Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I look forward to working with the gentleman to achieve clarification of this report language in conference with the Senate.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, consensus in this case means that all participating parties need to be involved in the rulemaking process. We are trying to hold the department's feet to the fire to follow through on its process improvement efforts and then to conscientiously avoid repeating mistakes it has made in the past. Some of these have included not paying enough attention to ways in which the burden on manufacturers can be eased, failing to incorporate real world market information into their economic analysis and taking inordinately long amounts of time to issue standards. Our goal is to make sure that DOE solicits and seeks to address the concerns of manufacturers which then have to live with these standards while successfully complying with the law.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I sympathize with the situation of the Santa Clara Day School. I, like the gentleman from New Mexico, would also hope that the BIA would give consideration to the school situation with any discretionary funds within school construction that may come available.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois. One last comment: If you voted ``no'' on the last amendment, this one is worse. The last amendment slashed the fossil program $134 million after we already took out $60 million. This amendment slashes it $137 million, three more million dollars after we have taken out $60 million. So if you were a ``no'' on Farr, you are an even more emphatic ``no'' on Walker.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, just let us get the facts straight here. I have a letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations dated May 7, 1996. It points out that the Davis amendment in the authorization bill, and I quote: ``the Davis amendment clarifies that authorization for these programs should be reconsidered if in the budget and appropriations process more funds become available.'' Now more funds have become available. So that what we have just heard about what passed this House last year is not relevant in view of the fact that we now have more money available. Second, I would like to point out a quote from the administration letter which says, ``a cut of this magnitude would effectively eliminate the Department of Energy's fossil energy R&D programs and limit our Nation's ability to manage its energy future.'' It goes on to say that ``fossil energy consumption will continue to supply 85 percent or more of the total energy consumption in the United States for well into the next century.'' What we are talking about is the energy future of this Nation. We are talking about energy independence, as was pointed out by a previous speaker. We now import nearly 50 percent of our energy needs in terms of petroleum. That is a fragile position to be in. The world is volatile. What happens to our industries? I can remember in the last 1970's that I had companies that manufactured plastics come to me and want a few barrels of petroleum products because some other things come out of a barrel of oil. Probably, some of the fabric in this suit has an oil- based derivative. So it is important that we have energy security. Second, it is important that we develop the ability to use our energy, coal, oil and gas, without impacting on our clean air, without impacting on our environment. What this vote is all about is to protect our environment, to move to more ability to maintain clean air. What it is about is energy security. What it is about is jobs, bottom line is jobs, because in this Nation, we are heavily dependent on energy in every facet of our life, of our industrial community, of our domestic community. Households today use far more electricity than they did in the past. We drive many more miles than we did in past years. Therefore, it becomes vitally important that we protect our energy resources, that we use them wisely, because they are finite, that we use coal, because it is a tremendous energy resource in this Nation. If we do what is embodied in this amendment, we cripple our fossil energy program. Let me point out, because this amendment transfers to parks and native Americans, we have increased park operations $55 million. We have increased native American programs $52 million. The committee in its wisdom reduced the fossil energy budget by 14 percent from 1996, a total of 23 percent from 1995. It is going down. To pass this amendment totally upsets this balance that we have achieved between the needs of our society for energy versus some of these programs. Obviously they are put in there to sound attractive to Members, to save more parks, more native Americans. Let me just reiterate, energy is vital to every person in this Nation. It is vital to our future. We want to be independent. We want clean air. We want jobs. Mr. Chairman, a vote ``no'' is for those things, a vote ``no'' is for jobs, clean air and for energy independence.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill. I hope the Members will take a good look at it, especially the amendments, as we go along. We will accept some, but we will have to resist a number of them. We want to finish the bill today, and we want to move along as quickly as possible.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have heard this song before. It sounds very attractive. We are going to take the money out of the roads, put it in the parks. We talked about 260 million visitors in the parks. Let me point out, once again, that the Forest Service gets twice, double, twice the visitor days of the Park Service. So if we are talking about providing recreation for the people of the United States, it is vitally important that we have adequate, safe roads so they have access to these recreational opportunities. I think that it is not a good use of the resources available to us to decimate the road program in order to put more money in the parks. Let me point out we have put an additional $55 million in the parks. This money that is being subjected to being moved is for reconstruction of roads. Why reconstruction? Because if we do not reconstruct these roads, you get a washing effect, gullies that end up silting up the streams. It has an adverse environmental impact on the streams, on the fishing, on the recreational opportunities. I think it is just a poor use of our resources to make this kind of a transfer. I have to say that we in the subcommittee listened carefully to the priorities of the various agencies. The Members collectively made judgments as to what represented a fair balance among the various needs that confronted us. We gave the parks a lot more money because there is heavy usage. But also, we gave money, provided money to reconstruct these roads that are absolutely essential to the recreation opportunities of millions and millions of Americans. I think it would be a mistake in judgment now at this point somehow to reduce the environmental protection of our streams that results from reconstructing the roads and also limiting the recreational opportunities of the 300 million people that visit the national forests. I hope that my colleagues would vote ``no'' on this amendment. Let us keep this delicately crafted balance that we have between the Forest Service and the parks and between the parks and Fish and Wildlife and the other agencies.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Let me reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, and simply say that the energy conservation programs are not money going to the Washington bureaucracy. It is going out on matching programs with the private sector that develop, such as the auto industry, to develop fuel- efficient automobiles, which is a great plus for the entire population. All I am simply saying, as I said earlier, is the conservation programs are beneficial to everybody. They are beneficial to economic growth and so on. Weatherization has a narrow, relatively narrow constituency and we feel that policywise we have struck a good balance in the bill.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think that speech should be given on the budget.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, I think the gentleman is directing his statements to the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we made these cuts because we do not want our children and grandchildren to pay for today's programs.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill that cuts taxes.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3662, and that I may be permitted to include tables, charts, and other material.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. I understand. If the gentleman will yield, we have not lost a father yet.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, just so that we keep the facts straight and keep this bipartisan, I want to point out to my colleagues that one of our Ohio members, Mr. Gillmor, is the proud father of twin boys, so we have a good balance here, and about an equal number of votes on both sides.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Let me just say that I hope all the Members will carefully review this bill. I think we have done a good job. We have been very bipartisan in terms of projects. There have been on both sides of the aisle projects that have been funded. The bill recognizes the fact that we have a limited amount of money, we have tried to manage our resources carefully. This bill is a billion and a half dollars less than in 1995. That is a billion and a half that our children and grandchildren will not have to pay in terms of national debt and in terms of interest on that debt. But in the process, I think we have taken care of the important things, and we will discuss that more in the general debate. I certainly would again urge all of the Members to look carefully at the details of the bill. I think working with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], my colleague on the subcommittee, that we have tried to bring to the floor today a responsible bill given the constraints that were put upon us by reducing the spending by the reduced allocation. We have tried to address the important things. Last year I talked about must-do's, need-to-do's and nice-to-do's. The must-do's we have done; added $55 million for the parks, for example. Need-to-do's, we have tried to take care of problem areas. We have done things like finish construction that was underway, put a lot of money in for repairs and maintenance. That is very important, and those are need-to-do's. On the nice-to-do's, we have to scale back considerably, but it is important. We also recognize the fact that the taxpayers foot the bill for all of this, and so I think on balance we have done a responsible job. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the rule. It is an open rule. Members will have an opportunity to offer amendments as they see fit. Given those circumstances, I would not see any reason not to support the rule. I urge all Members to do so.