Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we recognize that the DOE is working diligently to revamp its codes and standards programs. I know both the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] have worked on this. This is a bipartisan amendment. We have no objections to the modest increases. I have talked with our colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker], who is interested in this subject. He advises me he is supportive of getting money into the States to establish their standards, and most of this increase would be to help the States implement the consensus building program outlined in the committee report. For all of those reasons, we are happy to accept this amendment.

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

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, those are nice sounding words. I was interested when the gentleman said he had overwhelming support. His overwhelming support does not include his President. In the President's budget he made absolutely no request for money for this program. His overwhelming support did not include the former chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. In 1995, the last time Mr. Yates served as chairman, there was no money put in this program, because even he recognized that these parks are a local responsibility. Our responsibilities are with the national parks. And with 369 units, we have our hands full. Let me point out that the State parks, the local parks, the tennis courts, the swimming pools are a local responsibility.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. CHAIRMAN, it is my understanding that we have rolled these votes. We now have found, and it is my understanding that we would vote these amendments before we go further into title II. Is that correct?

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let us look at the facts on this. We heard a lot about the problems in the parks. I would point out that the Inspector General in his audit report documented item after item after item, and that is before our watch. What causes these problems? The failure to administer these programs carefully; the fact that money was spent helping out private property owners and concessionaires. Here it is. What we are trying to do in this bill is to ensure that we manage these parks well. I said at the outset, we want to bring the same kind of cost-effective management to our services that we ask the private sector to do. Let me point out also that at this point we have just $2 million additional for this program, the Forest Service roads, whereas we have $55 million more in the Park Service. So we have recognized that. We have earmarked money for programs in the Park Service. It gets one of the larger increases in the bill, given the allocation that we had available. Let me also mention a couple of other things. That is that all this money on the Forest Service roads is for reconstruction; not new roads, just reconstructing the roads that are there. Why is that important? Any of the Members that have worked on a driveway or any kind of road that is not paved discover that if you do not take care of it, you get erosion. Pretty soon we get stream impact from the washing that goes on in these roads if they are not reconstructed. So environmentally, it is very important that these roads be constructed properly to prevent the impact on the streams and the adjacent areas. Second, and I have made this point in the general debate, our forests provide enormous recreation opportunities. They are multipurpose to the hunter, the fisherman, the camper, the Boy Scout, the bird watchers. All kinds of groups use our forests. In fact, the national forests have twice the visitor days of the national parks. How do they get there? How is the sportsman who wants to enjoy the outdoor delights of the forests in America to get there? They have to have a road, a reasonably safe road to utilize these resources. To say OK, this does not make sense because of below-cost sales, ignores that fact that there is enormous value to society, to people, to have these roads available for all of the recreational resources. There were over 300 million visitors last year in the national forests. I think to make this kind of a switch does not recognize the needs of those visitors, does not recognize the polluting impact of failure to reconstruct these roads. Again, we were very frugal in what we gave the road program as compared to what we gave the park program. I think it would be a big mistake in terms of priorities to adopt this amendment. I urge the Members to vote no.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's concepts are well-meaning, but I simply have to point out that this would take this account $4 million over what the President has asked for, and he has not been shy in his requests. This would come out of our Fossil Energy Program. We have already cut $63 million from the 1996 levels. I think in the two votes we have had on the Fossil Energy Program, it is clear that the majority of this House feels we should maintain that program to protect our energy resources, to protect clean air, to protect jobs, to protect our energy independence. While Fish and Wildlife obviously would spend it, let me point out that we gave this program, fish and wildlife resource management, $20 million more in this bill than we had in 1996. It is a 4-percent increase in the bill, while at the same time we were cutting fossil energy research by 14 percent. I do not think it is logical at this juncture to take another cut on fossil energy, which has already had a 14-percent cut, to add it to an agency that has had a 4-percent increase. It is a matter of balance. It is a matter of trying to achieve equity among the many responsibilities of the agencies funded in this bill. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would have to object strenuously to this amendment. Certainly I would think we would not want to go over the President's requests. We were within $1 million of that in the amount we put in the bill, and it is presently part of the proposal that is before us. I would hope that the Members would vote against this if we do have a rollcall vote.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to let Members know what we have in mind. That is, there is about 25 minutes left on this amendment, and then there will be a vote. Then we have two amendments that will be offered that will be accepted by the ranking minority member and myself, and we will voice vote those. Then it would be our intent to roll votes after that for a rather sustained period. This will allow people to have some idea of what is planned for the rest of the evening. We do hope to finish this bill tonight, and I think we can, if everybody works at it.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Let me point out to our colleagues that fossil energy research is vitally important. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the fossil energy research program is vitally important to this Nation. We are dependent of fossil energy for 85 percent of our needs and will be far into the foreseeable future. Fossil energy research is important in reducing emissions. We all talk about clean air, and here is a key element in the clean air program. It is important in reducing emissions into the environment of this Nation; it is important to having energy independence. As we well know, thinking back to Desert Storm, we paid a heavy price to maintain access to energy offshore. We have cut 23 percent since 1995 in fossil energy research. Most of these programs, if not all, are contractual relationships with the private sector, where they are being matched. Federal dollars are being matched by at least 50 percent private dollars. These programs are not to implement the use of energy, but rather to find better ways to use our energy resources. These dollars increase energy technology at the domestic level, and I think it is vitally important that we maintain our commitment to those private sector partners that have helped us in these programs and have committed their own dollars. Most of us depend on gasoline powered automobiles, and we cannot at this point give up that source of energy for the vast number of domestic automobiles, but we can find ways to burn energy in a more environmentally friendly way. Coal supplies are vital to the generation of electricity. We only need to look at the industrial consumption of electricity that produces jobs to realize how important coal is as a part of our energy resources in this Nation. For all of these reasons, and given the fact that we have reduced funding by 23 percent, it becomes extremely important that we maintain this fossil energy research. We will have a number of amendments trying to take out the funding that we have in for these programs, and we recognize we are scaling back 10 percent each year. But recognizing that we are going to depend on fossil energy for the foreseeable future, I think it is vitally important that we continue these partnership research programs to ensure that we burn this energy, use this energy in the most efficient way, that we protect our air, that we protect our water resources, that we protect the competitiveness of our industry, and I think to vote for this amendment is a vote against jobs, it is a vote against clean air, it is a vote against energy independence, it is a vote against the environment, and I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, just a footnote. I concede that we have reduced some of these programs, but it was land acquisition, construction of things that have downstream costs, and the only way we can save money is to cut spending. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a very able member of our subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the further consideration of H.R. 3662 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 455, one, the bill be considered as having been read; and, two, no amendment shall be in order except for the following amendments, which shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed: Mr. Sanders, regarding weatherization, 20 minutes; Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania regarding weatherization, 10 minutes; Mr. Parker, regarding weatherization, 10 minutes; Mr. Faleomavaega, regarding the red squirrel, 15 minutes; Mr. Hoekstra, regarding NEA, 10 minutes; Mr. Shadegg regarding NEH, 30 minutes; Mr. Klug or another Member regarding timber contracts, 10 minutes; Mr. DeFazio, regarding timber sourcing, 10 minutes; Mr. Olver, regarding funding levels for codes and standards, 10 minutes; Mr. Condit, regarding the Endangered Species Act, 10 minutes; Mr. Sanders, regarding PILT, 20 minutes; Ms. Furse, Mr. Porter, regarding timber salvage, 60 minutes; Mr. Gutknecht, regarding across-the-board cut, 20 minutes; Mrs. Chenoweth, regarding grizzly bears, 10 minutes; and Mr. Istook regarding BIA, 20 minutes.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Certainly I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman that we have taken out the administrative costs so that the entire $100 million we provide in the bill actually goes out to the weatherization programs in the states. So we have tried to address the very thing that he is describing, and in that process, we have, I think, struck a reasonable balance between conserving energy, doing the research that is necessary to do so, doing the fossil programs and weatherization. So my objection here is that we have already tried to get something that reflects priorities of this Nation in a balanced way.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I know it is very seductive to take the money out of conservation and put it into weatherization. It has a great appeal. But just remember this. Energy conservation is for all the people. The Energy Conservation Research Program affects everyone, because it means that we save our energy resources so that they are there for future generations. It means that we develop automobiles that will give us many more miles per gallon. Weatherization affects a very limited number of people and does not solve the problem. I think in terms of national policy, the conservation program has a far greater long-lasting impact, an important and valuable impact that will be beneficial to everyone as opposed to putting some more money on weatherization. Keep in mind we have already cut substantially from the conservation program. We have funded weatherization, it is four times greater than it was in 1977. We have the State grants of $25 million, and we have tried to have a balance. We have tried to say let us do the research that will develop vehicles that will go many more miles per gallon, that will save energy, that means jobs for the future, that will mean the ability to export our products and compete in the world market, that will be beneficial to the entire economy in the United States, as opposed to weatherization, which has a limited impact. We have done, I think, very well by weatherization in this bill, and we have tried to have a realistic balance between conservation, fossil energy research, and weatherization. I know it has a great appeal.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I think we short-change our citizens if we do not continue developing conservation programs, because in the long haul, conservation of energy will be vitally important to this Nation because of our great dependency on energy for economic growth. We hear a lot of people talking about economic growth as the solution to our budget deficits, to the unemployment, to our trade balance. To get economic growth, we have to get energy and we have to use it in a very efficient way. That is the purpose of the conservation program.