Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the representations of the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Park Service that they have no objection to this, we, therefore, would accept it. I do have a concern on the safety standards and I certainly would respond to any requests for additional funds to ensure that it is totally safe. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, it is limited to pedestrians; is that correct?

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman would yield further, then it would be the responsibility of the Park Service to enforce safety standards, and whatever the Department would establish would become the standard that would control access to the structure. Is that correct?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of all of us, how would the gentleman define ``generally accepted safety standards''? I just want to be sure that I am comfortable with the fact that safety is of primary concern here.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to advise the Members that we will on our side accept the amendment. It is not inconsistent with Parker. It does not reach as far, but we are willing to accept it. I hope the authorizing committee will then at the earliest possible moment address the entire situation. I can understand the difficulties both the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] are having.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to go to a total repeal. That would invite the states, in effect, to set different standards. I sympathize with the gentleman's problem, but I think the Olver amendment would solve it.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman, but I think he would agree that the Olver amendment would accomplish that objective.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would point out to my colleagues that on October 5, 1992, by a vote of 363 to 60, we established in this body the following policy: It added commercial products to a standards program, setting initial standards for electric motors, central air conditioners, heat pumps, gas and oil furnaces, boilers, water heaters, plumbing equipment lamps--that is the subject of this amendment. It requires the DOE to maintain test procedures and establish a labeling program. We said, as a national policy, there should be a uniform set of standards established by the Department of Energy on energy efficiency. I think that what the gentleman from Mississippi is discussing should be the subject of an authorizing bill. This is not the proper place to deal with this matter. I would hope that the gentleman would take this issue to the authorizing committee, and, if they should recommend that we modify the action of this body, as I just outlined in the Energy Policy Act that is now the law and passed by an overwhelming majority, this should be discussed in that forum.

Mr. REGULA. But you continue to preempt the States so manufacturers would have one uniform set of standards?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand. The gentleman has legislation that is moving through your committee that will actually then modify or repeal the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the one of 1988, and so on down the list, because this present authority flows from these. I just want to be sure I understand there is a potential authorizing bill to repeal that.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The roads provide access to harvest the timber crop so that young people can build homes at a reasonable cost. This timber goes into the homes of America, but also it opens up these beautiful forests so the millions of our fellow citizens have an opportunity to fish, to hunt, to camp, to enjoy the forests. We forget that twice the visitor days of the Park Service are in the Forest Service, and these roads provide the necessary access. These forests belong to all Americans, and the people, therefore, should have the right to use them, to use the products of the forest and to enjoy the beauties of the forest for recreational purposes. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we will make every attempt to get the ecosystem report before the next appropriations cycle. If the reports that the gentlewoman heard are true, then we can raise the ecosystem issue with the Senate and address the problem in conference. I do, however, think that the authorizing committee should be involved. [[Page H 7132]]

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with this amendment. I think there have been long delays out there in getting anything accomplished, and adding another year of money does not do anything constructive. I have discussed it with the Members up and down the corridors that are involved, and they are very much in favor of the amendment. Therefore, at least on our side, we are perfectly willing to accept it.

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee for his remarks. I especially appreciate his acknowledgement of and support for the deficit reduction activities that my subcommittee is engaged in. I do not envy the task ahead of the distinguished chairman as he takes up legislation to reform our Nation's systems of meat, poultry, and seafood inspection. I recognize the fact that any cuts to the Upper Mississippi Science Center put you in a precarious position of having to potentially develop a more intense and costly system of seafood inspection. Certainly, maintaining the safest, most abundant, highest quality, and most affordable food supply on the planet is in the best interest of all Americans. I would like to assure the gentleman that while this bill reduces funding by over $60 million for biological research programs, and transfers programs to a research arm within the U.S. Geological Survey, nothing in this bill specifically requires where specific cuts should be made. Those decisions will be made on a priority basis solely within the Department of the Interior. Towards that end, I would encourage the Secretary of the Interior to proceed cautiously in determining what the highest priority research needs are for lands administered by the Department of the Interior, making those decisions on the basis of national priorities.

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word, in order that I may address the House to explain the vote situation.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, there are two votes pending at this point that were rolled over from title II last night. The first will be a vote on the question of a sale of 7 million barrels of oil from Weeks Island in order to pay for the cost of moving the balance of the oil from Weeks Island to another location in SPR. Presently, Weeks Island is leaking and the oil has to be moved. There is an amendment pending that would eliminate the language that allows the sale of the 7 million barrels to provide the necessary funds to move the oil and make whatever repairs would be required on the balance of SPR. The second amendment, Mr. Chairman is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] that would eliminate the funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Those would be the two amendments that will be before us. The first will be the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] on the Weeks Island issue; the second will be on the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] to defund NEH.

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

Mr. REGULA. That is correct. The plan would be a recorded vote on both, probably 15 minutes on the first, and 5 minutes on the second. Would that be correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. REGULA. If they are ordered, yes.