Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman from Hawaii is absolutely correct on the UPARR portion, but that is a small part of this amendment. A great bulk of what the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] proposes to take out of fossil energy research is going to land acquisition on the national parks and other land management agencies. A very small part of what his amendment would delete would go to the mission that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has described. For that much of it, the gentlewoman is correct. But to put over $200 million in land acquisition, obviously, has to generate very substantial maintenance costs downstream for the U.S. Government and that is the reason the Committee on the Budget put a moratorium on additional land acquisition and we tried to respond to the House-passed budget. (Mrs. MINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that we have funded the 1995 level on the south Florida ecosystem? We are very aware of the problems.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned that we had commitments. Commitments in what way? Do we have contracts with landowners, or is the gentleman just simply saying these are within the boundaries of the parks or forests as the case might be?

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, just to get this all totally in focus I say to my colleagues, ``If you voted for the budget resolution, it had a moratorium on land acquisition so you should be against this amendment.'' We have already cut fossil energy research. This really decimates it. I say to my colleagues, '`If you don't care about our energy future, or our energy independence, or our national security, then you're not going to worry, but I think it is important. We have to balance out the needs.'' The reason we are not buying a lot more land is that we do not have enough money to take care of what we have, and, therefore, I think it does not make a lot of sense to buy additional land. We could generate revenues with offshore drilling in California and Florida, but I suspect that the proponents here that would like to buy more land and have more money are opposed to offshore drilling. I would also point out when we did the rescission we found millions of dollars that have been appropriated that have not yet been spent. One last thing: We provide in the bill that the agencies can do land exchanges with private for public to adjust the boundaries, and that offers them an opportunity to get lands that are needed without spending more money or without taking on additional responsibilities. I believe we have a very responsible approach in this bill. I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. We do not want to decimate fossil energy research. We do not want to buy more land. Already more than 38 percent of America is owned by the Federal Government, and we should use these lands for productive purposes. We have great lands that we need to enhance and operate effectively, and to take on more responsibility makes it impossible to get to the kind of deficit lowering that we want to see in the future.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, the Speaker was very eloquent in opposing this amendment, and I would only add an ``amen'' to what he had to say. The request we received from the President was for $1.6 million and it was well-justified. However, in putting our bill together, we recognized we had to cut back as much as possible. So we cut the President's request in half, and that is what is in the bill today. There has been an enormous decline in the rhino population, the tiger population, the elephant population. Many of us can remember as children first learning about these species in reading the National Geographic, and we want our children and our grandchildren and great- grandchildren to likewise have the experience of knowing about these kind of animals. We spent last year $69 million here in the United States on endangered species. The rhinos and the tigers and the elephants are more than just the Africans' possessions; they belong to all of us. They are part of our heritage and part of our natural cultural experience. We go to the zoos, we take our children to the zoos, our grandchildren, to see these animals. If they were to become extinct, it would be a tragedy for all of the people of the world. These countries are poor. They do not have the resources. Of course, as was mentioned, the sale of the rhino horns and other things are an attractive thing for poachers. The way we have structure this, it requires a 2-to-1 match from the private sector. We provide $1, we get $2 from the private sector. Generous people, all over the United States, who care, are contributing. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this. This is a wonderful investment. When you think we spend $69 million on endangered species, and here we are talking about a mere $800,000 which will be multiplied many times over by the countries where these animals are indigenous by the private sector contributors. I cannot say as eloquently as the Speaker how important this is for the preservation of these species.

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

Mr. REGULA. At this moment I guess I am the higher level. I have been looking around. But anyway, I would like to make a suggestion to the gentleman. We have four amendments left in title I. People have missed their airplanes. If we could take these one at a time and get time limits, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], are what we show as being left in title I. If we could get time limits as we go like, for example, perhaps a half hour, whatever, I would like to reserve for our side on time limits, and I think, with a little bit of effort, we can get through these four. We will be finished with title I so when we come back we start on a new title. Otherwise, if we do not finish title I, we are going to have another 20 amendments on Monday.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, I think if it is agreeable, I would like to go ahead and try to finish these four amendments in title I, get a time limit on each one as we go along. We will get them as short as possible, and hopefully then we can finish up title I.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to limit debate on title I and all amendments thereto to 90 minutes not including vote time. preferential motion offered by mr. obey

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion. I was not a party to the earlier negotiations. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and I discussed a possible agreement here that we would finish title I with time limits on the amendments that remain. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] did not agree with that. Frankly, at this point, let us do the people's business. That is what we are elected to be here for. Mr. Chairman, I move the previous question on the motion.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment on this side, and concur in it.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my pending motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to limit debate on title I and all amendments thereto to 60 minutes.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, at this point, we will just go ahead with the bill and take whatever the next amendment is.

Mr. REGULA. No, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to make that agreement.

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

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman from California who has the time will yield, members of the authorizing committee were a party to working out the rule, so I think the answer would be yes.