Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I am honored to pay tribute to Mrs. Ola Mae McFatridge, a long-time member of the district, on the occasion of her 100th birthday. Born Ola Mae Kerr outside of Celina, TX, on September 25, 1907, she was raised on a farm where she learned early on the importance of education, family, and hard work. In 1931 she married the late Carl McFatridge and went on to have two children, Bill McFatridge and the late Martha Dobson. Following graduation in 1926, she taught for 5 years before marrying Carl. While Carl was serving as a marine in the Pacific Theatre in World War II, Ola Mae assumed the role of store manager of the family business. Though she retired from full-time work in 1994 at the age of 87, she continues to be an active and valued member of her community. She is the loving and beloved matriarch of 36 descendants. Among these descendants are educators, ministers, law enforcement and safety personnel, and business professionals. Ola Mae's life has been marked by an unwavering dedication to family, education, hard work, and faith. This last century has been a remarkable one, and she has borne witness to it all. On behalf of her family, friends, and all those she continues to touch and inspire, I would like to take this opportunity in the House of Representatives to pay tribute to Mrs. Ola Mae McFatridge on this, the centennial of her birth.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly present the Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act of 2007, along with my friend and colleague, Representative Howard L. Berman. Detecting this cancer early is the key to preventing deaths from this disease. In cases where ovarian cancer detection happens before it has spread beyond the ovaries, more than 93 percent of women survive longer than five years. When diagnosed in the advanced stages, the chance of five-year survival drops to about 30 percent. Currently, early stage diagnosis occurs in only 20 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. Ovarian cancer mortality could be reduced dramatically if a majority of the women affected with ovarian cancer were diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is no widely accepted or effective screening test for ovarian cancer currently available and it is difficult to diagnose because symptoms are easily confused with other diseases. The Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act of 2007 would authorize the National Cancer Institute to make grants to public or nonprofit entities to establish research centers focused on ovarian cancer biomarkers. Biomarkers are biochemical features within the body that may be used to determine the presence and extent of and/or predict response to therapy and ultimate prognosis. This Act also establishes a national clinical trial that will enroll at-risk women in a study to determine the clinical utility of using these validated ovarian cancer biomarkers. A former staff member of mine, Grace Warren, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer a few years ago. She has been a champion for this cause--I draw strength from her strength and faith from her faith on how she lives with and battles with this disease everyday. We must continue to raise awareness of the symptoms. Women with common symptoms such as abdominal pressure, nausea, indigestion, unusual fatigue, and unexplained weight gain or loss should not ignore these warning signs. For Grace and all the other women who fight this disease, I say to you that I will keep fighting, too, until we find a cure. We encourage you to join with us, the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, and the American College of Surgeons (ACS) in supporting the Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act of 2007.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the generosity of my constituents in Texarkana, TX, for their efforts to help children in need during back-to-school shopping last month. For over twenty years, T.J. Maxx has partnered with Save the Children to help raise money for and awareness about their programs in the United States. These include early childhood development, literacy, nutrition and physical activity programs that are implemented through partnerships with schools and community organizations serving low- income children in rural communities. On August 31st, T.J. Maxx concluded its in-store ``Happy Hearts'' campaign that raised $1.47 million for Save the Children. I thank all who contributed to this great cause, but I am especially pleased that the T.J. Maxx store that raised the most money per customer was in my district, in Texarkana, Texas. Considering all the demands that individuals have on their time and money, I applaud the customers in the Texarkana area who generously donated to the worthy cause of Save the Children. T.J. Maxx is giving communities across the country the opportunity to help those in need, and I heartily applaud their efforts.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, research and development is absolutely fundamental to the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration, and the bill before us today includes a number of provisions that will ensure the agency's R&D enterprise continues to be robust and productive. Title I of H.R. 2881 reauthorizes the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development program for 4 years at levels that, for the most part, are consistent with the Administration's request. The bill also contains a number of provisions specific to R&D projects and activities, many of which are consolidated in Title IX, but are also incorporated in other parts of the bill. The Federal Aviation Administration is a unique federal enterprise that is fully reliant on maintaining a highly sophisticated network of communications, navigation, and surveillance facilities located at many sites throughout this country. The FAA also regulates the design and operation of the aircraft that fly within our airspace. Our national airspace system, and the economic benefits that flow from it, would not be possible without a well-funded research and development program and a dedicated staff of scientists and engineers. Research results have led to the development of a huge number of products that continue to improve the safety, efficiency and capacity of our national airways system and the planes that fly in it. The Science and Technology Committee held oversight hearings early this year in preparation for writing and reporting H.R. 2698, The Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2007, and just 3 months ago, on June 22, our committee reported the bill on a voice vote. H.R. 2881 incorporates virtually all of the bill's provisions, and for that, I want to extend my thanks to the leadership and staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their willingness to work together on these important issues. While there are a number of R&D provisions in this bill, in the time remaining I want to highlight three programs. First and foremost, the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) is working to develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) that is--and I say this without any exaggeration--absolutely essential if we are to ensure a vibrant and growing air transportation network. The current system is at capacity and will not be able to accommodate future growth. The JPDO is a unique federal collaboration originally authorized in the R&D title of the Vision 100 legislation signed by the President during the 108th Congress. It is led by the FAA and includes a number of other federal agencies, and its role is to coordinate and manage the research, development and implementation of technologies needed to meet future capacity, safety, efficiency, and security requirements for our national airspace system. H.R. 2881 strengthens management oversight and accountability, and directs participating federal agencies to assign a senior agency official to be specifically responsible for that agency's role in the development and implementation of NextGen. It also creates a more transparent budgeting process to help Congress determine if the Administration is providing amounts needed and requested by JPDO participating agencies. With regard to JPDO's budget, the bill before us is silent on authorization amounts, leaving this and future Congresses with the ability to fund the JPDO as needed. The fact is, at this early stage of development, too little is known about NextGen's cost and budget profile over the decade ahead to develop credible cost estimates. At the Administration's request, H.R. 2881 includes a new start called the `CLEEN (Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise engine and airframe technology) research, development and implementation partnership.' The goals of this program are to research and develop technologies capable of significantly reducing emissions and noise produced by turbine-powered aircraft, as well as increasing their fuel efficiency. This legislation directs the FAA to coordinate its efforts with NASA. Finally, this legislation takes important first steps to allow for the safe and routine operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in our national airspace system. All of us know the important capabilities provided by UAS systems in the Middle East. Here at home, these aircraft will vastly improve our ability to monitor our borders, to help communities recover from natural disasters, and take environmental and land-use measurements. But first we need to develop `sense and avoid' technologies, along with flight control and navigation technologies, so that unmanned aircraft can safely fly in the same airspace used by general aviation and commercial aircraft without threat of collision. H.R. 2881 gives the FAA the authority to begin the necessary research, plus to develop schedules to meet mandated deadlines. Mr. Chairman, FAA's research and development activities are essential to its mission, and the features I've described, plus many others in the legislation before us, will strengthen the agency's capabilities to accommodate and manage our Nation's national airspace system. Having said that, I do want to express reservations about portions of H.R. 2881 unrelated to research and development, and caution Members to carefully weigh the bill in its totality before casting their votes. I clearly understand this bill has some very contentious issues that may, on balance, leave Members no choice but to vote against final passage. I am particularly concerned about provisions in this bill that will impose a variety of new costs on an industry that is still recovering from several years of billion-dollar losses and, to make matters worse, could delay FAA's ability to replace its aging air traffic control system. To give two examples, H.R. 2881 would permit up to a 55 percent increase in passenger facilities charges assessed by airports, the costs of which appear as an additional fee on airline tickets. The bill also voids the current labor-management contract for air traffic controllers, forcing the agency to reinstitute its older--and more expensive--labor contract, and it requires reopening negotiations on a new contract under a new negotiating regime. This labor provision seriously jeopardizes FAA's ability to finance its new air traffic control system, which, by some estimates, could result in an additional payout to air traffic controllers of up to a half-billion dollars over the next 4 years, plus whatever additional costs are imposed by a new contract. These are just two of a number of provisions that will most certainly push up the price of air travel. The net effect of these changes will be to push the cost of air travel so high as to make it unaffordable for many working Americans to fly, seriously affecting their quality of life. For these and other reasons, I cannot, and will not, support H.R. 2881 in its present form.

Mr. HALL of Texas

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

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 593, congratulating scientists F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina and Paul Crutzen for their contribution to atmospheric chemistry, particularly the formation and decomposition of ozone. Their pioneering research on the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer in the early 1970s was the start of a nearly 15-year campaign that would include an overwhelming consumer reaction to products containing CFCs, a national ban on aerosols and unparalleled international cooperation. Twenty years later, the Montreal Protocol has been described as one of the most successful international agreements to date. It is the ideal illustration of what can be accomplished when scientists, policymakers and industry work together toward a common goal. Uncertainty did not stop us from looking for alternative solutions. However, action was not taken until those uncertainties were addressed through further scientific research and until viable substitutes were available. Cooperation on environmental problems requires that the outcome be beneficial for all parties. This was achieved through the Montreal Protocol. I offer my thanks to these three scientists. The environmental consequences and economic impacts in terms of greater health costs and loss of crops and damage to vital species due to the use of CFCs could have been far worse if not for the work of F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina, and Paul Crutzen. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 593.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is the Nation's lead agency charged with conserving and managing our coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also plays a vital role in public safety through the programs of the National Weather Service to issue weather forecasts and warnings. We must ensure that NOAA has the resources it needs to meet its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management, marine and atmospheric research, and public safety missions. H.R. 1657 establishes a science and technology scholarship program to recruit and prepare students for careers at the National Weather Service and at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This scholarship program would provide assistance through a competitive process based on academic merit to those students who desire careers in weather forecasting, marine, or atmospheric research or satellite program. Similar to other Federal incentive programs, this scholarship program would require participants to enter into contractual agreements working at either the National Weather Service or NOAA for 2 years for each year of scholarship money they receive. This two-for-one condition is beneficial for both the government and the students in that it guarantees that highly educated individuals will be working and gaining experience at vital national organizations, particularly at a time when our most experienced scientists and researchers begin to retire. Institutional knowledge will be passed on from one generation to the next, and young scientists will gain the experience needed should they choose to leave government service for the private sector. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our Nation is about to be short on educated and qualified scientists, we cannot ignore the benefits that this bill will provide. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1657. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on H.R. 694, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2007, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The legislation has been an initiative of my colleague, Mr. Forbes, for several years and I congratulate him and Representative Towns and my colleague, Representative Johnson, on getting the legislation brought to the floor for a vote. The bill requires the Secretary to establish a program to provide grants to increase the use of digital and wireless networking technology for institutions of higher education that primarily serve minorities. Having been on the board of a minority institution in Texas for many years, I like the intent of the legislation and I want to say a few words about it. The grants may be used for training, education and professional development programs to increase the use of digital and wireless technology or to obtain capacity-building technical assistance and distance learning services. Additionally, the grants may be used to foster the use of digital and wireless networking technology to improve research and education, including scientific mathematics, engineering and technology instruction. H.R. 694 will help to provide grants to promote crucial development and educational programs for minority-serving institutions. It will help to ensure that minority students will not fall behind in education on critical digital and wireless networking technology. It will also help to ensure access to the technology and the training programs on the use of these technologies. While I am a longtime supporter of grants to improve education and training on digital and wireless networking technology, and I commend my colleagues on this very important initiative, I would be a little bit remiss if I didn't raise some concerns about the process of bringing this bill up and the price tag associated with it. The bill was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology in February of this year and received an additional referral to the Committee on Education and Labor in June of this year; yet neither of these committees has had a chance to really review the legislation and to hold hearings and to go through the markup process. I am a strong believer in proper order and the important role that committees of jurisdiction play to make improvements to legislation. In addition to my concerns about the process, I am concerned about the authorization levels in the bill and the fact that it does not contain any opportunities for grants for rural colleges and universities which experience similar equipment shortages and could benefit from the use of distance learning. The bill authorizes $250 million for fiscal year 2008 and then such sums as may be necessary from 2009 to 2012. There is no CBO score, but I think we can look at the authorization levels and determine that this is a lot of money for a very limited group of institutions. Despite these feelings and despite these problems, and because of my longtime support of these types of programs, I will be supporting the passage of the bill and will vote for it, but I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will address my concerns and the concerns others have as we move forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, leaving most of the time for Dr. Gingrey. Mr. Speaker, I want to just say that the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2007 offered today by my good friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, will provide for research and development of chemical products and processes so as to reduce the use of creation of hazardous substances. Advances in these areas have the potential of reducing the creation of substances that are harmful to our environment. In particular, H.R. 2850 includes a competitive merit-based grant program to universities to incorporate green chemistry concepts into the curriculum for chemistry and chemical engineering. This will ensure that future generations will consider the importance of green chemistry ideas. The legislation strives to build a base from which the creation of hazardous substances may be reduced. I look forward to Dr. Gingrey's comments on this bill and urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield 6 minutes to Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. HALL of Texas

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. I do yield, sir.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I read this amendment, it creates both a Solar Energy Industries Research and Promotion Board and then also creates a Solar Energy Research and Promotion Operating Committee, which would be established and administered with fees assessed involuntarily against solar manufacturers and importers. I guess one of the things that I'm concerned about is this will eventually be passed on to consumers, to customers, that will wind up paying it. I would like to know more about how voluntary it is. Actually, it creates two additional layers of bureaucracy for the Secretary of Energy to promote solar power. I don't see any reason why we don't just give DOE a grant to promote solar power, if that's the goal for it. There's no really added benefit to creating both a solar board and a solar committee. I don't understand why you'd have to have both of those or why you don't lessen it down just to one solar organization. I note that the solar manufacturers and importers don't have a chance nor a choice as to the creation of the board or the payment of the fees assessed to promote the use of solar power. I see somewhere in the bill here where there's a huge fine there, a civil penalty, if certain things aren't done. I think it's something that really needs to be looked at and really needs some work on it between now and the time the Senate works on it or the time we get to conference. As I read it again, it has the payment of a fee that also might be enforced by a civil action by the Secretary of Energy and the Attorney General, with a civil penalty of up to $25,000. That's a pretty serious fee. And I can see how that might be passed on to any area there of operation. So here you have a fee, you have a board, you have a committee, an inspection of company books and records and the possibility of a civil penalty all being thrust upon solar manufacturers and importers, possibly against their wishes, all intending to help them. But at this point I guess I just have to ask the obvious question of why this program, if it really will help the manufacturers and importers to find customers for their solar products and technology, why it would not be offered the opportunity to participate in some type of a voluntary check-off program or a time when they can opt out? Would the gentlelady yield for a question?

Mr. HALL of Texas. How long would it be before they could opt out if this is passed? What period is the opt-out period, and explain that to us, if you would.

Mr. HALL of Texas. I beg your pardon?

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. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I seek time for the Science Committee.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HALL of Texas

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. 30 full seconds. Now, go ahead.

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