Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Illinois and myself have worked closely on this bill along with the other members of our subcommittee. I think we bring to the Members today a very responsible bill given the fiscal constraints. I would point out the chart that is in the well demonstrates that we appropriate a total of about $12 billion and save the taxpayers, save future generations $500 million plus the interest that they would have to pay on that money. But at the same time we take care of the things that are vitally important and that people care about in this country, our public lands, in many instances, the parks, the forests, the fish and wildlife facilities, the grazing lands managed by the BLM. They are the jewels of this Nation and I think we have a great responsibility to manage these facilities and this resource well so that we can leave it as a legacy to future generations. I would like to start by giving some little known facts about this bill. Let me start with the Forest Service. The National Forest System covers 8 percent of all the land in America. Of all the land, 8 percent is in national forests. The national forests produce 55 percent of the water for 16 western States. I think that is a significant fact. Fifty- five percent of the water that they use for irrigation, for municipal water supplies, for the many, many purposes, for industrial uses, 55 percent of that in the 16 western States comes from our public lands. Three hundred million recreational visitors to the Forest Service lands every year, 300 million Americans enjoyed these lands. Half of the Nation's ski lift capacity is on forest land. For those that like to ski undoubtedly if you have gone out in the western States, you have been on public lands. Half of the Nation's big game and cold water fish habitat is on the national forest lands. With respect to timber harvest, I might say there has been a lot of concern about the fact that we have been excessively harvesting timber, recognizing the importance of it for multiple use, recognizing the importance of timber lands in providing water supply, that we might be doing too much. But let me point out that we are on a downward glide path. We harvested 11 billion board feet, in 1990. It this bill today it provides for 4.3 billion board feet, almost one-third of what we were allowing in 1990. I think it is a recognition that the national forests have far greater value in terms of multiple use and in terms of our watershed than perhaps just for timber harvest. Little known facts is the Department of Energy. Fossil energy research focuses on cleaning up the environment and reducing energy consumption. We hear a lot about clean air and clean water and how important these are to our Nation and to the people in our society. Well, the fossil energy program is directed right at that need and the importance of cleaning up the environment. Low emission boilers will reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent once we develop the technology. I mention these things because during the course of handling this bill, there will be an amendment to reduce-- maybe several--to reduce our fossil energy commitment in terms of research, but keep in mind, any vote to cut fossil research, and we have already reduced it considerably, a vote to do that is a vote against the environment, it is a vote against reducing energy consumption. Advanced turbine systems will dramatically reduce emissions and reduce energy consumption while supporting 100,000 high-paying U.S. jobs and the export of 3 billion dollars' worth of technology. We hear a lot about the balance of payments. Again, a vote to reduce the fossil budget and I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] addressed it well during the rule debate, is a vote against increasing exports, it is a vote against U.S. jobs, against cleaning up our environment. I would point out also in the Office of Surface Mining in the bill, we fund $4 million for a new Appalachian clean streams. Again, an effort to clean up the water to preserve this resource for the future. Public lands, Interior and the Forest Service, are about one-third of the Nation's land mass. We manage it for clean waters and for open space and we try to preserve as much as possible the pristine values of our wilderness lands, the vast wetland and forests that naturally cleanse the water and the air and replenish the aquifers. But at the same time, Mr. Chairman, as evident by the charts up here, we are also recognizing that part of our legacy to future generations should not only be clean air, clean water, a land mass that can be enjoyed in terms of parks and forests and fish and wildlife facilities and the BLM lands, but at the same time, we are reducing the amount of expenditures. It points out in the chart that we are recommending $12 billion. While expending $12 billion, we are reducing spending by $500 million under 1996 and $1.5 billion under 1995. At the same time, we will increase national park operations by $55 million; national wildlife refuge operations by $18 million; native American programs by $52 million; forest health by $72 million; and Smithsonian and other cultural institutions by $16 million. While doing that, we cut $114 million from energy programs. We cut $25 million from Washington and regional bureaucracy. We are getting people out of Washington and into the field, and we are also moving the expenditure of administrative-type funds out to the field where the problems need to be solved. As can be noted from the chart, the $114 million cut in energy programs has already been taken. So let me again caution all of the Members, evaluate the amendments that will be proposed that would do harm to our energy programs. They are vitally important for the future of this Nation, both in terms of clean water, in terms of clean air, and in terms of reducing our dependency on other nations outside the United States for energy. I think if Members look at the numbers, they will realize that probably in terms of petroleum, we are importing over one-half of our usage and we need to become more energy independent. We have tried to maintain the programs that are vitally important to the Nation's future. I would mention the same thing in terms of being responsible to the native American programs. We have treaty obligations. We have rights that were generated in the historical development of Indian programs, so we have had to increase those by $52 million over 1996. We put the money in these areas: $10 million for tribal priority allocations, $10 million for Indian school operations, $20 million for new hospital staffing, and $12 million for health care professionals. I would mention these things, Mr. Chairman, because under our treaty obligations, we have a responsibility for health, for education, and for the tribal priority needs. We have tried to address these in our bill. In terms of forest health, and I reemphasize a point I made earlier, and that is that in the western States, 55 percent of their water comes from forest lands. A healthy forest is important to their future in terms of having clean water, in terms of having adequate water supplies. To recognize those forest health problems, we have increased by $72 million the overall program, $16.5 in forest health management, $40 million in wildfire preparation and prescribed burns, and $10.5 million for thinning and vegetation improvement. We have had $4 million for road maintenance and reconstruction and $1 million for Forest Service research. We recognize, as in the case with energy, that knowledge is very important, that knowledge in managing forests or parks or any of the public lands becomes an important element. We have maintained the United States Geologic Survey at last year's level because that is the science arm of the Department of the Interior. In terms of the Everglades, we added $13 million for scientific research because we recognize that we are going to embark on a major program to undo some of the great mistakes of the past; but to do that in a responsible way, we need to have good science. Therefore we, as a starter in restoring the Everglades, put a large increase in the funding for the Everglades research and science that will go with that. I think when we look at the total bill, it is a responsible, commonsense approach to challenges. We all treasure the public lands and what it means to the quality of life in this country, and we have tried to recognize that. We have avoided programs, starting new programs that have high downstream costs, because both sides of the aisle, starting with the President, are committed to getting the budget deficit under control; and to do that, we have to avoid programs, we have to avoid acquiring facilities that have big costs downstream because we need to continue this effort to manage the programs as well as possible. So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly say to all of my colleagues, I hope that they will give this bill their consideration. I hope they will take time to understand what we have tried to do here. It is a nonpartisan bill. When it came to doing projects, we have an even balance between Members on each side of the aisle. In the subcommittee, we had very little partisanship. We worked as a team to try to use the resources that were allocated to us to do the best possible job of managing this marvelous resource called forests and parks, and so on, in the way that is constructive for the American people and that we can be proud of as far as a legacy to future generations. I urge all the Members to give us the support that we need and deserve on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the table detailing the various accounts in the bill. The information referred to is as follows: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN96.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN96.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN96.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN96.003

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 10 minutes in opposition.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and want a couple last comments before we vote. Mr. Chairman, let me just reemphasize that the fossil energy research touches the lives of every American. It means jobs in the future, it means clean air, it means energy security. It is so vitally important to this Nation that we work in a partnership arrangement with the private sector to develop better ways to use our energy. We consume enormous amounts of energy in this Nation, and if we use it carefully, we will have it for future generations and at the same time we will protect our environment. We have $100 million in this bill for land acquisition. We have a problem of maintaining and taking care of what we have now, and I think it would be very poor, very unwise public policy to abandon our goals of clean energy, of clean air, of all those things in order to transfer money to the land account and thereby increase the costs down the road of maintaining these land resources. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the Members to vote against this amendment and support the good environmental policies of this Nation.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the fossil energy research is an investment in the future of this Nation. We are an energy-dependent Nation. We burn more energy per person than any other nation in the world. What we want to do is make it affordable, what we want to do is increase our economic competitiveness in the world market, and most importantly, we want to improve the environment: clean air, clean water, jobs. That is what defeating this amendment is all about. Mr. Chairman, we do not put any money in for commercialization. That is up to the private sector totally. But we do say that it is in the interests of the American public to have these things that I just described. Therefore, we are willing to be a partner with the private sector in developing the technology. Then the commercialization is something that is picked up by the private sector. Mr. Chairman, we have already cut fossil research by 23 percent since 1995. I think it is vitally important that we keep these programs going.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to correct this statement that we have not recognized the priorities. Certainly it would be nice to do a lot of these things. If we buy more land, it costs more money. We need to take care of what we have. I know the gentleman from California is very strongly in favor of a moratorium on offshore drilling both of the gentlemen from California. Therefore, they would diminish the revenues that flow into the Land and Water Conservation Fund for these acquisitions. Mr. Chairman, the vast amount of the money that goes in that fund is from drilling off of Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas, so I think if they are so anxious to have more money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, they should be out here supporting the lifting of the drilling moratorium on offshore drilling from California.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order since we have not yet seen the amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], a member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], a very fine member of our subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, in drafting the regulation, we did not spell out that the Secretary in effect has approval responsibility. So I think that is an important element that we should just bring to the attention of our colleagues in discussing this question.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman recognize that it is the Secretary of Agriculture that has to approve these sales that he is discussing in his remarks? I think that is an important point. It is the administration's Secretary that is doing it.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands of the Committee on Resources. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, that the debate be limited to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to the unanimous-consent request I would add an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] on telecommunications for 10 minutes.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we included $55 million in increases for the National Park Service specifically for operations and backlog maintenance. If our allocation had been greater, I would have recommended an additional $13 million for 39 specific park units recommended in the 1997 budget. These units, including Marsh-Billing, are either new parks or units that have experienced unusually high visitation or boundary extensions. Should the Senate include funding for this unit, either with a specific earmark or by providing for the $13 million program, I will certainly give serious consideration to supporting the Senate position. amendment offered by mr. sanders

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. In the administration's position, they say and I quote: Energy conservation programs not only work to improve society's energy efficiency, they also provide a successful means of pollution prevention. As the gentleman pointed out, not only is it jobs, competitiveness, but we are all concerned about pollution. These conservation programs do a great deal in reducing pollution from our energy sources.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct.