Bart Gordon

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from across the Potomac River, Mr. Connolly.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson).

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, let me first again concur with Mr. Hall. This is going to be a continuing process. We will go on to a conference with the Senate at a later date, and all of these issues will be reviewed. We want the best bill possible. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, let me say to my friend from Arizona, you come at this with the right attitude, and that's what we're trying to do. The purpose of this bill is to not only do away with duplication but also to have these 20 different agencies working in a more effective way. But let me explain, again unintentionally, but the impact of your amendment. Your amendment would require the administration to determine what research, development and technology innovation programs exist in all States, local and tribal governments. In addition to the 50 States, there are over 500 federally recognized tribes, over 87,000 local government entities, and so compiling this information would be an enormous and expensive undertaking. And the gentleman's amendment is silent as to who would pay for this. In fact, the gentleman's amendment is silent as to whether the State, local or tribal governments would be forced to bear some of the costs of implementing this census. And let me give you a couple of practical problems here. Let's say there was a tribe somewhere that was spending $1,000 working on a desalinization project. Well, that would preempt a Federal effort that could be much more significant and worthwhile. Another example would be, for instance, if there was a groundwater extraction issue in central Florida, might be dramatically different from a groundwater issue in central Arizona. But if Florida has a program examining groundwater extraction, the Federal Government would be precluded from doing research which might be relevant and helpful to the people of central Arizona. So again, I think both of us have the same objective, which is what we try to accomplish in this bill.

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

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Hall. That's a good question. Let me first say that this is a large amendment and we try to deal in a collaborative way in our committee. Unfortunately, everyone doesn't have the privilege to serve on our Science Committee, and there was a lot of interest in this bill. So there were lots of amendments, many of which were incorporated here. As I say, I think we would be better off in a more collaborative way having vetted these. But I think that we have had the opportunity to do that more recently. And let me address your very real legitimate question concerning scaling out this EPA program. First of all, as I think we all know, 20 or 30 percent of water is lost through various utilities. I was reading a story the other day where several utilities still have wooden pipes from decades back. So this is a voluntary program that would allow the various utilities to ask the EPA to come in and help them with an analysis on how they could be more efficient and save money with their program. So, again, it's voluntary. I would also say this is just an authorization. If the EPA does not feel they have the resources to do it, they don't have to without a further appropriation, but I think it will help them, again, utilities on a voluntary basis to use that precious water resource in a more efficient way.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am offering this amendment to make important changes to H.R. 1145. A number of my colleagues joined me in drafting language for this amendment, and I applaud them for their good ideas and collaborative efforts. I want to thank Representatives Adler, Bean, Cardoza, Connolly, Halvorson, Inslee, McCarthy, McCollum, Betsy Markey, Minnick, Moore, Pingree, Polis, Scott and Titus. H.R. 1145 establishes a planning process for the Federal research and development efforts on water. This amendment clarifies that the plan should be revised and revisited as progress is made on the goals identified in this bill. The bill, as reported from the committee, contained conflicting information about the length of authorization. This manager's amendment corrects this discrepancy and authorizes the initiative for 5 years. In addition, this amendment identifies additional external groups that the interagency committee and its coordination office should work with, including consumer-related businesses, water managers, and public-private collaborations. The amendment also adds a number of new research outcomes for the committee to investigate, including polluted coastal waters, changing patterns of water availability, the impacts of invasive species, the emerging contaminants of concern, such as a variety of other disruptors. This amendment also provides additional oversight procedures to the initiative to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent in the most effective manner. These are important additions to H.R. 1145, and I ask my colleagues' support on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1145, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1580) to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to award grants for electronic waste reduction research, development, and demonstration projects, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. We have no further speakers.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today I rise in support of H.R. 1580, the Electronic Device Recycling, Research and Development Act. This bill represents the first step forward on a large and growing problem. Every year Americans send millions of old cell phones, televisions, computers, laptops and other electronic devices to landfills. Millions more are stored in desk drawers and attics by consumers unsure of how to get rid of the old computer. These devices are often termed as electronic waste, but waste is hardly an appropriate name for these sophisticated products. Many can still be used. All can be recycled to recover their constituent materials. And as the Science and Technology Committee learned through a series of hearings, electronics also can contain hazardous materials like lead and cadmium, which do not belong in landfills. The Environmental Protection Agency reported that nearly 2 billion electronic products were sold between 1980 and 2004. Unfortunately, of the hundreds of millions of now unwanted products, only about 15 percent are recycled. There are many hurdles to increasing this percentage, such as the cost of collecting and processing materials and the low value or the hazardous nature of many of the recoverable materials. The purpose of H.R. 1580 is to meet these challenges through research and development. The areas the bill addresses were identified through two Science and Technology Committee hearings held this Congress and last, and reflects the considerable input from the electronics producers, manufacturers, recyclers, refurbishers and the environmental interest community. It's supported by a broad number of stakeholders, including the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, The Wireless Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Electronics Take Back Coalition, Best Buy, AT&T, the Center for Environmental Health, Lower East Side Ecology Center, the Product Stewardship Institute, and the National Center for Electronics Recycling. I'm also pleased that this bill is the product of a bipartisan collaboration and contains the input of both Democratic and Republican members of our committee. H.R. 1580 directs the Environmental Protection Agency to fund the R&D that will enable efficient and affordable electronic device recycling and find other means of reducing the impact of electronic devices on our environment. Research can foster innovation to enable more efficient recycling, the selection of more environmentally friendly materials, better ways to educate consumers about electronics recycling, and methods to design products for easier disassembly and recycling. The research supported by H.R. 1580 will also assess the environmental impact of electronic products over their entire lifecycle. This information will allow electronic producers, policymakers and consumers to make wise environmental decisions. Specifically, the research grants authorized by this bill require university or government-led laboratories to work with electronics producers, recyclers or related for-profit entities. The goal of H.R. 1580 is to ensure research that can be applied to this challenge as soon as possible. H.R. 1580 also authorizes the EPA, in consultation with the National Science Foundation, to fund grants that will give engineering students the tools and knowledge to incorporate environmental considerations into their future environmental endeavors. Electronic devices have become indispensable tools for modern living, but they, unfortunately, are a modern environmental problem, too. Research, development and innovation are a key component to addressing this environmental challenge. And I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1508. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my friend from Florida for his constructive advice. I think most of his concerns have been addressed in report language. But this is a continuing product. We want to get the best that we can. And we want to work with you and your compatriots as we go through the whole process. This is an important bill and a good bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend from California (Mr. Thompson). Mr. Thompson is the cochair of the Working Group on Electronic Waste, but more importantly, really is the leader in Congress on this issue. He has been a longtime advocate and we welcome his time.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1580, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Let me just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying this is a good bipartisan bill, and I thank Mr. Thompson for his support. As I say, he has been a leader on this issue.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. We have no other speakers at this time, and I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Well, let me first thank my friend for those compliments, and let me ask that you hold me to those compliments. We need to continue to run the committee that way. In conclusion, let me also thank, once again, my friend from Texas, Mr. McCaul, for his leadership and for bringing this issue before us. We passed it last year. We're going to pass it again this year. We both need to work together to get this through the other body, and I look forward to working with you.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 957) to authorize higher education curriculum development and graduate training in advanced energy and green building technologies.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 957, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I rise in support of H.R. 957, the Green Energy Education Act of 2009. First, I would like to thank Mr. McCaul for his leadership on this legislation. This bill authorizes the Department of Energy to contribute funds to the National Science Foundation's successful Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program, known as IGERT. IGERT awards prepare doctoral students by integrating research and education in innovative ways that are tailored to the unique requirements of newly emerging interdisciplinary fields and new career options. This bill also authorizes the Department of Energy's high-performance building technology programs to contribute to the National Science Foundation's ongoing curriculum development activities with the goal of improving the ability of engineers and architects to design and construct high-performance buildings. In summary, this bill addresses a critical need to provide resources to universities to update their curricula and research efforts in alternative energy and high-performance buildings, and it improves the coordination between the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation in achieving this goal. I am pleased to support H.R. 957, the Green Energy Education Act of 2009. Once again, I want to commend Mr. McCaul for this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.