Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his comments and I would be pleased to work the gentleman and with the National Park Service to find appropriate means to address the problems at Seminole Rest.

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

Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman is saying. As I pointed out in the general debate, this bill is less than last year, not much but it is less and, therefore, we simply cannot do all the good things we would like to do. But I think the fossil research programs are vital. These are contractual relationships. The government, the United States Government has a responsibility to complete these contracts because the private sector has invested its money, and to suddenly pull the rug out from under them would be not only unfair but could be very costly in lawsuits. Far more important, if this Nation is to continue to grow, to have jobs, to have opportunities, to continue to be a world leader, we need to develop the fossil energy resources so we can use them in an environmentally safe way, we can use them at a low cost to our economy; and certainly we have a proposal from the EPA to decrease, in effect, the levels of particulate matter. That, again, emphasizes how important research on fossil energy is to the future of this Nation. If we are to meet these new more stringent standards on air quality, we have to continue the fossil research programs. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] pointed out, I do not quarrel with the PILT program. That is why we increased it $12 million over the President's budget request. But I think to take money out of the fossil program would be a serious mistake in terms of the future of this Nation.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern they have for PILT. Let me point out to my colleagues that we put in $12 million more than was requested by the President in his budget. We recognize how important this is to those who have Federal lands, and for that reason we increased the PILT program $12 million over what the President requested. But, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] pointed out, our fossil energy research and development is also an important program. And we have, over the years, developed synergically advanced technology, as has been stated many times. We can burn coal more cleanly and efficiently because of the fossil energy research effort. For every barrel of oil we produced, we have left two in the ground. And we have invested millions of dollars under the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] in developing technologies to recover these resources. The reason we have cheap fuel in this country, the reason our economy is the strongest in the world, is in part because we have readily available energy resources and that is the result of the things that we have done in the past in fossil research, a result of the committee, the Committee on Science, having the vision to authorize these programs. We have another problem. That is, we are phasing down contracts, but we have contractual obligations. If we take $47 million out of the fossil research program, we are going to breach contracts. We are going to have lawsuits against this government. We have already reduced the fossil program 30 percent. So let me say, and I endorse what the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] said, PILT payments are, but this is not the place to take the money because we want to keep those jobs, we want to keep this economy strong. We will not get to a balanced budget unless we have growth in the economy. Energy is the lifeblood of this Nation. It is critical to continue to develop these advanced technologies to lead us to the 21st century. And let me say, too, in our fossil research programs, we have insisted on cost-share participation from the private sector. This is not a giveaway. And one of the reasons these programs have been so successful is because the private sector gets involved with their own money.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I know the PILT Program is popular, but we have to make priority judgments. We have to decide what best serves the interests of the people of this Nation. What we have done in the fossil program is look at it very carefully, and we have reduced it over the past couple of years by 30 percent, and we want to avoid cutting any more. I think this term ``corporate welfare'' is used very carelessly, because we have established a policy that we do not fund these energy research projects unless the private sector puts in a substantial share of funding. These are very important partnerships. And I want to point out one other thing. We made a policy in the fossil research program that once the technology is developed, the Government is out of it. We do not spend any money on commercialization. Once it is proven that a low emission boiler works, then it is up to the private sector to take over from there. I simply say that to point out that we have tried to make these programs very efficient. We have restructured the programs so that we are not committed to large costly demonstration projects. But my colleagues have to remember that this country relies on fossil fuels for the majority of its energy requirements and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. That is coal, oil, and natural gas. This is what makes this Nation great; this is what drives this economy. I think one of the great advantages our Nation has over our European competitors is low-cost energy. It is reflected in the fact that we have a 4 percent growth in the economy. In 1997, we hope that the deficit will be down under $50 billion. But to do that we have to keep research in fossil fuels, we have to ensure that in the future we are going to have the advanced technologies that will allow us to use our fossil energy sources in a very efficient and environmentally sensitive way. Of course some of the critics contend that we should put more money into alternative energy sources and abandon research on traditional energy, the energy resources that fuel our economy, but I think that does not make sense given the realities of today's economy and the importance of fossil fuel. I think that a lot of this research is designed to reduce the environmental impact of the use of fossil fuels because realistically that is going to be our energy source for as far as the eye can see. And if we want to leave for future generations the opportunity to have the same quality of life that we have had, we have to ensure that we can use fossil fuel in an energy-efficient way and that we can use it in an environmentally safe way. What does that add up to? It adds up to research which improves the technologies, which develops new fossil fuel technologies which reduce emissions, which use energy more efficiently, and it creates jobs at the same time we explore the alternative energy sources. We have done that in this bill, and I think it would be a serious mistake in terms of this Nation's economy to take money out of this fossil research program. It will cost $47.5 million from research to provide $19 million more for PILT. It would be nice to give these additional credits to local counties. We have done that while trying to stay within our allocation. But to cut our fossil energy research program would be very shortsighted in the long haul, and for that reason I have to strenuously object to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members will support us in defeating this amendment.

Mr. REGULA. I would advise the gentleman were the Senate to fund this project for fiscal year 1998 and if the other priority needs for construction are met, I very much hope that we can provide the construction funding for the Blackstone Heritage Area. It is a good project and it deserves strong support. I do look forward to working closely with the gentleman from Rhode Island and the other two gentlemen that spoke to ensure the ongoing success of this project.

Mr. REGULA. I understand the gentleman's concerns. I would point out that the Blackstone River Valley Heritage Project is one of the flagships of our national program. It has set a standard. Let me assure the gentleman that our decision had nothing to do with the committee's support for the Blackstone Corridor. The National Park Service has a $5.6 billion backlog of major priority construction projects; $575 million of that deals with critical backlog maintenance, needs such as failed water systems, broken sewer lines, deteriorating utilities, unsafe dams and other major health and safety projects. I might add, as I said in the opening statement, we are very sensitive about the backlog maintenance problems.

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

Mr. REGULA. That would be the intent of the committee.

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

Mr. REGULA. Fort McHenry is one of this Nation's great historic treasures. Were the Senate bill to fund this project and if the other high priority needs for construction are met, then I would give serious consideration to supporting the project. It is an important project and deserves funding. I look forward to working closely with the gentleman from Maryland to ensure the successful completion of this construction in a timely and efficient manner.

Mr. REGULA. I understand the gentleman's concerns. Let me assure him that despite our decision not to include construction funding for Fort McHenry, the committee strongly supports this work. Unfortunately, the National Park Service has a $5.6 billion construction and repair backlog, $575 million of which deals with the critical maintenance needs regarding public health and safety issues.

Mr. REGULA. I am pleased to address the gentleman from Maryland's concerns about this important work.

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

Mr. REGULA. I would be glad to work with the gentleman from Michigan to help clarify any confusion he or others may have regarding the automotive fuel cell program.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, the department is not correct. It is true that the committee has recommended a slight reduction from last year's appropriation to the fuel cell program due to the difficult choices we have had to make in trying to balance the budget.

Mr. REGULA. The gentleman is correct. The comparable program was funded at $104,640,000 in fiscal year 1997 and the committee recommendation for fiscal year 1998 is $104,796,000. This represents an increase of $156,000. It is an increase of over $4 million above the 1996 level.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for her interest and efforts. Ellis Island truly is a national treasure that has desperate needs for construction repairs. Unfortunately, the Park Service construction budget is severely constrained by its overwhelming backlog of critical maintenance projects, $570 million, as our chart showed, which consists of serious public health and safety issues. Should the Senate provide funds for the project, and if the other priority construction needs are met, I will give serious consideration to supporting the project. It is a good project and deserves support. I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] to ensure the project's successful completion.

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I will use my last minute to announce what I have been advised, and that is that the leadership advises that they would like to work to between 10 and 12 tonight. The objective would be to finish by 2 p.m. tomorrow, and I think we can easily do that if we work until that time tonight. We will probably roll votes until about 7 p.m., and then after we have done that group, we will roll again for a couple hours. So this, I think, will give the Members an idea of what the rest of the evening will be like as far as schedule and what we could anticipate for tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, I just close by saying this is a good bill. I hope all of our colleagues will look at it carefully as we go through the various amendments and then on final passage.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. REGULA. It is across the street, as I understand it.