Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, what we anticipate doing here is having a vote on the Kennedy amendment, and that will be the last vote of the evening. Then the Sanders amendment will be offered rolled over until tomorrow, along with the vote on this amendment. There will be one more vote, and then we will do colloquies. Once we vote on the Kennedy amendment, we will be done voting for tonight.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would just point out that this is an authorizing problem and I think the authorizing committee should deal with it. We have a responsibility to deal with the national parks and we have a responsibility to deal with the needs of fossil energy research. We have done that to the best of our ability in a very balanced way. I think this amendment, while it is a nice thing to do, is not an appropriate response given the priorities that we have had, judgments we have had to make in this bill. I hope my colleagues would oppose this along with these other amendments because we have a balance. Let us not change that. It is not in the best interests of the people of this Nation to do so.

Mr. REGULA. I understand that, but the point I am making is that while he was a strong supporter in recognizing the priorities in several of those years, he decided that we did not have adequate money and that we should first of all take care of our national parks, and that is the point I would make. And, again, the President did not put it in his budget. These are local responsibilities. It is nice to do if we have plenty of money. We do not have plenty of money, and I do not think that we should trade the fact that under the fossil research program we can protect our jobs, energy dependent jobs and that we can protect the clean air programs that result from that. We can protect our energy independence. We should not trade that off for local tennis courts, and that is exactly what this amendment does. It says let us take money out of a program that has already had a 14-percent cut and add it to taking care of local responsibilities. Nice to do, nobody quarrels with that, but it is not the responsibility in this bill to meet those needs. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly oppose this amendment because I think that we need to maintain our fossil energy research program. I think that we need to let the local communities understand that it is their responsibility to build the tennis courts, to build the swimming pools, to do the local parks. I hope that my colleagues will vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe the gentleman is correct, we did rescind the fiscal year 1995 funds, but in 1990 and 1993 the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] had zero funding.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request and make a unanimous-consent request that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things. I would like to give the gentleman a gentle reminder that for 40 out of the last 41 years, the budget has been controlled by his party, and if there is a $4 billion backlog, I believe that that accrued during the time that his party was in charge. The second point I would make is that the president of his party requested $366 million for repairs and reconstruction of the parks. We put in $369 million. In other words, we put in $3 million more than the president requested. Why? Because we believe, and we agree with the gentleman, repairs and maintenance of the parks, all the functions of these agencies, is vitally important. We have tried to take care of that and address that problem. I just want to get the facts out on this.

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

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

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I would hope that Members would oppose the amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, if I am to believe the Forest Service, the sustained yield is greater than the cut, and therefore we are growing more board feet every year than we are cutting. The reason these numbers are going down is that we are recognizing the value of the forest for recreation, a high priority. There has been less pressure to cut timber. Just as recent as 1990, we were up almost to 12 million board feet, now we are down to 4. But these roads are there and we have to take care of them. The gentleman's amendment takes the money out of the reconstruction account.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to use this chart to illustrate how Forest Service timber sales have gone down. In 1990, we were almost at 10 billion board feet. In 1995, we were down here to less than 4 billion board feet. The reason for the roads and the money we put in is for reconstruction, not for contract sales, and the money that the gentleman is taking out for his amendment comes out of reconstruction. Why reconstruct these roads? It avoids siltation in streams. It avoids other environmental problems and, most importantly, it gives access to the recreational user. I reiterate the Forest Service has double the visitor days of the Park Service. These visitors are people who go out to hunt, to fish, to camp, the low-cost type of recreation. It is important that they have a decent road to get access to these facilities. Our forests offer a wonderful recreation asset and, therefore, I think it is important that we have roads. We did not put a lot of money in. We added, I think it was, $2 million, and we added $55 million to the parks. It is an equitable balance and for that reason, I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. REGULA. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], for yielding, and I would say to him that we consider the Everglades restoration funding, including land acquisition, to be one of the very top priorities in our bill, and I might mention in the bill, and I am quoting from the report, ``the committee considers this,'' speaking of Sterling Forest, ``this and the Everglades restoration effort to be two of the highest priority projects in this bill.'' I understand that the pressing need for land acquisition is outlined by the State-Federal Everglades Task Force, and included in that were the National Park Eastern Expansion and the STA-1 watershed project. It is clear that the State of Florida and its taxpayers have made a real commitment to this restoration project, and it is appropriate that the Federal Government live up to its responsibilities as well. I would point out that we have increased all other Everglades accounts by a total of $13.4 million, and most of this is for science. Finally, while I cannot support this amendment, given the limited amount of money we have for land acquisition, I would pledge to work with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the Florida delegation in conference to ensure adequate funding for Everglades land acquisition.

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

Mr. REGULA. Is it in regards to the amendment?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concerns and his appreciation of the pressures we are under this year. I hope that in conference we will be able to seriously consider restoring the funding and see this important project through to completion in a timely manner.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this. It is a good amendment. This program in southern California has worked out very well, and it has become a model for about 200 others, other programs of a similar nature around the country. We think it is a very excellent way of showing how we can get a partnership with private, local, State, Federal, all working together to set up a habitat conservation program.

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

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