Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves to be supported, and we should override the President's veto. I wanted to just get some facts out here in the little time I have left. Indian education is above 1995. Indian health is above 1995. The native Americans get one-fourth, 25 percent of this bill, about $3 billion goes to native American programs. I want to point out that we negotiated with the White House people, but they kept moving the goal posts. To show you how reluctant they were, they vetoed the bill, and then it took them 6 hours to decide what should be in a veto message. Normally you decide why to veto a bill and then veto it, but they were uncertain about what was wrong because they recognized that it basically was a good bill. This is not about the EPA, that is not in this bill. It is not about welfare, that is not in this bill. It is not about Medicare. I have heard all these things from my colleagues on the minority side. It is about a mining moratorium. We just heard a speaker say we are going to give away our mineral resources. The moratorium in this bill stops that, but the President vetoed it. He wants to go ahead and give out all these patents and give away our mining lands because without this bill there is no moratorium. My colleagues, we have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to open the parks. We have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to put 133,000 people back to work. We have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to open up 500 national wildlife refuges. We have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to open up 155 national forests. We have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to support the Indian schools, an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to welfare assistance to Indian children, an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to the opening of the Smithsonian, the National Gallery of Art, the Holocaust Museum, an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to retain the patent moratorium, an opportunity to vote ``yes'' to collect $8 billion in revenues that are generated by the Federal lands. I would say to the 89 Members that voted ``yes'' to override the President to help securities litigation lawyers, I would think that, at a minimum, you would vote ``yes'' to open up all of the resources to the 260 million Americans that this bill represents. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to override the President's veto and open up these facilities that belong to all Americans.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. general leave

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 the motion to discharge the Committee on Appropriations from further consideration of the veto message of the President to the bill H.R. 1977 and on the veto message itself, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, today we have an opportunity to correct a serious problem, and that is the lack of access to the Nation's treasures that result from the veto by the President of the Interior appropriations bill. It is a good bill. We worked hard on it on both sides of the aisle. It was recommitted twice to the conference to take care of the problems of the Tongass to satisfy the environmental concerns and also to take care of the need for a mining moratorium. Those issues were addressed, and I think out of the give and take of the conference and the recommittals, we arrived at a good bill, a bill that is fair and a bill that is nonpartisan. There are many projects that need to be finished that were in Members' districts, both Republican and Democrat. The parks, of course, serve all of the people of the United States, as well as do the cultural institutions downtown. I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that on December 20, 89 Members of the minority voted to override the President on securities litigation reform. That is a pretty esoteric bill, and I am going to borrow a phrase from my good friends on the other side of the aisle and say that was an override for the rich, because people involved in securities are pretty much well-to-do people; they certainly are not the average American. They found it in their hearts to override the President's veto on a bill with a very narrow constituency, a bill that will be beneficial to a limited number of people. Today we are asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in voting to override a bill that affects 260 million Americans. This is an override for the people, and I would hope that the 89 Members of the other party that voted to override the President on a very sophisticated piece of legislation, affecting only a handful of Americans relatively, certainly would want to do the same for the 260 million Americans that want access to the treasures of this Nation. Today we have an opportunity to open the facilities that Americans care about, to give them an opportunity if they come to the Nation's Capital to visit the Vermeer exhibit, one of the world's great treasures, at the National Gallery, which is scheduled to leave, I think, February 11, a very limited opportunity of time; an opportunity to see the marvelous exhibits at the Smithsonian; an opportunity for sportsmen that like to hunt ducks that are coming down the flyways and are stopping at the various facilities, one in Arkansas that I am aware of, the season I think opens or should have opened January 1; an opportunity for people that want to go to Philadelphia and see the Liberty Bell; an opportunity to visit the Holocaust Museum. All we need is for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or for the 89 that wanted to override the securities legislation to say, let us open up these facilities to the American public, let us open our parks, let us open our forests. What does a vote ``yes'' mean? A vote ``yes'' means that we can keep Indian schools open, it will provide welfare assistance to needy Indian children. A vote ``yes'' will ensure that essential services on Indian reservations, including health services, law enforcement, education, continue to be provided. What will a ``no'' vote mean? A ``no'' jeopardized the health, the education, and the safety of over 1 million native Americans. Let me say here that we added, at the request of the administration, in the bill that they vetoed, we added prior to the veto, an extra $50 million for Indian programs. This was something I know that the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations was interested in. A vote to override the President's veto will ensure the collection of Federal revenues. Most people do not realize that from mining, oil and gas leasing, and timber harvesting, we collect $8 billion, not million, $8 billion in Federal revenues. But those collections agencies, such as MMS, are paralyzed because of the fact that they do not have people on the job. We could very well lose a substantial amount of money. A ``no'' vote will jeopardize the collection of the $8 billion that are generated by the activities in this bill. A ``yes'' vote will put 130,000 Federal employees back to work. It will ensure that they can provide for their families. All we need today is for the 89 that voted to override on securities legislation to vote to override the President today, and we will put those 130,000 employees on the job as early as tomorrow. What does a vote ``no'' mean? It means they still live in an era of uncertainty. They have difficulty meeting their monthly payments. What will a ``yes'' vote do for our national parks? Some 369 national parks will open their doors. I call on 89 of you to help us open the doors. It will open 500 national wildlife refuges, our 150 national forests, the National Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian, our natural and cultural treasures will be opened to the public. A ``no'' vote will lock the doors, will deny 260 million Americans access to those things that they treasure, the parks, the forests, the fish and wildlife facilities, the National Gallery, the Smithsonian, the Holocaust Museum. A ``no'' vote is to keep them out. It is very important that the American public understand that a ``no'' vote today is to deny access to these marvelous facilities. What will a ``yes'' vote do for the American people? It means that they will have the things that they treasure. It means that they can appreciate their great out-of-doors, the public lands, the forests, the hiking and the camping areas, and these are a part of what we talk about in family values. A ``yes'' vote means that that family that wants to camp out in a national forest or a national park will have an opportunity to do so. A vote ``yes'' is a vote for the American people. A vote ``no'' is to say you are locked out, no access to the things that you treasure so much and that belong to all the Americans. So I say to my colleagues, the right vote today is a vote ``yes.'' If you can vote ``yes'' to take care of a handful of lawyers that deal in securities litigation, you certainly can vote ``yes'' to let 260 million Americans have access to the things they treasure, to the things that they own, to the things that are part of their heritage of this great Nation. [GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TH04JA96.000 [GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TH04JA96.001 [GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TH04JA96.002 [GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TH04JA96.003

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, very simply, today's Post carries a story about 40,000 people being laid off by AT&T. The other day it was reported 3 million jobs have been lost through downsizing. That is the reason this bill is extremely important. We need to expand our exports, open up the markets so that there will be new jobs for the 3 million people that have been downsized in the name of efficiency. What is in this bill that would affect that? No. 1, this cripples the embassies if we do not override this veto. It cripples our security. It cripples our communications. It makes them difficult to represent the United States around the world and to encourage the growth in exports. Second, the International Trade Agency is crippled, and it is the protector of our industries against unfair dumping, against unfair practices that make it difficult for them to compete. Third, it cripples the manufacturing extension assistance, which helps small and medium businesses to be competitive in the marketplace.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. He is absolutely right. As we see visitors being turned away from national parks, from the Smithsonian, from the National Gallery, what in fact the President is doing is holding the American people hostage for his own political purposes. The people who pay for these facilities, the people who enjoy these national treasures are being denied access simply because the President hopes to gain some political advantage. It is clear that if you look at the numbers, we have responded to these programs as effectively as possible, given the budget and numbers, and this message is, loud and clear, just spend more money, do not worry about whether it is managed well. The answer to all of the problems is simply to pile on the debt for future generations, spend it today, let them pay for it tomorrow. We vote here with a voting card; as I have said to people, it is the world's greatest credit card because we vote now and we send the bill to future generations. This is a classic example of doing that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, just to keep the record straight, we do not deal with mining reform in this bill. We put in, as requested by the administration, a moratorium on the issuance of patents, and this puts a hold on any new giveaways until such time as the authorizing committees deal with the mining. Let me also point out that we are up over last year on parks, on the Smithsonian, the things that the public enjoys. We make sure they have access to them, that they have an opportunity to use those, the National Gallery and the forests and fish and wildlife, recreation facilities. We really divided this bill into three categories: The must-do's, the need-to-do's, and the nice-to-do's, and some of the nice-to-do's had to fall out. Why? Because we want to reduce the deficits. It is that simple. In this bill we are $1.4 billion less than in 1995 in budget authority. We are $600 million less in spending, in actual outlays, in fiscal 1996. It was tough, frankly, and the President is saying, ``Hey you are not spending enough money.'' But I do not think it is fair to the young people, to future generations, to borrow money and saddle them with paying for all of the nice-to-do's. Energy conservation, where you fund programs for private companies, maybe it is nice to do. But should we be borrowing the money to pay for these? I do not think so. I think what the President is saying is his veto message is very simple: ``You are not spending enough money.'' But I believe that the American voters said in 1994, in November, ``We want less spending. We want the budget balanced. We want the deficit reduced. We do not want to saddle future generations with our bills.'' It is that simple. I have to agree with them. I do not think we should saddle future generations. We took a hard look at every program and said, ``How can we manage this a little more effectively?'' The Committee on Appropriations are the managers of Government. They determine how much money should be expended on various programs, and we said these are nice to do but they are not a value that makes it a good policy to borrow money to pay for them, and certainly I think that we did a responsible job. I regret that the President did not carefully examine the bill, for example, saying that it provides clear-cutting in the Tongass. Totally wrong. There is not a word about clear-cutting in the Tongass. We reduced the cut, as a matter of fact, from the present level, and I regret that the veto message does not more accurately portray the real facts of this bill and that the American people are denied the benefits. I would say to my colleagues, vote ``yes'' on the motion to refer this to the committee.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I think the President's last sentence is the one that I would quote. President Clinton said: ``I urge the Congress to send me a bill that truly serves the interests of our Nation and our citizens.'' Well, I want to say, Mr. President, we have already done that. For reasons that I do not quite understand, the President has chosen to not accept this bill. I think it really boils down to this: That if you listen carefully to the veto message, it clearly says we must spend more money, more for arts, more for various other programs, and I would like to go through the veto message and point out some of the facts that are not quite accurate in this message. Perhaps the best answer on this is the truth. It says that we need to protect America's natural resources--well, the bill, 1977, does that very well--our cultural heritage, and promote the technology we need for long-term energy conservation and economic growth. I would point out that this bill provides 80 percent more money than we did in 1988 for energy conservation. A lot of this is corporate welfare, the very thing the President is opposed to, and yet here he is vetoing a bill on the strength of what we are saying to the private sector that many of these programs should be funded. The President mentions other services to Native Americans. I would point out that in our negotiations with the White House, we put $27 million more, more than they requested. Here he is vetoing this on the basis that there is not enough for the Native American programs. Then we see about clear-cutting in the Tongass National Forest. I have looked at the bill and I do not find the words ``clear-cutting.'' I do not know where that idea came from. Apparently we had an imaginative veto message-writer. Then: Require the sale of timber at an unsustainable level. Again, there is no detail. Dictate the use of an outdated forest plan for the next 2 fiscal years. Let me point out that our bill reduces the cut as provided in that forest plan from 450 million board-feet to about 420 million board- feet, and actually, we only put in enough money for 320 million board- feet in fiscal year 1996. The Columbia River Basin was designed to move forward so that people in that area would know what was going to happen in terms of land-use planning, and I think it is only fair that they have that opportunity. The California Desert is mentioned in here. Well, under the present program operated by the Park Service, we had 38 big horn sheep that died as a result of mismanagement. All we said to the Park Service in the bill is, give us a plan. We put the money in for the plan. We say, in the meantime, let BLM operate it. They have been doing it very well; we did not have 38 big horn sheep dying when BLM was in charge. So Park Service, come out with a plan and we will be glad to look at it and see if we can put it in the right place. Then we talk about the Endangered Species Act. Let me point out that the Endangered Species Act has not been authorized, and that has been true for the last couple of years. When the present minority was the majority, they did not choose to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act, and under the Rules of the House, we cannot appropriate for bills that are not authorized. This is the reason. We put the money there subject to an authorization. So I think it is incumbent on the Members of this House to get an authorization bill, and if so, the money is there to manage the endangered species. I mentioned the energy conservation program, 80 percent more than in 1988, a very large growth over the last several years. We finally took a look because we want to manage these programs better to see what works and what does not and what should be done in the private sector, and we found that, clearly, many of these programs should have a responsibility in the private sector. Then we talked about historic obligations toward Native Americans with $27 million over what the negotiators requested. I would point out that Indian health services are ahead, more than last year. In every instance, we have attempted to put in responsible amounts for the various programs. To veto this bill on the basis of we just do not spend enough money, that is the essence of the message, I think clearly that is not what the American people want as far as more spending.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for purposes of debate only, and yield back 30 minutes.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. There will be 15 minutes on our side and 15 on the side of the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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 the veto message of the President to the bill, H.R. 1977, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have to do that. I think I control the entire hour, and therefore, I can yield back 30 minutes and yield 15 to the gentleman from Wisconsin and retain 15 on our side.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Members, my colleagues, this is a good bill. We have addressed your concerns. You have heard the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] speak and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] who had some differences on the Tongass and on mining, and they both agreed that this represents a reasonable compromise, as was clearly pointed out by the chairman. I would just point out, also, that in terms of the Tongass, we have reduced the cut from 450 million board feet to 418 and as a practical matter, it will be about 310. Likewise, we have addressed the mining concerns. The issues that were in the recommittals, I think, have been very thoroughly addressed, and this is quite evident by the fact that the people who have an interest on both sides have spoken in favor of this bill. Also, I would address the question the President raises in his message about not enough money is being spent. Well, obviously earlier we heard that it was a budget buster. Now, I think that message is a bit in conflict. The truth of the matter is it is a responsible bill, and it does reduce spending, but it uses the funds available in a very prudent way. As far as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we have addressed the needs of education, of health. We are actually above the President's request in one of his last statements. Overall I think that we have a very good bill. I think it is important we get this down to the White House, and I hope that they would sign this so that the 130,000 people that serve all of us in the parks and forests can get on with the job and serve the American people in the way that they would like. Let me strongly urge the members on both sides to reject the recommittal motion which will be again on the Tongass. We have already, as you have heard from other speakers, we have addressed the problems in the Tongass. Let us reject the recommittal motion and pass the bill.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the full committee. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the full committee. (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)