[House Report 104-95]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     104-95
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                      HYDROGEN FUTURE ACT OF 1995

_______________________________________________________________________


 March 30, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


   Mr. Walker, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

  THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE MARKUP OF THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE

                                  and

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 655]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
    The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 655) to authorize hydrogen basic research, development, 
and demonstration programs of the Department of Energy, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended 
do pass.
                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendments......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the bill.............................................4
 III. Background and need for legislation.............................4
  IV. Summary of hearing..............................................5
   V. Committee actions...............................................6
  VI. Summary of major provisions of the bill.........................8
 VII. Section-by-section analysis.....................................8
VIII. Committee views................................................11
        Section 1. Short Title...................................    11
        Section 2. Findings......................................    11
        Section 3. Purposes......................................    11
        Section 4. Definitions...................................    11
        Section 5. Research and development......................    11
        Section 6. Highly innovative technologies................    13
        Section 7. Technology transfer...........................    13
        Section 8. Reports to Congress...........................    13
        Section 9. Coordination and Consultation.................    13
        Section 10. Authorization of Appropriations..............    14
  IX. Program criteria...............................................14
   X. Congressional Budget Office analysis and cost estimates........15
  XI. Effect of legislation on inflation.............................16
 XII. Oversight findings and recommendations.........................16
XIII. Oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform and Oversight................................16
 XIV. Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported..........16
  XV. Committee recommendations......................................16
 XVI. Proceedings from full committee markup of H.R. 655.............17
XVII. Reports to Congress............................................95
Additional Views.................................................    96

                             I. Amendments

  The amendments are as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Hydrogen Future Act of 1995''.

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 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 from 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 necessary 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) of (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.

  Amend the title so as to read:

    A bill to authorize basic research, development, and demonstration 
on hydrogen as a fuel, and for other purposes.
                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 for basic hydrogen research, 
development, and demonstration programs of the Department of 
Energy, and for other purposes.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    In 1989 Congress passed the Renewable Energy and Energy 
Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989, P.L. 101-
218, to foster greater efficiency in the use of available 
energy supplies and greater use of renewable energy 
technologies. The Act directed the Secretary of Energy to: 
pursue cost competitive use of renewable energy technologies 
without the need of Federal financial incentives; establish 
long-term Federal research goals and multi-year funding goals; 
undertake initiatives to improve the ability of the private 
sector to commercialize in the near term renewable energy and 
energy efficiency technologies; and, foster collaborative 
research and development efforts involving the private sector 
through government support of a program of joint ventures.
    The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 1989 authorized a number of energy 
research and development programs, including hydrogen. In fact, 
P.L. 101-218 required a separate, autonomous hydrogen program 
be established and delineated in the budget. Hydrogen 
activities, however, were loosely administered by the 
Department of Energy and hydrogen research and development was 
never given the priority and programmatic self-sufficiency 
which Congress intended.
    A coordinated Federal program for hydrogen research, 
development, and demonstration was established by passage of 
the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Program Act of 1990, P.L. 101-566. The Act set 
forth guidelines to carry out a Federal program with the goal 
of resolving critical technical issues necessary for the 
development of hydrogen technologies. The funding authorization 
for the Act expired in FY 1994.
    A supplemental legislative initiative for hydrogen 
research, development, and demonstration was included in 
Section 2026 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, P.L. 102-486. 
The provisions reinforced the five-year program on renewable 
hydrogen energy contained in P.L. 101-566 and required 
collaborative projects with industry to test and evaluate the 
production of hydrogen from a renewable energy source and to 
assess the feasibility of modifying existing natural gas 
pipelines to transport hydrogen and natural gas mixtures.
    H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act of 1995, continues to 
support a hydrogen research program by focusing the program on 
basic research and development. The need to continue with a 
multi-year Department of Energy (DOE) hydrogen program 
authorization is important in view of the need to provide long 
term stable funding for basic research programs.

                         IV. Summary of Hearing

    On February 1, 1995, the Committee on Science held a 
hearing on the provisions of H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act 
of 1995. The witnesses for the hearing included: The Honorable 
Christine A. Ervin, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; Dr. Alan C. Lloyd, 
Chief Scientist, South Coast Air Quality Management District; 
Mr. Edward Trlica, President, Energy Partners, Inc.; and, Dr. 
Robert H. Williams, Senior Research Scientist, Center for 
Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University.
    Secretary Ervin testified that the Department of Energy 
supports the major thrust of the legislation, but that DOE 
finds some provisions too restrictive. Secretary Ervin 
identified the following provisions as problematic for the 
Department: the number and types of demonstration projects 
contained in Section 5; the repeal of Sections 104 and 105 of 
the Spark M. Matsunaga Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Program Act of 1990 contained in Section 10; the set-aside of 
percentages of appropriated funding for specific types of 
demonstration projects and the limitation on authorizations 
contained in Section 11.
    Dr. Lloyd testified that he would like to see the bill 
amended to achieve more leveraging of outside funds. Dr. Lloyd 
described ideas for hydrogen corridor projects, such as one 
being developed in Southern California. Dr. Lloyd also 
recommended the creation of a Hydrogen Energy Office and the 
formation of a Hydrogen Industry Consortium. Dr. Lloyd 
testified that he was supportive of the bill.
    Mr. Trlica testified that he was very supportive of the 
bill. Mr. Trlica described the achievements which his company 
had made in developing the ``Green Car'' which is powered by 
Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells. Mr. Trlica also testified 
to the importance of Federal basic research to entrepreneurs in 
the development of new technologies.
    Dr. Williams testified concerning the large growth in 
energy demand expected in developing countries in the coming 
years. Dr. Williams suggested that energy R&D is not a large 
portion of Federal R&D when compared to other accounts. Dr. 
Williams noted that declining private R&D spending in the oil 
industry tended to hurt hydrogen development, particularly 
because certain personnel in the oil industry have the 
background and skills needed for the nascent hydrogen industry. 
Dr. Williams suggested that the future energy supply portfolio 
should place increasing emphasis on smaller, modular 
technologies. Dr. Williams also recommended that imposing a 
modest tax on pollution effluents would be a more effective 
environmental policy than regulatory options.

                          V. Committee Actions

                         Full Committee Markup

    On February 8, 1995, the Science Committee convened to mark 
up H.R. 9, the Wage Enhancement and Job Creation Act, and H.R. 
655, the Hydrogen Future Act. The Science Committee recessed at 
11:20 p.m. that night after approving H.R. 9, subject to the 
call of the Chair, and reconvened on February 10, 1995, to 
commence the mark up of H.R. 655. At that time, Chairman Walker 
offered an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute that 
refocused the bill on basic research and development 
activities. The Substitute was, without objection, considered 
original text for mark up purposes.
    Of the 15 amendments offered, 11 were adopted by voice 
vote, 2 were withdrawn, and 2 were defeated by roll call votes.
    1. Mr. Traficant offered an en bloc amendment to Sections 3 
and 5 which provides for advice from academia and the private 
sector in implementing DOE's hydrogen program and also requires 
that the Secretary ensure that the activities authorized under 
this bill provide economic benefits to the United States. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    2. Mr. Doyle offered an amendment to Section 2 to strike 
language which referred to fossil technologies as ``mature'' 
technologies. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    3. Mr. Olver offered an amendment to Section 2 to strike 
language referring to ``basic scientific fundamentals'' and 
replacing those words with ``additional research and 
development.'' After an amendment by the Chairman to the Olver 
amendment to add the word ``basic'' before the word 
``research'' was accepted, the amendment was adopted by voice 
vote.
    4. Mr. Olver offered another amendment to Section 2 to 
change the description of hydrogen from an ``energy source'' to 
a ``fuel.'' The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    5. Mr. Olver offered an amendment to Section 3 to add the 
word ``demonstration'' to the Purposes of the bill. After an 
amendment by the Chairman to the Olver amendment to add the 
word ``basic'' before the word ``research'' was accepted, the 
Olver amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    6. Mr. Cramer offered an en bloc amendment to Sections 3 
and 5 to add the words ``demonstration of processes and 
technologies.'' After some discussion regarding other 
amendments to the bill which would accomplish this, Mr. Cramer 
asked for, and received, unanimous consent to withdraw his 
amendment.
    7. Mr. Brown offered an amendment to Section 5 to add 
reference to the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Program Act of 1990, and the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992. The amendment also added 
demonstration programs as an authorized activity under the bill 
and language requiring that the Secretary survey the private 
sector to ensure that hydrogen activities at DOE would not 
displace, nor compete with, United States industry activities. 
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    8. Mr. Walker offered an en bloc amendment to Sections 4 
and 5. The first part of the amendment adds a limiting 
definition of the word ``demonstration'' to the bill to prevent 
economic feasibility demonstrations or prototypes. The second 
part of the amendment adds a fifty percent cost share 
requirement for demonstration projects. The amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.
    9. Mr. Graham offered an amendment to Section 9 to require 
the Secretary to coordinate all hydrogen activities within DOE 
and to coordinate those activities with those of other 
agencies. The amendment also directs the Secretary to pursue 
opportunities for cooperation in hydrogen research and 
development with other Federal entities. The amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.
    10. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an en bloc amendment to 
Sections 5 and 7. The first part of the amendment clarifies the 
date for the Secretary to solicit proposals: the later of 
either 180 days after enactment of the bill, or an Act 
providing appropriations for the bill. The amendment also adds 
clarifying language that specifically includes Department 
laboratories in the term ``interested parties.'' There was a 
Chairman's amendment to the Jackson-Lee amendment accepted to 
conform the language in the amendment with other language in 
the bill. The second part of the amendment struck the words 
``or under other similar Federal programs'' to clarify the 
intent of Section 7 that the Secretary of Energy is only 
responsible for technology transfer of DOE funded hydrogen 
research. The en bloc amendment as amended was adopted by voice 
vote.
    11. Mr. Luther and Mr. Olver offered an amendment to 
Sections 5 and 6 to strike language in Section 5 and to strike 
Section 6 which refers to ``highly innovative technologies.'' 
The amendment was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
    12. Mr. Roemer offered an amendment to Section 5 to add the 
words ``and the fair market value of'' to the cost sharing 
section regarding non-Federal personnel, services, equipment, 
and other resources. By unanimous consent, an amendment by Mr. 
Brown to stipulate that any financial assistance provided under 
the bill be consistent with GATT, and be provided only if 
private or other non-Federal funding could not be obtained, was 
added to the Roemer amendment. Further, another amendment by 
Mr. Roemer stipulating that the Secretary shall not duplicate 
hydrogen programs already being carried out by the Federal 
government or the private sector, was added to the amendments 
and they were considered en bloc and adopted by voice vote.
    13. Mr. Brown offered an amendment to Section 10 to strike 
subsection (b) which limits the total amount which may be 
obligated for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 for Energy 
Supply Research and Development Activities at DOE to the total 
amount obligated for those activities in fiscal year 1995. The 
amendment was defeated by roll call vote: Yeas--15, Nays--21.
    14. Mr. Olver then offered an amendment to Section 10 to 
reduce authorized funding levels for hydrogen activities. The 
amendment was defeated by roll call vote: Yeas--13, Nays--23.
    15. Mr. Brown offered an amendment to the title of the bill 
adding the word ``demonstration.'' After a Chairman's amendment 
to the Brown amendment was accepted, which added the word 
``basic'' before the word ``research,'' the amendment was 
adopted by voice vote.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Brown moved that the Committee 
report the substitute, as amended, to the House with the 
recommendation that it pass and that the staff prepare the 
legislative report and make technical and conforming changes 
and that all Members have three days to file separate, 
dissenting, or additional views. The motion was adopted by 
voice vote.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    The bill focuses the hydrogen program of 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 bill requires 20% cost sharing for the research and 
development under the bill and 50% cost sharing for 
demonstrations.
    The bill provides that up to 5 percent of the amounts made 
available for carrying out the programs under the bill may be 
used to support research on highly innovative energy 
technologies with no cost sharing requirement.
    The bill requires certification that any financial 
assistance given under the bill could not be obtained in the 
private sector and must be 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)).
    The bill prohibits increased Federal spending by requiring 
the $100 million provided for hydrogen research, four times the 
current level by FY 1998, come out of other DOE programs by 
``freezing'' the total amount which may be obligated for Energy 
Supply Research and Development Activities of the Department of 
Energy for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 at the total 
amount obligated for those activities in fiscal year 1995.
                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

                         Section 1. Short Title

    Cites the Act as the ``Hydrogen Future Act of 1995''.

                          Section 2. Findings

    Congress finds that fossil fuels are limited and polluting. 
Basic research and development are needed for private sector 
investment and development of new and better energy sources and 
enabling technologies. Hydrogen holds tremendous promise as a 
fuel, because it can be extracted from water and can be burned 
much more cleanly than conventional fuels. Hydrogen production 
efficiency is a major technical barrier to society collectively 
benefitting from one of the great energy sources of the future. 
An aggressive, results-oriented, multi-year research initiative 
on efficient hydrogen fuel production and use should continue. 
Current Federal efforts to develop hydrogen as a fuel are 
inadequate.

                          Section 3. Purposes

    To provide for basic research, development, and 
demonstration leading to the production, storage, 
transportation, and use of hydrogen; and to provide for advice 
from academia and the private sector during each stage of the 
hydrogen research and development program to ensure that 
economic benefits accrue to the United States.

                         Section 4. Definitions

    Defines: ``demonstration'' as validation of the technical 
feasibility of a theory or process; ``Department'' as the 
Department of Energy; and, ``Secretary'' as the Secretary of 
Energy.

          Section 5. Research, Development, and Demonstration.

Subsection (a)--Authorized activities

    Outlines the activities of the program as research, 
development, and demonstration relating to production, storage, 
transportation, and use of hydrogen with the goal of enabling 
the private sector to demonstrate the technical feasibility of 
efficiently utilizing hydrogen for transportation, industrial, 
residential, and utility applications. In establishing the 
funding priorities, the Secretary shall survey private sector 
hydrogen activities to ensure that activities under the Act do 
not duplicate or compete.

Subsection (b)--Schedule

    Within 180 days of enactment of this Act or an Act 
providing appropriations for the Act, the Secretary shall 
solicit proposals for carrying out the R&D activities 
authorized under this section. Awards of financial assistance 
shall be made within 180 days after the solicitation. Awards 
shall be competitive, using peer review. If appropriations 
authorized by the Act are not allocated for awards, then the 
Secretary shall carry out research, development, and 
demonstration activities in accordance with the purposes of 
this Act.

Subsection (c)--Cost sharing

    Paragraph (1) Except for Section 6, the Secretary shall 
require a commitment from non-Federal sources of at least 20% 
of the cost of research and development programs. This 
requirement may be reduced or eliminated if the Secretary 
determines that the R&D is of such a purely basic or 
fundamental nature that a non-Federal commitment is not 
obtainable.
    Paragraph (2) The Secretary shall require a commitment from 
non-Federal sources of at least 50% of the cost of 
demonstration projects. This requirement may be reduced or 
eliminated if the Secretary determines the technological risks 
are great.
    Paragraph (3) In calculating the amount of the non-Federal 
commitment under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include 
cash, and the fair market value of personnel, services, 
equipment, and other resources.

Subsection (d)--Certifications

    States that before financial assistance can be provided, 
the Secretary must certify that the agreement is consistent 
with GATT provisions. Industry participants must also certify 
that they have made reasonable efforts to obtain non-Federal 
funding.

Subsection (e)--Duplication of programs

    States that the Secretary shall not carry out unnecessarily 
duplicative activities now being carried out by the Federal 
government or private sector.

               Section 6. Highly Innovative Technologies

    States that of the amounts made available for carrying out 
section 5, up to 5% shall be used to support research on highly 
innovative energy technologies, and shall not be subject to 
cost sharing requirements in section 5(c).

                     Section 7. Technology Transfer

    Directs the Secretary to foster the exchange of generic, 
nonproprietary information and technology developed pursuant to 
section 5, among industry, academia, and the Federal 
government.

                     Section 8. Reports to Congress

    Within 18 months after the date of 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 R&D program; to include an analysis of 
the effectiveness of such programs prepared and submitted by 
the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel. The Panel shall also 
make recommendations for improvements to such programs, if 
needed, including additional legislation.

                Section 9. Coordination and Consultation

    (a) The Secretary shall work to coordinate all DOE hydrogen 
activities within the Department and with other Federal 
agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Department 
of Transportation, and NASA. (b) The Secretary shall also 
consult the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel as necessary in 
carrying out this Act.

              Section 10. Authorization of Appropriations

    (a) Authorizes $25 million for FY 1996, $35 million for FY 
1997, and $40 million for FY 1998 for the basic hydrogen energy 
R&D called for under this bill. (b) For each fiscal year 1996, 
1997, 1998 the total amount which may be obligated for Energy 
Supply R&D Activities (which includes hydrogen energy R&D) 
shall not exceed the FY 1995 level. This limitation does not 
authorize the appropriation of any Federal funds.
                         VIII. Committee Views

                         Section 1--Short Title

    It is the Committee's view that hydrogen could and should 
be a significant part of the national energy mix in the 21st 
century. The Committee, therefore, refers to the bill as the 
Hydrogen Future Act of 1995.

                          Section 2--Findings

    The Committee recognizes that fossil fuels, which have 
provided the United States with tremendous energy supply, are 
polluting, and that generally their production and use 
technologies are mature. The Committee believes, therefore, 
that the Federal Government must now turn its research and 
development to new energy sources, emphasizing basic research 
which will delve into the structures, functions, and 
interactions involving matter and energy and their phenomena. 
The Committee also believes that a basic research and 
development program is the prerequisite to provide the basic 
scientific understanding and technical fundamentals necessary 
to justify private sector investment in the development, 
demonstration, and commercialization of new, better and 
increased energy supply and enabling technologies.
    The Committee believes that one of the most promising new 
energy supplies is hydrogen. Hydrogen holds tremendous 
potential as a fuel because it has a source in, and combusts 
predominantly back to, water. However, efficient production, 
whether extraction from water or another source, is a major 
technical barrier to using hydrogen and, therefore, an 
aggressive, multi-year basic research initiative on production 
and use is needed.

                          Section 3--Purposes

    The Committee believes that a basic research, development, 
and demonstration program making possible the private sector 
production, storage, transport, and use of hydrogen is 
justified as a collective good. The Committee believes that the 
demonstrations called for in the bill should be technical 
demonstrations validating fundamental scientific theories and 
processes. The Committee does not believe that the Department 
of Energy's hydrogen program should be involved in financing 
commercial prototypes or doing economic feasibility 
demonstrations.

                         Section 4--Definitions

    The Committee defines the term ``demonstration'' as the 
validation of the technical feasibility of a theory or process. 
It is the Committee's intent that any demonstrations funded 
under the authority of this bill should be proof-of-concept 
demonstrations. Demonstration projects which attempt to build 
commercial prototypes or to test the economic feasibility of a 
technology or product shall not be funded under this bill.

                  Section 5--Research and Development

    The Committee believes that an aggressive hydrogen research 
and development program should be supported by DOE. The 
Committee directs that the purposes of the bill, in conjunction 
with the authorized activities of the bill, require a basic 
research, development, and demonstration program that will 
encourage business investment in the efficient production, 
storage, transportation, and use of this fuel. The Committee 
further believes that the goal of DOE's hydrogen research and 
development program is to enable the private sector to 
demonstrate the economic feasibility of using hydrogen for 
industrial, residential, transportation, and utility 
applications.
    The Committee directs that DOE's activities in the program 
should not cover, displace, nor compete with those activities 
now funded by the private sector. The Committee instructs the 
Secretary to survey what the private sector is doing in 
hydrogen research and take steps to ensure that those 
activities are not duplicated by DOE.
     The Committee directs that DOE's hydrogen program should 
be a competitive, peer reviewed process. It is the Committee's 
intention that the Secretary solicit proposals for the hydrogen 
program from all interested parties, including industry, 
universities, and Federal laboratories. This section also 
emphasizes the Committee's intent that in the peer review 
process appropriate measures should be taken to insure the 
protection of proprietary information. It is also the 
Committee's intention that, if funds appropriated pursuant to 
this bill are not allocated through grants or outside awards, 
then the Secretary should ensure that such activities, in 
accordance with the purposes of the bill, are conducted by the 
DOE labs.
    It is the Committee's view that basic research and 
development programs should be cost-shared by at least a 20 
percent non-Federal contribution. The Committee also believes 
that demonstration projects should be cost-shared by at least 
50 percent. Cost-sharing provisions in research and development 
programs serve two purposes: they shield the Federal government 
from bearing the total cost of a project, including 
discouraging overruns; and, they ensure that companies which 
develop a process or theory under a contract or cooperative 
agreement are serious about commercializing that knowledge into 
a technology.
    Corporations are profit-making entities. Given a research 
contract without a cost-share, some companies have been known 
to work to make their profit from the endeavor out of the 
government contract rather than the eventual profits of the 
product. As long as contract research remains profitable, the 
incentive to seek market profit will be limited. Cost-sharing 
alters the corporate view of research, focusing on the success 
of the research as the profit motive, and not the government-
as-satisfied customer. It is the Committee's view that when 
companies with similar qualifications are competing for a 
government project, that the company willing to carry out the 
largest cost-share should be given preference.
    The Committee also believes that before any financial 
assistance is awarded under the bill, the Secretary should 
``certify'' that the financial assistance award is consistent 
with the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade and industry should ``certify'' that any financial 
assistance awarded to industry cannot be obtained in the 
private financial markets or in any other way.

               Section 6--Highly Innovative Technologies

     The Committee believes it has a unique and very creative 
opportunity to make highly innovative energy research and 
development possible. There has been a tendency at the 
Department of Energy, as develops in all large bureaucracies, 
to award financial assistance to industries or persons which 
have had an ongoing working relationship with DOE. Over the 
years, this has meant that people with new ideas have sometimes 
been unable to get a fair and impartial hearing on their 
``different'' ideas and developments. This is in part due to 
the fact that sometimes new ideas do not fit into pre-conceived 
government policy or research direction, or because they defy 
the ``conventional wisdom'' (often wrong) even though feasible 
and intriguing.
     This section, the Committee believes, is an effort to 
assure that persons working in singular efforts, who do not 
represent large corporations, laboratories, or universities, 
who are not part of the status quo, and do not have contracts 
or an established business relationship with DOE, will have the 
opportunity to interact with DOE and its resources and 
facilities. It is usually persons working independently that 
have ideas and theories that are fresh and rather bold, and not 
necessarily the mainstream.
    The Committee directs that the cost-sharing requirements of 
section 5(c) not apply to projects funded under Section 6. 
Cost-sharing, the Committee believes, may unilaterally exclude 
``bootstrap'' ideas, and this counters the Committee's 
intention with regard to this section. The Committee wishes to 
ensure that there are alternative avenues available to 
individual researchers that are generally outside the scope of 
traditional funding.

                     Section 7--Technology Transfer

     The Committee believes that the Secretary should make 
every effort to foster the exchange of generic, nonproprietary 
information developed under the bill among industry, academia 
and other agencies of the Federal Government. The Committee 
believes one of the purposes of Federal involvement in R&D is 
the dissemination of information to the private sector for the 
public good.
                     Section 8--Reports to Congress

     It is the Committee's intent that the Secretary, within 18 
months of the date of enactment of the bill, transmit to the 
Congress a report on the status of DOE's hydrogen program. The 
Committee has also requested, as part of this report, an 
analysis by the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel (HTAP) of the 
effectiveness of the program. The Committee also asks that the 
HTAP include suggestions to improve the program and make 
suggestions for any legislative changes which may be useful.

                Section 9--Coordination and Consultation

     The Committee directs the Secretary to efficiently and 
effectively coordinate all hydrogen programs within DOE. This 
coordination should involve both civilian and defense programs 
within DOE. The Committee recognizes that there are multiple 
programs within DOE, as well as other agencies, that conduct 
hydrogen R&D. In particular, ``compartmentalization'' within 
DOE has resulted in little or no coordination of hydrogen R&D 
activities within the Department. The DOE Defense Programs 
Office is one example of a division conducting hydrogen R&D 
that has not been adequately coordinated with the activities of 
the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The 
Secretary should also, where possible, coordinate DOE's 
programs with other agencies' programs.

              Section 10--Authorization of Appropriations

     The Committee believes in the priority of hydrogen 
research within the overall DOE Energy Supply Research and 
Development account. It is the goal of the Committee to 
increase the funding for hydrogen research over the next three 
years, but not at the expense of increasing the budget deficit. 
The Committee believes that a change in the priorities of DOE 
is justified and that during the Congressional authorization 
and appropriation process choices must be made. The Committee 
chooses to make hydrogen a priority over the next three years 
within the limits of a DOE Energy Supply Research and 
Development Activities authorization cap.
     The Congressional Budget Office officially confirms that 
the intent of the Committee is effectively achieved by 
documenting in its cost estimate for H.R. 655, dated February 
16, 1995, ``[h]ence, spending for hydrogen research could 
increase without increasing overall spending on energy supply 
research and development.''

                          IX. Program Criteria

     The Committee states that the activities authorized by 
this Act are consistent with the six criteria below and intends 
they be implemented accordingly.
    1. Federal R&D should be focused on long-term, non-
commercial research and development, with potential for great 
scientific discovery, leaving economic feasibility and 
commercialization to the marketplace.
    2. Federal funding of R&D on specific processes and 
technologies should not be carried out beyond demonstration of 
technical feasibility, requiring significant additional 
investment for production.
    3. Revolutionary new ideas and pioneering capabilities that 
make possible the ``impossible'' (that which has never been 
done before) should be pursued.
    4. The Federal government should avoid funding research in 
areas that are receiving, or should be reasonably expected to 
obtain funding from the private sector, such as evolutionary 
advances or incremental improvements.
    5. Government-owned laboratories should confine their in-
house research to areas in which their technical expertise and 
facilities have no peer and should contract out other research 
to industry, private research foundations, and universities.
    6. All R&D programs should be relevant and tightly focused 
to the agency's stated mission; those that are not should be 
terminated. All research programs should disseminate the 
results of the programs to potential users.
       X. Congressional Budget Office Analysis and Cost Estimates

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, February 16, 1995.
Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 655, the Hydrogen 
Future Act of 1995.
    Enactment of H.R. 655 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                              (For Robert D. Reischauer, Director).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 655.
    2. Bill title: Hydrogen Future Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Science on February 10, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 655 would authorize the Department of 
Energy to conduct basic research, development, and 
demonstration activities for use of hydrogen as a fuel. The 
bill would authorize funding for these activities for fiscal 
years 1996 through 1998. In addition, the bill includes 
language setting a cap on total obligations for energy supply 
research and development activities, which currently includes 
hydrogen research as well as activities for other energy 
sources. H.R. 655 would limit the 1996, 1997, and 1998 
obligations for energy supply activities to no more than the 
amount obligated in fiscal year 1995.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The bill 
authorizes the amounts shown in the following table. Outlay 
estimates are based on historical spending rates for energy 
supply research and development activities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization                                                           
 Level...........         25         35         40  .........  .........
Estimated Outlays         13         26         34         19          8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 270.
    6. Comparison with spending under current law: H.R. 655 
would authorize increases in spending for hydrogen research of 
$15 million in fiscal year 1996, $25 million in 1997, and $30 
million in 1998, above the 1995 appropriated level of $10 
million. The bill also contains a provision limiting 
obligations for energy supply research and development 
activities, of which the hydrogen program is a component. This 
restriction would limit 1996, 1997, and 1998 obligations for 
energy supply to no more than the amount of obligations in 
fiscal year 1995. Hence, spending for hydrogen research could 
increase without increasing overall spending on energy supply 
research and development. Both the funding for hydrogen 
research and the total funding for energy supply activities 
would ultimately depend on appropriation action.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Pete Fontaine.
    12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
                 XI. Effect of Legislation on Inflation

    In accordance with rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation is assumed to 
have no inflationary effect on prices and costs in the 
operation of the national economy.

              XII. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
oversight findings.

   XIII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
                    Government Reform and Oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Science 
has received no such findings or recommendations from the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

       XIV. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    If enacted, this bill would make no change in existing law.

                     XV. Committee Recommendations

    On February 10, 1995, a quorum being present, the Committee 
favorably reported the bill, H.R. 655, as amended, by voice 
vote, and recommends its enactment.
              XVI. Proceedings From Full Committee Markup



FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 655--TO AUTHORIZE THE HYDROGEN RESEARCH, 
 DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 
                         AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                              ----------                              


                       FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1995

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:55 p.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 
S. Walker, chairman of the committee, presiding.
    The Chairman. The Chair calls the markup to order.
    The process here is a continuation of the markup 
previously, to move on to the markup of H.R. 655, the Hydrogen 
Future Act of 1995.
    [H.R. 655 follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The Chairman. This particular Bill is one that has been in 
the process of evolution for a couple of Congresses, and was 
subject to the hearing by the Committee last Wednesday.
    At that point, we received testimony from the Department of 
Energy, the science community, and the private sector.
    We heard some criticisms on the Bill and comments from 
members of the Committee.
    And we have attempted to respond to those comments and 
those criticisms by making some good faith changes in the Bill.
    The main criticism that had arisen was the demonstration 
projects in the Bill that some people felt moved us too far 
away from the concept of basic research and basic science, and 
so we did try to modify that in some regard.
    I've now looked over the package of amendments and I notice 
that people want to put demonstrations back in various forms. I 
think we're going to try to accommodate some of that in what we 
do today in a general way, but not go to the specifics.
    As always, I'm willing to work with members of the 
Committee, and we've worked out some of these details, and I'm 
going to consider language to put the concept of demonstrations 
back into the Bill.
    And then what we want to do is try to define it to be the 
technical validations of the basic R&D, rather than the 
fullblown prototypes and economic feasibilities.
    I want to clarify, though, that the idea here is to 
maintain this as a research and development Bill.
    Let me remind all members that the passage of this Bill 
will not, as it's written, result in one dime of increased 
Government spending because of the overall cap that we've put 
on the Energy R&D accounts.
    If we spend more for hydrogen, it means that other accounts 
would have to be cut. We're not in this case trying to expand 
the spending. We're trying to reprioritize the spending within 
the Energy R&D accounts.
    I am prepared to respond to a list of amendments that I 
know are here, and we will look forward to that in the next few 
minutes.
    And I now would recognize Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me first apologize for the fact that I left the markup 
on Wednesday evening. Frankly, I haven't gotten adjusted to the 
new regime.
    When I used to leave a Committee meeting, it adjourned, but 
I found in this case, it didn't.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Brown. I apologize for that.
    Mr. Chairman, I have a brief opening statement which 
reiterates my support for the basic program involved in this 
Bill, but points out that there are a few minor problems that I 
have with it, which I hope we'll be able to work out in 
connection with the markup.
    I ask unanimous consent that my full statement appear in 
the record at this point.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Representative Brown follows:]
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Brown. And I ask unanimous consent that the opening 
statement of Representative Karen McCarthy be inserted in the 
record at this point.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Representative McCarthy 
follows:]


    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    The Chairman. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
    Mr. Brown. Would it be in order, Mr. Chairman, for me to 
move to reconsider the vote by which the risk bill was voted 
out in my absence on Wednesday?
    The Chairman. That motion would be in order, I would say to 
the gentleman, but you can't make the motion. It would have to 
be made by somebody who voted.
    Mr. Brown. Somebody that I persuaded to make on my behalf.
    The Chairman. Somebody who voted against the Bill in final 
passage could in fact make that motion.
    Mr. Brown. Well, I just raised the point, Mr. Chairman. As 
you know, it's easy to correct this problem by having a motion 
to reconsider tabled, and maybe next time you should do that.
    The Chairman. I thank the Chair for that.
    Mr. Brown. And I have no further comments.
    The Chairman. I thank the Chair--I thank the gentleman.
    Are there other members that which to make opening 
statements on the Bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair has asked the Clerk to 
place before each member an amendment in the nature of the 
Substitute, and without objection, the paper before us will be 
considered as the original text.
    [Walker Substitute to HR 655 follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
    The Chairman. The gentleman reserves the right to object.
    Mr. Brown. I merely wish to point out that what you do here 
by the step that you've taken is to allow for one additional 
level of amendments, as I understand it. And in view of the 
fact that we have a number of amendments on our side, this 
would mean that you could amend our amendments.
    I find that you really have no intention of doing that, as 
far as I can tell, and I therefore raise no objection.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    And the reason why I tried to do that, and we can of course 
do it as a Substitute, but I found it was just the opposite way 
last time, that there were some people on your side that had 
amendments to amendments and we weren't able to accommodate 
them because they were third degree amendments at that point, 
and so----
    Mr. Brown. We don't have to be consistent, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    At this point then, the Bill is open for amendments, and we 
have a roster of amendments.
    And Mr. Traficant is recognized for an en bloc amendment.
    Mr. Traficant. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment marked 
#2A, and I don't know if it's before all the members. If it's 
not, while it's being distributed, I'd ask unanimous consent 
that I can explain the amendment.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will distribute the amendment and 
the gentleman will go ahead with his explanation.
    Mr. Traficant. Basically, what it says on page 2, lines 13 
through 17, I would amend paragraph [2] to read as follows:
    ``[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.''
    On page 4, line 22, insert ``The Secretary shall ensure 
that economic benefits of such exchange of information and 
technology will accrue to the United States economy'' after 
``and the Federal Government.''
    Just let me say this and be very brief.
    My amendment ensures that the principal economic benefits 
of the program accrue to our economy, and that is language that 
we were able to get in Section 1317 of the fiscal '94 
Department of Defense Authorization Bill. It is the law of the 
land for two years in that area. It doesn't rewrite and 
reinvent the wheel.
    And I think it strengthens the Bill.
    And with that, I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his explanation. 
The Chair is prepared to accept the amendment.
    The Chair would ask unanimous consent that a typographical 
error that occurs on line 5 be corrected in the word ``that.''
    But the Chair is prepared to accept the amendment.
    Is there any other discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair would put the question.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment is approved.
    [Traficant Amendment 2A follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Mr. Doyle has an amendment.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment seeks to strike the finding which 
characterizes fossil fuels as mature.
    On page 1, lines 8 and 9, strike ``and their production and 
use technologies are mature.''
    I don't believe there's any need for this finding in the 
Bill. I don't understand why we'd be characterizing this one 
aspect of our Energy R&D.
    I've heard nothing in the hearings that have led us to 
believe that fossil fuel R&D is mature, nor does this 
legislation seek to characterize our other Energy R&D 
undertakings.
    The meaning of this characterization is unclear. Its 
presence in this legislation serves no useful purpose and its 
removal would only add value to this Bill.
    I urge the adoption of this amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman.
    The original language put in the Bill is a statement of 
fact, both the coal technology and oil have been in use in the 
country since the 19th century, but if the gentleman is 
concerned about the language and feels that it has some problem 
with it, the Chair is prepared to accept the amendment to 
strike the language.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, if I might just comment. You are 
correct. I feel that these are mature technologies.
    However, I know that there are many members of this 
Committee and many members of the House who represent coal and 
oil production regions who would like to think that additional 
R&D, and in fact it's very possible that additional R&D will 
contribute to both lowering the economic cost and improving the 
environmental benefits and so forth, and would therefore 
support R&D.
    I think the gentleman's amendment will probably gain 
support for this Bill too, in a number of areas.
    The Chairman. I thank the Chair. And that was just the 
gentleman's opinion. Mr. Doyle discussed this with me in 
advance, and you know, I think that it does add to the Bill in 
an attempt to reprioritize some of the efforts within the Bill. 
This was an attempt to get the Energy Department to understand 
why some reprioritization was necessary.
    But I think the gentleman has offered a reasonable 
amendment and we're prepared to accept it.
    Any other discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    [Doyle amendment to the Walker Substitute follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. The next amendment is--Mr. Olver has an 
amendment on the roster numbered 4.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The amendment that I offer is in the second finding under 
the one that we have just dealt with.
    The Chairman. Is this amendment in the package?
    Mr. Olver. It is in the package as far as I know.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Olver. All right. Excuse me. I'm told it's a redraft, 
Mr. Chairman and needs to be handed out.
    The Chairman. Then it needs to be distributed.
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed, if it has been 
redistributed now.
    The Chairman. The gentleman may proceed.
    Mr. Olver. After conversation with the Chairman, it seems 
to me that my amendment would be further improved if the word 
``basic'' were added after ``additional'' and if the word 
``and'' in the third line of the amendment were changed, the 
first ``and'' were changed to ``in.''
    So that it would read: ``additional basic research and 
development are needed to encourage private sector investment 
in development of new and better energy sources and enabling 
technologies;''
    And I would ask unanimous consent that it be considered in 
that form.
    The Chairman. Without objection, but I'm not certain that 
we have all the gentleman's changes.
    Mr. Olver. The change would be after the word 
``additional'', in the first line of the amendment, to insert 
``basic'' research and development are needed to encourage 
private sector investment--the word ``and'' would be ``in'' 
development of new and better energy sources and enabling 
technologies.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. After the word ``private sector investment'' 
it becomes ``in''?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    The Chairman. ``Private sector investment in development 
of...'' Okay, I see. I understand. Okay. Without objection.
    Mr. Olver. The reason for offering this amendment is 
basically that this is a general statement about the needs in 
energy research. The first one speaks of what some of our old 
main energies are.
    The second one is really a statement because it does not 
mention hydrogen per se, is a statement about what research 
would be needed in any development of any new energy source, 
though it applies perfectly well to hydrogen research as well.
    So it is in this form, and in either form, it ought to 
serve in that way since it doesn't mention hydrogen in the 
first place.
    And I have used exactly the same language that you, Mr. 
Chairman, have used in saying what this Bill is about, research 
and development, but not in the technical aspects of the--in 
the technologies, not in the technologies. That should be left 
to the private sector.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman.
    In this case, the Chair does have a problem with changing 
the findings section. We are not being definitional in the 
findings section except that in this particular case, the 
Department has in fact been doing research and development in 
these areas.
    And what we have found is the Department's idea of research 
and development is often extended well beyond doing work into 
the fundamentals of hydrogen studies.
    In this case, the term ``scientific fundamentals'' means 
the complete and essential insight to structures, functions, 
forces, interactions and transformations involving matter and 
energy and their phenomena.
    The gentleman's language would allow the Department to go 
well beyond that to do work that is ancillary, and maybe even 
several steps away from basic research into hydrogen.
    And so in my view, this changes the findings section in a 
way that broadens the research fairly substantially.
    The Chair is prepared to accept amendments later on from 
Mr. Brown to expand the Bill in a way that is I think 
functional, but I think if you take that expansion plus the one 
that the gentleman suggests, that we are going to provide the 
Department with some latitude to move so-called hydrogen money 
into much broader general research which I think, in this case, 
is a mistake. It's exactly the problem that this Bill is 
attempting to correct.
    Is there other discussion?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, it had been my hope that we could 
reach a compromise on this language.
    I do not find the language of paragraph 2 of the findings 
to really shed much light on the need for this legislation, 
primarily because it is not artful language, nor does it 
conform to the structure of the Department of Energy's program.
    If you will look through the Department of Energy's program 
on hydrogen research, you will find nothing in that that 
indicates that they're doing basic research.
    They have not carved out, in other words, the term 
``basic'' in their program content. They list research, but in 
describing the research, they prefer to think of it as applied 
research and development.
    Now what I had hoped that we could do in recognition of 
this fact--and the fact is that they do not put money into what 
would be normally described as basic research because they 
think that the basic research on hydrogen's been done, that 
it's the applied research and the development that are 
important.
    Now I do not like to quibble about terminology of this 
sort, but for you to want to continue the emphasis on basic 
scientific fundamentals is merely obfuscating the continued 
development of a logical program in this area.
    Now I recognize that if you wish to persist in this, you 
can do so. But I would submit that the use of more artful 
language would be both easier to understand, more in conformity 
with what the Department is doing, and actually we could 
consider these modest changes as being technical and 
conforming, rather than any substantive change in what you're 
proposing to do.
    The Chairman. Well, I will say that the addition by the 
gentleman of the word ``basic'' to his language does help 
substantially in the language, and I have far less problem with 
it than when he was using the general term, research and 
development.
    The Chair, because he wishes to actually change what's been 
going on in the Department some, prefers the language that was 
originally put in because I think that what we're trying to do 
is get the Department to do some things differently than what 
they've done in the past.
    So I would prefer not to have the amendment put in because 
I think it will lead them back to old ways. But I think the 
gentleman from California makes a useful point.
    Is there other discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. I put the question.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it 
and the amendment's agreed to.
    [Olver Amendment to the Walker Substitute follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from New Mexico.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't believe I have an amendment at this 
time, but I have an inquiry about one provision of the Bill, if 
I may be recognized for that purpose.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's recognized.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you.
    I'm looking all the way back at the end of the Bill on page 
6, the Authorization of Appropriations section. And there's a 
reference to dollar amount authorized for this Bill which goes 
up in each of several fiscal years, but then there is a--the 
next paragraph--``Related Authorizations for each of the fiscal 
years'', ``the total amount which may be obligated for energy 
supply, research and development activities shall not exceed 
the total amount obligated for those activities in fiscal year 
1995.''
    Do I read that correctly to understand it's the Chair's 
intent in the Bill that as hydrogen research funding goes up, 
all other kinds of energy research funding in some way must go 
down to keep the total authorization equal to 1995?
    The Chairman. The gentleman is correct.
    The attempt here is to make certain that we reprioritize 
within the Department so that the Department's activities in 
fact put an emphasis on hydrogen.
    And I would say to the gentleman that we're talking about 
reasonably modest sums in terms of going up as compared to 
hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent in things 
like solar energy and a number of other applications.
    And so you can make marginal changes in some of those 
particular programs in order to reprioritize some money towards 
hydrogen.
    Mr. Schiff. So it's the Chair's position that with respect 
to the entire overall Energy research budget, the effect of any 
required reductions elsewhere the Chair doesn't feel would be 
that significant to the Department of Energy?
    The Chairman. Well, it is the Chair's position that we're 
talking about, in the case of fiscal year 1996, a total 
increase of $15 million over what was spent in 1995. That, as I 
say, compares to literally hundreds of millions of dollars 
being spent in most of the other research areas.
    The purpose behind this Bill is to have the Department 
begin to recognize that hydrogen is in fact a useful potential 
energy source.
    That has been something the Department has refused to do in 
the past. The only reason why we're spending $10 million now in 
this area is because Mr. Brown and I have managed over the 
years to get, first of all, a line item in the appropriation 
that the Department didn't want, and then actually have gotten 
the Committee to actually begin funding some research in the 
area.
    And what we're trying to do now is give them an 
authorization to help guide them in the appropriate direction 
so that they do in fact do some work that has not been done at 
all in the past.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the Chair for that explanation.
    Mr. Brown. Would the gentleman yield, please?
    Mr. Schiff. I'm sorry. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Brown. Let me state that I concur in what Mr. Walker 
has said.
    However, I have a reservation about the wording as to 
whether it effectively accomplishes this.
    And I think if Mr. Walker and I could agree on the wording 
that would accomplish his desire not to add to the overall 
expenditures of the Department, or the energy supply research 
and development account, but instead to take the money for the 
hydrogen out of the other accounts, then we would have no 
problem, because we agree on that.
    But my view, and I'm advised by the Department that this is 
their view, is that since the President's budget calls for I 
think roughly a $250 million increase between '95 and '96 in 
energy supply research and development, that this actually 
would have the effect of reducing by $250 million the 
expenditures in this account, instead of just the amount 
required to compensate for the hydrogen research.
    I think if the Department will submit some language to us 
that will accomplish the goal which Mr. Walker and I have, we 
can both accept that and we would have no problem.
    The Chairman. I would say to the gentleman that I concur 
with that. When the Assistant Secretary of the Department was 
up here just the other day, she agreed that she understood what 
I was trying to accomplish and agreed to send us language that 
would accomplish that purpose.
    Despite our efforts to be in touch with the Department to 
get that language, we have received none.
    So we are kind of stuck with this as a way of maintaining 
to assure that there is.
    And I would be perfectly prepared, if we report this Bill 
out, and we get better language from the Department that 
accomplishes the goals that the gentleman wants to--
    Mr. Brown. I wish the gentleman would quit referring to me 
as the Chairman.
    The Chairman.  I thought I said Gentleman.
    Mr. Brown. It makes me nervous.
    The Chairman. Okay. But I am prepared, at that point, to 
accept such an amendment on the floor. I mean we can do 
whatever we need to to accomplish the purpose of both myself 
and the gentleman of California.
    Mr. Brown. Would the gentleman yield?
    I was going to suggest that if he would accept my 
amendment, I would be willing to accept better language on the 
floor as a substitute when we get that proper language. Either 
way, I think we could get along, I think.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts has an amendment number 5 
on the roster sheet.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
    Number 5 refers to the third finding in the--
    The Chairman. Is this an amendment that is in the package, 
or is this one that should be distributed as well?
    Mr. Olver. It is a redraft so it needs to be distributed.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will distribute it, and the 
gentleman will explain the amendment.
    Mr. Olver. This has to do with the third finding which 
reads ``hydrogen holds tremendous promise as a cleaner and 
better energy source because it combusts predominantly to 
water'' and I would point out that hydrogen is not a source, 
it's really a fuel.
    And the phrase or the clause ``because it combusts 
predominantly to water'', I think that confuses more than 
anything. I don't know what else hydrogen combusts to except 
water, and I think the language that I have proposed, which is 
``hydrogen holds tremendous promise as a fuel,'' and if that is 
unclear I would certainly accept ``as an energy fuel'' because 
it can be extracted from water and can be burned much more 
cleanly than conventional fuels is a better finding, scientific 
finding than the one that is listed as number three.
    The Chairman. Well, the Chair's prepared to accept the 
amendment. The Chair would simply point out to the gentleman 
that we did have testimony before the Committee that because of 
the impurities that are often in hydrogen, you do get some 
NOx as a product of the--
    Mr. Olver. --of the burning of hydrogen, however.
    The Chairman. I'm just saying that, to some extent, our 
finding was following the testimony that was before the 
Committee that that is typical. I don't see any problem with 
the gentleman's language. I'm prepared to accept it.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a little bit of 
semantics. Hydrogen and oxygen combining stoichiometrically in 
a vacuum always produce water and nothing else.
    However, hydrogen burning in a normal situation not only 
will produce water, but it will produce other combustion 
products or result in other combustion products of various 
different kinds in sometimes very small amounts.
    But I don't really think that's what we're trying to get at 
in this Bill, so a reasonable compromise is in order here.
    The Chairman. I think the gentleman is right, and that's 
the reason why we had put the language we did in the Bill so 
that we would be accurate according to the hearing record, but 
I'm prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.
    Any other discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment's agreed to.
    [Olver Amendment 4A to the Walker Substitute follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Mr. Olver's amendment number 6 on the sheet.
    It's not in the package either, as I understand it. It will 
have to be distributed.
    The Clerk will distribute the amendment.
    Mr. Olver. Are we on a Title here? Are we going through 
Title by Title?
    The Chairman. We're going on the order of the amendments 
before us in the markup roster.
    The Bill has been open for amendment at any point.
    Mr. Olver. Well, I would like to pass over that for the 
moment. I don't think I have it in my packet.
    The Chairman. Pass on that amendment.
    The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Cramer's recognized for his 
en bloc amendment.
    Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment number 7 is in the packet there so it is 
before the members.
    What my amendment does is add simple language in two 
sections of the Bill that will permit demonstration projects in 
the DOE program that was outlined in the Bill.
    The two sections are Section 3, the Purposes Section, and 
Section 5A, Research and Development Authorized Activities.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    I would say to the gentleman, we are, in the way the roster 
is put together, we are in a somewhat difficult situation here.
    What the gentleman's attempting to accomplish will be 
accomplished, I think, by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Brown's amendment that comes later on in terms of putting 
demonstrations back into the Bill.
    And I would prefer to accept that amendment because it's 
been worked out in a way that we think fits with the overall 
goals of the Bill.
    And so if the gentleman wishes to add the demonstration 
language, the Chair is prepared to accept Mr. Brown's 
amendment, but thinks that your amendment is somewhat broad in 
comparison to what we're attempting to accomplish in the Bill.
    Mr. Cramer. Well, I would ask Mr. Brown to comment on the 
difference, if now would be the appropriate time to do it, the 
difference between the two pieces, or else I could offer mine 
again after he offers his.
    Mr. Brown. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to 
assure him that the amendment which, after we have consulted 
and redrafted, I am offering and Mr. Walker's willing to 
accept, does in my opinion fulfill your intentions because it 
says ``the Secretary shall provide for hydrogen energy 
research, development, and demonstration program relating to 
production, storage, transportation and use'', all of the 
things which you contemplate.
    It merely has it in a different section of the Bill.
    And for simplification purposes, if the gentleman would 
withdraw his amendment, I think we'd accomplish the same 
purposes.
    Mr. Cramer. I'll withdraw my amendment at this point.
    I thank the Chair.
    [Cramer Amendment [withdrawn] to Walker Substitute 
follows:]


    The Chairman. The Chair would recognize then, Mr. Brown, 
for the purposes of offering his amendment. It's amendment 
number 8 on the roster.
    Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn 
and I would recognize Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, we have revised language on my 
amendment which--
    The Chairman. The Clerk will distribute the amendment.
    Mr. Brown. --and the Clerk will distribute that amendment.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman will describe his amendment.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is addressed to 
Section 5, Research and Development, on page 3 of your draft.
    And it provides a simplified description of the authorized 
activity which includes the Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Program relating to all of the necessary aspects 
of hydrogen that have been considered and actually were 
included in the original draft of your Bill.
    But it does this in a fashion which I think is simpler, 
more direct and avoids creating too much confusion.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker. Question for the author of the amendment, Mr. 
Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Yes?
    Mr. Baker. In your language in the last paragraph, it says 
``In establishing priorities for Federal funding under this 
section, the Secretary shall survey private sector hydrogen 
activities, take steps to ensure that activities under this 
section do not displace or compete with privately funded 
hydrogen activities of United States industry.''
    Which is good and sounds good.
    In Livermore Laboratory, at the Livermore Laboratory we 
have Lockheed, Texaco, and the U.S. Government currently doing 
a cooperative research agreement.
    How would this language affect that agreement if the 
Department of Energy wanted to add money to that or subtract 
money from that?
    What would happen?
    Mr. Brown. Well, the Department of Energy is acting in 
accordance with existing authority to engage in cooperative 
programs with private sector firms, and this is not intended in 
any way to change that authority or responsibility.
    What we are seeking to do, obviously, is to make sure that 
anything the private sector's already doing with their own 
money not be duplicated, but that this contribute additional 
areas of research or additional activities which are needed and 
which the private sector would agree are needed.
    So, basically it is not my intention that this would 
interfere with existing CRADAs but would provide a basis of 
information to enable the Department to select those areas 
which are not being dealt with by the private sector.
    Mr. Baker. I'm not smart enough to know what they're doing 
with all the lasers and the natural gas down there, but if they 
want to go into the next step, would this language prevent the 
two private companies and the Government from moving ahead?
    Mr. Brown. I couldn't answer that question in the abstract. 
This Bill is not intended to provide Federal funding for 
commercial type operations. And I don't think that if this 
consortium that you referred to gets to that stage, that the 
Government should continue to be involved in it. I think it 
should seek private financing at that point.
    Mr. Baker. The purpose, as I understand, Lockheed wants to 
go to the moon, as does NASA. Texaco probably is a little more 
pedestrian, would just like to move cars in the LA Basin 
without smog, and the Government thinks both of those are great 
ideas.
    So I'm worried about this language cutting off something 
that is becoming successful and then eventually will become 
commercial.
    Mr. Brown. Well, I share the gentleman's concern about 
interfering with a viable and on-going program. Nothing in this 
Bill would be aimed at the Government part of the program, 
which is going to the moon. We do not expect, in the near term 
at least, the private sector enterprises to be taking this 
over.
    If they start developing hydrogen fueled automobiles, 
that's another problem, and I really expect the automobile 
industry to take that situation over.
    The Chairman. And let me point out to the gentleman from 
California that under the language in the authorized 
activities, ``In establishing priorities for Federal funding 
under this section, . . .''
    The research that's going on in Livermore is under other 
law and so on and would not be affected by this section.
    Mr. Baker. Then if the gentleman will yield, that means 
under this special section toward new hydrogen projects, rather 
than the existing hydrogen program?
    The Chairman. The gentleman is defining the work that will 
go on under this particular Bill, that's correct.
    Mr. Baker. You promise?
    The Chairman. I promise.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Baker. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Is there further discussion on the amendment 
of the gentleman from California, Mr. Brown?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment's agreed to.
    [Brown Amendment 8 to Walker Substitute follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. The Chair would ask that a couple of 
amendments that he has now to the Section just amended by the 
gentleman from California be distributed.
    These are two amendments that have been worked out that 
since we have now agreed to the term ``demonstration,'' we are 
defining the term ``demonstration,'' and also we are putting in 
place a 50 percent cost share for any kind of a demonstration 
project.
    And Mr. Brown and I have worked these out previously, but 
the Clerk will distribute the amendments.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Brown. Would the gentleman recognize me?
    The Chairman. Yes, I would recognize the gentleman.
    Mr. Brown. In connection with the amendments which Mr. 
Walker has just discussed, we have worked these over and I have 
personally reviewed them, and the amendments are satisfactory 
to me and do resolve the matter of definition as far as 
demonstration and certain other problems such as cost sharing 
so as to contemplate not violating the GATT agreements or 
anything of that sort.
    The Chairman. And the gentleman also had an amendment later 
on to GATT and so the Chair is prepared to work out.
    Mr. Brown. Yes. In other words, all is peace and harmony.
    The Chairman. Okay, I thank the Chair.
    If the amendments have been distributed, as I say, these 
are amendments that have been worked out.
    If there is discussion, are there any other--
    Mr. Traficant. Mr. Chairman, I move the question.
    The Chairman. Well, I know the gentleman wants to move, and 
I do too, but I want to make certain all members have an 
opportunity for any discussion.
    Is there discussion on the amendments?
    Ms. McCarthy.
    Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just clarification on the 50 percent of the costs. That 
would not involve unfunded mandates would it, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. No, there's no unfunded mandates here. It 
simply says that what we are doing is if you have a private 
entity participating in a demonstration project, they would 
have to put up 50 percent of the cost.
    Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Voluntary application process.
    Any other discussion?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendments en bloc are 
agreed to.
    [The Walker en bloc amendments to the Walker substitute 
follow:]




    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, if I may, if we could return to 
number 6, this one probably should now be very simple because 
it was my not being able to follow the paper here in proper 
order.
    But my amendment, if it could be distributed, would merely 
put in the first of the purposes under this Section 3 that we 
had just passed, would add in the concept of demonstration in 
the definition in the first of those purposes so that it would 
read:
    ``to provide for a research, development, and demonstration 
program leading to the production, storage, transport, and use 
of hydrogen for industrial, residential transportation and 
utility applications.''
    The Chairman. Well, the gentleman in his previous 
amendment, added the word ``basic,'' which made it possible for 
the Chair to be sympathetic to--
    Mr. Olver. I'll think that, as a friendly amendment to 
``basic'' research, development, and demonstration program'' 
would be fine.
    The Chairman. Then the Chair has no problem with the 
amendment.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Cramer. Mr. Chairman, I might add, if this amendment 
passes, then that would certainly cure everything I would have 
attempted to have accomplished so I'm in support of this 
amendment as well.
    The Chairman. Okay, I thank the gentleman.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    [Olver Amendment 6A follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Mr. Graham, amendment number 9.
    Mr. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. You have a substitute at the desk, I 
understand.
    Mr. Graham. Yes. I'd like to withdraw 9 and 10.
    The Chairman. I'd ask the Clerk to distribute the 
amendment.
    Mr. Graham. I'm withdrawing 9 and 10 and submitting 9 
substitute. I think that's being distributed.
    The Chairman. Okay, we will take, this will be the number 9 
substitute.
    Mr. Graham. And the purpose of this amendment, in the 
section that we're amending, there's a statement that the 
Secretary of Energy should consult with other agencies, such as 
the Department of Defense, to try to have technology transfers 
and to get the benefit of what the Department of Defense and 
other agencies have done with hydrogen research.
    We're simply changing the language to compel her to do so 
because at Savannah River Site where I represent, there's been 
tritium production for years that deal with hydrogen. Tritium's 
an isotope of hydrogen I've been told.
    And we'd like to get the agencies talking with each other 
to make sure that we get the full benefit of the technology and 
expertise that exists, and it's in that spirit that the 
amendment's offered.
    The Chairman. The Chair is prepared to accept the 
gentleman's amendment. It's a worthwhile amendment and I find 
no problems with it.
    Is there any other discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question on 
the amendment.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment's agreed to.
    [Graham Amendment Number 9 follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Ms. Jackson Lee has an amendment number 11.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. [Inaudible.]
    The Chairman. Will the gentlelady use her microphone so 
that--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Excuse me.
    I have an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute at the desk, I believe.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Eleven A.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to be 
allowed to add 16A to take these now en bloc together, because 
I may be required to, because of a departure problem, if I 
could have unanimous consent to take these together?
    The Chairman. Yes, the Clerk will distribute both the 
amendments, then.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And they will be regarded, without objection, 
they will before the Committee in an en bloc form.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Let me ask the gentlelady a question.
    Is she prepared to modify her amendment 11A at the very 
last part in order to make it consistent with the language 
previously adopted where it says ``development, and 
demonstration activities'' she says that ``further the purposes 
of this Act.'' To make it consistent, would she be willing to 
accept the words ``in accordance with the purposes of this 
Act''?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would.
    The Chairman. Then we will make that change, without 
objection. And then the Chair has no problem with the 
amendments en bloc.
    The Chair's prepared to listen to the gentlelady's 
explanation.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank the Chair.
    Mr. Chair, I think that let me first refer to 11A and 
indicate that I think the importance of these changes I'm now 
offering will provide, I think, further clarity in the 
direction in which we would like to go on this particular 
legislation.
    One, it clarifies a solicitation should not occur until 
Federal appropriations are provided. It further clarifies that 
all parties, including DOE labs, are eligible to compete for 
grants, and that puts them competitive with outside entities.
    And it clarifies that peer review proposals should not 
compromise proprietary information. I think we certainly have 
been sensitive to that concern by our private sector which 
would be involved in such research.
    And then clarifies that the Secretary shall expend funds 
remaining, after solicitation process, on authorized Federal 
hydrogen programs.
    I think this helps keep the funded dollars focused on the 
intent of this legislation.
    That is 11A and I offer that amendment.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's amendments are en bloc. The 
Chair's prepared to accept the en bloc amendments.
    Is there further discussion of the amendments?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, if I might, just so that I 
do explain 16A. What that does is prevents the Secretary from 
going over into other agencies and taking over or challenging, 
like NASA and DOE, on their technology transfer efforts.
    The Chairman. Thank the gentlelady.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment's agreed to.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the 
Committee.
    [Jackson Lee Amendments 11A and 16A en bloc follow:]
    
    
    
    
    The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Luther and Mr. 
Olver for amendment number 12.
    Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Yes, if I could have amendment 12 passed out.
    Okay, Mr. Chairman, it's in the packets.
    This amendment would, in effect, delete section 6 of the 
Bill which you will see, as you well know, deals with the 
concept of highly innovative technologies.
    And my concern, well there are a number of concerns, but 
perhaps I can address my concerns to you, Mr. Chairman.
    The first one would be, it would seem to me that all of the 
expenditures of money under this legislation should be for 
highly innovative technologies.
    So I wonder why we would carve out five percent of the 
moneys and then not provide for a matching requirement, 
therefore relaxing the conditions with respect to five percent 
of the moneys.
    And so I wonder if you or someone else could address that 
particular issue?
    The Chairman. Well, I would say to the gentleman that the 
problem in the Department with much of the research that goes 
on in the energy area has been that there has been a fairly 
strong good-old-boy network developed where the money flows 
kind of naturally amongst people who have an on-going working 
relationship with the Department.
    Over the years, what that has meant is that people with new 
ideas have had the door slammed in their face and have not been 
able to get to first base with ideas that do not fit with where 
the Department has been headed in its research program.
    This is an attempt within the Bill, and I think it's one of 
the most important initiatives within the Bill, to assure that 
people who are working in singular research, who do not 
represent big corporations, who are not people who are a part 
of the academic structure of universities or a part of huge 
laboratory efforts, are going to have an opportunity to come in 
and the Department's actually going to have to listen to them a 
little bit and find out whether or not they may have something 
actually worth doing.
    And it is a section of the Bill that I feel very strongly 
should be there to assure that some of the work that's going on 
out there, that is available to us now because of the nature of 
the information revolution and the ability of people to do a 
lot of innovative things, actually gets considered by the 
Department.
    And in all honesty, because these are singular people and 
not the big corporations and so on, it is much more difficult 
for them to come up with matching money. These tend to be 
individual researchers that we're talking about and it's 
basically carving out an area for those individual researchers 
to have some opportunity to get the Department to listen to 
them in a meaningful way.
    Mr. Luther. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The concern, well, a couple of concerns, but one concern I 
would have with that response would be why shouldn't even 
highly innovative technologies be subject to the requirement, 
the cost-sharing requirement set forth in Section 5[c], because 
that cost-sharing requirement does provide flexibility if the 
Secretary finds that a particular project would serve a purely 
basic or fundamental nature.
    So there is sufficient discretion with the Secretary, and 
why shouldn't that condition also apply if we're going to waive 
the cost sharing for highly innovative technology?
    The Chairman. Well, I thought I did explain that.
    First of all, it says up to five percent of the moneys, so 
this is not a total of five percent of the moneys by any means. 
It says up to that amount that can be set aside.
    And secondly, what I tried to explain to the gentleman was 
that in this particular instance, we are talking about people 
who tend to be small independent researchers who, the cost-
sharing requirements of the Department are basically used to 
freeze them out.
    I mean, as soon as they walk in the door, the Department 
says, well, we have cost-sharing. Are you prepared to come up 
with the money yourself up front as a part of doing this 
research.
    These are, for the most part, people who don't have those 
kinds of resources available to them, and the cost-sharing is a 
way of freezing them out and assuring the good-old-boy network 
continues to dominate.
    And what we were trying to do in this particular instance 
is assure that there was another avenue available to individual 
researchers that are outside the scope of traditional patterns 
of funding at the Department.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, may I butt in here for a moment?
    I'm actually extremely sensitive to the position put 
forward by you, Mr. Chairman, on this point. I think the 
problem is perhaps the use of the words ``highly innovative 
energy technologies'' which implies that the others that are 
here are somehow not innovative or not highly innovative.
    And I think we want them all to be innovative. And it would 
seem to me there ought to be some way that we could come up 
with something. I think you're really concerned about people 
who are on the very cutting edge of research which is somewhat 
before the point where you can expect commercialization, 
whereas those that are being asked for a cost share are 
probably somewhere closer to commercialization, and can sense 
that this thing really is going to move rather quickly.
    And I think the concept of highly innovative technologies 
in this instance kind of denigrates the rest of the program 
which we support and should do, and we ought to be able to find 
some language if we could work together in doing so.
    The Chairman. Well, I certainly would be willing to look at 
that.
    The point, what we're doing here is we're talking about 
ideas and theories that are bold and rather new, and not 
necessarily in the mainstream of conventional wisdom along the 
way. And conventional wisdom often in these areas turns out to 
be absolutely wrong.
    And we want the Department to be exploring some of the new 
ideas that are really out there, and to devote up to five 
percent of the moneys allocated here in order to do that.
    This is not a derogation of other kinds of research. It is 
simply saying that there are some things that we ought to be 
doing, particularly in this area, that are very, very new, very 
innovative, and we want the Department to be engaged in that 
kind of work.
    Mr. McHale has asked for recognition.
    Mr. McHale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with the statement you 
have just made.
    Let me just very briefly put this on a practical level and 
also provide for full disclosure.
    The world's largest hydrogen producer is located in my 
district and is one of the major employers in my district.
    For that reason, I know many of the folks who work at that 
company, and I can tell you that in recent years, as that 
company has continued in the development of technology in 
hydrogen production, many individual scientists at that 
company, sometimes with the cooperation of that company, 
sometimes in direct competition, have left that company to work 
on programs of highly innovative technology, not yet ready for 
commercialization, but with tremendous potential for our 
country in terms of advances in energy production in hydrogen 
development.
    I agree with the gentleman, Mr. Olver, who said, well 
perhaps we can work on the language so that the concept is 
better expressed.
    And I for one would be eager to work with Mr. Olver on 
that. But I can tell you based on my own experience and 
numerous contacts that I had with individual citizens, very 
bright scientists who have gone out on their own without 
commercial ability but with a good idea, the concept embodied 
in Section 6 is a good one, and the Chairman is correct.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Ms. McCarthy.
    Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to inquire. I 
don't see in Section 6 the language that would clarify that 
this is for small independent uses.
    The Chairman. Well, I would say to the gentlelady, we are 
not attempting to bias the research, but again, the record on 
this is fairly clear that when we're talking about these kinds 
of technologies, we do tend to be talking about the small, 
independent researcher.
    Again, I would point out to the Committee that it is very 
discretionary on the part of the Secretary here. It's up to 
five percent. We're not binding her to the five percent.
    We're simply saying that here's a window, and when people 
come in with highly innovative technologies, they will have the 
capability of being able to say to the Secretary, you are 
allowed to devote up to five percent of the money for these 
purposes.
    They can decide not to do it. But the fact is it opens the 
door, it cracks open the door to the outside what has 
traditionally been an old boy network that I think has been 
detrimental to some of the energy research that's been done.
    That's all this section really accomplishes.
    Mr. Luther.
    Mr. Luther. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to withdraw the 
amendment so that perhaps we could work on further refinements 
to the language, and I think Ms. McCarthy also has raised a 
very interesting point.
    Perhaps we'd want to narrow the language so that it would 
in fact be certain to deal with the kinds of companies you're 
referring to, and so with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to 
withdraw.
    The Chairman. With unanimous consent, and without 
objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
    [Luther/Olver Amendment [withdrawn] to Walker Substitute 
follows:]


    The Chairman. And I assure the gentleman that I will be 
happy to work, if there's better language for accomplishing 
this same purpose, the Chair is willing to try to work on that.
    I must say, though, that we've gone through a number of 
iterations of this, and it's very difficult to figure out 
language that gets at what we're trying to do, but I'm 
certainly willing to explore the possibilities.
    I am prepared to accept the next three amendments, you 
know, if you don't have to spend a lot of time explaining them, 
we can go through them here real quick.
    Mr. Roemer. I'll be very quick, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Brown. I move that the next three amendments numbered 
13, 14, and 15, including two by Mr. Roemer be accepted on the 
condition that Mr. Roemer doesn't take up any time explaining 
them.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Roemer. I will say absolutely nothing other than thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. We want to make certain that these are done 
as amended.
    Mr. Roemer. Okay.
    I have an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, and I would just ask, after consulting with your 
staff on my first amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I have 
unanimous consent to offer a modified version of this original 
amendment which would consist of only the fourth paragraph.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Roemer. The only intent of this amendment as modified, 
Mr. Chairman, is to make sure when the industry leads in their 
cash requirement of 20 percent, that whether that is cash or in 
kind, that there is clarity in the fair market value of 
personnel, services, equipment and other resources, be counted 
in an industry cost match.
    The Chairman. Amendments number 13, 14, and 15 are before 
the Committee in an en bloc form. The Chair is prepared to 
accept them.
    I would say, with regard to Mr. Brown's amendment, this is 
an excellent amendment that makes certain that we don't have 
any GATT problems in the Bill, and the gentleman's offered an 
excellent amendment on that.
    The Chair would put the question----
    Is there further discussion?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question on 
the en bloc amendments.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The en bloc amendments are 
agreed to.
    [Roemer amendment 13, Brown amendment 14 and Roemer 
amendment 15, en bloc, follow:]








    The Chairman. We need to recess now.
    The next issue coming up would deal with the cap, which is 
a somewhat controversial issue, and then there's also an 
amendment to reduce the authorization levels in the Bill which 
also may be the subject of some controversy.
    But those are the only two things that we know of that are 
left that could possibly produce votes. So I would ask members, 
if they could, to go over, vote and come back, and we will try 
to move very, very quickly to the final passage of the Bill.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Brown for amendment.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer the amendment 
dealing with the limitation on authorization, Item 17, which we 
refer to as the ``caps amendment.''
    The language in the bill . . .
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for his 
amendment.
    Mr. Brown. Yes. The gentleman is just trying to catch his 
wits.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Brown. I am looking for the language in the bill as 
they currently exist.
    The language in the bill, which my amendment proposes to 
eliminate, is that for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 
1998, the total amount which may be obligated for Energy 
Supply, Research, and Development shall not exceed the total 
amount obligated for such activities in fiscal year 1995.
    Now I have been looking for ways to achieve the gentleman's 
purpose, as I have indicated before, and I understand that 
purpose to be that the additional funding for the hydrogen 
program will not add to the amount obligated by the Department 
for this particular research category--that is, Energy Supply, 
Research, and Development.
    I am in agreement with that objective. I want to find 
language that will achieve that objective. Unfortunately, what 
the gentleman's amendment does, which we can be fairly precise 
about now since we have seen the FY 1996 budget, is to reduce 
the amount that is authorized for Energy Supply, Research, and 
Development to the same level as 1995, or in other words a 
reduction of about $250 million.
    Now that is far more than necessary to encompass the 
additional expense of the Hydrogen program. If we can find 
language which will achieve the gentleman's goal--and I have 
wrestled with two or three versions which it turns out do not--
then I will be able to accept it.
    As it is, I am suggesting that we strike this particular 
paragraph; and, if we can either get from the Department 
language which will not cut them $250 million, which would 
directly impact all of the major laboratories--it would impact 
Oak Ridge, Savannah River, Argonne, Livermore--yes, Mr. Baker, 
Livermore--and others, and I do not think anybody on either 
side wants to do that.
    We want to keep the spending at the level that would be 
without the hydrogen program. We do not, in my opinion, want to 
use this vehicle to cut a quarter of a billion dollars out of 
the Department's programs.
    So I ask for an aye vote on my amendment.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman is using the President's budget as the guide. 
The fact is that the appropriations are likely to be different 
from the President's budget in some of these categories, and we 
did in fact use the money obligated for such activities in 
1995.
    There is no reason to believe that any cuts would occur of 
any major magnitude in any programs, and in particular in the 
labs. It is my view that there are a number of efforts underway 
in everything from solar, to fusion, to a whole host of 
programs that are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a 
year, and we can in fact look to some of those programs to be 
marginally--to a couple of projects not to be done in order to 
increase the priority for hydrogen.
    That is what this attempts to do.
    The fact is that we ought not be in a position in this 
Committee of trying to reprioritize things by giving into the 
Department's wish that everything that is authorized increase 
the level of spending in the Department.
    That is literally the effect of what the gentleman is 
proposing. If his amendment eliminates the cap, we would then 
be authorizing money over and above that which is now being 
spent by the Department.
    In my view, the Committee ought to be reprioritizing the 
research, not increasing the spending, at a time when all of us 
are looking for budget savings.
    So the attempt of the language in the bill is to assure 
that we do maintain a level of funding, which is a responsible 
level of funding, and not increase spending as a result of our 
reprioritization.
    Now the gentleman from Pennsylvania again repeats that if 
the Department is willing to come up with language that 
accomplishes my purpose, I am willing to accept good language 
that accomplishes the purpose here.
    I told that to the Assistant Secretary the other day. You 
know, we have yet to receive any language. We have called them 
on a couple of occasions. We have yet to hear back from them 
getting language.
    If that can be done, I am ready and willing to accept 
language that does not cap. But it seems to me that the 
Committee should not report out a bill that increases the 
deficit in order to do this program when the intent here is to 
reprioritize research and not increase spending.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Olver. The combination of what goes on here is that in 
setting up a new and expanded hydrogen research bill, which is 
the subject of this legislation, and quadrupling the 
expenditure of the hydrogen research program in a three-year 
period, the authorizations under the hydrogen research, 
recognizing that that then has to be appropriated, but 
increasing that authorization by essentially quadrupling over 
what has been spent, and certainly over what has been 
recommended in the President's budget.
    If we are to achieve what you, Mr. Chairman, are 
suggesting--namely, no additional total expenditure out of the 
research program--then there are some other things that do have 
to give somewhere along the way, whether they happen to be the 
major research labs of Oak Ridge, and Sandia, and Livermore, 
and Argonne, and so on, those places, or wherever else it is, 
in sum total it has to come down to that.
    So I am inclined to support the chair--the Ranking Member's 
amendment, recognizing that at a later point we clearly have to 
keep the expenditure down this year, but I would like to point 
out that part of the problem is that the authorizations for the 
hydrogen program ramp up so very quickly, and that's the 
subject of course of the amendment that I wish to offer later.
    The Chairman. Yes. The gentleman does have an amendment to 
reduce the amount of money and to try to reduce the 
prioritization we are trying to provide for hydrogen, and also, 
as I say, in my view what you have happening here is that if 
you take off the cap, then what you are engaging in is a bill 
that would in fact put us in a position of deficit spending.
    Mr. Doggett. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Doggett. I have a question for the Ranking Member about 
his amendment, if he can respond at this point?
    Mr. Brown. The gentleman will try.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Doggett. I guess what I want to know then is, will a 
vote against this amendment have, as its practical effect, to 
cut funding at Oak Ridge, and Livermore, and Sandia, and Los 
Alamos, and Argonne, and Savannah River?
    Mr. Brown. There is no question about that, Mr. Doggett. 
The only question is the amount that it will cut.
    Mr. Doggett. How much?
    Mr. Brown. Well, it depends upon whether the appropriators 
reach the level of the President's budget or not. If they 
appropriate the level of the President's budget, the cuts that 
will have to be made, if Mr. Walker's language continues, in 
this one account would be about $250 million.
    If they appropriate less, the cuts would be correspondingly 
less because this language will set a cap on how much can 
actually be obligated.
    If they appropriate $100 million less than the President's 
budget, then the cuts that will have to be taken to meet this 
language would be only $150 million.
    Mr. Doggett. So the only question is whether they get cut 
somewhere else mostly, or whether they get cut by a vote 
against this amendment, mostly, but either way they stand to 
lose millions of dollars each?
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    Now Mr. Walker's position is that the additional cost of 
this hydrogen program, which would be about $15 million in 
1996, and $25 million in 1997, and $40 million in 1998, should 
come out of the other programs in this $3 billion account. They 
would have a minuscule effect.
    But if you go beyond that to another $100- or $200 million, 
then it really begins to bite, and it has to come out of the 
programs in the labs which are all funded in this account.
    Mr. Doggett. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Well, again I would say that that is--the 
real effect of the amendment is to increase spending. The fact 
is that all this particular bill does is reduces the spending 
in the accounts as constituted in 1995 by $15 million. That is 
not going to come out of the hides of the labs; it can easily 
come out of the hides of a number of other programs that, in 
the opinion of the Chair, are of lesser priority than hydrogen 
research.
    Is there other discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question on 
the amendment.
    Those in favor of the amendment will say, aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, on that I would request a roll 
call vote.
    The Chairman. The gentleman requests a roll call vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Traficant.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fawell.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hayes.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    Ms. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Tanner.
    Mr. Tanner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tanner votes aye.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Curt Weldon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Geren votes aye.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Roemer.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Here.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff votes present.
    Mr. Cramer.
    Mr. Cramer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes aye.
    Mr. Barton.
    Mr. Barton. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barton votes no.
    Mr. Barcia.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale votes aye.
    Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Ms. Harman.
    Ms. Harman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Harman votes aye.
    Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes No.
    Ms. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Minge.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wamp.
    Mr. Wamp. Present.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wamp votes present.
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Olver votes aye.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes aye.
    Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Ms. McCarthy.
    Ms. McCarthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. McCarthy votes aye.
    Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Ward. (No response)
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mr. Doggett.
    Mr. Doggett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doggett votes aye.
    Mrs. Seastrand.
    Ms. Seastrand. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes aye.
    Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Largent.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Luther.
    Mr. Luther. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Luther votes aye.
    Mr. Hilleary.
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Foley.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Myrick.
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Roemer, you are not recorded.
    Mr. Roemer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Roemer votes aye.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I would like to change my ``present'' to 
``no.''
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff votes no.
    Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Wamp.
    Mr. Wamp. I change my ``present'' to a ``no.''
    The Clerk. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson, you are not recorded.
    Ms. Johnson. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    The Chairman. Is Mr. Fawell recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Fawell is not recorded.
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I count 15 yeas, 21 nays.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment is Amendment No. 18.
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    What we have just done is what was roughly a $3 billion 
program. We have limited it to that, and then asked the 
increase of the hydrogen program, which we are doing here, 
which is from an expenditure level of somewhere in the single 
digit numbers but, as I understand it, the proposed budget for 
next year by the President was something like $7.5 million, and 
that this year was certainly no more than $10 million; but 
historically it has been $10 million or under.
    We are proposing here to increase in the first year to $25 
million, and then in the second year to $30 million, and then 
to--excuse me. From the second year, it would be $35 million, 
and then to $40 million, which is a quadrupling of the research 
program.
    I think there probably have been cases where research 
programs have been ramped up that quickly, a quadrupling of the 
expenditure on a research program, but I can't come up with any 
at the moment.
    This is--while it is small sums of money, it is a very 
large increase in the authorization. The Advisory Committee, 
the Hydrogen Technology Advisory Panel, had proposed the 
numbers which I have offered in the amendment which is in the 
packet that is an increase to $21 million, $23 million, and $25 
million, which is in itself at least a doubling of the amount 
to be expended on hydrogen research.
    Certainly I think it reflects what kind of research, new 
research, thrust can be appropriately taken in over time, which 
seems to me to be quite large and ought to be quite adequate 
for the kind of change in priority that we are doing here.
    What it ends up doing is saving about $40 million in what 
is now an authorization limit at $250 million below the budget 
proposed by the President in this area, and which is freezing 
it for several years in a row, which allows for that $40 
million to be used in some of these other places that are 
otherwise going to be cut from expectations and cut clearly 
from the levels that they were at in the previous years.
    So I hope the amendment would be adopted.
    The Chairman. The reality of this amendment is that what we 
have just decided is that we are not going to go any higher in 
the overall spending in the Department. This is just a question 
of how much priority you are going to put on hydrogen.
    The gentleman does not think we ought to go as high as $25 
million. I would remind the Committee that the fossil budget is 
about a half a billion. Solar is at $400 million. Fusion is at 
$390 million. Nuclear is at $300 million. Conservation, which 
does not even get us any kind of new supplies, is at $775 
million.
    So at $25 million this program is not even in the same 
league with most of the rest of these programs, and all we are 
attempting to do is, within that particular framework, trying 
to get some reprioritization.
    The gentleman is fighting the old-order argument that 
suggests the Department ought to keep diminishing hydrogen and 
ought not allow this reprioritization to take place.
    It seems to me, since we have now capped the overall 
spending, that we ought to now do what the bill was intended to 
do. That is, assure that the reprioritization is made real.
    Are there--
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that.
    I am certainly not fighting to keep the old order process 
of keeping hydrogen down. In fact, the authorization that I 
proposed, which is what the hydrogen technology advisory group, 
which is a group of industry people, scientists, and people 
from the Department, together, one-third of each, that had 
recommended themselves that should go up under this hydrogen 
legislation. Namely, $21- $23- and $25 million, which in each 
case is more than a doubling of what is expended now, and in 
the last case is more than three times what the President 
proposes for it.
    The issue here is not that we are not reprioritizing. We 
clearly are. We have made that decision in reaching the 
agreements on the legislation today, amendment by amendment. 
But whether one can ramp up the research in this area three 
times, more than double, nearly triple in the third year, and 
triple what is presently being expended, and do that 
responsibly, versus--that in itself is a matter that is 
difficult, I think, and problematical, and the original 
authorization language suggests that it go up not only three 
times what the budget proposes for this year, but rather to go 
up five times what that budget has proposed.
    I think that the amounts, given that others have to be cut 
in the process, would be quite adequate with the amendment.
    The Chairman. Well I thank the gentleman for his further 
explanation. In my view, he does in fact diminish the 
prioritization here and I would hope the Committee would not 
approve the amendment.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chairman will put the vote.
    Those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair the noes have it. 
The noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll call vote.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Traficant.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fawell.
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mr. Hayes.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Tanner.
    Mr. Tanner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tanner votes aye.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Curt Weldon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Geren votes aye.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Roemer.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff votes no.
    Mr. Cramer.
    Mr. Cramer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes aye.
    Mr. Barton.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale votes no.
    Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mrs. Harman.
    Mrs. Harman. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Harman votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes No.
    Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Minge.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wamp.
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Olver votes aye.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes aye.
    Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Ms. McCarthy.
    Ms. McCarthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. McCarthy votes aye.
    Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Ward. (No response)
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mr. Doggett.
    Mr. Doggett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doggett votes aye.
    Mrs. Seastrand.
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes aye.
    Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Largent.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Luther.
    Mr. Luther. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Luther votes aye.
    Mr. Hilleary.
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Foley.
    Mr. Foley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick.
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    The Chairman. Does anybody else wish to be recorded?
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Roemer, you are not recorded.
    Mr. Roemer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Roemer votes aye.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I count 13 yeas, 23 nays.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The amendment in the package now, Mr. Brown, amendment 
number 19.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, this is the most innocuous of all 
amendments. It changes the title to reflect what we had done in 
the bill.
    We still apparently have a minor disagreement between you 
and me as to whether we ought to determine--or to use the word 
``research or ``basic research'' and my proposed change in the 
title would merely use the term ``research development and 
demonstration.''
    I have made a slight concession. You have made a slight 
concession, but I would not look favorably upon what I 
understand you would prefer--and that is, to include the term 
``basic research'' in the title, because there is no basic 
research program in hydrogen in the Department of Energy.
    They refer to a ``research program,'' but in their itemized 
accounting where they allocate that to basic research, applied 
research, and so forth, they have zero for basic research.
    Under those circumstances, I think for the title to use the 
term ``basic research'' kind of stretches what is going on.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman.
    I thought our purpose here was to reprioritize what the 
Department is doing and tell them to do something new. One of 
the reasons for doing that--and earlier I accepted Mr. Olver's 
findings based upon the fact that he did put the word ``basic'' 
in, and I was just trying to give us a kind of collateral title 
to reflect what the findings now say based upon Mr. Olver's 
amendments.
    Mr. Brown. Would the gentleman permit me a biting comment 
at this point?
    The Chairman. Sure.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Brown. I think what the gentleman is trying to do is to 
include what for most conservative Republicans is politically 
correct language, but which means basic research because that 
is politically correct. Research, Development, and 
Demonstration, you have had to make quite a stretch to include 
that and I appreciate it. But I think this is a retrogressive 
step to put in a title something that doesn't exist in the 
Department.
    The Chairman. But we are in fact creating a program for the 
Department. Why can't we create a basic research program in 
hydrogen for the Department? That is exactly what we are doing 
here. We ought to have the title reflect that. We have agreed 
to put the demonstration in to reflect that, but on the other 
hand I agree with the gentleman. That is not what the 
Department is doing now.
    We think it is what they ought to do in the future.
    Mr. Doggett. Will the Ranking Member yield?
    The Chairman. Sure. I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Doggett. Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. I am the Ranking Member. Remember, Mr. Walker, I 
am the Ranking Member.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. But I control the time, so * * *
    Mr. Brown. Oh, okay.
    Mr. Doggett. Mr. Brown, would you accept a friendly 
amendment to your amendment to call this ``Industrial Policy''?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Brown. No, actually in the best of spirits, I am not 
even going to object too much to the proposed change because 
Mr. Walker has been accommodating, but I think it is a semantic 
thing. In the interests of Truth in Titling, I think he is 
wrong, but in terms of practical impact I think it may serve to 
get the Department to change.
    But the Department's view is that practically all the basic 
research on hydrogen has already been done.
    The Chairman. Well, again, I think the Department certainly 
has a view of that type. That's the reason why they haven't 
done any work on it in the last 20 years.
    I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    If indeed the Department of Energy does not have any money 
for basic research, I think we need far stronger legislation 
than we have here.
    But at the same time, I believe they do do a great deal of 
basic research and they are not being truthful if they are not 
referring to it in that way.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Brown. Does the gentleman want to amend my amendment?
    The Chairman. My preference would be to add the word 
``basic'' in front of the word ``research'' in your amendment, 
and then it would also include ``Demonstration'' and I think 
that that point would reflect the nature of the bill.
    The gentleman asks unanimous consent that the amendment be 
modified.
    Mr. Brown. Which gentleman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Brown. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asks unanimous 
consent?
    The Chairman. That the amendment be modified.
    Is there objection?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment is modified 
to include the word ``basic.''
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the amendment will say aye?
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The amendment is agreed to.
    Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. That completes the amendment package.
    Ms. McCarthy.
    Ms. McCarthy. Would it be in order to suggest some language 
for the report based on our conversation with regard to 
defining entrepreneurs and small businesses, as we discussed?
    I did not want to offer an amendment without it being 
thoroughly prepared, but I wondered if it would be in order to 
suggest the language for the report?
    The Chairman. Well we will be happy to work with the 
gentlelady on report language, and so on. I know the topic that 
she has, and I think that the Committee has agreed at this 
point that some report language in that regard would be useful.
    Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. May I make the broader request that the 
Committee have three days within which all Members may file 
separate, dissenting, or additional views for inclusion in the 
report?
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee report the 
Bill H.R. 655 to the House as Amended with a recommendation 
that it pass, and furthermore I move to instruct the staff to 
prepare the legislative report and make technical and 
conforming changes.
    The Chairman. The Committee has heard the motion.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The motion is agreed to. And without 
objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
    Mr. Brown. That's the way to do it.
    The Chairman. The Chair will declare the Committee 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, 
subject to the Call of the Chair.]






                       XVII. Reports to Congress

                      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.
                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                summary

    There is strong bipartisan support for hydrogen research, 
development, and demonstration on the Committee on Science, but 
there are significant differences of opinion regarding specific 
provisions of the Hydrogen Future Act. We do not agree with 
provisions in the bill which provide for a steep increase in 
funding, which limit other Energy Supply R&D activities of the 
Department, and which constrain the types of R&D that the 
government may support in moving toward a hydrogen future. We 
unsuccessfully attempted to correct these problems during the 
committee markup and will no doubt try again when the bill 
reaches the Floor. We also are puzzled why the Majority values 
hydrogen research higher than all other Federally supported 
research and development as evidenced by the decision to move 
no other authorization bills in advance of the budget 
resolution and appropriations reductions in research programs.

                     general philosophy of the bill

    The course that H.R. 655 has followed since its 
introduction reflects some of the confusion created when static 
political ideology interacts with the dynamic world of research 
and development.
    The bill as introduced on January 24, 1995 was a detailed 
blueprint that mandated funding for about 15 specific hydrogen 
demonstration projects, including projects designed to 
demonstrate economic feasibility. The focus of the program was 
clearly on the applied portion of the R&D spectrum, and the 
proposed central government planning and funding was fare more 
interventionist than the industry-led partnerships that the 
Republican Majority currently finds so objectionable in the 
Department of Commerce and the Department of Defense. The major 
difference between H.R. 655 and the organic legislation 
establishing those Commerce and Defense programs was that H.R. 
655 provided a specific list of sanctioned demonstration 
projects in sharp contrast to the role that industry plays in 
choosing the most promising areas for Department of Commerce 
Advanced Technology Program solicitations. In effect, H.R. 655 
was Congress picking technological winners and losers.
    The criticism of this approach was predictable. And, 
perhaps in response, the Chairman's markup substitute dropped 
reference to specific demonstration projects in order to 
emphasize ``research and development on basic scientific 
fundamentals [related] to hydrogen''. Unfortunately, ``basic 
scientific fundamentals'' was never defined, perhaps because it 
is undefinable.
    In the product that has emerged from Committee, the scope 
of the program encompasses ``basic research, development, and 
demonstration'' of hydrogen. We interpret this language in a 
way which would not exclude applied research. In fact, we 
interpret the bill as reported to authorize a very broad, 
competitively awarded hydrogen RD&D program which relies 
heavily on government-industry partnerships and cost-sharing. 
It very much reminds us, and appropriately so, of the highly 
successful Advanced Technology Program in the Department of 
Commerce and the Technology Reinvestment Program in the 
Department of Defense.
    In short, despite these lurches in policy direction, we 
have managed to report a practical bill that should provide 
significant impetus to the hydrogen program at the Department 
of Energy. As much as the Republican Majority may use semantic 
devices to conform the program to preconceived notions 
concerning what constitutes politically correct research, the 
reality is that the program as reported looks very much like a 
page out of President Clinton's technology policy book.

                    specific provisions in the bill

    In terms of specific changes that were made during the 
markup, we appreciate the Committee's willingness to accept our 
amendments to (1) affirm the Department's ability to support 
hydrogen demonstration projects, (2) conform the bill to 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, (3) avoid duplication 
of effort and of private sector capabilities, and (4) put in 
place a cost-sharing formula that is more favorable to the 
government and the taxpayer. We are also pleased to see removed 
from the bill three erroneous assertions: (1) that hydrogen is 
potentially a major energy source; (2) that we are now ready to 
conduct hydrogen energy demonstrations across a wide spectrum 
of end uses; and (3) that industry will have already 
demonstrated the technical feasibility of these technologies by 
the year 2000. We believe that if hydrogen were so promising 
and so near-term, a flood of private sector investment would 
already be ushering in the hydrogen future without the 
government lifting a finger.
    Again, as introduced, the bill contained the paradoxical 
and contradictory views that hydrogen development is near-term 
but basic research questions must still be addressed to develop 
a hydrogen economy. The emphasis on basic research, which 
remains in the bill as reported, ignores not only the testimony 
of the expert witness panel, but also the fact that the basic 
chemistry of hydrogen has been well understood since before the 
Revolutionary War, and that a plethora of hydrogen applications 
have been pursued throughout the 20th Century.
    Although the development of hydrogen technologies does not 
depend on basic research, it does require significant 
investment in applied research, development, and demonstration 
activities. Hydrogen is not just around the corner as a major 
fuel. While hydrogen is a common element, it is generally found 
in combination with other elements and substantial amounts of 
energy must be expended to make hydrogen into fuel. Hydrogen 
fuel, for some time to come, will be made from natural gas or 
coal with a substantial loss of energy. It will make sense as a 
fuel only in those applications where environmental or 
performance characteristics will cause customers to pay a 
premium and to overlook the difficulties we now experience in 
storing and transporting hydrogen.
    Hydrogen is much more likely to become a major fuel if it 
can be made using renewable energy or other sources, but even 
then its popularity is uncertain. To be competitive, hydrogen 
must prove to be more useful, convenient, or cheaper than other 
fuels then on the market, including other fuels derived from 
renewable energy or other sources, and must not involve 
prohibitive new infrastructure costs. Last September, in 
response to a question for the record by Representative Lloyd, 
the Department of Energy predicted that it would take five to 
seven years for a near-term hydrogen demonstration to be 
completed in the transportation sector, 15 to 20 years for an 
industrial demonstration, and as long as 25 to 30 years for a 
demonstration in the utility sector. Demonstrations outside the 
transportation sector are therefore probably premature and 
should be given a lower priority.
    We would feel more comfortable with the Hydrogen Future Act 
if the program were receiving more direction from those 
companies which want to be part of a U.S.-based hydrogen 
industry. We would like to see priority attention given to the 
transportation demonstrations our industry witnesses have 
requested; to innovative, renewable energy-based methods of 
producing hydrogen; and to solving those problems U.S. industry 
identifies as likely roadblocks to the production, storage, 
transport, and use of hydrogen fuels.
    In addition, at a time of massive spending cuts throughout 
the government, we frankly are uncomfortable authorizing more 
funding for the hydrogen program than either the Hydrogen 
Technology Advisory Panel or the President has requested. The 
Advisory Panel request levels are $21 million in FY 1996, $23 
million in FY 1997, and $25 million in FY 1998. Without further 
direction from the Panel and more information from DOE, it is 
unclear at present whether the Department will effectively 
spend the additional $30 million authorized in the bill.
    Finally, we are bothered by the bill's arbitrary spending 
cap which has the potential for hurting DOE's Energy Supply 
Research and Development efforts across a wide spectrum of 
energy technologies. These programs have long-term payoffs that 
will most likely overwhelm the initial Federal investment and 
are important to the long-term health of the Nation. Even if a 
cap of some sort made sense, we have no way of knowing the true 
impact of this provision. At the time that the bill was 
reported, the Committee had held no hearings during this 
Congress on the relative merits of these programs and had no 
legislative record for justifying such a cap, nor could anyone 
tell us what the dollar figures on the cap would actually be. 
The Congress should avoid rushing into arbitrary decisions; 
they invariably come back to haunt us in ways we never expect.
    In closing, we would like to indicate our appreciation for 
the level of bipartisan cooperation which has brought us this 
far on the Hydrogen Future Act. We hope that our additional 
amendments will be considered with an open mind, and that we 
will be able to leave the floor of the House of Representatives 
with an improved bill that we all can support.

                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   Tim Roemer.
                                   Karen McCarthy.
                                   Mike Doyle.
                                   Alcee L. Hastings.
                                   Ralph M. Hall.
                                   John W. Olver.
                                   Lynn N. Rivers.
                                   Jim Barcia.
                                   James A. Traficant, Jr.
                ADDITIONAL VIEWS BY HON. JOHN S. TANNER

    In general, I support the Democratic additional views on 
the Hydrogen Future Act. I think one point requires further 
clarification. In some instances, spending caps are needed to 
spur agencies to prioritize amongst programs.
    However, the approach in the Hydrogen Future Act blindly 
prioritizes the Department of Energy's energy supply research 
portfolio without any attempt to assess the benefits and costs 
of pursuing hydrogen research among the entire range of 
research options. Thus, currently supported energy programs 
that have undergone this prioritization will be abruptly 
curtailed to pay for an expanded hydrogen research program. 
Meaningful, constructive research at various laboratories 
around the nation will pay the price without regard to merit or 
value. This is not good public policy.

                                                       John Tanner.