Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, obviously we would have 40 minutes between myself and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and he could assign some time and I could. Now, if my colleague does not think 40 minutes is enough, he can object to the unanimous-consent request. We are simply trying to expedite this, and it would amount to probably about 2 minutes per speaker.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the Porter amendment and all amendments thereto close in 80 minutes, the time to be allocated as follows: 20 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], 20 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and 20 minutes to myself.

Mr. REGULA. That is the request I am going to make.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a unanimous-consent request, and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request, and we will try to work it out.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let us start over. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1\1/2\ hours and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous-consent request pending.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we do not attempt to separate them. We will roll the votes. There will be a vote on the Dicks substitute, and then there will be a vote on Porter-Kennedy.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, let me revise the unanimous-consent request to close all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto in 1\1/2\ hours and, of course, that the time be equally divided.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, it is a total of 1 hour on the Porter and the Dicks.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Washington have 2 additional minutes.

Mr. REGULA. I think the point that is lost here, too, is that taking out this money which takes away the ability to reconstruct roads means we are going to have environmental problems. What this gentleman is proposing is a good environmental vote because it preserves the necessary money to reconstruct these roads in a way that not only can the public use them but we will avoid siltation, we will avoid a lot of problems that would result in an environmental degradation.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, we have no objection to putting the letter in the Record at this point. The letter referred to follows: The Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC, July 10, 1997. Hon. Ralph Regula, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your interest in helping us reshape the energy conservation programs of the Department of Energy and your continued support for the objectives of these programs. I know that we share the view that investments to increase the productivity of energy use are critical for finding ways to meet environmental goals, to increase American energy security, and to ensure continued economic growth. I know that the House Committee on Appropriations has expressed concerns about the management of programs designed to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. While the Department's programs in this area have been highly successful in the past, I share your concern that they need a careful review. I agree with your observation that the programs should be focused around a set of objectives that are both clear and easily explained. These programs must be developed in close cooperation with the business and other groups who must be our partners in this work. Their support for our programs is vital to our success. We are working to redesign our programs and will give the views expressed in the FY 98 House Interior Appropriations Committee report very serious consideration. Later this year I will provide you with a strategic plan that responds to the Committee's request; I want to assure you that it will receive my personal attention. Given the importance of energy efficiency--and the opportunities for improving the energy efficiency of buildings, in particular--it is essential that the federal government's RD&D program be well-focused and adequately supported. I look forward to discussing this matter with you in more detail in the near future. Sincerely, Federico Pena.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment. We appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is willing to work out a compromise on this, and in view of that, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. REGULA. We are going to try to do that, depending on how much time the Porter amendment takes. The goal is to get far enough along that we can finish by 2 p.m. tomorrow. So we want to keep moving. And any votes after the Porter amendment we will roll over.

Mr. REGULA. I would hope so, yes. I would like to finish it tonight.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we will go to the Porter amendment and all amendments thereto, and prior to that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] has an amendment which I am going to accept. After we finish with the gentleman from Colorado we are going to go to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I would assume that that is probably going to take a considerable amount of time and that would be all we would get done tonight.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentlewoman is saying, but I would point out that the two that she refers to, one is a President of the United States, and the State is putting in a lot of money. What we are putting in is a small amount. The other is a project of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and again the State of Maryland is putting in a lot of money. I do not think there has been any indication here that there is any money being proposed by the State or any other entity to support this, that the total cost that is being proposed would be Federal, and I think perhaps the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] would like in the future to find some matching funds that would make this kind of a project more attractive. Mr. Chairman, I would still urge a vote of ``no'' on this amendment.

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