Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. I hesitate to predict what might happen in this body. We can only deal with the circumstances before us today.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman from California will yield, obviously we will be part of the conference, and I think, at least I have to speak for myself, as a conferee I fully intend to respect the House's position and maintain it in a conference. Because I think we have an obligation to those who vote for the rule today to do that. I want to say right up front that conferees will be instructed to stay with the House amount, and that is exactly what we plan to do.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to say, the leadership on our side of the aisle has endorsed this and understands that. So I think that for those that are interested in the NEA, and that is what you are getting to, they can anticipate that we will be consistent on the authorization and the appropriation. As the gentleman noted, it is self-enacting in that it limits the expenditure of funds in NEA to institutional grants. Of course I think that addresses the problem that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] discussed earlier in his remarks about some of the individual grants that have caused the NEA to have some problems.

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the Parliamentarian that the authorizing bill would have to conform to the appropriation bill in the exact amount, and otherwise, it would eliminate the appropriation totally, so I think it is important that in coming with an authorizing bill, that it be consistent with what we are appropriating in this bill.

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman from the great State of Ohio. I want to commend the Committee on Rules for trying to bring out a balanced rule, recognizing there are a great number of differences of opinion as to how we should address this. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all the Members to support this rule. I recognize that because we had to take over a 10 percent cut, we cannot do everything that people would like to do. Nevertheless, we have done the best we could. We have been fair. I think it is a balanced bill, and I would certainly urge Members to support the rule so we can get on with the business. Mr. Speaker, we have to keep in mind that the budget resolution has been adopted by both houses. This bill is responsive to that. I think it represents a commonsense addressing of that. Mr. Speaker, we mentioned volunteers earlier. We will get into this more in general debate, but I would point out that there are a couple hundred thousand volunteers, and they will continue to be there in all the agencies of Interior. We can talk about that more later. Let me say to the Members, my colleagues, that I know all of them are anxious to get out today. If we work at this with goodwill on both sides, I think there will be plenty of opportunity to debate the fundamental policy questions. Under the Constitution we are charged with the responsibility to make policy for the people of the United States. It is the responsibility of the President and his team to execute that policy. There will be a number of amendments here that represent policy issues. Some I may agree with, some I may not. That is why we have votes. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, if we all work at it and take a goodwill approach, we can get out of here at a decent time and finish this bill. I am not going to take more time. I will not take a lot of time in general debate. I know we are all anxious to get ahead. One last comment. That is that this is an appropriations bill. We do not do the authorizing. We communicated with the authorities as much as possible, and anything that is in here represents a consensus with authorizing committees in the House. However, basically, it is a bill to determine how much we are going to spend on the programs that have been established by the authorizing committees. There will be an opportunity to vote on every dollar that is in the bill. People can offer amendments to cut or add to, and these will be subject to a vote. So as the chairman of the Committee on Rules said earlier, it is really an open rule. All the Members will have an opportunity through their votes to establish what they think are responsible policies for the administration of the public lands of this Nation: about one-third of the United States; it is owned by the people of this country, along with energy policies; along with policies affecting the Bureau of Indian Affairs, our responsibility to the native Americans; and a number of others. I think it is a perfect example of how our democracy should work. We are representatives of the people. That is our title. We will have an opportunity to take care of that role today on the amendments and on the bill itself. I urge the Members to support the rule so we can get on with this and finish it in a timely hour today.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Because the ones you are talking about were used by the NBS, which is no longer funded in the bill. That is gone. And we have a natural resource science function in USGS. And if somebody is taking a blood sample of any of us, we want somebody that knows what they are doing to do it, not somebody that is just a volunteer and may lack appropriate training.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think it should be pointed out that what you have been addressing is the science, and if you could guarantee to me that every volunteer will be a Ph.D. scientist that is fine. Keep in mind that this does not restrict volunteers in the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Park Service, the BLM or any of the other agencies of Interior, only the natural resource science of the USGS. So I think we have to be very careful in the definition of our terms here.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I am just talking about the bird count.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise the gentleman that I will be offering an amendment, in conformance with the suggestion of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to allow the volunteers to do the migratory bird counts.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. We discussed that with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and I know it is a matter of a difference of opinion. Let me just mention one further thing. The language in the science portion of USGS as provided in this bill says that if there is an authorized bill on this subject, and I know that the authorizing committee plans to bring one out, that the language in the appropriations bill will drop out and whatever comes in the authorizing bill, they can address the volunteer issue in that bill.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that with the exception of the natural resource research function, within the USGS there is no restriction on the use of volunteers, and as we all know, there are hundreds of thousands of volunteers in forests, parks, BLM, Fish and Wildlife, USGS, and they are in no way restricted by this bill.

Mr. REGULA. In response to the gentleman's question, Mr. Chairman, this is the biggest item in terms of volunteer hours. It is a selected function in terms of dealing with the migratory birds. We felt that it would be very appropriate to have the volunteers do this.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment transfers $1.2 million to support the breeding bird survey that transfers from the USGS to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service prior to 1993 performed this function. We want to give it back to them. I think this is a very important function. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full committee, filed a dissent. It is on the back page of the report. I think the information and the ideas he expressed therein are very constructive. We are trying to respond to the concerns expressed by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I share them. Many groups across the country participate in the survey on the breeding birds and they find this something they like to do, so we want this to continue. Therefore, we are taking some of the funding in the resource research division we have created in USGS and have transferred it to the Fish and Wildlife for that function.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment, we think it is a good one and we are in agreement. We accept the amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, it is cleared with the authorizers?

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, if you read the language carefully, it says in the natural resource research arm of USGS. That is just 1 out of 4.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, just a few things that have been brought out here. First of all, concerning eliminating funding for endangered species. I think it should be pointed out that the bill is subject to authorization, and that for those that read today's Congress Daily, one of the headlines is ``Young-Pombo Species Bill Readied.'' What I am saying is that the funds are there, they are in the refuge operations and maintenance account, but they will be available in conference, assuming we get an authorization bill on endangered species. Right now there is not any. For that reason, we have not put in money for listing and pre-listing. Mr. Speaker, weatherization was raised as a problem. Of course we had to cut. It was talked about how people are freezing. On weatherization, to my knowledge, there is not anyone freezing in Hawaii but they are getting weatherization money. I think it illustrates the fact that this program is just one of those that every State gets so many dollars without regard to the need. It seems to me that if you have programs, they should be predicated on the need of recipients. Then the issue was raised of selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and a figure was brought up here of something like $30. I would point out that the last 7 million barrels that were put in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which this bill proposes to sell cost $17.50. That is what we are talking about. The problem is that if we do not take care of SPRO, the 590 million barrels that are there will not be accessible. But we will get into that further discussion at the time that we have an amendment on that topic. One last comment. A number of speakers have addressed the fact that this is below last year, that there are needs that are unmet. But I would just remind everybody that there was an election on November 8, 1994, and I think the message was loud and clear from the voters, that they want to reduce spending. We are trying to do that. We are reducing spending. We are doing it in a responsible way. Part of our legacy to future generations will be on an economy that will be strong, that will provide them jobs, that will be free of inflation, and that will give the standard of living improvement that Chairman Alan Greenspan talked about. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, but I reserve the balance of my time, subject to what the minority would like to do.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I can only assure the gentleman from Utah that I and the other members of the conference committee representing the House will carefully consider this item as we confer with the Senate, with the other body, and seek to achieve, as much as possible, full funding of the Ute Indian settlement.

Mr. REGULA. I would tell the gentleman from Utah, as he is very aware, this year the Subcommittee on the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations did not receive a section 602(b) budget allocation large enough to fully fund the administration's request for the Indian land and water claims settlements and miscellaneous payments account. The subcommittee was forced to reduce the amount appropriated for the Ute Indian Settlement Act by $5.5 million. The bill does appropriate, however, a sizable remaining amount of approximately $20 million for the Ute settlement. We plan to make up for the reduced level funding in this fiscal year settlement funding by adding in the future year's appropriations bills the appropriate amount.