Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] by saying no. The action taken by the subcommittee to reduce funding for this settlement should not in any way be viewed as a retreat of the Federal Government to honor the terms of the agreement with the Ute Tribe of Indians. We are honor-bound to fully comply with all aspects of the Ute Indian Settlement Act.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], a valued member of the Committee on Resources, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands, and a Member who contributed substantially in helping to craft this bill as we worked in a cooperative way with the authorizing committee.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I understand the objective of the sponsor of this amendment. As a matter of fact, we will have an amendment shortly from the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] to accomplish the education part of it. But in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], we will take the money out of the administrative functions in the Forest Service, the administrators, and I think that to get the necessary funds that the amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] takes it from an area that is less important to the people of this Nation than are the things that are being deleted by the Obey amendment. I would point out that under the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], he would cut coal research, which we have already reduced 14 percent. He would cut oil technology, which is already reduced by 17 percent. He would cut natural gas research, which is reduced by 1 percent. And I might point out the budget that this body adopted proposed very large increases on natural gas research. He goes into fuel cell research. The problem we have here is that what we have tried to do in the energy portions of this bill is maintain basic research because we are a very energy-driven Nation. Jobs are a way of life because of transportation, because of distances in this country, because automobiles are very much a part of our culture. It puts great demands on our energy resources. We use a lot of electricity, which puts demand on coal, and we have to do a lot of research to ensure that we can get clean-burning coal and use this vast store of coal that we have for the decades to come. I am really concerned about taking any additional money out of fossil energy research programs, since we have already cut them nearly $40 million in order to meet our budget targets, and I think as we try to have energy security, as we try to maintain a degree of energy independence, as we just fought a war, lost American lives and at great expense, to protect our sources of fuel in the Middle East, that we need to keep these programs going that develop research potential for oil, natural gas, fuel cells, coal research. If any of you have seen the Apollo 13 movie or the story of Apollo 13, they were using fuel cells, and they lost a fuel cell, which almost resulted in a disaster. Fuel cell research is very important to the future, not only in space but on Earth. So, while I sympathize with the gentleman's desire to put money back in Indian education, I think the proposal of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] to take the money from the Forest Service administrative function would be a better way to do it. For that reason, I would have to oppose this amendment and will support Mr. Coburn's amendment.

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

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, as I said at the outset of the debate, we have some very important policy decisions. We both agree, both sides, we need to put the money back in Indian education. The position of our side is that the money ought to come out of the Forest Service administrative account and not out of energy research. And obviously the gentleman from Wisconsin would prefer it out of energy research and the areas I mentioned. I think if we vote, the vote will be essentially, if you vote down the Obey amendment and then you will vote for the Coburn amendment, you would indicate with that vote that you prefer to get the money for the Indian education program from administrative [[Page H 6964]] services in the Forest Service, administrators, rather than take it out of energy research. So, for my colleagues that are listening to this debate, I just wanted to try to get the choices out here clearly.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.

Mr. REGULA. I think that we have been persuaded by circumstances, if the gentleman will yield, that we need to put some additional funding in Indian education.

Mr. REGULA. That is correct.

Mr. REGULA. if the gentleman will yield, I want to say, the gentleman from Illinois, as chairman of this committee for many, many years was always very sensitive to Indian education and health.

Mr. REGULA. We have tried to maintain that tradition, given the constraints that we faced, and Indian education is one of the few programs that did not receive much in the way of reductions even though we had an overall 10 percent, and we agree with what you are saying, and that is why it is not a question here of the money. It is where we get it. The gentleman from Wisconsin would take it out of the energy program research. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] would take it out of administrative programs and forestry. And it seems to me, at least, that it would be from the standpoint of national policy, I prefer to keep the energy research and reduce the forest administrative. But I think we are in agreement on the objective.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], a member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I am somewhat surprised at my colleagues from the other side of the aisle wanting to give this vote of no confidence in their Secretary of the Interior. But apparently that is what the thrust of this would be.

Mr. REGULA. I would point out our subcommittee reduced the office of the Secretary more than 13 percent below the enacted level of $62.5 million, and this is one of the highest cuts proportionally that we took, and I do not think it is fair to the Secretary to take any more. Now, that is on the side of where the money is coming from. Where is it going? It is going, as proposed in the gentleman's amendment, to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, nice to have, nice to do, but not needed, because the law very clearly says that every agency has to take into account the impact of its activities on the historic resources. They already have to do it by law. Sure, they can get an advisory council to do some paper and send it over. They do not have to pay any attention to it. The law does not require that they do anything with the advice they are given by the advisory council, and people enjoy serving on the advisory council, and it is nice to have, but it is $3 million. As we went through the list of priorities, we felt that this is something we can live without. If we had lots more money, that would be one thing, but I do not want to penalize the Secretary of the Interior any further than we have already. He has a lot of responsibilities, and I would think that the gentleman from Minnesota certainly would not want to do that to his Secretary.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, I think, as the gentleman has pointed out, it is nice to have, but there are a lot of things that are nice to have. Here is an opportunity to save, in this round, $2 million. We leave them a million to close out. In the future we will be saving $3 million year after year after year, and that is what we are trying to do in this bill is to get on a glide path to savings that will benefit the taxpayers. They have no statutory responsibilities. It is nice to have, but we do not think it is nearly as important as having the money in the Secretary's office to administer the huge agency that is known as the Department of the Interior, and we strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, just one point, one additional fact, Mr. Chairman. That is that the USGS does the mapping for this Nation, they did the mapping for the Department of Defense during Desert Storm, it is a vital agency, and I think it is a great mistake to take money from them. We have already cut them, and to cut more would be irresponsible.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. [[Page H 6968]] Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear what is going to happen here. We will have a vote on the Obey amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment because it takes the money out of fossil energy research. We have already cut that 10 percent. It impacts heavily on States like Ohio, California, Indiana, Illinois, New York, places where we are doing research. It takes money out of the Bureau of Mines. We have already cut them back. We just leave them enough to close out. If we take any more money, they cannot even do that. It takes money out of the Naval Petroleum Reserves. We have already cut that 20 percent. This is a function that generates $460 million a year in revenues. I think that we need to foster energy security. We are not arguing about giving the money for the native American education programs. This gives about $153 per child to schools to have enrichment programs for Indian children. We agree on both sides that this needs to be done. The question is where to get the money. We are going to have a Coburn amendment that is in title II, so it cannot be done immediately, but the Coburn amendment will do essentially the same thing, except it takes the money out of Forest Service administrative expenses. Because of the spend-out rate we only need to take $10 million from forest administration to provide the $52 million in the Coburn amendment to provide for the Indian education. I think it is important that we provide the funds for Indian education, but I think it is also very important that we use the financing mechanism provided in the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Obey amendment, recognizing that you will get an opportunity shortly to vote yes on the Coburn amendment to take care of the Indian education, but the source of funding would be far less serious in its impact on the policies of the United States. Again, ``no'' on Obey, and very shortly when we get into title II, we will be able to vote for the Indian education with the Coburn amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment that is coming up for a vote immediately, knowing that you can vote ``yes'' on the Coburn amendment to accomplish the same objective.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. This is an obligation of the U.S. Government. We have freed up the funds to do it because we are on a very tight budget. We are pleased that we are able to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the committee mark already poses a 22.5-percent reduction that is already in the bill for territorial programs. In addition, we have eliminated the Assistant Secretary for Territorial and International Affairs. The bill takes the first steps. These are additional steps being proposed by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]. I urge that we adopt the amendment. I think that the Territorial Office is an anachronism in this period. It saves a considerable amount of money. I think it would be an excellent amendment and an excellent thing for us to accept.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, so the Members understand the issue here clearly, this has an appeal, but let me say that the House-passed budget resolution that was adopted here some weeks ago, provided a 5-year moratorium on land acquisition, because when we buy land, we have to take care of it. If we buy land, it means more people, it means more of everything. We are talking about trying to get to a balanced budget in this Nation in 7 years. We cannot get to a balanced budget by buying more than we can take care of. That is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on land acquisition. This would scuttle that moratorium totally and go back to business as usual. The statement was made that we are force feeding programs in energy research. Let me tell my colleagues again, we have cut back considerably, but we have contractual obligations. We have a number of projects in fossil energy research that have contracts with the private sector. The private sector is putting up anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the money, which means that they believe that these will be successful. I think it is a big mistake in terms of national policy to cut back any further on fossil energy research. We are going to downsize it. We are going to get down to the numbers of the authorizing committee, maybe not as quickly as they would but we are headed that way. But we have to recognize our contractual obligations. If we suddenly pull our part of it out, we are subject to lawsuits for failure to perform on contracts that we have made. [[Page H 6972]] Let me also tell my colleagues that we did put in $50 million in an emergency fund for land acquisition. We recognize that there may be parcels of land that become available that we should take advantage of. So, we do have a cushion in the bill, in spite of the fact that the Committee on the Budget and the budget we passed called for a moratorium on land acquisition. The use of that money for land acquisition is subject to the reprogramming, so it has to come back, in effect, to the appropriate committees. The reason we reduced land acquisition was to fund operations. The money that might have otherwise been spent on land acquisition is put into the operations of the parks. We actually increased the operation money in the parks over 1995. We want to keep the parks open. We want to keep the forests open. As I said at the outset, these are must-do's. We must keep the facilities available to the public and therefore we have flat-funded them and used that money for the operations that we normally would have put in land acquisition, because we have a responsible number on fossil energy research. I think what we have done represents a balance. It represents the will of the House as reflected in the budget adopted here. It takes care of operations, and I do not think we ought to tamper with it. These are nice to do. It would be nice to go out and buy more land. It would be nice to fund the UPARR Program, but we cannot do it all when we have a 10-percent cut and we can look forward to more next year. We need to avoid doing things that have substantial downstream costs or otherwise we cannot leave as a legacy for future generations a strong economy that would be generated by a balanced budget.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. That is my understanding from the Parliamentarian, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is correct.

Mr. REGULA

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 H.R. 1977, which we are about to consider, and that I may be permitted to include tables, charts, and other material.