Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although I am not opposed to it.

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

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

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

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Broun's amendment is a fiscally conservative amendment that makes financial sense when our country is carrying a $1.4 trillion debt. Instead of authorizing a total of $2.25 billion, Dr. Broun's amendment would authorize $750 million, keeping the authorization level more in line with the incremental increases the solar program has been appropriated over the past several years, not to mention the $117.6 million that the program has already received in the stimulus bill. This could be the amendment that would make the bill more acceptable.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, to speak on H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act. I would first like to thank the sponsor of the bill, Representative Giffords, and also Chairman Gordon, for working with our side of the aisle to address concerns and incorporating suggestions to the extent that you were able to. While we didn't come to an agreement on everything, we came to an agreement on a lot of things. But I do feel that we were given the opportunity to state our case and make our arguments. Unfortunately, the areas in which we were not able to reach an agreement remain of concern. Let me start by saying that as a conference, we're supportive of solar energy, and we have so voted--most of the people on my side of the aisle. We certainly see the great potential it has to be a contributor of energy to our constituents. However, as already stated, there's some lingering concerns in the bill before us today. First, the bill authorizes $2.25 billion over 5 years. This is not an insignificant amount, especially in our current financial climate. The question was raised during consideration of the bill in committee whether or not investment tax credits for solar energy, long-term incentives to develop renewable energy in general or an easing of burdensome regulations would be a better way to encourage the development and use of solar energy. Solar energy has been on the forefront for over 30 years, and it still only makes up 1 percent of the 7 percent of the renewable energy consumed in the United States according to the Energy Information Administration. This authorization, coupled with the requirement that the Secretary of Energy allocate at least 75 percent of funding to those solar research, development, and demonstration projects directed under the road map, leaves little flexibility for innovations that may be viable and yet not included as part of the road map. Second, the bill directs, not requests, it directs the Secretary to spend at least 30 percent in 2012 and culminating with at least 75 percent in 2015. It could be as much as 100 percent on the research, development, and demonstration set forth by the road map committee. Moreover, at least one-third of the committee must be made up of industry members who are explicitly exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. And this act, as you know, was intended to require an open and transparent process. While I support the Department of Energy, the university, and industry collaboration in the area of solar research, development, and demonstration, the optics of this examination are that you now have a committee, half of whose membership could be industry, telling the Department of Energy where to direct taxpayer money into R&D that could benefit their own companies while not having to answer to anyone or defend their recommendation to the entity that was set up to oversee and to require open and transparent processes. While I appreciate the inclusion at our suggestion of language dealing with potential conflicts of interests in regard to the road map committee membership, more transparency needs to be incorporated. During the full committee markup, Republicans attempted to address concerns through amendments that would have reduced the authorization, given the Secretary of DOE some discretion as to how much funding should go to the road map recommendations. We had some suggestions to sunset the road map committee in 2015. While these amendments were all voted down, I remain hopeful that these issues can be addressed as we move forward. I would like to point out that the Department of Energy shares some of these same concerns with this bill, and it made the Science and Technology Committee aware of those concerns earlier this week. In particular, they expressed concerns with using the road map committee to direct DOE activities; the requirement of a percentage of funds to be used to support activities identified by the committee; the Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption for the committee; and potential conflicts of interest with the members of the committee. I support research and development into solar energy technologies, but believe me, this bill has a lot of room for improvement. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply expand the types of technology the Energy Secretary can consider from solar thermal electric technology to solar thermal power technology and require the Secretary to include at least two solar thermal technology projects with thermal storage in the demonstration project funded under the bill. I see no problem with that, and I have no objection to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the amendment by this young man from New York would require the solar technology road map committee to submit an annual report to the Secretary of Energy and to the Congress of its activities over the prior 12-month period. I think he has a good amendment. I think this is a good-government amendment, and I support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), who is a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment includes 14 separate amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee. I am supportive of a number of the provisions, including those that promote solar demonstration projects on Federal lands and those that promote geographic diversity for members of the solar road map committee. Most of these amendments make minor changes, and I don't oppose those. I have some questions with a few of the provisions, which I hope the chairman might be able to speak to. Mr. Hastings' amendment would fund community implementation of solar technologies, which I am not sure is an appropriate use of funds in the bill. Mr. Polis' amendment seems to be the attempt to study financial incentives available to convince people to use solar energy, but I am uncertain what he really seeks to accomplish. Can the chairman shed some light on the need for this language and whether this is an appropriate use of funds in the bill? Finally, Mr. Thompson's amendment that would use funding in the bill for demonstration projects to protect against solar technology equipment theft, I am concerned about the cost of this project and whether or not this is an appropriate research and development project for the bill, it is a research and development project, and how big of a problem is this and what types of products are being stolen. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for the amendment by the gentleman of Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun, for his amendment. (Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. I have a speaker on the way. I don't believe he's here yet. I would like to reserve my time. If you could take another 2 or 3 minutes to do whatever you want to do or say.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Well, first I appreciate your trip to Texas Monday, up and back. And I appreciate Mr. Broun's position on this. You know, we had amendments, and Mr. Broun's amendment, I believe, was voted down by a party vote when we had the hearing. I may be wrong on that. But he's here to support the position that he's taken. I'd like to have some time for him to at least talk about how the two could fit together when we head to conference or any of the conference committees.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. It has the stated objective to develop technologies that improve efficiency and emissions of vehicles, reduces reliance on petroleum, and supports vehicle manufacturing in the United States. Among other things, it develops cost-effective vehicle technologies for wide-scale utilization, enhanced commercial and passenger vehicle performance, allows for greater consumer choice, shortens technology penetration times, ensures balance and diversity in Federal R&D investment, strengthens public-private R&D partnerships, and probably many other things. I would like to thank Congressman Peters for the good job he did working with us and working with the Science Committee on this bill, and for incorporating our suggestions and the suggestions of our chairman into his manager's amendment for ways to improve the bill during the full committee markup, including a provision in Title I that requires the Secretary to ensure that activities do not duplicate those of other programs within the Department of Energy or other relevant research agencies. In our country's tough financial situation, we want to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and responsibly and not being wasted or mismanaged as well. The manager's amendment, agreed to in the full committee, included bipartisan language supportive of applied and basic research and development of hydrogen and natural gas vehicle technologies. Congressman Teague offered an amendment that seemed to reiterate the spirit of comity, but it was unfortunately not made in order by a party-line vote at the Rules Committee hearing yesterday. As I said during the full committee markup, the cost of the bill gives me some pause; but I understand the costs associated with the level, degree, and scope of the bill that deals with research, development, and commercial application activities on materials, technologies, and processes of not only passenger vehicles, but also medium- to heavy-duty commercial and transit vehicles, including long- haul class 8 truck and trailer platforms. With that said, I plan to vote for an amendment that will be offered by Representative Broun of Georgia to reduce the authorization amount in the bill by $650 million. The transportation sector uses 67.9 percent of the petroleum that is used in our country. If we want to reduce or wean our dependence on foreign sources of oil, we are going to need technological advances in the vehicles that Americans drive to help us reach that goal. The bill before us today will certainly help to achieve these advances. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to yield 3 more minutes to the gentleman, knowing of his interest in the RV industry, and his support.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.