Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I support the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act of 2001. The Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) was created in 1992 as an offshoot of the larger Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR). Both programs are designed to tap into the innovation of high technology small businesses and foster the commercialization of their research capabilities. Specifically, the STTR program funds cooperative research projects between a small business and a non-profit research institution, such as a university or Federally funded laboratory. There are currently five participating agencies: Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Science Foundation. These agencies make R&D awards to the small business collaboration in the hopes of bringing new technology or technology that may have been ``on the shelf'' of a research institution into the marketplace. Since its inception, the STTR program has made approximately $300 million in awards to small businesses and research institutions. As GAO recently reported, the return on our investment has been more than satisfactory. Out of the 102 responses from companies participating in the STTR program from fiscal years 1995-97, $132 million in sales and $53 million in additional development funding was reported. In addition, future sales for those projects are expected to be about $900 million dollars by December 2005. These successful results are so encouraging since most of the R&D efforts have yet to reach the stage where they are ready for the marketplace. H.R. 1860 will continue this successful R&D program by reauthorizing it through fiscal year 2009, and doubling the set-aside of the participating agencies to .3 percent. The bill also makes important improvements to the program. One of those is the establishment of an electronic database that will better enable the Small Business Administration to evaluate the program's progress. Finally Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the bipartisan effort to ensure this important program continues it successful efforts of technology transfer and innovation. I would like to thank Mr. Ehlers, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, the Ranking Member of that Subcommittee Mr. Barcia, the Chairman of the House Small Business Committee Mr. Manzullo, and the Ranking Members Ms. Velazquez for their efforts in crafting the legislation before the House. H.R. 1860 will strengthen this country's research and development community by investing in our nation's innovative small businesses and I ask all Members to support its passage.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on the third floor of this Capitol Building, I was standing in the hall when the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), walked by. I stood aside and I applauded them. I applauded them because they are working very hard together under very difficult circumstances for this Nation. I stand in agreement with the eloquent remarks made by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) in this well just a few minutes ago, and I applaud the outstanding commitment and leadership of our Speaker. Of course, we have to be concerned with the people part of this equation. Tens of thousands of people have lost their livelihood, through no fault of their own. They need health care for their families. They need job training for new opportunities. They need extended unemployment compensation. That is going to be provided. We will not ignore their needs. But for the task at hand, we listened as the gentleman from Alaska Chairman Young) was in that chair for 7 hours to hear leaders from the business community, the labor community, the financial community, one after another, say to us, ``We must take immediate action to protect the viability of commercial aviation in America. We cannot lose a moment,'' and we are responding. Safety is a concern that we all have. The gentleman from Florida Chairman Mica) is responding. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a proud record of dealing in a forthright manner with sensitive issues. I am proud to serve with the gentleman from Alaska Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Florida Chairman Young), but I am proudest of all to serve with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) in this hour of need for America. Pass this legislation.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, Shaw said, ``Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not.'' My dream, the collective dream of all Americans, is a world at peace, a world in which equal opportunity for all prevails. I cannot explain the why of the events of the past few days, but I can and will continue to share in that collective dream of all Americans. As I see it, this resolution, which we should and will pass, is not a resolution designed to promote war, rather it is one seeking to advance the cause of a secure world and a just and lasting peace. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minority leader, my colleagues, I am proud to serve with you in this great institution. I am proud to serve under our commander in chief, the President of the United States. But most of all, I am proud of the strength and the character and the resolve and the common purpose of the American people. That character, that strength, that resolve, that common purpose is represented here in the people's House. We are united. We are strong. We are determined.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, this tragedy was unspeakable, unimaginable, unbearable, unbelievable. Suddenly, we have a sense of being overwhelmed by a reality that had been inconceivable just yesterday morning. All Americans, I think, have reacted with the same mix of emotions: fear, anger, loss, horror; perhaps most of all horror, a horror that keeps creeping back as one tries to return to daily life. But this tragedy has also evoked the best in people as we have united to reassure family and friends and neighbors and even strangers; as Americans have lined up to donate blood; as New Yorkers and Washingtonians and volunteers from across the country have rushed to offer their services and expertise; as police and firefighters and other rescue workers have made the ultimate sacrifice. We are going to need more of that in the days and weeks ahead as the full enormity of this horrific crime hits home, as we figure out how to deal with the future threats in this wholly unfamiliar and unexpected world in which we now find ourselves. But for now, we must concentrate on recovering emotionally and returning to daily life. We must, with clarity, as Lincoln said, bind up the Nation's wounds and care for him who hath borne the battle, and his widow, and his orphan. We must pray that some day we will live to see the biblical prophecy fulfilled, the prophecy that is the antithesis of care: ``Each shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree and none shall be made afraid.'' They can destroy our buildings, but they cannot destroy our spirit. They can bring us to tears; they cannot bring us to our knees. Today, America is united and strong and determined as we stand tall and face the future.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono). The amendment amends division A, which is based on text reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The amendment establishes a new program within EPA and the Department of Energy regarding certain renewable and alternative energy products and technologies, and I commend her for that approach. Under the Rules of the House, the Committee on Science has jurisdiction over all energy research development and demonstration, commercial application of energy technology, and environmental research and development. Am I correct that the committee does not intend for the placement of this amendment in division A of H.R. 4 and its revision of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to diminish or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science?

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his clarification and cooperation. I look forward to working with him and his committee and my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce on this provision, as well as other provisions of mutual interest.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as my distinguished colleague knows, we are always very enthusiastic in our committee about alternative sources of energy, so the gentleman can be assured that both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and I will work closely with the gentleman to address this. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a new but very valued member of the committee.

Mr. BOEHLERT. And we still have an affection for the umpire. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Akin).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to challenge the umpire's call, that is cause for automatic ejection in baseball, but our scorecard says 2 minutes. Can the Chair look at those numbers again?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be ejected, but does the gentleman from Texas have 30 seconds he could yield to me?

Mr. BOEHLERT. So now I can say on my scorecard we have 2 minutes?

Mr. BOEHLERT. May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining?

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a valuable member of the committee.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House the Committee on Science portions of H.R. 4 which are primarily found in division B of the bill. These provisions were originally part of H.R. 2460, which our committee passed unanimously. I would like to submit for the Record at this point materials that were prepared for the report accompanying H.R. 2460, which describe in detail the nature of the provisions that are now in division B. 1. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 4, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001 division e: clean coal power initiative act of 2001 Section 5000. Short Title Subsection 5000 cites the division as the ``Clean Coal Power Initiative Act of 2001.'' Sec. 5001. Findings Section 5001 contains the eight findings. Sec. 5002. Definitions Section 5003 defines the term ``cost and performance-based goals'' to mean the cost and performance-based goals established under section 5004, and the term ``Secretary'' to mean the Secretary of Energy. Sec. 5003. Clean Coal Power Initiative Subsection 5003(a) requires the Secretary to carry out the Clean Coal Power Initiative under: (1) this division; (2) the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.5901 et seq.); (3) the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.5801 et seq.); and (4) title XIII of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.13331 et seq.), to achieve cost and performance goals established by the Secretary under section 5004. Sec. 5004. Cost and Performance Goals Subsection 5004(a) requires the Secretary to perform an assessment that establishes measurable cost and performance goals for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 for the programs authorized by this division. Such assessment must be based on the latest scientific, economic, and technical knowledge. In establishing the cost and performance goals, subsection 5004(b) requires the Secretary to consult with representatives of: (1) the United States coal industry; (2) State coal development agencies; (3) the electric utility industry; (4) railroads and other transportation industries; (5) manufacturers of advanced coal-based equipment; (6) institutions of higher learning, national laboratories, and professional and technical societies; (7) organizations representing workers; (8) organizations formed to--(A) promote the use of coal; (B) further the goals of environmental protection; and (C) promote the production and generation of coal-based power from advanced facilities; and (9) other appropriate Federal and State agencies. Under subsection 5004(c), the Secretary shall: (1) not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this division, issue a set of draft cost and performance goals for public comment; and (2) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, after taking into consideration any public comments received, submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, and to the Senate, the final cost and performance goals. Sec. 5005. Authorization of Appropriations Except as provided in subsection 5005(c), subsection 5005(a) authorizes to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the Clean Coal Power Initiative under section 5003 $200.0 million for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2011, to remain available until expended. Notwithstanding subsection 5005(a), subsection 5005(b) prohibits the use of funds to carry out the activities authorized by this division after September 30, 2002, unless the Secretary has transmitted to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, and to the Senate, the report required by this subsection and one month has elapsed since that transmission. The report shall include, with respect to subsection 5005(a), a 10-year plan containing: (1) a detailed assessment of whether the aggregate funding levels provided under subsection 5005(a) are the appropriate funding levels for that program; (2) a detailed description of how proposals will be solicited and evaluated, including a list of all activities expected to be undertaken; (3) a detailed list of technical milestones for each coal and related technology that will be pursued; (4) recommendations for a mechanism for recoupment of Federal funding for successful commercial projects; and (5) a detailed description of how the program will avoid problems enumerated in General Accounting Office reports on the Clean Coal Technology Program, including problems that have resulted in unspent funds and projects that failed either financially or scientifically. Subsection 5005(c) provides that subsection 5005(b) shall not apply to any project begun before September 30, 2002. Sec. 5006. Project Criteria Subsection 5006(a) prohibits the Secretary from providing funding for project that does not advance efficiency, environmental performance, and cost competitiveness well beyond the level of technologies that are in operation or have been demonstrated as of the date of the enactment of this division. Subsection 5006(b) contains the technical criteria for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. Under subsection 5006(b)(1)(A), in allocating the funds authorized under section 5005(a), the Secretary shall ensure that at least 80 percent of the funds are used only for projects on coalbased gasification technologies, including gasification combined cycle, gasification fuel cells, gasification coproduction and hybrid gasification/combustion. Subsection 5006(b)(1)(B) requires the Secretary to set technical milestones specifying emissions levels that coal gasification projects must be designed to and reasonably expected to achieve. The milestones shall get more restrictive through the life of the program, and such milestones shall be designed to achieve by 2020 coal gasification projects able to: (1) remove 99 percent of sulfur dioxide; (2) emit no more than 0.05 pounds (lbs) of nitrous oxides (NOx) per million British Thermal Unit (BTU); (3) achieve substantial reductions in mercury emissions; and (4) achieve a thermal efficiency of 60 percent (higher heating value). For projects not described in subsection 5006(b)(1)(A) or subsection 5006(b)(1)(B), subsection 5006(b)(2) requires the Secretary to set technical milestones specifying emissions levels that the projects must be designed to and reasonably expected to achieve. The milestones shall get more restrictive through the life of the program, and such milestones shall be designed to achieve by 2010 projects able to: (1) remove 97 percent of sulfur dioxide; (2) emit no more than 0.08 lbs of NOX per million BTU; (3) achieve substantial reductions in mercury emissions; and (4) achieve a thermal efficiency of 45 percent (higher heating value). Subsection 5006(c) prohibits the Secretary from providing a funding award under this division unless the recipient of the award has documented to the satisfaction of the Secretary that: (1) the award recipient is financially viable without the receipt of additional Federal funding; (2) the recipient will provide sufficient information to the Secretary for the Secretary to ensure that the award funds are spent efficiently and effectively; and (3) a market exists for the technology being demonstrated or applied, as evidenced by statements of interest in writing from potential purchasers of the technology. Subsection 5006(d) requires the Secretary to provide financial assistance to projects that meet the requirements of subsections 5006 (a), (b), and (c) and are likely to: (1) achieve overall cost reductions in the utilization of coal to generate useful forms of energy; (2) improve the competitiveness of coal among various forms of energy in order to maintain a diversity of fuel choices in the United States to meet electricity generation requirements; and (3) demonstrate methods and equipment that are applicable to 25 percent of the electricity generating facilities that use coal as the primary feedstock as of the date of enactment of this division. Subsection 5006(e) limits the Federal share of the cost of a coal or related technology project funded by the Secretary to not more than 50 percent. Subsection 5006(f) provides that neither the use of any particular technology, nor the achievement of any emission reduction, by any facility receiving assistance under this division shall be taken into account for purposes of making any determination under the Clean Air Act in applying the provisions of that Act to a facility not receiving assistance under this division, including any determination concerning new source performance standards, lowest achievable emission rate, best available control technology, or any other standard, requirement, or limitation. Sec. 5007. Study Under subsection 5007(a), not later than one year after the date of enactment of this division, and once every two years thereafter through 2016, the Secretary, in cooperation with other appropriate Federal agencies, must transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, and to the Senate, a report containing the results of a study to: (1) identify efforts (and the costs and periods of time associated with those efforts) that, by themselves or in combination with other efforts, may be capable of achieving the cost and performance goals; (2) develop recommendations for the Department of Energy to promote the efforts identified under (1); and (3) develop recommendations for additional authorities required to achieve the cost and performance goals. In carrying out this section, subsection 5007(b) requires the Secretary shall give due weight to the expert advice of representatives of the entities described in subsection 5004(b). Sec. 5008. Clean Coal Centers of Excellence As part of the Clean Coal Power Initiative authorized in section 5003, section 5008, which is included in the manager's amendment, requires the Secretary to award competitive, merit-based grants to universities for the establishment of Centers of Excellence for Energy Systems of the Future. Such centers shall be located at universities with a proven record of conducting research on, developing, or demonstrating clean coal technologies. The Secretary shall provide grants to universities that can show the greatest potential for demonstrating new clean coal technologies. II. Committee on Science Views on H.R. 4, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001 DIVISION E: Clean Coal Power Initiative Act of 2001 Division E of H.R. 4, the Clean Coal Power Initiative Act of 2001, provides $2 billion over 10 years for the Administration's Clean Coal Power Initiative. Like the Administration, the Committee believes that coal is likely to continue to be a significant source of electric power in the U.S. for years to come, given its domestic abundance. However, if that is to be the case, coal must become a far more efficient and cleaner fuel. Such improvements will require, among other actions, government investment in research, development, demonstration and commercial application of truly advanced coal technologies. Neither the taxpayers nor the coal industry will be well served in the long run if government investments are made in technologies that do not ``push the envelope.'' Moreover, a concerted effort will be needed to strengthen the management of clean coal programs. With those concerns in mind, division E places a number of requirements and restrictions on the Clean Coal Power Initiative. First, the Committee is requiring a detailed report on how the Initiative will be organized and implemented. The Committee is disturbed that at Committee hearings, the Administration could neither explain how the $2 billion figure was arrived at nor how the money would be spent. Given the priority the Administration has placed on the Initiative, the Committee will allow the Initiative to begin. However, no funds may be as of October 1, 2002, unless the Administration has submitted the detailed report required by this division and it has been before the Congress for 1 month. The report must be specific in explaining how the $2 billion figure was developed, the scope of the Initiative, how the Initiative will operate, what technical milestones will be established and how they will be achieved, and how the Initiative can be guided or informed by the successes and failures of past clean coal efforts. The report must also include recommendations for recoupment of federal funds for successful projects. The division also establishes strict, environmental standards that projects must be designed to meet and reasonably be expected to achieve in order to receive funding. Moreover, at least 80 percent of the funding must be devoted to projects related to gasification technologies that are furthest from development and promise the greatest environmental benefit among economically viable technologies, and, therefore, the ones most deserving of government support. The Committee intends that the Secretary set strict, achievable, specific environmental milestones to ensure that the projects comply with section 5006. The environmental criteria in this division, which are taken from industry's own technology roadmap, are not mere advisory guidelines. They are precise requirements that the Initiative must be designed to meet. The Committee intends that the efficiency requirements refer to generation efficiency and that the efficiency numbers apply to plants that are exclusively generating power. The Secretary should issue equivalent efficiency numbers for plants involved in the production of industrial chemicals or other activities. The division also sets strict financial criteria for participants in the Initiative. These criteria are absolutely essential to the success of the program. The Committee intends that the Secretary require specific, written documentation and audits from the participants to meet the requirements of subsection 5006(c). For example, a market should exist for the technology being demonstrated or applied, as evidenced by statements of interest in writing from potential purchasers of technology. The Committee recommends that the Secretary consult with objective, outside experts in developing the report, including those from the National Academies of Science and Engineering (who will eventually be reviewing the Initiative, pursuant to section 2616 of H.R. 4) and the General Accounting Office. The Committee also recommends that, in writing the report and carrying out the program, the Secretary consult with environmental groups and other environmental experts (as a primary goal of the program is making coal a more environmentally benign fuel), the coal industry, the utility industry, and the coal equipment manufacturing industry. The Committee is aware of a proposed dry coal cleaning technology demonstration involving a pulverizer and dry separator operating together to remove impurities from coal and other minerals. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide assistance for demonstration of such innovative magnetic separator technologies. Sec. 5008. Clean Coal Centers of Excellence Section 5008 directs the Secretary to provide grants to universities for the establishment of clean coal centers of excellence. Based on the Subcommittee on Energy's June 12, 2001 hearing on Clean Coal Technology and subsequent discussions and materials, the Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to consider as potential recipients Southern Illinois University, the University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie- Mellon University, and the Center for Electric Power at Tennessee Technological University. I. Summary OF Major Provisions of H.R. 4, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001 division B: comprehensive energy research and technology act of 2001 Division B of H.R. 4, the Comprehensive Energy Research and Technology Act of 2001, authorizes a total of $16,802,153,000 for the period FY 2002-2009 in five titles for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application programs, projects, and activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). Title I (Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency) authorizes $3,025,542,000 for FY 2002-FY 2006 in six subtitles, as follows: 1. A--Alternative Fuel Vehicles: $200.0 million for FY 2002 for not more than 15 grants (with a maximum grant size of $20.0 million) to State and local governments, or metropolitan transit authorities for the demonstration and commercial application of alternative fuel and ultra-low sulfur diesel vehicles. 2. B--Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Systems: Section 2125 authorizes $20.0 million for FY 2002 for competitive, merit- based grants for the development of micro-generation energy technology. 3. C--Secondary Electric Vehicle Battery Use: $1.0 million for FY 2002, and $7.0 million for each of FY 2003 and FY 2004 for a research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program. 4. D--Green School Buses: $40.0 million for FY 2002, $50.0 million for FY 2003, $60.0 million for FY 2004, $70.0 million for FY 2005, and $70.0 million for FY 2006 for competitive grants for the demonstration and commercial application of alternative fuel and ultra-low sulfur diesel school buses. 5. E--Next Generation Lighting Initiative: Authorizes the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) to research, develop, and conduct demonstration activities on advanced lighting technologies, including white light emitting diodes. 6. F--DOE Authorization of Appropriations: In addition to the amounts authorized under subtitle A, section 2125 of subtitle B, and subtitle D, authorizes $625.0 million for FY 2002, $700.0 million for FY 2003, and $800.0 million for FY 2004 for subtitles B, C, E, and for Energy Conservation operation and maintenance (including Building Technology, State and Community Sector (Nongrants), Industry Sector, Transportation Sector, Power Technologies, and Policy and Management). 7. G--EPA OAR Authorization of Appropriations: $121.9 million for FY 2002, $126.8 million for FY 2003, and $131.8 million for FY 2004. In addition, subtitle H (National Building Performance Initiative) requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to establish and Interagency Group responsible for the development and implementation of a National Building Performance Initiative to address energy conservation research and development (R&D) and related issues. Title II (Renewable Energy) authorizes $2,468,200,000 for FY 2002-FY 2006 in four subtitles, as follows: 1. A--Hydrogen: $60.0 million for FY 2002, $70.0 million for FY 2003, $80.0 million for FY 2004, $90.0 million for FY 2005, and $100.0 million for FY 2006. 2. B--Bioenergy: $148.2 million for FY 2002, $162.9 million for FY 2003, $179.9 million for FY 2004, $199.4 million for FY 2005, and $221.8 million for FY 2006. 3. C--Transmission Infrastructure Systems: Directs the Secretary to develop and implement a comprehensive RD&D and commercial application program to ensure the reliability, efficiency, and environmental integrity of electrical transmission systems. 4. D--DOE Authorization of Appropriations: $535.0 million for FY 2002, $639.0 million for FY 2003, and $683.0 million for FY 2004, $70.0 million for FY 2005, and $70.0 million for FY 2006, including the amounts authorized under subtitle A and subtitle B and for Renewable Energy operation and maintenance, including subtitle C, Geothermal Technology Development, Hydropower, Concentrating Solar Power, Photovoltaic Energy Systems, Solar Building Technology Research, Wind Energy Systems, High Temperature Superconducting Research and Development, Energy Storage Systems, Transmission Reliability, International Renewable Energy Program, Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program, Renewable Program Support, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Program Direction. Title III (Nuclear Energy) authorizes $724,995,000 for FY 2002-FY 2006 in three subtitles, as follows: 1. A--University Nuclear Science and Energy: $30.2 million for FY 2002, $41.0 million for FY 2003), $47.9 million for FY 2004, $55.6 million for FY 2004, and $61.4 million for FY 2005. 2. B--Advanced Fuel Recycling Technology R&D Program: $10.0 million for FY 2002, and such sums as are necessary for each of FY 2003 and FY 2004. 3. C--DOE Authorization of Appropriations: $191.2 million for FY 2002, $199.0 million for FY 2003, and $207.0 million for FY 2004 for nuclear energy operation and maintenance, including subtitle A, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative ($60.0 million for FY 2002, and such sums as are necessary for each of FY 2003 and FY 2004), the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program ($15.0 million for FY 2002, and such sums as are necessary for each of FY 2003 and FY 2004), Nuclear Energy Technologies ($20.0 million for FY 2002, and such sums as are necessary for each of FY 2003 and FY 2004), Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems, Test Reactor Landlord, and Program Direction. In addition, funds are authorized to complete two construction projects. Title IV (Fossil Energy) authorizes $5,933,000,000 for FY 2002-FY 2009 in five subtitles, as follows: 1. A--Coal: $172.0 million for FY 2002, $179.0 million for FY 2003, $186.0 million for FY 2005 for coal and related technologies programs. 2. B--Oil and Gas: Authorizes RD&D and commercial application programs on petroleum-oil technology and natural gas technologies. 3. C--Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Drilling: $4,516.0 million for the period FY 2002-FY 2009 for RD&D of ultra- deepwater natural gas and other petroleum exploration and production technologies. 4. D--Fuel Cells: Authorizes an RD&D program on fuel cells, including $28.0 million for each of FY 2002-FY 2004 for the demonstration of manufacturing production and processes. 5. E--DOE Authorization of Appropriations: $282.0 million for FY 2002, $293.0 million for FY 2003, and $305.0 million for subtitle B, subtitle D, and for Fossil Energy R&D Headquarters Program Direction, Field Program Direction, Plant and Capital Equipment, Cooperative Research and Development, Import/Export Authorization, and Advanced Metallurgical Processes. Title V (Science) authorizes $4,541,858,000 for FY 2002-FY 2006 in four subtitles, as follows: 1. A--Fusion Energy Sciences: $320.0 million for FY 2002 and $335.0 million for FY 2003. 2. B--Spallation Neutron Source (SNS): $276.3 million for FY 2002, $201.571 million for FY 2003, $124.6 million for FY 2004, $79.8 million for FY 2005, and $41.1 million for FY 2006 for completion of construction, and $15.353 million for FY 2002 and $103.279 million for FY 2003-FY 2006 for other project costs. Caps the project at $1,192.7 million for costs of construction, $219.0 million for other project costs, and $1,411.7 million for total project cost. 3. C--Facilities, Infrastructure, and User Facilities-- Requires the Secretary to develop and implement a least-cost nonmilitary energy laboratory facility and infrastructure strategy, and requires full and open competition for universities and other entities in the establishment or operation of a DOE user facility. 4. E--DOE Authorization of Appropriations: $3,299,558,000 for FY 2002 for Office of Science operation and maintenance (also including Fusion Energy Sciences, SNS, subtitle C, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Biological and Environmental Research, Basic Energy Sciences (except for the Spallation Neutron Source), Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Energy Research Analysis, Multiprogram Energy Laboratories- Facilities Support, Facilities and Infrastructure, Safeguards and Security, and Program Direction), and including $5.0 million for FY 2002 for research in the use of precious metals in catalysts. Also authorizes funds to complete a number of construction projects. In addition, subtitle D (Advisory Panel on Office of Science) requires the Director of OSTP to establish an Advisory Panel on the DOE Office of Science. Title VI (Miscellaneous) contains two subtitles. Subtitle A (General Provisions for the Department of Energy), identifies current statutes that should be used for procedures and guidelines to carry out the Act, limits use of funds, and establishes cost-sharing requirements and reprogramming guidelines. Subtitle B (Other Miscellaneous Provisions) establishes limits on general plant projects and construction projects, provides authority for conceptual and construction design activities, requires that certain reports prepared pursuant to the National Energy Policy Development Group recommendations be transmitted to specific congressional committees, and requires periodic reviews and assessments of the programs authorized by the Act. Table I summarizes the authorizations for the period FY 2002-2009 for programs, projects, and activities in five titles in Division B. Table 2 summarizes and Table 3 details the division's authorizations for FY 2002-FY 2004. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU01.012 II. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 4, Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001 DIVISION B: Comprehensive Energy Research and Technology Act of 2001 Section 2001. Short Title Subsection 2001 cites the division as the ``Comprehensive Energy Research and Technology Act of 2001.'' Sec. 2002. Findings Section 2003 contains the eight findings. Sec. 2003. Purposes Section 2003 contains the eight purposes of the Act. Sec. 2004. Goals Subsection 2004(a) states that, subject to subsection 2004(b), the Secretary should conduct a balanced energy RD&D and commercial application portfolio of programs guided by the specific goals listed for each of (1) Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency, (2) Renewable Energy, (3) Nuclear Energy, (4) Fossil Energy and (5) Science. Subsection 2004(b) requires the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with others, to perform an assessment that establishes measurable cost and performance-based goals, or that modifies the goals under subsection (a), for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, for each of the programs authorized by this Act, that would enable each such program to meet the purposes under section 2003. The assessment is to be based on the latest scientific and technical knowledge, and shall also take into consideration, as appropriate, the comparative environmental impacts (including emissions of greenhouse gases) of the energy saved or produced by specific programs. In establishing the measurable cost and performance-based goals under subsection 2004(b), subsection 2004(c) requires the Secretary to consult with the private sector, institutions of higher learning, national laboratories, environmental organizations, professional and technical societies, and any other persons the Secretary considers appropriate. Subsection 2004(d) requires the Secretary, within 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act, to issue and publish in the Federal Register a set of draft measurable cost and performance-based goals for public comment for those programs established before the date of enactment of this Act. (In the case of a program not established before the date of the enactment of this Act, then not later than 120 days after the date of establishment of the program). Not later than 60 days after the date of publication, after taking into consideration any public comments received, the Secretary is to transmit to the Congress and publish in the Federal Register the final measurable cost and performance-based goals. Such goals must be updated on a biennial basis. Sec. 2005. Definitions Section 2005 defines the terms: (1) ``Administrator'' to mean the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (2) ``appropriate congressional committees'' to mean (A) the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; (3) the ``Department'' to mean the Department of Energy; and (4) the ``Secretary'' to mean the Secretary of Energy. Sec. 2006. Authorizations Section 2006 states that authorizations of appropriations under this Act are for environmental R&D, scientific and energy RD&D and commercial application of energy technology programs, projects, and activities. This is consistent with the Science Committee's jurisdiction under rule X, clause I (n) of the Rules of the House. Sec. 2007. Balance of Funding Priorities Subsection 2007(a) expresses the sense of the Congress that the funding of the various programs authorized by titles I through IV of this Act should remain in the same proportion to each other as provided in this Act, regardless of the total amount of funding made available for those programs. If the amounts appropriated in general appropriations Acts for FY 2002, FY 2003, or FY 2004 for the programs authorized in titles I through IV of this Act are not in the same proportion to one another as are the authorizations for such programs in this Act, subsection 2207(b) requires the Secretary and the Administrator, within 60 days after the date of the enactment of the last general appropriations Act appropriating amounts for such programs, to transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report describing the programs, projects, and activities that would have been funded if the proportions provided for in this Act had been maintained in the appropriations. The amount appropriated for the program receiving the highest percentage of its authorized funding for a fiscal year shall be used as the baseline for calculating the proportional deficiencies of appropriations for other programs in that fiscal year.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess this boils down to whose arguments are the most persuasive. Do we believe the automobile industry, which told us in the seventies that mandating seatbelts, which have saved thousands of lives since, would deal a devastating blow to auto makers and force massive layoffs, neither of which happened? Or do we believe the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report just yesterday that said that reasonable CAFE standards, and ours are in the low end of their range, would bring major benefits without compromising safety? The Academy said, ``Fuel economy increases are possible without degradation of safety. In fact, they should provide enhanced levels of occupant protection.'' I would say, let us lessen our dependence on foreign oil without dislocation in the industry. Let us deal with sound science. Let us address the consumer's interest, paying less to fill up that gas guzzler, visiting their local gas stations less frequently, and let us deal with the safety of the American public. We have an opportunity to do the responsible thing. Vote for this sensible middle-ground amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, or should I say this ruse masquerading as an amendment. I have to hand it to the proponents of drilling in ANWR. This is a very clever, well- crafted attempt to give people cover to say they oppose Arctic drilling when they do not. So let me be clear. If you oppose Arctic drilling, the vote that counts is voting ``yes'' on Markey-Johnson. That is the vote that matters substantively, and that is the vote that counts politically. This amendment is a red herring. This amendment purports to protect the environment by limiting the impact of drilling to 2,000 acres throughout the Arctic refuge. Guess what? The drilling was already going to occur on a limited number of acres. This amendment does not change a thing. The fact is, 2,000 acres is a lot of territory in an area that is now undisturbed. What is worse, the impact of drilling will be felt far beyond those 2,000 acres. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 20 percent of the area will be impacted. We are talking about impacts on migratory wildlife, among other vulnerabilities. They do not tend to notice artificial, man-made boundaries. So vote against this amendment, which protects nothing. It will not protect ANWR, and it will not protect politicians looking for a way to avoid a tough vote.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to thank the gentleman for those kind remarks, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank our colleague and good friend, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), for her leadership on clean coal technologies issues. The chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce is exactly right, coal is here. Coal is responsible for more than 50 percent of the electricity generated in America. What we need to do is focus on having cleaner coal, and that is exactly what this amendment does. The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) has been helpful to the Committee on Science, not only with respect to this amendment, but also on clean coal provisions in division E of the bill, which requires that at least 80 percent of the funds are used for clean coal-based gasification technologies. Clearly our efforts should focus on clean coal technologies such as the integrated gasification combined cycle. I appreciate the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which has been worked out between the two committees in partnership for a positive result. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters regarding H.R. 2436. Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, July 20, 2001. Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman, Committee on Science, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 17, 2001, the Committee on Resources ordered favorably reported H.R. 2436, the Energy Security Act. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 2436 is a critical part of the President's energy policy initiative. The Leadership plans on scheduling an energy legislative package for consideration by the full House of Representatives as early as next week. Therefore, I ask you to not to seek a sequential referral of the bill. Of course, by allowing this to occur, the Committee on Science does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 2436 or any other similar matter. If a conference on H.R. 2436 or a similar energy legislative package becomes necessary, I would support the Committee on Science's request to be named to the conference. Finally, this action should not be seen as precedent for any Committee on Resources bills which affect the Committee on Science's jurisdiction. I would be pleased to place this letter and your response in the report on the bill to document this agreement. Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look forward to working with you again on the Floor. Sincerely, James V. Hansen, Chairman.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which would protect a very special area originally set aside by that radical environmentalist Dwight David Eisenhower. We can have lots of spirited debate about the science and the impact of drilling and other essential matters related to this issue, but I will leave that to others. For me, this is an issue of fundamental principle. What right do we as human beings and what sense does it make as a Nation to open a pristine area to oil drilling when we are not willing to take the simplest, easiest steps to conserve oil? Earlier today, this House defeated my amendment to raise CAFE standards which would have been the only truly significant conservation measure in this bill. Opening ANWR without any consideration of taking serious conservation steps is simply irresponsible. We are denying future generations a wilderness because we refused to take painless steps to control our own generation's appetite for oil. I do not know when that kind of thinking became conservative, but I do know that for eons that kind of gluttony has been considered wrong. The proponents of oil drilling add insult to injury with their spurious arguments in favor of drilling. It is only a few thousand acres, they say. It is like saying, Don't worry, the tumor is only in your lungs. The proponents say the drilling in Prudhoe Bay has had no ill environmental effects, but in reality some of the largest environmental fines in history have been paid because of damage in the Prudhoe Bay operations. I am told, You say you don't want to drill in my State but anything goes in your State. Well, I stood and opposed drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest in my State of New York. It is said to me, How can you oppose ANWR? You've never seen it. I have never had cancer, either, and I vigorously oppose it. A lot is at stake with this amendment, a lot in terms of principle, in terms of impact on wildlife, in terms of land conservation. I urge my colleagues to think about the future, the impact on generations to come, and support the Markey-Johnson amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which will allow a fair and open debate on many of the key elements of the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and his staff for working so closely with all of us who contributed to this bill to ensure that the rule would allow for a manageable, yet thorough, debate. I might add that is a tribute to the leadership of the Speaker. I want to draw attention at this point to two key amendments that have been made in order, the Boehlert-Markey amendment on CAFE standards and the Markey-Johnson amendment on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. I think everyone agrees that these will be the two most critical votes today; and this rule, sensibly, allows 40 minutes of debate on each of them, on top of over 2 hours of general debate and an additional 40 minutes of debate on related Arctic amendments. So these issues will be adequately heard. That is essential, because these two amendments, raising CAFE standards and continuing the ban on drilling in ANWR, these two amendments must pass if H.R. 4 is to be a truly balanced bill. As of now, H.R. 4 is skewed far too heavily toward production, much more so than was in the President's original plan. The bill includes new subsidies and regulatory relief for the oil, gas, and coal industries without requiring any commensurate improvement on environmental performance. No one doubts that we need to increase our energy supply, but these subsidies go beyond what is necessary to do. Still, I could support these provisions of H.R. 4 if they were part of an overall plan that was balanced, that ensured that we were doing all that we could to conserve energy and protect the environment. That is the approach we took in the Committee on Science when we unanimously passed the provisions that now make up division B of the bill, a section of the bill that gives great emphasis to conservation and renewable energy while continuing support for research on oil and gas and coal and nuclear energy. For the rest of the bill to reflect that kind of balance, we must raise CAFE standards and prevent drilling in ANWR. We will get into the details of these later in the day, but let me just point out that transportation accounts for two-thirds of our Nation's oil consumption; yet despite our technological expertise, despite the fact that American industry is far more energy efficient than it was 20 years ago, despite studies showing that we can significantly improve fuel economy, the fuel economy of our Nation's passenger vehicles has dropped over the past generation. We simply should not, as human beings, be trampling on some of the last pristine places on earth, making irreversible changes to our planet's landscape, when we refuse to take the simplest, most feasible, most responsible steps to reduce our use of fossil fuels, steps that could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and improve the environment without cramping our life-style one little bit.