sale of this property which will generate billions of dollars that could then be available for these programs in the future is not good policy in either the short or long term. For this reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Parker amendment, a ``no'' vote on the Sanders amendment, and there will be the three votes that have been rolled over. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

Mr. REGULA. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, I have the right to close.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I know that this amendment is made in good faith but, as the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] pointed out, we have cut not 1.9 percent, we have cut 12 percent. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] talked about keeping faith with our kids. Keeping faith with out kids also means preserving the heritage of America, the parks, the forests, the public lands, the cultural treasures downtown, in good shape. That is keeping faith, so that they can enjoy the Yosemites and the Yellowstones, so that they do not have to worry about their safety or inadequate facilities. Keeping faith means managing these facilities well. We have tried to do that while at the same time saving the taxpayers $1.5 billion. That is keeping faith with the future. We have done it with a lot of hard work, and we have not only done it for now but we have done it for the future, by eliminating programs, by not building facilities that will cost a lot of money down the road, but we have put extra money in to fix buildings, to repair roads, to ensure that these kids have a safe environment when they go to visit these national treasures.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me say it was the Subcommittee on the Interior that created PILT. If Mr. Yates recalls, the gentleman from Colorado, Frank Evans, was on the subcommittee, offered the language. We did a little authorizing in those days. On our appropriation bill, we created PILT. It is a good program. There is not any question about that, and both Mr. Yates and I support it. We have continued to fund it on an increased basis year after year and we kept it whole this year, even though the President recommended a $12 million cut. But we likewise, as Mr. Yates pointed out, have been concerned about the energy security of this Nation. Admittedly, there has been money wasted. That is one of the reasons we are downsizing 10 percent a year. In terms of our committee, one of the areas we have taken the biggest hits, is on fossil energy. But by the same token, as we were reminded a few weeks ago, the energy security of this Nation at best is fragile. It is fragile because we depend on offshore resources. It means, of course, that our military could be at risk if we do not have access to adequate energy. But more importantly than that is our jobs in this country are tied, every facet of our life is heavily energy dependent, perhaps more than any other nation in the world. We have to find out ways to burn energy and use energy in a more efficient way. We have to find ways to use energy that is nonpolluting. We are dedicated to clean air, to clean water, to enhance our environment, to do that and still use the energy we need to provide the jobs, to provide economic growth, which is vital to a nation. If you read the literature, without exception economists say the most important thing we can do in the United States to address the deficit problem, to address the problems of unemployment is to have economic growth. Well, what does economic growth mean? It means using more electricity. It means using more natural gas, more coal, more petroleum, and yet at the same time, we want to protect our environment. We have made great strides. To say that the millions of dollars was wasted is erroneous. The air today is cleaner. The water is cleaner. We have automobiles that get 30 miles to the gallon that a few short years ago were getting 20 or less. So we have made great strides as a result of the money we have invested in technology coming out of this subcommittee, and we have tried to very carefully reduce those expenditures. Mr. Chairman, I think our funding for fossil energy resources is at a minimum if we care about achieving economic growth, while at the same time protecting our environment. We have had a number of efforts made to reduce our fossil energy. It has become somewhat of an easy target. Let me say, Members, that PILT payments in the future depend on a strong economy to provide the taxes to do so, and all of the other things that we cherish depend on economic growth and the clean environment we want. So let us not destroy what we have achieved. Many companies have invested a lot of money, along with the Government. We are close to breakthroughs. We have tried to be very careful in keeping alive these programs that we have contractual commitments, and I urge a vote against this amendment.

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 H.R. 3662, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the further consideration of H.R. 3662, notwithstanding the order of the House of Wednesday, June 19, 1996, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] be allowed to offer an amendment regarding the Pictured Rocks National Park to be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided.