Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. We had a discussion on this on Thursday on a previous amendment concerning Indian education. At that time, it was stated by myself and others that we would support this amendment. The reason that we are in favor of this is the following: First, it does restore the $52,500,000 to Indian education. The previous amendment was a larger amount. Second, it offsets from administrative costs as opposed to program reductions. I think this is a very important element. What it really means is that this money will actually go to programs for the Indian children and will not be spent on administrative costs. One of the things we have tried to do in this bill is to get more money on the ground and less in administrative-type functions. Third, the money is directed to local schools only and no special programs are funded. In other words, it gives the school districts the flexibility to design programs for the Indian children that will perhaps meet their needs in unique ways.

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

Mr. REGULA. I think this discussion brings this out, and that is that this amendment will greatly reduce administrative overhead in the office. In the age of computers, it is fairly easy to distribute funds that are on a per capita basis and are strictly by formula. For all of these reasons, we support the amendment.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, yes, it is. I would point out, as the gentleman did earlier, that the money in here only applies in the event of an emergency. This is the type of thing that might qualify.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes, it is. We do object to the amendment, but I think the colloquy will clear that up.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it was the feeling of the majority of the full committee that we needed some additional funding for this technology. In fact, we have many wells that are no longer productive.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to make it clear to the Members, this technology, this money that goes into the technology is used to take wells that are no longer productive and put them back into production. It includes enhanced fracturing techniques. It would include advanced injection techniques so that the people of the United States could recover some additional resources from our own domestic supply and thereby enhance our energy independence. I might also point out that most of these projects have a very sizable amount of private money in them.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I am very aware of what the amendment was going to do, without hearing any further conversation. I might add that even with the modification, which I objected to, but even with it, it would still have been subject to a point of order.

Mr. REGULA. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reserving my point of order, I renew it, because in the procedures of the United States House of Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, it states the following: ``It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an amendment previously agreed to. Thus, the text of a bill perfected by amendment cannot thereafter be amended.'' Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended, and is therefore not in order.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment, because it seeks to amend a paragraph previously amended.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that this bill in no way affects the disposition of the Manteo Unit.

Mr. REGULA. I believe that to be the case, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he is correct.

Mr. REGULA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is absolutely correct. This is merely a housekeeping provision which corrects a technicality which inadvertently has kept these other leases under suspension.

Mr. REGULA. No, the Manteo Unit is no longer protected under that provision of law.

Mr. REGULA. That is correct, that is my understanding.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear that this is a bill to appropriate money, and every dollar in this bill was subject to amendment. There is no restriction on the ability of Members to add or subtract the amount of money. So I think there has to be an understanding, while there are some policy questions involved in the bill, that basically the money issues are open for amendment in every dimension.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we set the record straight here. We have had some allegations here about what is in this bill. I noted with interest that among the things that were mentioned that the bill does, it was not mentioned that it saves the taxpayers $1.5 billion dollars. There was an election on November 8, 1994, and the message was clear: We want deficit reduction. We do not want to leave our children and our grandchildren with a continuing legacy of big debt. When we put this bill together, we looked at all the functions and said, ``Where can we effectively get the job done and save money?'' And as a result of this approach, we have a savings in here, as I mentioned before, of $1.5 billion. Now, if that includes interest, in 20 years it is probably $4 or $5 billion, and on, and on, and on. So, I think it is important that we note that. Also, as I said when the bill was introduced, we really dealt with three categories of functions: The must-dos. The must-dos are keeping the parks open, keep the forests open for the visitors, recreation users, keep the Fish and Wildlife facilities open for the visitors, keep the BLM lands open for the visitors, keep the Smithsonian open for the visitors, keep the National Gallery open, keep the Kennedy Center open for those who want to visit--this is one of our memorials--and we did that job. These are must-dos. The must-dos are pretty much flat-funded in spite of the fact that we were faced with a 10-percent-plus reduction in the amount of money available. [[Page H 7025]] The second category was the need-to-dos, and the need-to-dos are to finish buildings that are under construction. They include health and safety in our parks, and forests, and public lands generally. So we took care of those projects that were under way or that affected the health and safety of those that would visit our public facilities. We took care of basic science. We recognized that, if we are to go into the next century with a nation that is on it toes, that if we are to leave a legacy of a highly developed economy in these United States, we have to continue a program of science. So the United States Geologic Survey was kept pretty much at their 1995 levels. Again they deal with earthquakes, they did the mapping that was used in Desert Storm, they deal with water quality, the things that are important as a legacy to the future. What we are really talking about in this bill is what kind of a world we are going to leave for future generations. Are we going to preserve the crown jewels of the national parks and forests? Are we going to leave a legacy of good science? Are we going to leave a legacy of good management? Because we do not want to burden future generations with an inordinate amount of debt to achieve our goals. We put a freeze on land acquisition. Let us not buy more land until we take care of what we have. Let us not start new programs or new construction until we take care of what is already on the books. The third category is the nice-to-dos, and there are a lot of nice things that we could do, but we do not have the money to do it, and we have that in our own lives. There are many things that people would like to do in their own personal lives, if they had a lot of money, but what we feel is important is to apply common sense, to apply balance. Therefore, on some of the things that would be nice to do we had to cut back severely, such as land acquisition. We had over 400 letters from Members requesting some kind of a project or some kind of a program, many of those nice to do, but we had to say, ``No, we can't afford it if we are going to get a responsible budget in the future,'' and one of the things we did was try to avoid programs or construction that would have large downstream costs. It is a goal, as outlined in the budget adopted by the House and the other body, the budget of the Congress, if my colleagues will, to achieve balance by the year 2002; that is only 7 years away. To do that we have to start on a glide path to achieve savings, and that means not starting new programs that would be expensive, not starting new construction that would be expensive, not acquiring land that would cost big dollars to manage. So that is the commonsense, that is the responsible, approach, and that is what we attempted to do in this bill, and I think we did it with fairness, without partisanship, and I certainly believe the bill and the rule deserve support. I had to smile a little bit when there was some mention of the endangered species issue and the fact that this does not provide for listing or prelisting. The reason is that there is no authorization. The authorization expired a couple of years ago when this body was in the control of what is now the minority party, and that party chose to not reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. I do not know why, because I just heard comments that this is very important, and yet for a period of approximately 2 years nothing was done to enact a reauthorization. Therefore, under the rules of this House, we are not in a position to appropriate money because there is no authorization. Now I have to say that the Committee on Resources is working on an authorization bill, and we have funding in there, in this bill, subject to authorization. That is the proper way to do it, and that is what we have tried to do throughout this bill, and I certainly urge the Members to support the rule and support the bill.

Mr. REGULA

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