Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I would hope that you would. A lot of the companies that would be affected by this may be small businesses, they may not have the ability to opt out, and then have to bring a receipt to show, to maybe claim back some of their outlay. But they might be small businesses and startups, and I'm really concerned that it might have some unintended consequences. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Do you mind if I just lay out what is in the bill? It says it has to be an established program of research and renewable energy. That's fine. Locations that are low income or outside of an urbanized area, I guess that's okay. A joint venture with an Indian tribe, that's where you start to lose me. In proximity to trees dying of disease or insect infestation as a source of woody biomass, that one really does get to me. I just don't know how much biomass is adjacent to any of the universities, particularly any of the universities in my area, certainly not in my district. And the amendment authorizes $25 million with no fiscal year designation. And a little bit further, it is unclear from the all- inclusive list of how many colleges and universities would be eligible to receive these grants under this section. If you could just explain a few of those and tell me you would work with me before we get to the front gate, I would be glad to listen.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. If I might inquire first before I answer the gentlewoman from Arizona, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HALL of Texas. 30 full seconds. Now, go ahead.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. I just want to simply say that at a time when we import 60 percent of our oil from OPEC countries and others, we need to be encouraging domestic production of fossil fuels. We have it. We don't have anywhere else to turn. I just think energy is such a national security issue, not a partisan political issue. We have to move beyond partisan rhetoric and pass a sensible energy legislation that would promote all sources of energy, increases our domestic capacity, reduce the cost of energy, promote technologies to make fossil fuels including coal, clean coal cleaner and more efficient. This week Democratic House leaders have been scrambling to get energy legislation to the floor before Congress recesses for August, yet the bill they are hoping to pass today doesn't create any new energy and doesn't help meet America's energy needs. At a time when we import 60 percent of our oil from OPEC countries, we need to be encouraging domestic production of fossil fuels. The Democrats' energy bill doesn't expand our domestic energy supply one drop of oil. Our economy depends on fossil fuels, yet opponents of oil and gas continue to push legislation to raise taxes on our domestic energy producers and refiners, making American energy more expensive, and making us even more dependent on foreign, unstable regimes. Bio-fuels and other alternative energy sources have great potential, but are not ready to replace fossil fuels on a large scale in our domestic energy portfolio. As ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee, I believe that one day the investments we make in research and development into alternative energy will make a big difference, but right now Americans need clean, affordable, and abundant energy--and I'm afraid the bill before us today does not advance this goal. Comprehensive energy solutions must include all sources of energy. Not only should we invest in research and development for technologies that promote renewable and alternative sources of energy, but we should also invest in technologies that make existing energy sources cleaner, more affordable and more efficient. At the same time, we must continue to support the domestic oil and gas industry in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We cannot turn our backs on the fossil fuels that have made our country what it is today. Energy is a national security issue--not a partisan political issue. We must move beyond partisan rhetoric and pass sensible energy legislation that promotes all sources of energy, increases our domestic capacity, reduces the cost of energy, and promotes technologies to make fossil fuels, including coal, cleaner and more efficient. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to thank the Speaker. I thank Bart Gordon, the very capable Dr. Baird, who has given good advice and good leadership. I want to especially, though, point out the work of a highly talented and dedicated staffer who will be leaving the committee next week to join the ranks in the Senate. Amy Carroll, we thank you for your hard work and dedication as a public servant for our Nation. Also want to thank Dr. Lesslee Gilbert; our counsel, Margaret Caravelli; Attorney Katy Crooks; Mele Williams for her good work; Ed Feddeman; Elizabeth Stack, our energy advisor. And as has been pointed out by Dr. Gingrey and by Dr. Ehlers, this is an authorization, and this culminates a work of a program that started 3 years ago, and it's a good program. I thank Representative Hensarling for his warning and his admonition, his pointing out the cost, and of course, the minority leader's position, I respect that. But I would say this, that we fought the soaring cost at every hedgerow. We fought the new agency created within DOD against their wishes as best we could. We took a position, as we all met together for the conference committee. And at the end of the day, I have to say that this is a good program for a deserving generation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, for 1 minute.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for 2 minutes.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have left.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 3 minutes. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield Zach Wamp, the gentleman from Tennessee, 2 minutes.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia and a conferee.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Gordon, Chairman Baird, and all of my staff. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a conferee.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the conference report on H.R. 2272, the COMPETES Act. This legislation is based on President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative and is aimed at improving our competitive edge throughout science, technology and engineering, math education, research and innovation. I supported this legislation when passed by a voice vote in the House 3 months ago because we needed to take the steps to ensure our future competitiveness. There are several good things in the conference agreement. I am pleased that H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007, which I am an original cosponsor of, formed the basis of the NIST provisions in the House bill. In addition, the House bill includes language for manufacturing grant programs that have passed the House three times. Finally, our bill authorized the Technology Innovation Program. I wish to thank Chairman Gordon and thank Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Gingrey, who contributed their expertise to the NIST provisions. I would also like to mention the High Performance Computing Act language of Mrs. Biggert that is included in the House bill. I also thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for his protection of the bill legally throughout the course. These excellent provisions have been retained in this conference report. In regard to NASA, the House bill contains important provisions to address the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, directing NASA to be a full participant in any interagency effort to promote innovation and competitiveness through basic scientific research and development and promotion of science, technology and engineering and mathematics education. While these and other programs move us in the right direction, I have serious concerns about other provisions in the conference report, and tried in committee and in conference to address these concerns. I had the honor of serving as a conferee and met informally with the two Senators and Chairman Bart Gordon in an effort to work out our differences. When we met with the entire conference committee on the Senate side, we were given only 1 hour to meet with the entire conference and come with the final agreement. Our concerns, unfortunately, were not addressed, and I, along with most of the House Republican conferees, did not sign the conference agreement. First and foremost was the cost. The House passed a $24 billion bill that roughly mirrored the President's ACI initiative and even increased the budget in many areas. However, the conference report goes way beyond that amount to authorize $43.3 billion in spending. That is close to $20 billion over the House-passed bill. Finally, I think the report includes the creation of an Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, called ARPA-E. I remain opposed to establishing an unnecessary bureaucracy at DOE that the agency itself does not want and does not support. I share concerns with some of the Department of Energy education provisions. I believe new programs in this bill go way beyond where DOE and our national laboratories should be involved. At the end of the day, however, it is difficult for me on final passage to refuse to support a bill that contains many provisions good for my district, good for my State, and I think good for the Nation and that advances some of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. I will support a motion to recommit, however, that contains the same provisions that I offered in a motion to instruct that passed the House just 2 days ago. I will reluctantly vote ``aye'' to pass this bill on to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. I just continue to reserve the balance of my time. I do want the right to close, and I have a speaker that is approaching at this time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer a straightforward motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2272, a bill to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States. This motion to instruct the conferees simply insists that the House conferees support the House position. It does this in two important ways that I believe will make the conference report better and Members on both sides of the aisle proud to support it. First, the motion to instruct encourages the conferees to insist on the overall House authorization level, which is considerably lower than the Senate authorization level. In fact, estimates put the bill as passed by the Senate at approximately $40 billion higher than the total House authorization level. Second, this motion to instruct insists that House conferees support the previously adopted House position with regard to giving priority to grants to expand domestic energy production through the use of coal-to- liquids. That type technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing should be used. I believe this is an important section of the bill that will help to ensure that we are preparing our scientists and our engineers for the future of energy security. Many Members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats, voted in favor of the authorization level and voted in favor of this program, including my good friend, the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. I am encouraging Members to stand up for the House position on these two issues. Before I explain the importance of the provision regarding grants to expand energy production, let me take a moment to compare the authorization level in the House bill with the authorization level in the Senate bill. As the ranking member of the Committee on Science and Technology, I strongly support an increase in funding for the agencies that perform scientific research in this country. Without these agencies, we would fall far behind the rest of the world in innovation. Some of the greatest inventions of our time have come from the brilliant scientists of our country. To remain competitive as a Nation, we must encourage new ideas and educate new young minds, but we must also be mindful to exercise fiscal responsibility. The young minds we are educating should not be taught irresponsible spending habits. We have to lead by example. The House bill contains substantial increases for the sciences very close to the President's request, and moves us closer to the goal the President has set out in the State of the Union Message calling for a doubling of the spending on the sciences. The Senate bill includes a vast increase in spending that is approximately $8 billion above the budget request by the administration for this year alone. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to increase spending on science in a responsible fashion. As we move to conference on the competitiveness bill, I also want to encourage my colleagues to support the provision in the House bill urging researchers to invest time and to invest money into advancing coal-to-liquids technology and nuclear reprocessing. There are, as my colleagues stated previously on the floor of this Chamber, several pieces to the energy puzzle. One very important piece continues to be the efficient and affordable research and development of this Nation's domestic energy resources. Twenty-seven percent of the world's recoverable coal reserves are in the United States and spread throughout our country, which would minimize supply disruptions in the event of a natural disaster or in the event of a terrorist attack. We are currently importing around 60 percent of our oil supply, and that number is projected to grow unless we do something about it. As the Saudi Arabia of coal, if our Nation can economically produce liquid transportation fuel from coal, we can reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and increase the security of this country. We also need to better manage our nuclear energy resources. In the pursuit of expanding our nuclear fleet, we should encourage scientists and engineers early in their careers to focus on the development of abandoned nuclear reprocessing technologies. We need to invigorate our aging nuclear sector so this energy source continues to serve as a clean, affordable, domestic energy resource for our consumers. The House may soon be taking up an energy package. To my knowledge, this energy package contains no language on coal-to-liquids and very little on nuclear energy. Given the fact that our Nation's continued growth and prosperity depend on affordable and reliable energy resources, I am disappointed that we are not promoting all options for Americans. This opportunity may be one of the few Members get to support our Nation's coal and our Nation's nuclear interests. We should take every opportunity to address citizens' concerns with rising energy prices. And that is why I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this provision on this date. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, you have indulged me as long as I can ask you to, and so has this gentleman from way out in deep west Texas. I'm honored to be here with him, so I will go ahead and close. As I wrap up here, I want to encourage the House Members to support the authorization level as it remains. It is as appropriate now as it was when the bill was passed overwhelmingly in the House. And I also want to reiterate my frustration of America's continued dependence on foreign sources of energy and encourage my colleagues to explore domestic sources of energy. For some reason, there's a war against energy from fossil fuels going right on down at this very time, this very day, and I'm not sure why. Anyone with just a little common sense is able to understand that in order to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil and to increase our national security, we need everything we can develop. We need conventional, renewable and alternative sources of energy. Our country at this time will not be able to continue to thrive and lead the world on renewable energy alone, so to punish the oil and gas industry and to not encourage alternative uses of coal and continued use of nuclear power is to ensure the United States will lose its place as a world leader. Make no mistake, I support the continued development and increased use of renewable energy, but not at the expense of fossil fuels and clean nuclear energy. Madam Speaker, the House is already on record supporting this language and this authorization level just 3 months ago. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be supported again today. I urge my colleagues to vote to keep this House-passed language in the bill that will result from the conference committee. And, Madam Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.