Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, there would then be a 15-minute vote on [[Page H 7103]] Weeks Island and a 5-minute vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment because it seeks to amend a paragraph previously amended. In the procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, it states as follows: It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an amendment previously agreed to. Thus, the text of a bill perfected by amendment cannot, thereafter, be amended. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend a text previously amended and is, therefore, not in order.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Tiahrt amendment. A vote ``no'' is to preserve jobs in the United States. A vote ``no'' is to preserve research in a majority of the [[Page H 7047]] States of this Nation. A vote ``no'' is to maintain our energy independence. A vote ``no'' is to prevent these jobs and this research from going overseas. I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward]. (Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the Committee on Science with jurisdiction on this issue. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, once again, let me point out that we have already cut 10 percent from this budget. We are on a glidepath to achieve the goals outlined by the authorizing committee. I have communicated repeatedly with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chairman of the Science Committee, and it is our understanding as a result of our conversations that we will get to the authorized level in a period of 4 or 5 years. However, let me point out to all Members here, that are listening and viewing, that we have contractual obligations. These projects, over 300, have been established with the private sector. In many instances, the private sector is putting up the bulk of the money. We have contracts, and if we violate those contracts, we are going to be subject to lawsuits. We have closing costs. In the meantime, we will be losing enormously valuable research. The Blue Ribbon Committee on energy R&D says this in their report: Federal energy R&D has been cut by 75 percent since the late 1970s. Currently the Japanese Government spends more than twice as much on energy R&D as does the United States, and keep in mind, that Government has half the population to serve. They go on to say: ``Energy is fundamental,'' and let me emphasize this, Energy is fundamental to the ability of industrial societies to function. Global energy demand arising mainly from developing economies is expected to grow by 40 percent is 15 years. This report goes on to say, Trends in the world oil markets point to growing stress and tension. Oil demand is expanding rapidly, and projected to grow by 30 percent. In less than 5 years oil demand in Asia will outstrip all of North America. Mr. Chairman, I have to say if we care about the future of this Nation, if we care about preserving jobs, we have to care about energy. I do not believe there is a job in our society that is not in some way dependent on energy. Energy is the lifeblood of an industrial society. It fuels all that we do. Energy lights this room tonight. Energy, through many different ways, is a part of the industrial fabric of this Nation. I think it is foolish to not continue research, to keep our Nation energy- independent. We remember when OPEC decided to put an embargo on the shipment of oil and raise the price. We had long lines at the gasoline stations. We do not want to repeat that. Yet, we are ``sleepwalking into a disaster,'' as Secretary Hodel said in a recent op-ed piece. What we are trying to do in funding this research is ensure that we can use resources that are available in the United States, that we can enhance wells that produce oil and gas, but are no longer functioning because of lack of technology, that we can use coal to produce electricity. The gentleman in his arguments said we already know how to burn coal efficiently. That is true. However, we do not know how to burn coal cleanly, and we just passed a clear Air Act a short time ago in an effort to improve the quality of our air, and one of those ways we do that is to burn coal in a clean manner, an environmentally safe manner. That research is important. I would also point out that we did not add any new budget authority in clean coal. That is not the issue. The money here that is being proposed for reduction does not impact on clean coal. It is not part of this amendment. That is, nevertheless, a very important feature of our enery research. Mr. Chairman, I think we should be very careful in this budget, that we do not do things that will precipitate a crisis down the road, that will cripple [[Page H 7045]] the ability of future generations to have adequate supplies of energy, to have the jobs that go with energy, to have the freedom from involvement in military conflicts that result from the absence of access to energy sources. For all of these reasons, I think it is a great mistake at this point to reduce our reseach. We are a nation that has prospered because of science. We are the world's leader because we have developed technology in many different fields, and certainly energy should be a vital concern to all of us, because the quality of life, the quality of the air we breathe, the quality of our standard of living, will be very strongly tied to our ability to have access to energy. Let us not make the mistake of the 1970's. Let us ensure that we do adequate research. Mr. Chairman, we recognize that we need to get out of the business. Our proposal gets on the glidepath to achieve exactly what the Committee on Science has put in their authorization. As I said, the chairman and I have discussed this and have a consensus that we have to get there, but we have to recognize that we have close-down and contractual costs that would otherwise result if we were to pass this amendment. I have a list here. There are over 30 States that would be severely impacted by this amendment in terms of lost jobs, in terms of lost research projects, but most importantly, all of the people of the United States would be severely impacted if they were to have a diminution of their access to energy of all forms in the years ahead. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. REGULA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, how quickly we forget. For those in this body that were here in the 1970's we forget the crisis that faced America. We forget the long gasoline lines waiting for gasoline. We forget the industries that were shut down, the schools that were curtailed, because of a shortage of energy. As a result of that, we passed the Energy Policy Act so that we would not again be caught short on energy. But how quickly we forget. In the Washington Post on June 14 of this year, 1995, is a story headlined, ``Panel Warns of Crisis if Energy's Funding for Research Is Cut.'' That says it all. The panel, a blue ribbon panel of analysts, concluded that the Department of Energy's research and development has helped, and I emphasize this, has helped, the United States keep up with major advances and international competition in energy technology. The report warned of a looming crisis if these efforts are not continued at current funding levels. Mind you, this blue ribbon panel said we should continue at current funding levels. In reality, we are 10 percent below the level of funding of 1995, 10 percent below current levels, and we are on a glidepath, in conformance with the authorizing committee to eventually get to zero. But in the meantime, we have contractual obligations, we have money invested by the private sector in energy technology. But I think it is vitally important that we continue these programs. How quickly we forget that just a few years ago we sent American service people in harm's way with a resultant loss of life, to say nothing of the expenditure of funds, to protect our energy sources. We are now dependent, for more than 50 percent of our domestic oil on sources outside the United States. Yet we are saying in this amendment that we should reduce our research on alternative sources, we should reduce our effort to stretch a gallon of oil further. We should not worry about energy independence, we should not worry about the impact of our energy dependence on our foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, I say again to my colleagues, let us remember the lessons of the 1970's; let us remember the lessons of Desert Storm; let us ensure that the United States will never again be dependent totally on outside sources for our energy needs. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, ``Would you agree that the Institution would still, with this amendment, have $5.7 million to operate, and since it is housed in the Smithsonian, its overhead and operating costs are not large, and therefore there would be a considerable fund of money for the scholars?

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

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we did take a $2.7 million cut below 1995, but part of that was originally designated for a move of the center, and in the gentlewoman's amendment she eliminates postage for the ``Wilson Quarterly'' which the subscriber should pay, eliminates paid internships for college students--we have eliminated those on the Hill--cuts stipends for foreign national scholars--their own government should pay those--cuts a portion of other services, and cuts a portion of grants and subsidies, and I think in the time of tight budgets this in no way denigrates the memory of Woodrow Wilson, but I think it is a practical matter, it is economically responsible, and I, therefore, am pleased to accept the amendment on our side.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I simply want to point out to the Members that what was alluded to, a poll, that people would like to reduce funding for the NEA; we have reduced it $63 million from 1995 levels. That is a 40-percent reduction. It was said that the people would like this ended. In 2 years, it is over. This is a phasedown, and in 2 years the NEA would no longer exist. Third, it is subject to authorization, and the agreement is that, hopefully, the authorization committee will limit these grants during this phasedown of NEA to institutional grants, such as the concert on the mall. I do not know how many watched this on July 4, but if you saw the credits, one of the sponsoring agencies, was the National Endowment for the Arts. That was a good example of what they can do with these funds. Also, there are many worthy education programs where groups go into the schools, and so all I am saying is that in the committee we have taken the steps that have been shown to be what the public wants by the polling that was described by the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. REGULA. I simply say they do not offer stipends or internships or have a quarterly. Those are nice-to-do things. It does not go to the question of the memorial itself.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia is correct. Because I believe it is important to continue to fund projects such as this one on which construction has begun, I have contacted the director of the National Park Service on this issue. I have been assured by the director of the National Park Service that he will use $4.544 million in discretionary Federal Highway Administration dollars allotted to the Park Service to proceed with construction of the project. I might add that the highway money is a separate pool that is allocated from the Committee on Transportation specifically for highway projects that affect parks.

Mr. REGULA. That would be in the agency known as the Office of Indian [[Page H 7032]] Education and that office would be responsible for distributing the money on a formula basis.

Mr. REGULA. It is structured in a way that it will take care of getting the money to the school districts on a per capita basis. That has been historically the case.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think, in response to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], it would be done through the BIA or some other administrative function. And what we are trying to do is to avoid overhead costs and get the money out to the children and to the schools. It is basically a formula grant, so a computer can designate the amount that goes to each school, depending on the evidence the school would present as to the number of Indian children that are enrolled in that particular school district.

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 materials.