Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. I join with my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Yates] in accepting it.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. We are prepared to accept the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], but I do want to make it clear that this is only a 1-year, temporary withholding and that ultimately these residents will be required to move. Of course, they will be compensated, but they will eventually be required to sell to the Government. But in view of the fact that the Park Service currently has 100 structures that they have not had the funding to remove, I do not think it would be fair to those that are still there to make them move during the next fiscal year. I would urge the Park Service to get on with removing the structures that are already there and have been purchased by the Service. By imposing a 1-year moratorium, we give the residents confidence that they will, at least, be able to stay through fiscal year 1998. We support the amendment.

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. 2107, and that I may be permitted to include tables, charts, and other material.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on tomorrow.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2107, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill.

Mr. REGULA

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

Mr. REGULA. As the gentleman knows, I have held all these types of interpretive centers to strict cost-share requirements including substantial cash. That is because we have so many requests and we try to stretch our dollars. However, the other services the gentleman detailed are also acceptable as a portion of the matching contribution necessary to meet the subcommittee's requirements.

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

Mr. REGULA. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I think that the gentleman knows me well enough to know that that is not the way we approach things. He can see that in the way the bill is constructed. It is very bipartisan.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I know absolutely nothing about that, and I think that is misinformation. There has been nothing of that type by way of information or discussion transmitted to me. It is totally news to me.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, this amendment only. When the debate on this amendment is concluded, we will roll the vote and rise.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to advise the Members that we will conclude debate on this today but will roll the vote until next Tuesday, so that those Members that have airplanes to catch, there will be no more votes today. We will just go on until the debate is concluded, and at that point we will roll the vote.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to advise the Members what we plan to do is have a vote on the Chabot amendment. That will be all we will do for the rest of the day. We will rise immediately after the completion of that vote. So this will enable those that are planning for airplanes and so on, there will be one more vote and then we will rise.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight Monday, July, 14, 1997 to file a privileged report on the bill making appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the schedule, at least as we see it for the rest of the day, would be we will have two 15-minute votes immediately. One will be on the Klug-Miller-Foley amendment, and the second will be on the Royce amendment, and then we will go on to the balance of the bill. Our goal is to finish by 2 o'clock today, and I think if we can get some time limit agreements on the balance of the amendments, we will be able to do that and finish the bill. Other than that, following the two 15-minute votes there will not be a Journal vote, but following the two 15-minute votes we will then move to the Ehlers amendment. I believe there is 1 hour of time for that, and then we will try to keep moving, and as I said before, get this completed by 2 o'clock today. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight tonight, July 11, l997, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight Monday, July 14, 1997 to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

Mr. REGULA

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

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 76, line 7, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have been responsible. We have reduced the research programs by 30 percent over the past few years, but we have tried to keep the good ones. Does anyone believe we did not send soldiers to Saudi Arabia and Desert Storm to not protect an energy source that is overseas? Of course we did. We spent billions of dollars doing it. That illustrates how important fossil fuel sources are to this Nation, and makes a very powerful case to continue research programs that will do a number of things; that will allow us to use fossil fuels in a more efficient way, to get more Btus that are useful in the energy stream of this Nation. Fossil fuel is going to be the choice that we have to depend on for many, many years to come. These programs are designed to make our use of fossil sources more efficient. Obviously, the private sector believes in them because they put up a good part of the money to do the research. As I said earlier, we do not fund commercialization. We have carefully guarded against any programs that get beyond the development of technology. But we think it is very important for the future of this Nation to ensure that we have adequate energy sources from fossil sources, that we use these energy sources in an effective way so we do not deprive future generations of the same quality of life we have had, and to use these sources in a way that will keep us competitive in the world marketplace. Mr. Chairman, I think at this point it would be a serious mistake to violate contracts that are already in place, to stop programs that are shown to have potential in midstream, and to cut at this juncture would not be a good management on the part of our fossil program. Mr. Chairman, I have to say to all of the Members that we as a committee have been very careful in determining what programs work and what do not, and to make sure that we manage the taxpayers' money efficiently on behalf of their future in the fossil energy resource programs. I strongly urge a no vote on this amendment. Let us keep these programs going so we can ensure that we have energy independence as a Nation in the future, and we can insure that those who follow us will have the same quality of life and opportunities that result from having an adequate supply of fossil-generated energy.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, Corporate Welfare has taken a real beating tonight, and the truth of the matter is that that term is badly abused. This is not corporate welfare, this is people welfare. This program is designed to help the people of this Nation. How does it help them? It provides an ability to burn a resource where we have 250 years of supply. It means they can have low cost fuel for their lights, for their appliances; more and more we use electricity. It means they can have jobs because the costs of energy will be competitive for our industries. Does it work? It certainly does. As was pointed out earlier, one quarter of the coal fired capacity in the United States now uses technology pioneered in the clean coal program. Do people believe in it? The private sector has committed 60 percent of the cost of this program. This says very clearly that they believe that it is an efficient and a very effective program, and there is very few programs that have a 60 percent private/ 40 percent public cost share of an experimental nature. Does it help us otherwise? Sales of clean coal technology already exceed $9 billion both here and abroad. What does it mean? China, as I mentioned earlier in the evening, is consuming even more coal then the United States and with the growth of their economy that will probably double. The market for clean coal technology is enormous and will help our balance of payments, it will create jobs for Americans, it will help to clean up the environment worldwide. Other nations are concerned about their emissions because they do go into the atmosphere that ultimately all of us breathe. This program is a success. Now we have been practical about it. In this bill we rescind $100 million of clean coal technology because a couple of programs that were on line decided that they did not want to go forward. Mr. Chairman, we have been trying to manage this with good judgment in a very responsible way. But speaking of responsibility, I would point out that there are contracts pending that will require a commitment of this available funding to meet the fact that the private sector is willing to go forward on other types of technology. This is a successful program. It is a good program. It means jobs for the future. It means clean air. It means energy independence. We do not have to send a team of soldiers to protect coal that is in the United States of America. We do not have to build underground facilities to store it. It is there. Clean coal technology will enable us to use this source of energy to improve the quality of life and maintain our economic leadership in the world. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.