[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4465-H4482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HYDROGEN FUTURE ACT OF 1995
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 136 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 136
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 655) to authorize the hydrogen research,
development, and demonstration programs of the Department of
Energy, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Science. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]
will be recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 136 is an open rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science.
The rule also makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the
amendment shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides for
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Bob Walker and ranking
minority member George Brown for continuing their longstanding
tradition of requesting an open rule for bills reported out of their
committee. They set an example that I hope all committees will strive
to follow whenever possible. As always, they did a great job.
Consumption of energy has grown at almost twice the rate of the
growth of the population, and it is critical that we pursue the
potential of alternative sources of energy such as hydrogen to address
our long-term energy needs.
The Hydrogen Future Act authorizes appropriations for basic hydrogen
research, development, and demonstration programs of the Department of
Energy for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. The bill promotes Federal
efforts to research hydrogen as an alternative fuel and ensures that
hydrogen research is given priority by the Department of Energy.
Mr. Speaker, similar legislation passed the House by voice vote last
Congress, and this open rule will allow Members the opportunity to
address any concerns they may have.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of May 1, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\............... 46 44 22 73
Modified Closed\3\.................. 49 47 8 27
Closed\4\........................... 9 9 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 30 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of May 1, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).
[[Page H4466]]
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS--Continued
[As of May 1, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/10/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/1/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/6/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95)
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1158........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps.. 95)
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95)
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/
95). Act of 1995. 95)
H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95)
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95)
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act A: voice vote (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
Relief Act of 1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion A: 253-172 (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) O................... H.R. 655............ Hydrogen Future Act of ...................
1995.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous
question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we join our colleague from Tennessee in supporting the
open rule for this bill. The hydrogen research enjoys bipartisan
support. As our colleagues will recall, we passed a similar bill last
August by a voice vote. Several amendments were considered at that time
and four or five perhaps are expected to be offered today.
All of us, but perhaps especially those of us from regions such as
southern California that have severe air pollution problems, are
particularly interested in and fully support research that will lead to
a clean burning, environmentally safe, energy source that is a viable
substitute for fossil fuels. For that reason we support carefully
written legislation that will give the impetus needed to determine
whether or not hydrogen can be an energy source that is economically as
well as environmentally acceptable.
We do, however, have some specific concerns about several provisions
of the bill as reported. At a time of huge spending cuts in so many
Federal Government programs, this bill provides for a steep increase in
funding for hydrogen research. In fact, the bill authorizes more
funding for the hydrogen program than either the Hydrogen Technology
Advisory Panel, which advises the Department of Energy on hydrogen R&D
activities, or the President requested.
An amendment will be offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Olver] to reduce the authorization levels in the bill to those
recommended by the panel. Interestingly, the advisory panel's experts
believe that necessary research can be carried on with about $31
million less than what H.R. 655 authorizes.
While increasing annual spending on the hydrogen program
dramatically, the Committee on Science imposes in this bill a cap on
spending for the Energy Department's energy supply research and
development activities.
That decision, which the chairman of the committee defends as the
best way to make the bill deficit neutral, means that the Department
will have to limit promising research in areas other than that to
develop hydrogen technology, and with no guidance from Congress on
where those cuts will be made. In fact, we have no way of knowing the
true impact of this arbitrary spending cap.
As the ranking member of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown] has argued, instead of imposing the cap, we
should be making a rational judgment about which programs should be cut
to offset the cost of the hydrogen research program. The gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown] will offer an amendment to strike the cap so we
will have the opportunity to debate this controversial provision.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we question these decisions even more because
we are uncertain about how much interest there is in private investment
in hydrogen research. As the additional views in the committee report
on the bill note, if hydrogen were so promising and so near-term, we
would have already seen much more private sector investment without
perhaps requiring this much Government encouragement.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a moment to commend
the ranking member of the Committee on Science, Mr. Brown, and the
chairman, Mr. Walker, for the good work they have done over the years,
not only in this area, but also in so many vitally important to our
future. As a former member of the Committee on Science myself, I know
just how difficult this subject matter is they deal with, and just how
few of us understand it as well as these two gentlemen do.
Mr. Speaker, we know that hydrogen is promising, even if its
popularity or convenience as a major fuel is still uncertain. We
support the open rule and encourage our colleagues to support it so we
may proceed today with consideration of H.R. 655 and the amendments
which may be offered to it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the Committee on
Science.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this open rule which
provides for consideration of H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act of
1995.
Our committee, the Committee on Science, has a long history of
requesting open rules for this legislation, and I am pleased to join
with my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the
ranking minority member of the committee, to continue in that tradition
with this open rule here today. I want to thank the Committee on Rules
for the consideration they gave to our committee on this and for
bringing forth the particular item under an open rule.
As I will discuss in more detail when we proceed to debate on the
bill itself, the hydrogen research legislation will direct the
Department of Energy to refocus more of its resources to basic research
on this nonpolluting, abundant, renewable fuel. Great care has been
taken to draft a bill which is budget neutral so as not to increase the
deficit. We are interested rather in reprioritizing the Department's
research efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I have
shared a deep interest in hydrogen research during the time we have
served together on the Committee on Science, and I am pleased we were
able to move this bill through the committee so early in this session.
I understand that he has some concerns about the funding provisions and
that other Members may have amendments. I welcome that debate. I think
it will help to clarify the bill and I am happy to support this
[[Page H4467]] rule to provide for the upcoming discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of this
legislation. I want to commend the chairman, Mr. Walker, and the
ranking member, Mr. Brown, for the work that has been done trying to
foster research and development into specific areas that I believe will
help our country.
I was able to attach an amendment in the markup process that deals
with section 7, the technology transfer area. It states that:
The Secretary shall foster the exchange of generic
nonproprietary information and technology developed pursuant
to section 5 among industry, academia, and the Federal
Government. The Secretary shall ensure that economic benefits
of such exchange of information and technology will accrue to
the United States economy.
Now, I know everybody is trying to finish this bill. It is a good
bill. The chairman has done a good job. But the language is that this
exchange of information shall accrue to the benefit of the United
States economy.
I have a little amendment that says in the report process, when they
do all of the reports back to Congress, that they also give special
emphasis to section 7 and let us know if there is an accrual of benefit
to the United States economy.
{time} 1415
From what I understand, the amendment is going to be accepted. I
appreciate that. I think it strengthens the bill. I think it is time
that Congress asked for these things, if the economy is supposed to be
strengthened by our legislative action. Many times we do not ask to
find out if it really happens. So in this case I am, and I am glad to
see that perhaps we will enact it.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Pursuant to House resolution
136 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 655.
{time} 1416
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 655) to authorize the hydrogen research, development, and
demonstration programs of the Department of Energy and for other
purposes, with Mr. Hansen in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Brown] is recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today we consider on the floor of this House, H.R. 655,
the Hydrogen Future Act of 1995.
Imagine a fuel which is unlimited in supply and is environmentally
friendly. Imagine a fuel which produces no carbon dioxide or other
noxious pollutants. Imagine a fuel that produces only water when it's
burned. Imagine a fuel that can be produced entirely within the borders
of the United States. Imagine a fuel that finds a virtually limitless
supply in water. There is such a fuel and its name is hydrogen, the
fuel of the 21st century.
Ever since the oil crises of the 1970's and the recent conflict in
the gulf, Americans have been justifiably concerned that our energy
supply is not guaranteed. This concern has been heightened by the fact
that our hydrocarbon resources are limited, and it has been
increasingly expensive to produce domestically.
The shipping and burning of hydrocarbon products has been a major
cause of pollution. We all know the cost of dealing with the effects of
pollution in terms of health care and restoring our environment. The
Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Superfund, and other legislation
have generated numerous expensive regulations in an attempt to address
health and pollution concerns. The use of hydrogen as a fuel would help
solve these issues.
Hydrogen holds tremendous promise as an environmentally benign energy
source. It is practically limitless in supply and the byproduct of its
combustion is the same water that is used to produce this gas. Its
common use faces large technical hurdles, however, especially in
production and storage.
The Hydrogen Future Act will focus Federal research on the basic
scientific fundamentals needed to provide the foundation for private
sector investment and development of hydrogen as a fuel without
increasing overall funding for the Department of Energy energy supply
research and development programs.
During the 1980's and 1990's, the Committee on Science held several
hearings on hydrogen. In 1989, the Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act, Public Law 100-218, directed
DOE to provide a separate line-item for hydrogen research in its budget
request. In 1990, Congress passed the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen
Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, Public Law 101-566, which
directed the Department of Energy to develop a hydrogen research
program implementation plan. Then in 1992, section 2026 of the Energy
Policy Act, Public Law 102-486, further addressed hydrogen research and
development. The legislation we are considering today, H.R. 655, the
Hydrogen Future Act of 1995, continues Congress' intent to prioritize
hydrogen research.
H.R. 655 focuses the hydrogen program at the Department of Energy on
basic research, development, and demonstration. The bill limits
demonstration to validations of the technical feasibility of theories
or processes.
The legislation requires a cost-sharing commitment by the private
sector for any research, development, or demonstration project funded
under the bill. It also requires that any financial assistance given
under the bill: First, could not be obtained from the private sector,
and second, must be consistent with GATT provisions on Federal cost-
sharing.
The bill directs that the Department of Energy's hydrogen program
should be a competitive, peer reviewed process, and that a percentage
of the authorized funding be available for basic research into highly
innovative technologies. Both of these provisions will ensure that
people with new ideas have the opportunity to interact with DOE's
resources and facilities.
Although this bill increases funding for hydrogen research, it is CBO
certified budget neutral. H.R. 655 requires corresponding offsets to
pay for hydrogen research by freezing the Department of Energy's
overall energy supply research and development account at fiscal year
1995 levels. By offsetting funding from other DOE programs, the
legislation does not ask the taxpayers to bear any additional costs.
The development of hydrogen as a fuel will also conserve our vital
feedstocks of fossil fuels, freeing them solely to produce plastics,
medical supplies, and other useful products. Using hydrogen in our
cars, planes, and homes would also save billions of dollars in energy
costs related to byproducts, pollution, regulations, and medical
expenses. Hydrogen is the answer to fill the energy needs of our
future. We are looking for a nonpolluting, abundant, renewable fuel.
Hydrogen is that fuel!
After all, energy produced here in the United States grants security.
Security not only from disruptive conflicts in the Middle East and
elsewhere, but also financial security. More than half our trade
imbalance is due to the import of oil. With domestically produced
hydrogen as a fuel choice, we can substantially reduce our trade
deficit.
[[Page H4468]] So I would ask support for H.R. 655, the Hydrogen
Future Act. It is good energy policy. It is good environmental policy.
It is good research policy, and it is good budget policy.
This is exactly the type of futuristic technology-based solution to
some old problems that face our society and have been so often
addressed by regulation and subsidies in the past.
More precisely, it is a vision of an opportunity society that many of
us in this country have been talking about over the last few weeks and
over the last several years.
This is a chance to begin to live the vision. So I would ask the
support of the Members for this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be on the floor today on the first of
what I hope will be numerous Science Committee authorization bills.
While H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act, represents only a single,
relatively small, energy R&D program, this bill is a good opportunity
to begin to illustrate the importance of the Federal investment in
science and technology.
I recognize that the majority of Members who serve here today have
served less than two terms. So it is not surprising that many Members
have very little information about the purpose, extent, or
accomplishments of the Federal science and technology investment. As we
tackle the task of cutting spending over the next few months, I am
deeply concerned that science and technology funding will become a
politically expedient sacrificial lamb for balancing the budget.
I know that the chairman of the Science Committee, the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania, shares those concerns and is working to
educate his colleagues on the Budget Committee about the importance of
science and technology funding. Indeed, the Federal Government's
investment in science and technology has long had strong bipartisan
support in recognition of their critical role in addressing such
national needs as economic growth, environmental quality, defense, and
health care.
The chairman and I have our disagreements in certain areas, as indeed
we have on the bill before us. But we do share a belief in the
fundamental importance of science and technology to a nation that seeks
to remain preeminent in the next century. I look forward to working
with him over the next few months to ensure that science and technology
continue to receive a high priority in the national budget.
H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act, augments a small, but important,
program within the overall Government effort in research and
development and continues a long tradition of bipartisan support for
the development of hydrogen as an economically viable and
environmentally friendly fuel. The committee passed the Spark M.
Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act in 1990
on a bipartisan basis, and extended the program in the Energy Policy
Act of 1992.
I want to commend the chairman, Mr. Walker, for his efforts in
bringing this bill through the committee and to the floor. Mr. Walker
and I have long shared a belief in the future of hydrogen. This bill
represents Mr. Walker's most recent effort in his long-standing support
for hydrogen-related research and development within the Department of
Energy. It will provide needed new focus and additional resources for
the Department's programs.
As the gentleman from Pennsylvania has indicated in his remarks,
hydrogen is a promising fuel with many potential applications for
replacing more polluting energy sources. Hydrogen becomes particularly
attractive if we can find a way to produce it using solar or renewable
energy sources rather than from petrochemical feedstocks. The DOE,
working with industry and academia, is working on a number of fronts
which could provide critical breakthroughs to making hydrogen a cost-
effective alternative to conventional fossil fuels.
While I generally support this bill and DOE's hydrogen research
program, I have a number of procedural concerns and disagreements with
several specific provisions. I would note that the administration has
expressed similar reservations.
First, Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed that this bill is being brought
to the floor ahead of a comprehensive energy research and development
reauthorization. Hydrogen research is unquestionably an important
program, particularly given the need to find replacements for fossil
fuels which can meet our energy needs with less pollution. At the same
time, DOE is supporting equally important research devoted to other
promising nonfossil energy sources, such as solar energy, renewable
fuels, and fusion. In addition, given our near-term dependence on
fossil fuels, other DOE research programs designed to increase the
efficiency of fossil fuels and reduce their polluting effects are also
important. And research on nuclear fission designed to increase safety
and reduce radioactive waste deserves continued support.
However, the bill before the Members today authorizes only a single
DOE R&D program, which precludes us from setting priorities among all
of the energy R&D programs. Members will have no opportunity today to
reallocate energy R&D funds, a process that is all the more important
given the fact that the total amount of funding for these programs may
well be cut far below the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request.
Instead, Members are being asked to approve a 300 percent increase in
the funding for a single energy R&D program--an increase well above the
President's budget request of $7.3 million, and above the levels
recommended by an independent, external advisory panel. Singling out
hydrogen R&D for aggressive growth in a declining budget envelope
suggests that hydrogen ought to be DOE's highest research priority.
Members may or may not agree with that, but my point is that we will
never know because Members will have no opportunity to vote on
different priorities.
We need a balanced research portfolio that, taken as a whole, is most
likely to provide us with cost-effective and reliable energy supplies
for the future. For that reason, I am very reluctant to support the
level of increases contained in the bill without a better understanding
of the effect of such funding levels on other important DOE energy R&D
programs. In understand that Mr. Olver will be offering an amendment to
reduce the authorization levels to a more reasonable level, which I
will support.
Second, I cannot support the provision in the bill which limits the
obligations for DOE's energy supply R&D funding at fiscal year 1995
levels for the next 3 fiscal years. This is simply bad policy
masquerading as political cover. The cap was included so that
supporters of the bill could claim that the increased funding
authorized for hydrogen would be offset by unidentified cuts somewhere
else in DOE's energy supply research and development activities.
But the cap won't even do what is proponents suggest. Instead, what
it really does is cut $250 million across-the-board from the requested
budget for dozens of DOE research programs and DOE's environmental
clean-up efforts--programs that the bill does not even authorize. Yet
the proposed increase in hydrogen research is only about $18 million
the first year--and only if Congress appropriates, and the Department
spends, the entire authorized amount. The fact is that the cap does not
force DOE to spend more on hydrogen.
Further, as the Members well know, overall spending is controlled by
the budget caps and the appropriations process. This cap isn't going to
save the taxpayers any money; all it does is to tie our hands in trying
to set budget priorities by creating artificial and arbitrary fences
around some programs.
I intend to offer an amendment to strike section 10(b) of the bill
which contains this limitation and will speak more about it at that
time.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would note that this bill raises some
interesting issues in the context of a broader debate about the best
way to promote the economic and social benefits of this Nation's
investment in science and technology. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
has been very critical of a number of applied technology programs, like
the Advanced Technology Program, at the Department of Commerce. ATP
helps companies pursue
[[Page H4469]] novel ideas in advanced technologies--such as hydrogen--
by supporting research, development, and demonstration activities at a
50-percent cost share. The chairman of the committee as well as other
Members on that side of the aisle have argued that such programs are
examples of ``corporate welfare'' that distort the market by having the
Government pick and choose ``winners and losers.''
Ironically, in my view, H.R. 655 has many similarities to the ATP
program. While the bill speaks specifically about basic research, the
reality is that the major barrier to the increased use of hydrogen as a
fuel is an economic one. We know how to produce, store, and transport
hydrogen; we know how it works as a fuel and how it can be used in fuel
cells to generate electricity. What we need to learn is how to produce,
store, and transport hydrogen more cheaply so that it can economically
compete with other energy sources. To my ear, that sounds suspiciously
like an applied technology program that does not differ dramatically
from the ATP and other technology development and demonstration
programs.
The language in H.R. 655 is a valiant effort to cloak this
inconvenient point in semantic ambiguities. But it cannot be seriously
questioned that the primary push of the technology effort must be to
cut hydrogen's cost. Industry will never pick up the final stage of
demonstration and commercialization unless the underlying Government-
supported work shows that hydrogen production, transportation, and
storage is not only technically feasible, but also economically
attractive. Fortunately, H.R. 655 seems to authorize precisely such a
program.
What ever our semantic disagreements, the important point is that the
bill does represent another step forward in developing hydrogen as a
national energy resource, and for that reason I support the bill. I
could support it more enthusiastically if the amendments we offer this
afternoon are adopted.
hydrogen/atp comparison
This table shows the great similarities between the
Advanced Technology Program of the Department of Commerce and
the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Research Program. At
least as much as the hydrogen program, ATP focuses on long-
term noncommercial research and development with potential
for great scientific discovery. Also, it stops earlier in the
development cycle than the hydrogen program. In short, if a
Member supports the hydrogen program, he or she should
support the ATP program as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen program ATP program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-year grants. Three to five Multi-year grants. Three to five
year time horizon. year time horizon.
Funds research, development, and Funds high risk, high payoff
demonstrations leading to research and development in fields
production, storage, transport, identified by industry as critical
and use of hydrogen for to future success of key
industrial, residential, industries. Emphasis on generic
transportation, and utility technologies that can benefit
applications. whole industries.
Majority of research done by Maximum of ten percent can be done
national laboratories. by government laboratory.
Majority of industry grants so far Grants evenly split between big
to large business including Air business and small business. Big
Products and Chemicals, Praxair, business and potential suppliers
and AD Little. sometimes team together (e.g. auto
industry).
No limit on size of grants......... $2 million limit on grants to
individual companies.
20% industry cost-share for 50% cost-share minimum required for
research and development. 50 research and development.
percent cost-share for
demonstration.
Will fund incremental but important Pre-commercial scale demonstrations
demonstrations such as increasing and improvements to existing
the efficiency of steam reforming products are ineligible for
of natural gas. funding.
Has funded industry surveys........ Marketing surveys and
commercialization studies not
eligible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
{time} 1430
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman form Indiana [Mr.
Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to congratulate the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown] for their hard work on this important
legislation.
H.R. 655 will support very, very vital work for us to look into the
hydrogen field and research, development, and demonstration projects.
This is a thoughtful bill. I think it has very important energy
ramifications for this country's policies in the future.
We need to become more environmentally friendly. We need to find ways
to produce and transport hydrogen more efficiently. As the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], and the former chairman, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Brown], have said so articulately, we know what
many of the problems are, but we need to invest in ways to more
efficaciously solve the problems we are faced with in transporting and
delivering this very potentially vital source of clean burning energy
to our country.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has also talked in a very, very forceful way about the policy
on the budget. He has said that we offset the increase in the budget,
and as we are coming back from a break where we have heard in our town
meetings that our constituents are very concerned about the deficit, we
want to make sure that this does not call for tax increases, which it
does not. We want to make sure that this policy has vision with
relation to the rest of our Energy Department, the DOD, and the
National Laboratories.
I would say that this is a very good bill, and I would encourage my
colleagues to support it. I do have two concerns, not problematic, but
concerns that I would just express to the distinguished chairman that I
hope to work with him on over the course of the next few months. One
would be that we do have a very, very good vision for hydrogen in this
bill, but we do need to develop a vision for our Department of Energy.
We are bringing out today on the floor one splinter, one very small
area of our energy policy. We need to come to the floor with our energy
authorization bill. We need to do that both for reasons of the budget,
because we are going to be cutting some programs and reorganizing some
programs. We need to show the American people where our priorities are
in terms of the National Laboratories, which National Laboratories as
our treasures are we going to keep, which ones might we downsize, which
ones can become more effective.
I have introduced legislation with respect to the National
Laboratories. I look forward to working with the chairman and the
chairman of the subcommittee on that legislation.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I would say I have a concern in terms not only
of the vision but of the budget.
Mr. Chairman, as we bring one part of our policy on energy to the
floor with an increase, how does this affect the other policies and
programs within the Department of Energy? I think the chairman has
articulated some of the ramifications and ancillary effects of those
programs. We look forward in our hearings and in our markups in energy
on our committee to continue to discuss these in broader ways, and in
more specific ways. I congratulate the chairman of the committee for a
thoughtful bill on new U.S. policy with hydrogen and look forward to
voting for this piece of legislation.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his statement. I
just wanted to assure him, based upon the one concern that he raised
with regard to overall authorizations, that it is our intention to move
aggressively ahead in that area. As the gentleman knows, we have
already held hearings in the subcommittees on a number of these
programs, and our intention would be that as soon as the budget numbers
are fairly firm, which should be within a matter of the next couple of
weeks, that at that point the authorizing committees will be able to
move with their authorizations. I share the gentleman's desire to see
to it that those organizations are moving so they provide some guidance
in the appropriations process, but also that they provide the kind of
vision statement that I think we need to make in a tough budget
situation. We need to begin to lay out how we are going to both balance
the budget and at the same time maintain an aggressive science and
technology policy for the country, and I think that is going to be some
of the very, very instrumental work that the various subcommittees are
going to be assigned to do. I am going to try to give those
subcommittees the latitude that they need to work within budget caps,
but to prioritize the science of this country in a way that makes sense
within that budget constraint.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, and I know the gentleman
has
[[Page H4470]] much more experience upon this committee than I do, I
have only been on the committee since 1991, but as a member of the
authorizing committee, I would hope that we could get this bill out to
give guidance to the appropriators as to what the new priorities in
this 104th Congress might be for spending on new technology, on
programs such as hydrogen. I think that the expertise shown by this
committee in the past has been a very valuable one.
Also, the chairman and the ranking member would be not only working
with the appropriators on the House side, but hoping to work with the
Senators on the other side of the body so we do pass an authorizing
bill. I think that is very important, not just institutionally, but
given that the Members of that committee do have a great deal of
expertise in this technology and in this field of science.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that that
is certainly my hope, not only in the energy area but in the other
areas of jurisdiction of this committee.
I would say to the gentleman that we are going to be bringing forth a
budget document. That will have a series of assumptions in it. Those
assumptions will simply assure that you can in fact meet the budget
targets we are going to lay out, but they are only that, they are
assumptions.
It is going to be the work of the authorizing committee to take those
budget numbers and decide what the priorities are that our committee
wishes to lay forth on the Nation. I think then that that will provide
the kind of guidance that the appropriators will respond to, so there
is going to have to be a lot of interactive work over the next several
months here, but I think it is interactive work that will produce a far
more stable policy than we have seen in the recent past.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would only conclude by saying that as a Member of the Committee on the
Budget, our distinguished chairman will be able to make sure that we
get that floor time and have these authorization bills come to the
floor on time.
Mr. WALKER. As I say to the gentleman, yes, I have had an opportunity
to participate in the budget deliberations, but the budget
deliberations should be seen only for what they are. They are a road
map in terms of overall numbers, but it is going to be the work of our
committee that is going to literally lay forth the policy, and I think
that is the kind of important work this committee should be doing.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me continue that interesting discussion a little
bit. First, I appreciate the dialog with regard to the need to move the
authorization legislation ahead promptly, and I hope that the Chair of
the Committee on Science will be able to do this.
As I think I have pointed out to him, the way the schedule has
slipped here, we may not actually see Committee on the Budget numbers
for at least the 2 weeks that the gentleman referred to, possible a
little bit longer, and the window for authorization bills is going to
be correspondingly shorter. I know the gentleman recognizes that.
If we have done all of the necessary preparatory work in the
subcommittee and in the full committee, we can still move authorizing
legislation, and I will assure the gentleman of my very strong desire
to cooperate in this.
Again, Mr. Chairman, referring to the caps situation, however,
authorizing bills are caps. Appropriators cannot exceed those limits
when it comes to spending money. What the gentleman has done in this
bill is to authorize one program and in effect cap that, but then in
addition to that, he has capped more than 10 times as much that are not
in the subject matter of this bill; in other words, other forms of
energy supply R&D.
I would contend that is more appropriately done in the Committee on
the Budget itself as it considers energy legislation, and I would make
a bigger argument about it, and I will, probably, when my amendment
comes up, but actually, as he well knows, the whole question may be
moot if in fact the Committee on the Budget decides and the
administration decides that we will have a reduction in energy
expenditures over the next 3 years, in which case the cap, which I
think is inappropriate to this bill, would nevertheless not have any
impact, and I would see no harm in it at that point.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 655, and I commend the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Science for bringing
this measure to the floor. I do, however, have several reservations,
and I believe that they are shared by many on the Democratic side of
the aisle.
First, the bill elevates hydrogen research above all other research
priorities at the Department of Energy. While I hope that hydrogen will
be an important fuel in the future, I believe that other research and
development programs in the Department are also important and deserve
authorization.
Second, H.R. 655 caps spending in the Energy Supply Research and
Development account at fiscal year 1995 levels. All of us want us to
cut the deficit, but I do not believe any of us advocate placing
arbitrary caps on programs without a discussion of their merits. The
Science Committee had no hearing record on these programs on which to
base a decision. I suspect that the cap might be a political tactic to
prove that more money will not be spent by the Department to cover the
increases mandated in this bill.
Finally, the increases authorized by the bill are higher than
requested by an outside expert hydrogen advisory panel to the
Department, and the Department has no plans to spend the additional
funds. In this time of budget cutting, I cannot support sending money
to programs that lack a plan to us it, while action plans are starved
for proper funding.
I am hopeful that these points will be addressed in the debate, and I
look forward to an improved bill to send to the Senate. Hydrogen
research, development, and demonstrations are important to our Nation's
future, and I support the program authorized in the bill.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his statement. I
understand his concerns. The only thing I would say to the gentleman is
that the most recent update of the Hydrogen Technology Panel's numbers
in fact indicate that that particular panel will have numbers that are
more than what are in this bill, not less, so that we are in fact in
the bill not coming up to what the panel is prepared to request.
I have a letter here from what particular panel at the University of
Hawaii making that case, so I think we are in the right range here,
anyway, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7
minutes to the distinguished gentlemen from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1445
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time. I wish to use this time to engage in a colloquy.
Recently, there has been a lot of talk in this body about the
appropriate Federal role in funding technology development, much of it
coming from the other side of the aisle as an attack on what is called
corporate welfare. This criticism is generally directed at programs
that were started in the Reagan and Bush administrations, but which
have been greatly expanded in this administration as a useful way to
develop good, high-technology jobs in the future. I am talking here
about programs like the Advanced Technology Program at the Department
of Commerce and the Technology Reinvestment Program at the Department
of Defense.
The Hydrogen Future Act is the first bill we have considered this
year that would expand industry-Government partnerships in technology
development. On its face, this bill seems to be aimed at promoting
programs which are very similar to ATP or TRP.
I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner],
[[Page H4471]] the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Technology of
the Committee on Science, whether that is his understanding.
Mr. TANNER. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
It is my understanding, the purpose of the bill before us is to fund
research, development, and demonstrations in a particular technology
that the bill's authors have chosen; namely, hydrogen. This work will
be done primarily through government-industry partnerships, with
industry supplying a substantial share of the funding. This is the same
general formula used by ATP and TRP, except that their focus tends to
be much broader; that is, ATP is applicable to many different
technologies besides hydrogen.
I would also like to add that the bill before us authorizes $31
million above the recommendation of the Hydrogen Advisory Panel.
Although I support government-industry partnerships promoted by this
bill at its recommended funding level, currently supported industry
programs will be cut to pay for this inflated hydrogen program.
Meaningful, constructive research at various labs around the country
such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore will certainly have to pay the
price.
Mr. VOLKMER. I notice that the report on the hydrogen bill contains
six criteria that the committee leadership endorses for prioritizing
Federal R&D funding. Would it be useful to measure both the hydrogen
program and the ATP against these same criteria?
Mr. TANNER. If my colleague would continue to yield, I believe that
it certainly would.
First let's look at the hydrogen program. It appears that the
hydrogen program authorized by this bill generally meets these
criteria, although there are some close calls. For instance, the bill
as introduced authorized 15 different demonstration projects, including
a hydrogen jet engine and economically feasible hydrogen vehicles. The
bill before us today would still allow any of these demonstration
projects to be funded. However, while the economics of these
demonstrations may be questionable, the basic technology no longer
seems novel. Therefore, this bill may in fact violate the committee's
criterion related to technical feasibility.
On the other hand, if the hydrogen vehicles developed under this bill
were to utilize novel, renewable energy technologies, then we would
certainly conclude that the program is within the scope of these
criteria for discovery.
Mr. VOLKMER. I agree with the gentleman that the hydrogen program
authorized by this bill is a useful R&D program, but it is questionable
whether all of these hydrogen activities are revolutionary or
pioneering or that in fact they are not evolutionary advances or
incremental improvements. For instance, I would note that the program
currently has a cost-shared, noncompetitive contract with Air Products
and Chemicals Corp. to increase the thermal efficiency of hydrogen
production from hydrocarbons from 85 to 93 percent, an incremental 8-
percent increase. This is useful, but it certainly could be considered
incremental. It is not revolutionary, it is not pioneering, and,
therefore, in my opinion would violate one of the committee's six
criteria.
I would ask the gentleman, if the hydrogen program authorized by this
bill barely meets the six committee criteria, how then would you rate
ATP against these same criteria?
Mr. TANNER. I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], I
believe ATP as currently structured easily meets the criteria. I have
here an example from ATP's proposal preparation kit explaining what ATP
does not fund.
They do not fund precommercial scale demonstration projects where the
emphasis is on demonstration that some technology works on a large
scale rather than on R&D.
They do not fund improvements of existing products.
They do not fund product development.
In short, ATP does fund the kind of long-term research and
development which the committee report advocates.
Mr. VOLKMER. I totally agree. From my experience, ATP awardees tend
to be real entrepreneurs. Most have been rejected by venture
capitalists who are less entrepreneurial than they are.
Mr. TANNER. That is true. High-technology entrepreneurs have told us
many times in hearings that ATP is the only U.S. program that is
willing and able to meet their needs. Without ATP, they would have had
to go overseas where foreign governments have established technology
development climates that are more focused on future wealth than short-
term profits.
Mr. VOLKMER. Am I missing something, then? Why do you think that some
people have a philosophical problem with the ATP program but not with
the hydrogen program?
Mr. TANNER. This is the very same question the entrepreneurs who
testified before our committee raised. They have expressed dismay at
this apparent inconsistency.
It seems to me that if you are for this hydrogen program and its
approach, which I support at the recommended level, one would
automatically embrace the ATP program enthusiastically. These programs
are good for our country, they are good for our technological base, and
they have proven their worth in the private sector. I hope that the
Members will bear that in mind today as we vote and review and vote on
the programs like ATP and TRP later this session.
Mr. VOLKMER. I wish to thank the gentleman for participating in the
colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue one other area that I briefly
alluded to in the colloquy. That is, under the present program, the
hydrogen program, a major billion-dollar corporation, multi-billion-
dollar corporation has the largest grant for hydrogen under the energy
program, and it is for only an incremental approval of producing
hydrogen from hydrocarbons, to move it from 85-percent efficiency to a
93-percent efficiency.
Where is that corporation located? My understanding, from an article
in the science magazine that I have, it is located in Allentown, PA,
and that some of its facilities are in Pennsylvania and in other
places. It is my understanding also it is the largest hydrogen producer
in the whole United States, if not in the world.
Yet through its task force established to get more additional funds
for hydrogen research, it comes here today to increase the amount that
we give for hydrogen research so that they, this big company, billion-
dollar company, can get additional up to $40 million for further
research, not into pioneering research, not into something brand new,
but just for developmental research.
At one time this bill, the original version of this bill, was even to
give them money to come up with a better hydrogen-propelled motor
vehicle. We have had hydrogen-propelled motor vehicles for a long
period of time. That is nothing new at all. Why would we want to give
millions of dollars more to a billion-dollar company? Mr. Chairman, I
call that corporate welfare. I believe that any company that is this
big can afford to do their own research.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I would simply say that the colloquy that we just heard is the old
order reasserting itself. It is interesting to note that the gentleman
ignored the fact that this bill does concentrate on basic research and
one of the complaints that he has is because the previous bill did not
concentrate on basic research; this one does.
With regard to the corporation in Pennsylvania, I am surprised that
the gentleman from Missouri feels so badly about the district of his
Democratic colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale],
getting a benefit out of programs that have previously been done. The
fact is that the money in Allentown, PA, goes to the district of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I think would probably disagree with
the gentleman and would be in favor of this particular bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht].
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 655. As a new
member of the Committee on Science, it has been interesting to listen
to some of this debate today, but I must say that I have become more
and more
[[Page H4472]] enthusiastic about the long-term potential of hydrogen
as a fuel.
It has been said that what the mind of man can conceive and believe,
it can achieve. I am convinced that long-term hydrogen power will
happen, but I think it will happen faster if we give it this kind of a
boost.
The numbers that we are talking about in terms of the appropriation
are relatively modest. As the chairman of the committee just alluded
to, we focus on basic research rather than applied research. I have
also come to the conclusion now, as a new member of this committee,
that basic research is an important function of the Federal Government.
In fact, a few years ago I had the opportunity to meet the gentleman
from the 3M Company who developed the Post-It note. He said something I
thought very important and very interesting. He said, ``If we knew what
we were doing, it wouldn't be research.''
There is a lot of research that goes on in this country that can be
funded in the private sector. On the other hand, there is a lot that
cannot and would not happen if we did not give it some kind of a boost
at the Federal level.
I have said, too, to some of my colleagues that a number of years ago
we had a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin by the name of Proxmire. He was
fond of giving out these Golden Fleece Awards. I think sometimes he
probably did more harm than good with those Golden Fleece Awards,
because many times he focused on basic research programs that the
Federal Government was underwriting.
I would remind him and my colleagues that some of the research that
is done is very hard to justify at that particular point in time. I do
not think that this one of those programs. I think this is one that
will be easy to justify, and I think that our children, our
grandchildren, and future generations of Americans will be happy and
glad that we were willing to make some sacrifice to see that this
program was funded in 1995.
I support the bill; I think it is as strong as it needs to be; I do
not think we need any amendments; and I hope we can send it to the
Senate and ultimately perhaps to conference with the version that we
have in front of us today.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, in reply to the words of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, it makes no difference to this gentleman where Air
Products is located. It does make a difference to me that a
corporation, a billion, billion, billion-dollar corporation, is coming
to Washington and wanting a handout in order to help do some research
that they have got fully enough money to do themselves.
It makes no difference to me where that corporation is located. It
does make a difference to me that it is corporate welfare, and I do not
believe in corporate welfare.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I congratulate the gentleman from Missouri for his position on
corporate welfare. I would simply point out to the gentleman again that
it was he who suggested there was something sinister in the fact that
this particular corporation was in Pennsylvania.
He was the one who raised that point, and I got the implication that
it might have been directed at the fact that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania is from Pennsylvania. The gentleman raised that point in
the classic cheap-shot technique. In my view, he was in fact raising
the geographic issue.
{time} 1500
It is also worth pointing out, I think, that in the particular case
of the project that the gentleman talked about, I in fact wrote the
Department of Energy myself questioning the grant of that contract that
I do not believe was done on a competitive basis, and so therefore I
have raised questions myself about that particular contract.
It is also worth noting to the gentleman that the actual research is
being done in Texas under that program. Only the engineering is being
done in Pennsylvania. The actual research work is being done in the
district of another Democrat, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
So the gentleman was the one who raised the point.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I do not care where the research----
Mr. WALKER. Why did the gentleman mention Pennsylvania?
Mr. VOLKMER. I just made mention of it because the article that I
read in the science magazine said that Air Products and Chemical
Corporation is from Pennsylvania, Allentown, PA, is what it said.
Mr. WALKER. That is right.
Mr. VOLKMER. That is all I mentioned and I know it.
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman indicated, I reclaim my time, and the
gentleman indicated that that might have some bearing on the fact that
the legislation is on the floor.
And I am just saying that the gentleman is absolutely wrong, and he
is even wrong with regard to his facts as to where the money is being
spent. So I think that what we ought to do is talk about the substance
of the bill. It is too bad the gentleman did not want to talk about the
substance of the bill. The substance of the bill is that this is a
hydrogen promotion program. It is in fact an attempt to make certain we
have a good hydrogen program, and there may be lots of companies around
the country that will benefit from that.
But this is a basic science program, something the gentleman seems to
ignore. This is about basic research; it is not about corporate
welfare.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I picked a good time to come, did I not? I
will try to get us out of this ditch here.
I was on the Science Committee reluctantly, it is not one of my
choices, but I am glad I am on it. I have really enjoyed it. The
spirited debate here today has been fun.
But hydrogen research is something I knew zero about when I came to
Congress. I am excited about it too. And I understand the concerns of
the gentleman from California about the cap and present funding, but we
have to make some suggestions that are good for the country.
And I am also against corporate welfare. There are some programs when
analyzed over time I do not think have too good a report card grade
about how we sent money to corporate America to develop energy sources
of the future, but I think by capping the money we are making priority
decisions, and that is what we need to do in the budget. We are putting
$100 million over 3 years on hydrogen research, which means something
else has to go. That is a political decision we have made up here, a
bipartisan political decision that hydrogen is important.
In about 18 months we are going to get a report card back and we will
be graded about our judgment. I am willing to stand up here today and I
say it is a good expenditure of the money, a good priority too, and
overall I think it will help our country.
One thing we cannot forget is we built airplanes and we built cars
without any Government grants. Let us not get too far away from the
idea in America that our best resource of the future is entrepreneurs
in the private sector, but the Government does play a role. It should
be a partner, but should not be the dominant partner.
This is not about corporate welfare in my opinion. But in 18 months
we will see the success of this program. I am optimistic, but if we are
wrong, I will be the first one to say we were wrong and we made a
mistake. But given the knowledge I have now, I think it is a good bill
and I think we should press forward.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina that it may be
beneficial not to know anything about hydrogen research to be a part of
this debate here today.
[[Page H4473]] Mr. Chairman, I rise in general support of H.R. 655.
As a scientist I support hydrogen research, and one of the last
research programs I worked on in my academic career was in fact a
hydrogen fuel cell research program, and it was one of the most
promising ways to utilize hydrogen as a fuel.
The distinguished chairman of the committee claims that the Hydrogen
Technical Advisory Panel has recommended more spending than is even
included in H.R. 655, and indeed the distinguished chairman is correct
if we include the demonstration projects that the HTAP believers should
be done, but the distinguished chairman has opposed the inclusion of
those demonstration projects and in fact they are not included in the
legislation.
Under those circumstances, I wonder why we would be offering funding
or defending funding as high as would include those demonstration
projects. As an aside, I would say I believe we ought to be authorizing
demonstration projects as proposed by the HTAP, but they are not
included in the legislation and we should not be authorizing funding
for them.
So a little bit later I am going to offer an amendment that would
provide for exactly the amount of funding in this bill that would
provide for the research and development that the HTAP calls for, that
HTAP is essentially a peer review panel for the whole program. Peer
review panels are something that the chairman very strongly supports,
as I support also. But I would strip out of it in the amendment I will
offer later funding which goes beyond what is authorized in the bill
and what is recommended by the HTAP panel and its recommendations, and
I will offer that amendment at a later time.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is sincere in what he said, but I
have a letter here from the chairman of HTAP, the Hydrogen Technical
Assistance Panel, Pat Takabashi, and he simply says there was an error
made that the gentleman is now going to evidently try to compound. It
says:
I can see why there was an erroneous interpretation that
HTAP was advocating a figure lower than the $25 million, $35
million, and $40 million sums indicated in 104-95. We should
keep in mind that Year Zero's $7 million represented fiscal
'94. Year One was a reflection of what we thought fiscal '95
(current year of expenditure) would be, and Year Two the
first year of your bill. Thus, your $25 million is actually
lower than the $28 million advocated in the HTAP report.
So, in fact, the chairman of the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel is
saying that the figures used in our bill are actually lower than what
their request is, and I think that should be a part of the debate as we
move forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 2
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that some of this debate has appeared to
wander a little bit afield from the essence of the bill before us. I
think we have pretty much concurred that the continued support of
hydrogen research is a good thing to do, and that the bill will do it.
There is some question about the exact level, which coincides with the
recommendation of the advisory committee, but in the overall scheme of
things that is not all that important.
In my opinion, the primary objection to the bill has to do with the
extraneous matter of the cap on the energy supply research and
development in general, and as I indicated in earlier debate, even that
point may be moot because it will depend on whether additional changes
are made through the budget process that would reduce the budget of the
Department of Energy in that and other categories.
So let me just conclude by saying what we have here is an essentially
good bill which I intend to support which is complicated by a few
extraneous matters which have been attached by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] in pursuit of his desire to constrain
spending, which I think most of us would agree has merit, but I differ
rather strongly with the methodology which he is using in order to
achieve that end.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hydrogen
Future Act. Hydrogen research has long had broad, bipartisan support,
and with good reason: Hydrogen has the potential to be a cheap, clean,
and efficient fuel.
As one of the strongest environmentalists in this Congress, I believe
we need to do everything possible to develop such resources. Regulation
and improvements in internal combustion technology can only get us so
far. Our greatest hope for a future of economic prosperity and
environmental health is to develop new propulsion technologies, such as
hydrogen.
This bill will bring government, universities, and industry together
to conduct research on hydrogen in a way that would not happen without
government involvement. And the bill ensures that the Government would
be active only in research that would not occur absent its assistance.
That is a sensible R&D policy directed at an important end.
Hydrogen research has not been a source of controversy in the past.
And there is no technical reason that it should be controversial now. I
urge all my colleagues to support this work to develop an
environmentally benign fuel.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in
the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute rule by sections, and
pursuant to the rule, each section shall be considered as read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Hydrogen Future Act of
1995''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute is as follows:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) fossil fuels, the main energy source of the present,
have provided this country with tremendous supply but are
limited and polluting;
(2) additional basic research and development are needed to
encourage private sector investment in development of new and
better energy sources and enabling technologies;
(3) hydrogen holds tremendous promise as a fuel, because it
can be extracted from water and can be burned much more
cleanly than conventional fuels;
(4) hydrogen production efficiency is a major technical
barrier to society collectively benefiting from one of the
great energy sources of the future;
(5) an aggressive, results-oriented, multiyear research
initiative on efficient hydrogen fuel production and use
should continue; and
(6) the current Federal effort to develop hydrogen as a
fuel is inadequate.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to provide for a basic research, development, and
demonstration program leading to the production, storage,
transport, and use of hydrogen for industrial, residential,
transportation, and utility applications; and
(2) to provide for advice from academia and the private
sector in the implementation of the Department of Energy
hydrogen research, development, and demonstration program to
ensure that economic benefits of the program accrue to the
United States.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``demonstration'' means a validation of the
technical feasibility of a theory or process;
(2) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
and
(3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.
SEC. 5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
(A) Authorized Activities.--Pursuant to this section, the
Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act of 1990 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
and in accordance with the purposes of this Act, the
Secretary shall provide for a hydrogen energy research,
development, and demonstration program relating to
production, storage, transportation, and use of hydrogen,
with the goal of enabling the private sector to demonstrate
the technical feasibility of using hydrogen for industrial,
residential, transportation, and utility applications. In
establishing priorities for Federal funding under this
section, the Secretary shall survey private sector hydrogen
activities and take steps to ensure that activities under
this section do not displace or compete with
[[Page H4474]] the privately funded hydrogen activities of
United States industry.
(b) Schedule.--Within 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the later of this Act or an Act providing
appropriations for programs authorized by this Act, the
Secretary shall solicit proposals for all interested parties
(including the Department's laboratories) for carrying out
the research, development, and demonstration activities
authorized under this section. Within 180 days after such
solicitation, if the Secretary identifies proposals worthy of
Federal assistance, financial assistance shall be awarded
under this section competitively, using peer review of
proposals with appropriate protection of proprietary
information. The Secretary shall use appropriations
authorized by this Act that are not allocated for such awards
to carry out research, development, and demonstration
activities in accordance with the purposes of this Act.
(c) Cost Sharing.--(1) Except as otherwise provided in
section 6, for research and development proposals funded
under this Act, the Secretary shall require a commitment from
non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent of the cost of the
proposed program. The Secretary may reduce or eliminate the
non-Federal requirement under this paragraph if the Secretary
determines that the research and development is of such a
purely basic or fundamental nature that a non-Federal
commitment is not obtainable.
(2) The Secretary shall require at least 50 percent of the
costs directly and specifically related to any demonstration
project under this Act to be provided from non-Federal
sources. The Secretary may reduce the non-Federal requirement
under this paragraph if the Secretary determines that the
reduction is unnecessary and appropriate considering the
technological risks involved in the project and is necessary
to serve the purposes and goals of this Act.
(3) In calculating the amount of the non-Federal commitment
under paragraph (1) or (2), the Secretary shall include cash,
and the fair market value of personnel, services, equipment,
and other resources.
(d) Certifications.--Before financial assistance is
provided under this section or the Spark M. Matsunaga
Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of
1990--
(1) the Secretary must certify that providing such
financial assistance is consistent with the Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures described in section
771(8) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(8)); and
(2) industry participants must certify that they have made
reasonable efforts to obtain non-Federal funding for the
entire cost of the project, and that such non-Federal funding
could not be reasonably obtained.
(e) Duplication of Programs.--The Secretary shall not carry
out any activities under this section that unnecessarily
duplicate activities carried out elsewhere by the Federal
Government or the private sector.
SEC. 6. HIGHLY INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.
Of the amounts made available for carrying out section 5,
up to 5 percent shall be used to support research on highly
innovative energy technologies. Such amounts shall not be
subject to the cost sharing requirements in section 5(c).
SEC. 7. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.
The Secretary shall foster the exchange of generic,
nonproprietary information and technology, developed pursuant
to section 5, among industry, academia, and the Federal
Government. The Secretary shall ensure that economic
benefits of such exchange of information and technology will
accrue to the United States economy.
SEC. 8. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
Within 18 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to
the Congress a detailed report on the status and progress of
the Department's hydrogen research and development program.
Such report shall include an analysis of the effectiveness of
such program, to be prepared and submitted by the Hydrogen
Technical Advisory Panel established under section 108 of the
Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act of 1990. Such Panel shall also make
recommendations for improvements to such program if needed,
including recommendations for additional legislation.
SEC. 9. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION.
(a) Coordination With Other Federal Agencies.--The
Secretary shall coordinate all hydrogen research and
development activities within the Department, and with the
activities of other Federal agencies involved in similar
research and development, including the Department of
Defense, the Department of Transportation, and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Further, the Secretary
shall pursue opportunities for cooperation with such Federal
entities.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel established under section
108 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development,
and Demonstration Act of 1990 as necessary in carrying out
this Act.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) General Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act--
(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
(2) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; and
(3) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
(b) Related Authorizations.--(1) For each of the fiscal
years 1996, 1997, and 1998, the total amount which may be
obligated for Energy Supply Research and Development
Activities shall not exceed the total amount obligated for
such activities in fiscal year 1995.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not authorize the
appropriation of any Federal funds.
amendment offered by mr. brown of california
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California: Page 4, lines
14 and 15, strike ``(including the Department's
laboratories)''.
Page 4, line 17, insert ``The Secretary may consider a
proposal from a contractor who manages and operates a
Department facility under contract with the Department, and
the contractor may perform the work at that facility or any
other facility.'' after ``authorized under this section.''.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this is essentially a
technical amendment which I think the chairman of the committee has
agreed to. It clarifies the question of whether a Department of Energy
laboratory may compete for an award under this bill, and as I
understand it this is in accordance with the gentleman's feelings about
the bill.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman on this. The
staffs did work together closely with the Department of Energy on these
changes. I thank the staffs for that. I think it is a good amendment.
The change will clarify the intent of the bill as to the language
concerning the involvement of the Department of Energy laboratories
with the hydrogen program.
The intent of the bill was to allow the laboratories to participate
in Department programs, and this change reflects this intent. I would
ask our colleagues to support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Traficant: Page 7, line 8, insert ``,
with particular emphasis on activities carried out pursuant
to section 7 of this Act'' after ``research and development
program''.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, during the amendment process and markup
I was able to include language which says the Secretary shall ensure
that economic benefits of such exchange of information and technology
accrue to the U.S. economy.
My amendment simply says when we get a report back, as this bill
requires, that it would give some emphasis to in fact if that accrual
of benefit to the U.S. economy has occurred, and give us some
information in that regard.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to support the gentleman's
amendment, and would urge other Members to do the same.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California, the
distinguished ranking member.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. We agree with the gentleman with regard to the need for this
amendment, and have no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote in the affirmative.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. walker
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 4, line 1, insert
``basic'' after ``hydrogen energy''.
Page 5, line 2, strike ``and development''.
Page 5, line 4, strike ``20'' and insert in lieu thereof
``25''.
Page 5, lines 7 and 8, strike ``and development''.
Page 5, line 11, insert ``development or'' after ``related
to any''.
[[Page H4475]] Page 5, line lines 13 through 21, strike
``The Secretary may'' and all that follows through ``and
other resources.''.
Page 5, line 22, insert ``and Requirements'' after
``Certifications''.
Page 6, line 1, strike ``certify'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``ensure''.
Page 6, lines 3 through 5, strike ``described in section
771(8) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(8))'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``as approved in section 101 of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511)''.
Page 6, line 17, insert ``basic'' after ``used to
support''.
Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that will clarify the
intent of the bill by conforming the bill language to the GATT language
adopted in the Uruguay round.
The two main changes made in language reflect raising the 20-percent
cost-share for research programs to a 25-percent cost-share as required
by GATT, and changing the referenced GATT citation to the Uruguay round
itself.
This language regarding Federal funding of research became effective
January 1 of this year.
Staff has worked with the Department of Energy on the intent of this
amendment.
I would ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked as was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, because this legislation
provides for cooperative funding of research and development with
private industry, it falls within the purview of certain GATT
provisions which deal with this.
{time} 1515
And Mr. Walker's amendment seeks to resolve the issue of whether or
not this comports with GATT by the language which he has offered.
It is our view that in doing so he has created additional problems
which need to be resolved that are going to be extremely difficult to
resolve because of the fact that it is not clear exactly what the
definition of some of the terms being used within the bill and within
his amendment is. This situation is an interesting one, because it is
the first time that we have had to attempt to reconcile legislation
involving what might be considered legislation involving what might be
considered U.S. Government subsidies to industry, and it is important
that we do it in a proper way.
I had originally intended to offer some language which I thought
would resolve this more effectively, but I have decided merely in this
statement to try and clarify the situation and to express my hope that
as we go forward that we can have further consultative process with the
administration and that perhaps when the bill gets to the other body,
as I hope that it will, we can resolve this issue of the proper
language to accommodate the bill to the GATT provisions in a fashion
which is satisfactory to the administration, to the Department of
Energy and hopefully to those people who are trying to interpret GATT.
At this point, I am going to content myself with expressing my
feeling that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker] does not resolve the problem and, hence, I am going to
oppose it, but I will not ask for a rollcall vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment is intended to try to fix
a problem in the bill that arises from new language in the GATT
Agreement which we approved in the last Congress. The new GATT rules
fix an upper limit on the amount of Government subsidies that can be
given to certain kinds of industry-related research, development, and
demonstration efforts.
Unfortunately, GATT's definitions of the key terms do not mesh with
the terms ``research, development, and demonstration'' terms which we
traditionally use, not only in this particular bill, but throughout the
wide range of Government R&D programs. This bill marks the first time
Congress has had to grapple with these difficult definitional problems.
Unfortunately, this problem was only recently called to our attention,
and we have not had much time to consider careful solutions.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania attempts to
force a rough solution to this delicate problem. To achieve superficial
compliance with GATT, the amendment would treat all development
activities under the bill as what GATT refers to as precompetitive
development activities. It is certainly not clear to me that many of
the activities which we would call development fall within the GATT
term. Indeed, the GATT term seems much closer to the activities that we
would traditionally call demonstration activities.
The net effect of this amendment would be to increase the private
sector cost-share requirement for development activities, from the 20
percent set out in the bill as reported to 50 percent. In my view, the
development stage of research is entirely too early to require such a
large private sector cost share. At this point in the process, any
potential commercialization of a product or process is entirely
speculative, and the technical risks of failure are generally high. The
result is that a high mandatory cost-share will drive industry away
from investing in hydrogen development, with the exact opposite result
of what the sponsors of this bill hope: Less innovation, less private
sector investment, and slower progress toward the development of
hydrogen.
My preference would have been to adopt an amendment which simply
requires the DOE to administer the cost-sharing requirements in
accordance with GATT, and leave to the administration the untidy task
of determining precisely what compliance requires for the particular
programs at issue. After all, this issue will have to be addressed by
the administration under numerous other research and development
programs, and we typically leave to the administration the task of
interpreting and carry out our international obligations.
If this amendment is adopted, I would urge the distinguished
gentleman to consult with the administration on this point as the bill
goes forward and see if some better solution could be developed.
For the reasons noted above, I oppose the amendment, and urge a
``no'' vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
amendment offered by mr. olver
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Olver: Page 8, line 9, strike
``$25,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$16,000,000''.
Page 8, line 10, strike ``$35,000,000'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``$22,000,000''.
Page 8, line 11, strike ``$40,000,000'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``$26,000,000''.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we obviously have some contention here about
numbers, but I think I am correct on the Record.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It reduces the authorized
levels of spending in H.R. 655 by a total of $36 million over 3 years.
On March 1, 1995, the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel released its
recommendations for the future of the hydrogen research program. The
Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel, or HTAP, is a panel of professionals
from industry, universities, and government, specifically convened to
provide expert advice to the Department of Energy on the development of
hydrogen programs. This panel's work represents essentially peer review
of the overall research program.
HTAP has adopted as its long-range goal that ``hydrogen join
electricity in the 21st century as a primary energy carrier in the
Nation's sustainable energy future,'' and HTAP has laid out a 20-year
budget plan to achieve that goal.
My amendment simply adopts the level of funding proposed in the
advisory panel's recommendations for research and development
activities. As an aside, I believe we ought to also authorize the
demonstration projects as proposed by HTAP, but since the bill does not
authorize such demonstration projects, it would make no sense to
authorize funds for those demonstration projects. Therefore, my
amendment would authorize the hydrogen research program at the levels
that have been listed in the amendment. It does not cut hydrogen
research funding. In fact, it doubles the authorization for hydrogen
research compared with current spending. However, my amendment
[[Page H4476]] does cut $36 million from the authorization levels
proposed in the bill, and it is achieved by limiting the funding
increase to what the people involved in the program, the industry and
outside academics alike, have said they need.
So you can vote to save $36 million, and yet you can rest assured
there is full funding for the research program as requested by the
professional advisory panel, except, of course, for the demonstration
projects which are not included in the authorization.
As a scientist, I support hydrogen research. In my academic career, I
personally have done research on fuel cells, one of the most promising
ways to utilize hydrogen as a fuel.
As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I do not see why anyone
thinks we should spend more money than even proponents of the program
think is needed.
The Members of this House have spent the last 100 days cutting
spending. We have cut lunches. We have cut fuel assistance. We have cut
safe drinking water moneys for our towns. We are going to spend the
next 100 days cutting spending. We will cut the Department of Energy.
We may even eliminate the Department of Energy.
So I challenge each Member then to figure out why we, on this first
day back, are increasing spending on this program by at least 300
percent above the current program, and far above what the professionals
in the field think is necessary.
Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the distinguished chairman of
the committee, will say that the budget cap in the bill will prevent
increases in the hydrogen program from increasing Federal overall
spending, but if the spending is unjustified, none of us should be
mollified that it is offset by cuts to other programs.
Let us restore a measure of reasonableness to this program to adopt
the advisory panel's recommendations and save $36 million.
I would urge Members to vote yes on the amendment, and I would point
out the letter that is being circulated in regard to this expenditure
level includes the demonstration projects, the moneys that are listed
which are, indeed, numbers above the numbers in the authorization in
the legislation that that recommendation from the HTAP includes the
demonstration projects which are not authorized and which the chairman
has opposed.
I would urge the Members vote to reduce this authorization to what is
included as authorized in the legislation and to what the HTAP panel
has recommended in their 20-year budget for the development of the
hydrogen research program.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment saves no money. There is no
savings here. We are simply talking about how much money you are
willing to put into a hydrogen research effort.
The whole intent behind this bill is to reprioritize hydrogen in the
overall research scheme. Why is that necessary? Well, because hydrogen
has had a very minor role. It is an energy source, an energy resource
with a very, very great potential that has been virtually ignored by
the Department of Energy.
Now, the gentleman tells us that he is doing this because of guidance
from the Hydrogen Technology Assessment Panel. The fact is that the
HTAP recommendations are higher than what is in the bill and very much
higher than the amendment that the gentleman offers. Now, he says this
relates to demonstration programs. I am not real hot on doing
demonstration projects. The gentleman is absolutely right on that.
The fact is under amendments adopted in the committee, there are
demonstration projects in the bill. Now, they have to be peer reviewed.
They have to meet standards and so on. But the fact is the bill makes
allowances for demonstration projects.
It is not one of the things I think is the greatest piece of the
bill, but the fact is they are there.
But what the gentleman is really doing is he is cutting back on the
prioritization of hydrogen. That is what his intent is. This is not
saving any money because of the cap. It just simply is that he does not
agree we ought to spend as much money prioritizing hydrogen. I think we
ought to understand where he is going to put the money. He is going to
put the money into solar R&D, which already gets $400 million. He is
going to put the money into fusion that already gets $370 million. He
is going to put the money into nuclear R&D that already gets $300
million.
Now, when you are talking about a $25 million hydrogen program, it is
not even in the same league as these other programs, and yet what the
gentleman is going to do is come out here and protect the old order,
just keep everything in place that is now there, Keep spending money
for things like fossil R&D and solar R&D, fusion R&D, nuclear R&D, and
all of these kinds of things, all of the programs that have
been prioritized over the past. The gentleman would say keep them in
place, do not touch them, let us let the old order prevail. This is all
fine and well.
We are actually attempting to do something that is a little different
here. We are attempting to move away from the old structure of the past
and build a program up that deserves a little bit of prioritization.
The gentleman does not want to move in that direction. I think that
is sincere. He can be very sincere. If he is antihydrogen, he is
antihydrogen. That is fine. Let us not suggest that what he is doing is
in line with what the hydrogen program wants. The hydrogen program has
said the figures they want is $28 million in 1996, $37 million in 1997,
and in 1998 they want $48 million.
This bill does not give them as much as they are requesting, but the
fact is it is in an order of magnitude that is little bit more and does
begin to reprioritize the program. That is what I am attempting to do.
But we ought not accept anything in the gentleman's argument that
suggests that he saves a dime. He does not save a dime with his
amendment. All he does is he says that we are going to spend more money
for things like solar and fusion and nuclear instead of spending it on
hydrogen.
I just happen to think that is the wrong set of priorities, and the
gentleman's amendment in that regard is the wrong direction to go. We
ought to reprioritize our research. Our research has gone badly in
terms of prioritization in the past. We ought to begin to reprioritize.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I never mind being called correctly for what I am doing, but I must
say that the thought-for-word ratio there is very low in the
gentleman's comment.
I am not antihydrogen. I have said quite plainly in the beginning
that I am prohydrogen research. I am even a scientist who has done
research on fuel cell technology and hydrogen-based fuel cells. I am
for hydrogen research.
I am not, as the amendment is very clear, so let us be quite, quite
specific about this, when the gentleman says that I am for more nuclear
R&D and solar R&D and fusion R&D, and whatever other R&D's he is
talking about, my amendment does nothing of the sort. All it does is
reduce the amount in this particular authorization for the hydrogen
research so that that comes from the essentially peer review panel, the
HTAP panel which works on this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WALKER. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. I would like to end this so the gentleman will have time
to take part. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Now, the gentleman says that there are demonstrations allowed in the
legislation, but I would point out, and I am sure he agrees with this,
that the demonstrations allowed in the legislation and authorized by
the legislation are limited to the validation of the technical
feasibility of theory or process and the demonstrations which are part
of HTAP's program of their development of hydrogen as a fuel, the
demonstrations are utility demonstrations, transportation
demonstration, remote
[[Page H4477]] transportation production demonstration, clearly not
related to the validation of the technical feasibility of theory or
process.
And so the demonstrations that are included in their budget, in the
HTAP-proposed budget are not authorized by the legislation, and we
should not be authorizing money for the bill.
Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for his opinion. The fact is we are
trying to reprioritize some of the things going on in the program as
well. All the gentleman is doing is cutting back our ability to do
that. The gentleman is not reducing moneys overall, here.
The only reason I am saying what he is doing is protecting other R&D
programs such as nuclear R&D is because they are in the same account.
If, in fact, what we are doing is capping the account and the gentleman
simply wants to spend less for hydrogen, the fact is what he is doing
is giving more money to these old order programs. The only comment I am
making is the old order would continue to stand tall in the gentleman's
amendment, and instead of getting some new solutions with some new
ideas, moving toward a new resource, that the gentleman would cut back
on our ability to do that.
In my view, he is offering an amendment that is well below that which
the HTAP panel has suggested are the right numbers.
Now, whether HTAP wants to spend those in ways different, my point is
that all of that ought to be peer reviewed, that we ought to have a way
of figuring out whether or not there is good science involved.
Reject the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Olver] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to expend more money on any
of the other places.
We can make cuts in those, those places where it is appropriate to
make cuts through the reprioritization of our expenditure programs
which I think is what we are really trying to do, to reprioritize how
the expenditures in the Department of Energy should go.
{time} 1330
And the proposals here, even if correctly calculated, and taking out
those demonstrations, which all the words aside, if demonstrations
which are not of a nature that deal with the validation of the
technical feasibility of the theory or process are not authorized in
the legislation, then those demonstrations that the HTAP is suggesting
ought to be done, which I think ought to be done actually; those are
not possible to be done under the provisions of the legislation, and we
should be authorizing money that is appropriately based upon the
legislation that we are passing. I think we should be eliminating
unnecessary spending wherever we can make that elimination.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] require any additional time?
Mr. Chairman, I will not prolong this unduly. I think that the
gentleman from Massachusetts has propounded a reasonable amendment that
would conform to our previous practice which is, in general, to try to
authorize not higher than what has been suggested by the official
technical advisor groups that are responsible for a particular program,
or if it is a recommendation from the administration not higher than
the administration has recommended. I am somewhat constrained in my
enthusiasm for the amendment because I think I tend to agree with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that this is a program which
has been underfunded in the past, but the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] in my opinion would comport
with what I think is the view of most Members of the House, that we
confined the increases in programs to those that can be justified on
the basis of technical recommendations.
Now I understand the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] is that his figures do comply with those technical
recommendations. I am not wholly assured that they do, but he may be
justified in that position.
On balance I would like to support the amendment of the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] and ask for an ``aye'' vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 214, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 306]
AYES--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Metcalf
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Montgomery
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Whitfield
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--214
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
[[Page H4478]] Oxley
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--19
Baesler
Baldacci
Becerra
Clay
Fattah
Gallegly
Hilliard
Istook
Menendez
Moakley
Moran
Norwood
Pelosi
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Saxton
Thompson
Wilson
Wise
{time} 1552
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Norwood against.
Messrs. ALLARD, EWING, GUNDERSON, UPTON, BENTSEN, and SMITH of
Michigan changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. PACKARD, ZIMMER, SCHUMER, TIAHRT, WAXMAN, and PORTER changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
amendment offered by mr. brown of california
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California: Page 8, line
7, strike ``(a) General Authorization.--''.
Page 8, lines 12 through 18, strike subsection (b).
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to
strike the provisions in the bill which put a cap on the 1995 outlay
level on the expenditures on energy supply research and development.
Now, let me explain this amendment. It is very simple. It just
eliminates the cap language which occupies a few lines in the bill.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, has asserted that the
purpose of the cap language is to make sure that the bill itself is
budget neutral, that it does not add to spending in the Department of
Energy. The gentleman is being unduly modest in this respect. The cap
language would appear at this particular time, and before the 1996
spending level has been determined, to cut the spending in this account
by $250 million, plus or minus a little bit. This cutoff $250 million
is intended to offset the additional expenditures, which amount to some
few tens of millions of dollars contained in this bill.
So the actual reductions in the Department of Energy spending not
only cover the cost of the increases, the minor increases in this bill,
which I support, but they overcompensate by probably 10 times the
amount.
{time} 1600
Now, if the purpose of the bill, of the cap was to offset the cost of
the increases in hydrogen research spending, I would 100 percent
support it. I want the bill to be budget neutral. But if it cuts 10
times as much as the bill spends, then I think it is a first step
toward the dismantling of the research budget of the Department of
Energy.
Now, that may well occur, but it is not appropriate to use this minor
bill as a vehicle for determining future energy research expenditures
for the next 3 years. That is appropriately the role of the Committee
on the Budget, the role of the administration, the role of the
Committee on Appropriations, but not the role of this particular bill.
So I am objecting very strongly to this device.
Now, as I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], he
continues to assert that the purpose of the cap language is to make
sure that this bill is budget neutral and that, if we can find other
language that is better than the cap to do that, I gather that he would
support it. I suggest that he look for that language in the Committee
on the Budget, which he also serves on, and include it there, rather
than in this bill.
I will not try and belabor this point, Mr. Chairman. You do not need
to make $250 million in cuts to support a bill that adds $25 million to
the cost of hydrogen research. What you will do, as a result of these
cuts, is to force cuts in all of the other programs, which I am sure is
what we will have to make eventually, but this is not the way to make
them. We will force cuts which will have an impact on every laboratory
of the Department of Energy, including Los Alamos and Livermore and
Argonne and Savannah River and all of the others which are now in
discussion, are now being discussed in terms of what our future policy
should be.
The discussion has not ended; it has not been resolved. We do not
have an answer. Yet here in this bill we are going to force that
quarter of a billion dollars per year cut without any guidelines,
without any knowledge of what the impact will be. I very much object to
that process, not to the funding of this bill by offsets. As I have
said, I would be glad to support a bill directed at that. But this is
not the way to do it. I object very strongly, and I ask support for my
amendment to remove the caps.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering to section 10(b) of
this bill would eliminate the authorization cap on Energy Supply
Research and Development [R&D] activities conducted at the Department
of Energy [DOE]. In offering this amendment I want to make it clear
that I support hydrogen research and even feel that this research can
be offset by reductions in other energy R&D programs. But the caps
contained in H.R. 655 are arbitrary, have little to do with thoughtful
energy policy, and are directed at a broader effort to cut DOE
programs, beyond the amount needed to offset the cost of this bill. I
feel strongly that until these issues are addressed, we cannot go
forward with the caps as currently written.
The major problem with this language is that it is a poorly disguised
attempt to arbitrarily cut the DOE research budget. The accounts under
the Energy Supply R&D heading total around $3.3 billion dollars per
year. The cap imposed by this bill cuts outlays in these programs by
$250 million in fiscal year 96 and an unknown amount in the next 2
fiscal years. But the program authorization for the hydrogen research,
which is the supposed reason for this legislation, runs between $25 and
$40 million per year over the next 3 years.
Thus, the caps cut much more than is envisioned being spent on the
hydrogen research. The hydrogen research funding is the tail wagging
the dog, and the dog is major program reductions across the board in
Energy Supply R&D. If the goal of H.R. 655 is to cut DOE funding, let's
do it in a broad authorization bill. If the goal of H.R. 655 is to
offset the cost of the hydrogen research authorized in this bill, then
lets find appropriate offsets and identify them. But let's not bring up
a hydrogen research authorization that is really a trojan horse for
other political goals, namely the first move toward the dismantlement
of DOE.
Beyond these questions about the true motivation for imposing these
caps, I also object to the rather arbitrary nature of the language in
H.R. 655. There is no mention of any process by which the
Appropriations Committees or the Secretary of Energy are to make
decisions about which programs to cut. No priorities are established.
No vision about our future energy supply mix is outlined. No reference
is made to the existing omnibus energy policy document, the Energy
Policy Act of 1992.
What the bill does is authorize a modest research program and then,
almost as an aside, in the next-to-last paragraph of the bill, draw in
the entire $3.3 billion Energy Supply R&D program and cut $250 million
from it in the first year.
Where are these cuts to be made? Who knows? Under the heading of
Energy Supply R&D are a wide range of programs all put at risk under
this bill. Will the cuts come to the fusion program or the TPX at
Princeton, NJ? Will the Environmental Restoration program be used as an
offset, possibly forcing non-compliance issues at DOE facilities around
the country? Will the fossil fuel research programs be cut, reducing
oil and gas or coal research? Will we have to cut operating time at DOE
user facilities, delaying industry research at these sites? Do the cuts
hit the DOE labs at Argonne, Livermore, Albuquerque, Oak Ridge, and
numerous other sites around the country? Unfortunately, no one on the
floor today can
[[Page H4479]] answer these questions. The truth of the matter is that
we do not know what we are voting for in this bill.
When I was chair of the Science Committee, we tried to move a series
of authorization bills to address these issues. We tried to set out
relative priorities for funding and indicate the importance of various
programs at DOE. We did not succeed, but at least we tried to do a
comprehensive job of authorizing DOE programs.
Mr. Walker now faces that task and I pledge to help him work on a
comprehensive DOE research authorization. In that bill, at that time,
we need to discuss the broad goals and priorities of our Nation's
energy R&D programs. In that bill, we can debate offsets, program
reductions, and a host of other policy issues. Mr. Walker will, I
believe, agree with me on the need for a comprehensive look at DOE's
programs.
In fact, Mr. Walker endorsed this approach last year in a similar
debate on a similar proposal for an energy R&D cap. Last August, during
floor debate on H.R. 4908, the Hydrogen, Fusion, and High Energy and
Nuclear Physics Authorization Act, Mr. Walker agreed that his
preference was for a full authorization for the entire range of energy
programs, rather than a simple cap. He is now in a position to propose
a comprehensive authorization.
Where today is the debate on the proper funding level for nuclear
energy R&D, or a discussion on the proper allocation of resources to
the DOE labs, or the funding needs for environmental restoration? We
are not having a debate on anything other than a small hydrogen
research program yet we are affecting all of these other programs. If
you are concerned about the DOE energy portfolio, if you have a DOE lab
in your district, if you have interests in energy R&D, you will join me
in striking the caps and asking Mr. Walker for a chance to debate this
important issue in the open, instead of seeing funding priorities for a
$3.3 billion program stuck at the tail end of the Hydrogen Future Act.
All I am asking for in this amendment is a chance to do what Mr.
Walker has said he wants to do. I feel that we should strike the
authorization caps until we have a chance to debate all of the other
programs touched by this language.
Vote for the Brown amendment. Vote for regular order.
Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, what funny roles we have as we change. Now the last
debate was over whether we should cut the hydrogen fuels program. The
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I both support the hydrogen
fuels program but he felt constrained to cut $10 million a year. Now we
are going to take the caps off. And go ahead, Katie bar the door, let
us spend more on this and spend more on that, we will spend more on the
nuclear programs, spend more on the hydrogen program, spend more on
biomass and every other kind of research program for energy.
We want to set responsible levels. And this cap does that. The fact
that we have increased slightly by around $10 million a year the
hydrogen fuels spending does not mean we have to take the cap off and
allow this Government to continue to spend in excess year after year.
Let us keep these responsible levels. Let us keep the cap and vote
against this amendment.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I rise as strong opponent of the arbitrary cap on research and
in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Brown].
I believe that having spent now 3 weeks in Silicon Valley and
listening to the CEOs of the most exciting and productive companies in
our Nation that the key to our economic future is research and learning
new things and cutting-edge endeavors. I believe that putting a cap on
this research area will have an unfortunate and hopefully and quite
possibly unintended consequence.
The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] really
picks one promising area of research out of all, and that is this
hydrogen bill before us. I agree that hydrogen research is worthy of
exploration and may, in fact, play a useful role in our country's
future. But it is only one of a rich environment of research
possibilities that include solar and even more excitingly fusion
research. If we are going to put a cap on the amount of money that will
be spent in this environment and then single out only one area of
hydrogen for our research dollars, in effect what we are doing is
saying here on the floor, without analysis in the appropriate
committees, including Science on which I serve, that fusion research is
not worth our time, that fusion research really is not going to receive
the kind of support that I believe it needs if it is going to be the
energy source for our country and, indeed, the world in the 21st
century.
When I think about a world that could be supported by fusion, I think
of a nation that would have limitless supplies of energy, that is
clean, nonpolluting and readily available for all. I think to imagine
that country and that world really puts in perspective the reason why
we need to protect the fusion program. I find it disturbing that in a
backdoor way this bill would really direct the scientific talent of our
Nation only to one area, that would be hydrogen, to the detriment of
even more exciting, long-term endeavors.
So I would strongly urge approval of the amendment of the gentleman
from California and, frankly, should this amendment fail, I will be
unable to support this bill because, in effect, it will be killing the
fusion research program that I think really merits our attention more
than anything else.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, a lot of us, when we went home, found a lot of our
constituents were wondering how we got ourselves into this $4.5
trillion debt mess and why we have huge deficits. This amendment is
really the reason why.
This amendment says it does not matter, the fact that we are trying
to reprioritize. What we want to do is just spend more. Because if you
take off the cap, as this amendment proposes to do, it simply is add-on
spending, add-on spending over and above anything we are doing now.
The statement that was just made that somehow this is going to kill
fusion research and all that sort of thing is just plain nonsense. We
are talking here $15 million worth in total. That is one-half of 1
percent of a $3.3 billion account. All we are suggesting is that $3.3
billion account ought to be capped at the 1995 spending level. We ought
not spend anymore in order to reprioritize the hydrogen program within
that account.
By doing that, what you assure is we have no add-on deficit. We have
no add-on debt. And it seems to me that as a Congress right now we do
not want to be approving programs that increase the deficit and
increase the debt.
In fact, when we get a budget bill out here in the near future, we
are going to be talking about trying to find ways to reduce the rate of
increase of Government even further than we have done in the past.
So this particular bill is aimed at assuring that you just do not
have anymore add-on deficit, add-on debt. If you vote for the Brown
amendment, you are going to create add-on debt in this bill. In my
view, that would be the wrong thing to do.
We want to reprioritize hydrogen within the programs that are
presently there. We do not emasculate any program to do this. As I say,
the total amount of spending, the increase in spending in this bill is
less than one-half of 1 percent of the totality of the account.
So it seems to me we ought to do this.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] mentioned the fact that
there may be other ways of getting at this. I asked the department to
help us to do that. The department came up with no language. I asked
members of the Committee on Science to help us do that. They came up
with no language.
The only way anybody knows to make certain we do not spend more on
the program is to cap it. And so that is what we have indeed done.
I think that this is the right approach to take. I would urge anybody
who is talking about reducing deficits and reducing debt to vote
against this amendment because otherwise what you are going to do is
have a program here that potentially would be add-on spending. I do not
think that that is the correct course for us to take in the present
economic environment.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
[[Page H4480]] Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like
the House to be aware of this discourse. I am not sure that I have a
fundamental disagreement with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker], but the way in which he chooses to express his criticism of my
amendment leaves me a little bit nonplussed, because he states that
defeating this, by defeating this amendment will be simply add-on
spending.
I want to ask the gentleman, if we could devise language which would
offset the increased authorization for hydrogen by a similar amount in
other fields so that there is a true offset and no increase in
spending, is it the position of the gentleman that he would agree to
this kind of language?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have said that all the way along, that I
thought that if we could find other ways of accomplishing this to
assure that there is no add-on program here, that that would be
perfectly acceptable to me. But your amendment goes right at the heart
of the bill's language that seeks to put that kind of cap in.
By striking the cap, you are simply doing all of the additional
spending in the bill as add-on to the present account.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, it is not this gentleman's intention to deliberately add onto
spending. I think that the semantic problem here is that you are saying
that capping the Department of Energy's spending for this account at
the current year's level, 1995, anything in excess of that is add-on
spending, whereas the base line basically is the administration's
projections for what the spending would be over the next several years.
I do not intend to go beyond the administration's projection, and if
it is possible to cut those projections sufficiently to fund this
program, I would agree to that.
In other words, I am objecting to the gentleman characterizing my
proposal as add-on spending.
Now, would the gentleman agree with me also that based on our present
knowledge of the President's budget for 1996 and anticipated 1997 and
1998, that his language constrains that by a quarter of a billion
dollars?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, does the gentleman agree with me that his language not only
prevents add-ons, it reduces the spending in this account for the
Department of Energy by a quarter of a billion dollars below the
department's base line?
Mr. WALKER. Below the projected increases, I would say to the
gentleman. But I would also say to the gentleman that at the beginning
of this Congress, we developed a new rule in this Congress with regard
to spending.
We said we were going to use the base line, all baselines, as the
amount of money that was actually spent in the previous year. So I
would say to the gentleman the base line for spending is the 1995
appropriated amount. And what we are attempting to do is hold it in
line with the 1995 appropriated amount.
If you are saying that by holding it in that line, we will not allow
the projected increases out into the future, the gentleman is
absolutely correct. Because I think in order to get the budgetary house
in order, we are, in fact, going to have to begin to consider not what
we want to spend for programs but what we are actually spending on
programs and that the baseline has to be the amount of money actually
being spent.
Washington, for too long, has decided that going from $20 a year of
spending to $22 a year of spending is not an increase, if what they
wanted was $25 a year. And in our view, what we think we ought to do is
say the $20 that we are spending this year is in fact the proper base
line.
{time} 1615
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I would ask the gentleman, has that action been taken by the
Committee on the Budget, and does it apply to all categories of
spending?
Mr. WALKER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is
correct. The Committee on the Budget has been working within its
deliberations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Brown of California and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, with the exception of Social Security,
every other account is being calculated based upon 1995 spending as the
baseline.
Mr. BROWN of California. Including Medicare?
Mr. WALKER. Medicare would be included in that particular area as
well, that is right.
Mr. BROWN of California. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr.
Chairman, so the policy of the Committee on the Budget would be to keep
Medicare at the present 1995 levels?
Mr. WALKER. Our intention on Medicare is to reform Medicare and
transform the program so it can live within the bounds over the next 7
years of spending $1\1/2\ trillion.
That would in fact be an increasing kind of program, and we think we
can manage that within a balanced budget, but in terms of calculating
it, we are not saying that everything is going to be held at the 1995
baseline, we are simply saying that is the baseline which we use. Some
things will go above that baseline, some will go below, but the fact is
we are not going to use an accelerating baseline for what we are doing.
In the case of Medicare, simply the demographics of the account will
have it go up, so Medicare will actually be spending more in the year
2002 than it spends in 1995, but then that will be an increase.
Mr. BROWN of California. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification,
Mr. Chairman. I think this colloquy has helped the Members to
understand the situation. I do not agree with the gentleman that the
1995 baseline is the one that will finally be in effect for the
Department of Energy. I do not know at this point.
Mr. WALKER. I think it will probably be lower, I would say to the
gentleman, and the fact is that the 1995 baseline therefore may be a
figure higher than where we are when we finally come out of the budget
process, so all we are trying to do here is to make certain that the
Department understands that as this program is authorized, it is being
authorized within the accounts that are presently available, not as
add-on spending.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the total amount given in this subsection
B applies to all research and development activities of the Department
of Energy, is that correct?
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, since I have taken a leave of absence from
the Committee on Science, normally the Committee on Science annually
puts out a bill for research and development, an authorization bill.
Does the gentleman plan to do that this year?
Mr. WALKER. Sure, we are going to put out an authorization bill.
Mr. VOLKMER. Do all the programs within that bill have to do with the
same figure?
Mr. WALKER. We will in fact have an authorization bill that will
include these accounts, that is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. Include all these accounts?
Mr. WALKER. Sure.
Mr. VOLKMER. So the figure that the gentleman has here will be
basically, first there is the budget to come yet. Before we do the
authorization bill, we are going to have the budget. The budget may say
more or less, I would guess less, less than the figure you have here,
is that correct?
Mr. WALKER. That is correct, it could be.
Mr. VOLKMER. When the committee does the authorization bill, that
figure may be more or less?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Walker
[[Page H4481]] was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I Yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, is it correct that this will be done one
way or another, when we do the authorization bill?
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is correct, we will do both, and when we do
the authorization bill.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
so that figure may or may not, depending on the will of the House, be
the figure that is finally determined at a later date?
Mr. WALKER. Sure.
Mr. VOLKMER. So this figure that we have of the 1995 level, which I
understand is something like $3.3 billion, is only in this bill, Mr.
Chairman, but we are going to have another bill later on and a budget
that could say it is different, is that correct?
Mr. WALKER. We are authorizing a program here. What we want to do is
make certain that as we authorize the program, it is not add-on
spending. That is the only signal we are sending. It may well be this
program will have to survive within reduced cuts or within a reduced
budget in the future, sure.
Mr. VOLKMER. Also, that in that authorization bill that comes on,
this whole program can be once again reexamined within that bill?
Mr. WALKER. Sure, absolutely. It is going to have to face the same
kind of prioritization as everything else. The fact is this is a
program that the Department has refused to prioritize in the past. What
we are trying to do now is give it a new sense of priority within what
the Department does. That is subject to all of the budget restraints.
However, the only point I am making here in opposing the gentleman's
amendment is if we take off the cap we have in the bill, what that
suggests is that we want this program as an add-on, and in my view, we
ought not be out here considering an add-on. We ought to be out here
considering what the priorities are, where we ought to spend money in
the Energy Department.
In my view, one of those priorities ought to be hydrogen. Others may
disagree. There were some people who just voted a few minutes ago to
not prioritize hydrogen. They voted to reduce the priority for
hydrogen. They are antihydrogen. I understand that. That is fine. That
is their sense of priority. I think an environmentally friendly fuel
might be something that people ought to be for, but evidently over 200
Members did not agree with that. That is fine. That will be their
record on this.
However, in this case, what I also want to say is I also do not think
there is a need for additional money over and above the caps.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take my full 5 minutes, but as a result of
the discussion I just had with the chairman of the committee, it is
very apparent to me that we are going to have to rehash this whole
thing over again if and when we ever get to a full authorization bill
for all the research and development programs, because at that time
every Member is going to be able to look at the total research
demonstration projects within the Department of Energy to make a
decision whether or not they want to spend $25 million on this one and
$40 million on this one, or $15 million on this one and $25 million on
that one. That will be done then.
What I see right here and now, Mr. Chairman, is just an individual
bill that the chairman, as he said before, feels very strongly about
hydrogen, so we are doing a separate bill rather than waiting for the
total authorization bill to come forward, so we are going to be doing
it twice.
Really, as far as amendments are concerned, the amendment does not
mean we are going to spend a lot more money. Like I said, we still have
the total authorization bill to come up. At that time the House may
very well vote not for $3.3 billion, but it may very well vote for $3
billion, or $2.5 billion, or $4 billion. That is going to be the
future.
Right now I do not think most Members are ready to vote and decide
what the cap will be, because they do not know what all programs are
affected and how they are going to be affected. It is only when we get
a total authorization bill that we are really able to see how all the
programs are affected by the cap. Right now it is just a general
discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I personally feel that the amendment of the gentleman
from California is a wise amendment at this time. I do think to be
honest, that the whole purpose of this bill seems to be to focus on
hydrogen, to take the time of this House for 1 day or half a day, and
the expense of the House, just to say how good a thing hydrogen
research is, when we are going to have to do it all over again maybe in
another month.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to ask the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown] a question.
In our area, Mr. Chairman, in the Southeastern United States, there
has been a big emphasis put on solar energy. I think the American
public has also participated in this dialog. It is my understanding
that in this bill, whether the money that may be available, whether it
is more or less or whatever, that all we are doing here is saying that
we are going to prioritize or look only at hydrogen experimentation,
and not looking at the dollars that maybe could be spend in solar or
nuclear fusion or any of those? Is that my understanding of this issue
here?
Mr. BROWN of California. Would the gentlewoman yield, Mr. Chairman?
Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, it would appear that what this
bill before us does is to focus entirely on hydrogen, and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, has indicated that
legislation authorizing these other programs would be brought forward
later.
This is in part the problem that I have with the bill, although my
own interest in hydrogen is such that I would overlook the fact that it
does not contain the others except that this bill also forces a
reduction in all of these others, which I do object to.
Mr. Chairman, in the last energy authorization bill that was passed,
which was in 1992, we carefully laid out the authorizing levels for all
of the major programs. We increased solar, for example. We increased
some of the other categories of research. We cut some of the older
ones, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has indicated he
wants to do. Coal research is cut back, for example, and fossil
research in general.
In other words, in that authorization bill in 1992, Mr. Chairman, we
did prioritize and gave general policy directions. This bill does not.
It gives a general policy direction for hydrogen and then it says in a
blanket fashion ``cut $250 million off of everything else.'' That is
not prioritizing.
Mrs. THURMAN. Regaining my time, Mr. Chairman, does that mean that
appropriations of somebody other than the committee of substance would
actually make the determination as to those dollars, so we would lose
the expertise of the committee as far as this appropriation goes?
Mr. BROWN of California. Of course. I have confidence in the good
faith of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that we would
bring along an authorization bill that would deal with these others. In
the absence of that, however, this would merely provide to the
Committee on Appropriations complete discretion as to what they would
do with the remainder of that budget item.
Mrs. THURMAN. I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155,
noes 257, not voting 22, as follows:
[[Page H4482]]
[Roll No. 307]
AYES--155
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--257
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--22
Baesler
Baldacci
Becerra
Brown (OH)
Clay
Cox
Gallegly
Hall (OH)
Hilliard
Jefferson
LaTourette
Menendez
Moakley
Moran
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Saxton
Stark
Thompson
Waters
Wise
Wolf
{time} 1644
Mr. REED and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 655)
to authorize the hydrogen research, development, and demonstration
programs of the Department of Energy, and for other purposes, pursuant
to House Resolution 136, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to speak out of
order.)
announcement by chairman of committee on rules regarding h.r. 961,
clean water act amendments of 1995
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House to make an
announcement.
Next Tuesday, May 9, the Rules Committee will be meeting to consider
a rule for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995.
Members should be aware that this rule may include a provision giving
priority in recognition to Members who have caused their amendments to
be printed in the amendment section of the Congressional Record prior
to their consideration. In this case, the preprinting of amendments is
optional.
Since the bill is expected to be considered on the House floor on
Wednesday, May 10, Members should try to have their amendments printed
in the Congressional Record by Tuesday, May 9. Amendments to be
preprinted should be signed by the Member, and submitted at the
Speaker's table.
Members should use the Office of the Legislative Counsel to ensure
that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the
Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments
comply with the rules of the House. It is not necessary to submit
amendments to the Rules Committee or to testify.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to
authorize basic research, development, and demonstration on hydrogen as
a fuel, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________