Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I have. Mr. Speaker, with my appreciation to Ms. Giffords and the chairman and everybody here that has spoken, I just want to sum it up real quickly. The Senate bill being considered today is an attempt to provide congressional direction to a floundering agency. We simply can't let anybody continue to shut down our human spaceflight program. Failure to reauthorize NASA provides further uncertainty to an agency in limbo, stalling efforts to develop a successor vehicle once the shuttle is retired next year, and could result in the loss of thousands of high-tech jobs nationwide. I could vote for either of these bills. I am not in love with either of these bills. I feel like the coach's wife who was crying. He came home. He said, ``What's wrong, honey?'' She said, ``You like football better than you do me.'' And he said, ``Yeah, but I like you better than I do basketball.'' I am that way with these two programs. I like both of them, either one of them. But we have to have one go, and I urge the acceptance of this bill today and passage of S. 3729.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Res. 1421, recognizing the 40th anniversary of the safe return of the Apollo 13 crew capsule. Apollo 13 launched from Kennedy Space Center on April 11, 1970, for a planned lunar landing, but suffered serious mechanical and systems failures 2 days later while en route to the Moon. Through inventiveness and tireless efforts, the men and women at NASA's mission control center provided untested solutions to complex challenges that, up to that time, were unthinkable and unknown. Using out-of-the-box creativity, NASA engineers and program managers salvaged what was later deemed to be a ``successful failure,'' bringing the crew successfully back to Earth on April 17. I am proud to support this resolution. I am proud, of course, of American ingenuity and the valor of the people of NASA, and encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 13 mission. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The legislation before us today, H.R. 6160, the Rare Earths and Critical Materials Revitalization Act of 2010, deals with a very important matter of potential concern to national security and to the economy. Rare earths are used in many different high-tech applications, including certain military and weapons systems, and China controls the bulk of world supply and recently announced its intention to reduce exports, triggering concerns that the U.S. could face a supply gap. This is clearly an important issue that warrants our attention. The obvious question we face now is how best to address this concern. H.R. 6160 intends to do so through establishment of a rare earths materials research and development program and authorization of loan guarantees to support rare earth minerals mining, processing, and production activities. Notwithstanding the clear and significant potential for a rare earth supply shortage, during the committee markup of this bill Republicans questioned whether the activities called for in H.R. 6160 provide the appropriate policy response to this issue. I will summarize these concerns as they were noted in the additional GOP views included in the report on the bill. To the extent that a rare earth supply gap may present national security concerns, such concerns should probably be addressed through the Department of Defense and the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. With respect to commercial supply needs, taxpayer subsidies in the form of loan guarantees should be restricted to those areas not undertaken by the private sector. This principle is particularly important in the case of rare earths due to the aggressive private pursuit of rare earth mining opportunities in response to recent price increases. Unfortunately, an amendment to address this concern was defeated in committee. I am pleased, however, that several other Republican amendments to improve H.R. 6160 were approved with bipartisan support, specifically amendments to, one, eliminate funding authorizations for R&D activities; two, elimination of a rare earth ``R&D Information Center''; three, limit loan guarantee support for the exportation of unprocessed rare earth materials necessary to meet domestic demand; and, four, reduce the length of authorization for rare earth loan guarantees from 8 years to 5 years. Further, modified language addressing additional Republican concerns related to the international collaboration was worked out following the markup, and I thank Chairman Gordon for working with our side of the aisle to improve this provision. Overall, despite the many remaining questions and concerns regarding rare earths in this legislation, I recognize the importance of ensuring a stable supply of rare earth materials and the potential for a near- term supply shortage, and I remain committed to working on this issue and on this bill as it moves through the legislative process. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1660, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I, of course, rise in support of H. Res. 1660, supporting the goals and ideals of the USA Science and Engineering Festival taking place on the National Mall and at satellite events around the country. This inaugural national event on October 23 and 24 is intended to celebrate science and raise awareness of the importance of science, technology, engineering, and math education in the United States. STEM education is a crucial component to our Nation's growth and well-being. Advances in the science and engineering fields not only have made our lives significantly better but also have had a global impact as well. The USA Science and Engineering Festival will have over 1,500 free hands-on activities and shows for all ages featuring some of the most talented and experienced specialists in the science and engineering fields. This festival aims to reinvigorate the interests of our Nation's youth in STEM by producing and presenting the most compelling, exciting, educational, and entertaining science gatherings in the United States. Inspiring our children to become more interested in the STEM fields and in careers through endeavors such as this is the key to unlocking our future economic and innovative potential and success. Over 100 members of Congress have joined to support the efforts of this festival in a bipartisan fashion. I am pleased to support the USA Science and Engineering Festival, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this support. At this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Savage Precision Fabrication for being named the Small Business Subcontractor of the Year. Savage Precision Fabrication, and its owner W.T. Gardner, represent the very best of the American entrepreneurial spirit. The company is a Native American and Veteran owned business, founded by W.T. Gardner and his business partner and wife, JoAnn. The company started as a one man shop fabricating sheet metal components with only $2,000 worth of tools and equipment, and now boasts over $4 million in annual sales, and is a preferred manufacturer in the aerospace and defense industry. I am proud to have a company like Savage Precision in my district. Small businesses like this are what make America great, and I would again like to congratulate Savage Precision for their accomplishments and service to our country.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HALL of Texas. I just want to congratulate you and Ms. Woolsey. This bill was improved very much by her knowledge and history of a bad occurrence that happened to her in her district that she is trying to spare the rest of our districts. I thank her for the good work on this.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, oil and natural gas are a vital part of our economy and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. In order to really ensure continued availability and access to this resource, we absolutely have to develop our domestic supply of oil and natural gas whether it is on land or offshore. Like any other complex endeavor, accidents are going to happen. The most we can do is try to prevent them from happening in the first place and then have the tools, technologies and resources to quickly contain, remove, and mitigate any oil spill. This was the motivation behind the passage of the research and development title of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and it is our motivation again today. H.R. 2693, as reported, is a good effort to address the many concerns that Science Committee members on both sides of the aisle had with the introduced version of the bill. It is also an attempt to deal with some of the shortcomings in the underlying statute. Although we all worked hard to find compromise on some of the language, a few concerns still remain. I am pleased that the legislation maintains the Coast Guard as the chair of the Interagency Coordinating Committee. As the on-scene commander for oil discharges in water, Coast Guard leadership is very necessary to ensure a research and development program remains focused on relevant research. However, we have some reservations about streamlining the interagency committee by reducing the participants on the committee to Coast Guard, NOAA, EPA, and the Department of the Interior. While I understand the concerns that the size of the interagency committee was unwieldy, we heard testimony that the current structure did work. So I am left wondering if this is a case of a solution in search of a problem. I am also a bit concerned that the direction of H.R. 2693 has shifted the focus of the underlying statute to concentrate much more on the environmental effects of the use of the cleanup technologies rather than the effectiveness of the technologies, themselves. While researching and understanding the environmental effects of technology use is important and should definitely be a part of this program, it should not detract from the overreaching and overarching focus of research, technology, development, and demonstration. The Republicans tried to recover some of this equilibrium via an amendment accepted by the majority. However, the legislation still requires more balance. During the markup, the committee adopted language greatly expanding the international coordination provisions of the statute. A lively discussion illustrated our concerns that such an expansive role could divert the interagency committee from its primary focus of research, technology, development, and demonstration. I want to thank the majority for agreeing to temper the language to alleviate some of our concerns, and I am still hesitant that the vague provision could become a larger part of the program than was originally intended. Coordination and collaboration with other nations and with foreign research entities can be a useful part of the program. For instance, we have seen that some of the assistance offered by other nations during the Deepwater Horizon incident was not accepted for various reasons, including that some technologies failed to be compatible with our own. Researching the compatibility issues, advanced technology development and coordinated research for field testing of equipment are all activities that should be considered under this provision. I caution against a broader implementation of the language. I have some reservations about a provision added during markup that would require any entity that receives Federal funding for research, upon request by the interagency committee, to turn over the results of that research to assist in the response effort. In times of emergency, it's vital that the response and decisionmaking authorities have access to the most recent and relevant information available, but the language included seemed broad and seemed unclear. Research that could be helpful during a response to an oil spill may come from unconventional sources, such as information or technology developments created for a completely different purpose. The language suggests that the request for information would not be limited to those projects explicitly focused on oil spill research. Such a data call could yield a substantial amount of information, easily overwhelming the interagency committee, much like we saw when BP was taking suggestions on how to stop their leak. We're pleased that the language has been modified to ensure better protection of this research; however, it's still ambiguous as to how the information request would be conducted. When the country is in the midst of a crisis and Congress decides to act, it's possible for us to go too far to fix things, causing unintended consequences. Acting deliberately and in a focused manner will help the current situation and ultimately prevent the necessity of having to go back and fix things that resulted unexpectedly. While H.R. 2693 progressed expeditiously through the committee process, my hope is that as we move through the legislative process, including a formal conference, some of our concerns and questions may be addressed. Preparedness is defined as activities and measures that exist before an emergency and are used to support and enhance the appropriate response. Research and development are key activities necessary for not only preparing for an event, but also trying to prevent its occurrence in the first place. Finally, after changes made, I'm comfortable with the bill. And I thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank Chairman Gordon and Ms. Woolsey, who have been helpful and have written a bill certainly better than we think it was to begin with. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act. As we near the 100-day mark since the beginning of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, our understanding of the precise causes of the accident--and the missteps in the days that followed--remain unclear. However, regardless of the ultimate causes of and best responses to the disaster, it makes sense to continue pursuing improvements to safe and environmentally responsible drilling operations as well as effective spill response systems. The two oil spill-related bills under consideration by the House today represent the Science and Technology Committee's contribution to this effort and are likely to have a significant impact on future drilling and response mitigation efforts. The program offered by this bill, H.R. 5716, was established in section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It supports through a collaborative effort between the Department of Energy and a university industry research consortium cutting-edge technologies to enhance safe and environmentally responsible offshore and onshore oil and gas development. The program has contributed significantly to transformational advances in deep offshore and onshore drilling technologies that are helping to efficiently and responsibly recover energy supplies long known to exist but which were previously inaccessible. The recovery of these resources has resulted in significant benefits to taxpayers in the form of domestic jobs and affordable energy, as well as increasing royalties to the fund that pays for the program in the first place. The changes to EPAct section 999 made by H.R. 5716 are the product of extensive negotiations with the majority to develop compromised legislation in response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Specifically, the bill makes three changes to the existing statute. First, it shifts the focus of each of the program's four elements towards advancing safety and accident prevention and mitigation technologies associated with oil and natural gas exploration and production. Second, it adjusts the award allocations among these four programs reducing deepwater and unconventional onshore natural gas programs by a small amount while increasing the allocation for Department of Energy in-house research from 25 percent to 35 percent. And, third, it redefines and expands the scope of offshore R&D activities to those involving water depths of a thousand feet or greater, a reduction from the 5,000 feet in current law, and in doing so, modifies the current focus on ``ultra-deepwater'' activities to pertain simply to deepwater activities. Additionally, the bill makes numerous additional minor changes to the management and structure of the 999 program while preserving its original goals and objectives which recognize America's domestic oil and natural gas resources are important national priorities that contribute significantly to job growth and to the economy while reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy. While this precise focus and detailed language in this bill is not ideal, it represents a fair and responsible and reasonable compromise that preserves and strengthens the section 999 program. This is the only R&D program in the Federal Government capable of ramping up its activities quickly and effectively to address renewed interest in drilling technology research in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Given the administration's efforts to terminate any and all research and development relating to oil and natural gas, this program is all the more vital. I want to again extend my thanks to Chairman Gordon for working with me and with us on this bill and the staffs working with one another. I look forward to continued bipartisan cooperation on this bill as the legislative process moves forward. I urge Members to support my bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today, of course, in support of House Concurrent Resolution 292, designating the third week of September as ``National Aerospace Week'' to recognize the contributions of the aerospace industry to the history, economy, security, and educational system of the United States. This bill was introduced by my good friend, Representative Vern Ehlers, who, as I am sure many Members know, is retiring at the end of this Congress. I hate to lose this good man, and I will miss Vern very greatly. He has been a steady voice of reason in the House of Representatives and in the Science Committee. Dr. Ehlers has been a tireless and articulate advocate for policies and programs aimed at attracting the talents of our young people into the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. He will be greatly missed. This Nation has always been preeminent in the international aerospace industry and continues to lead the way today through the support of the international space station by offering cutting-edge products and services throughout the world and by fostering the development and operation of the largest and safest aviation system in the world. The United States' aerospace industry serves as a powerful, reliable source of employment for 831,000 people and supports more than 2 million other jobs in related fields. Among its many diverse innovations, the aerospace industry developed the Global Positioning System, sensors that give us the capability to make long-range, reliable meteorological forecasts; aircraft and other surveillance systems that help defend our shores; and tools to increase economic productivity, improve our quality of life, and save lives. The aerospace industry also assists and protects members of the Armed Forces with military communications systems, unmanned aerial systems, high-performance aircraft, and satellite-based precision surveillance and navigation systems. Finally, let me add that high-technology goods and services produced by the aerospace industry help capture the interest of young people here at home and around the world. It gives them tremendous inspiration to tackle the more difficult class work that science and engineering professions demand and which, in turn, will ultimately lead these people to a much more enriching and rewarding life. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 292. I yield such time as he may consume to Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I remain very concerned about the direction of our Nation's space agency under the Obama plan. This Administration has made the surprisingly drastic decision to cancel NASA's follow-on to, the space shuttle, the Constellation program. Constellation would provide the means to service and use the International Space Station, and once again explore beyond low earth orbit. Canceling the Constellation program threatens our country with the potential loss of tens of thousands of highly-skilled and well-paid jobs. As important as jobs are right now, by canceling Constellation we stand to lose more than just jobs. We are losing American know-how and expertise. The NASA contractor team is a national asset, one that would be difficult and costly to duplicate. Next year with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, the U.S. will have no way to launch anyone into space. American astronauts and our international partners will have to hitch rides on Russian spacecraft, launched from a Russian base, to get into low earth orbit and visit the International Space Station. I do not think this is the best plan to maintain American preeminence in space. I have fought hard here in Congress to defend NASA's budget so that they can perform meaningful work. Yet there seems to be a disturbing trend at NASA where priorities are shifted away from what I think should be their top goal--manned space exploration. Rather than focus on the vital elements necessary to maintain American leadership in space, the Obama administration and NASA are distracted with programs that seem to spend money on anything but human space flight. Last week, the administration came forward with a request to transfer $100 million out of NASA's already limited human space flight budget and give it to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor to fund an Interagency task force to spur ``regional economic growth and job creation'' aimed at helping Florida and other states bracing for job losses associated with the end of the space shuttle program. Our nation's best and brightest engineers and technicians want to be engaged in building rockets and spacecraft. America's space program already generates substantial amounts of regional economic growth. It does not make sense to kill a program that delivered huge returns on investment to create a government program to retrain and retool workers for some possible, undefined jobs in the future. The announcement the cancellation of the Constellation program in favor of a $100 million interagency task force, along with several other recently announced NASA initiatives, paints a broad picture of an agency without a clear mission. NASA is a mission-driven organization that produces its best results with clearly defined goals and the resources to achieve them. With the retirement of the Space Shuttle and a plan to cancel the Constellation program, it is more important than ever that we work together to provide NASA with the legislative guidance it needs. The men and women of our nation's human space flight program have given us so much to be proud of. Through their focus, sacrifice and dedication they have enabled the United States to be the global leader in human space flight. They have earned our respect and gratitude, and we should deliver a program that keeps them, and our nation, focused on leading the world in spaceflight.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank you, Judge, for this opportunity to discuss a stroke of the pen that affects all Americans, a stroke of the pen early in his administration, a stroke of the pen by the President of the United States that canceled out the Constellation, and that's what it's all about, and that's why we're here, and that's why we're fighting for NASA. That's why the great Neil Armstrong, first man on the Moon, stepped out, didn't know he, with his other two compatriots, had no idea when they left here that they'd ever come back alive. They're great patriots. They're great, those among us, and we've lost some. We've had some tragedy in NASA, but we we've had great successes. Those men came here and testified that it'd be outrageous to cancel Constellation. Now I want to talk about that just a little bit. It's been nearly 5 months since the administration proposed the very radical changes to NASA's human space flight and exploration programs by canceling the Constellation. Just took his pen and ran a line through it. Well, I don't understand that. And I don't understand the lack of sufficient details that Congress would need to determine if it was even close to a credible plan that he suggests. Yet, in spite of our very best efforts to obtain more information from NASA, the situation has not improved; indeed, the President's trip to Kennedy Space Center on April 15 only added to the confusion as he laid out more aspirational goals, but provided no clear idea of how they fit together or how we expect to pay for these new ventures. As such, I still have basic concerns about our ability to access and use the International Space Station after the shuttle is retired. I remain concerned with the ``gap'' in U.S. access to space, and I want to ensure that we can effectively use the enormous research capabilities of the International Space Station. In examining the President's plan, I still don't see any viable way to minimize the gap and provide for exciting research on the International Space Station. The President's most recent decision to send an unmanned ``lifeboat'' to the space station at a potential cost of $5 billion to $7 billion does absolutely nothing to solve this problem and largely duplicates existing services provided by the Russians. Although we've already spent nearly $10 billion on the Constellation system that has achieved significant milestones and is well on its way to providing continued U.S. access to space, the administration's decision to cancel Constellation has further stalled development and jeopardized our undisputed leadership in space, and that's what it's all about. As I've said many times before, as a member of the Space Subcommittee, I am concerned with the proposed commercial crew direction of this administration. While we have long supported the development of commercial cargo operations, I believe it's prudent that we first test cargo capabilities before risking the lives of our astronauts on newly developed systems. I have also not seen credible data to suggest that there is a viable market for commercial crew carriers, as they claim there is, with no backup, no information on it. In the absence of that data, I fear that we might be setting ourselves up for failure if or when the markets don't materialize. Anyone can claim to be able to take over commercial crew or to take over the space program, to take over the building of the next instruments of investigating space. Buzz Aldrin, who supports commercial crew--I've read his ideas, and I'm still looking for concrete data that they can finish what they started. It's easy to start these programs and take them over and then have the Federal Government have to step in at great loss of time, at great loss of international partners, at great loss of contractors, at great loss of employees, and great loss to the government for additional money to take over. I admire Mr. Aldrin and I will clearly inspect his suggestions. Finally, in examining options beyond low Earth orbit, I'm unclear of when we might see the development of a heavy lift system, or whether NASA still considers the Moon as a logical destination. We've been told that a new ``game changing'' technology development program will provide capabilities for accessing the far reaches of space, but we have very few specifics on mission, goals, and direction. In the absence of a defensible, credible plan, I and many of our Members continue to support the Constellation program as currently authorized and appropriated by successive Congresses. GAO will continue investigating whether NASA is improperly withholding funds and improperly applying the Anti-Deficiency Act as a means of slowing Constellation work. I believe that Congress--and when I say Congress, I mean both Democrats and Republicans--Congress has been clear that it supports the unhindered continuation of Constellation until it authorizes an alternative program. We can no longer wait for NASA to provide justification for its radical changes. Time is running out. Our space station and those who man it--our many NASA employees, our international partners, our astronauts--await an answer that we can live with and that we can lead with. I yield back my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

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

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the request.