Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my colleague and friend and a great leader on this issue.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will finish with 1 more minute. As I was saying to my friend from Massachusetts, many people with disabilities have to see a specialist, but so many times it is hard for a person with a physical disability to get out, get the bus, get special transportation. Now they have to see the gatekeeper every time. The HMO says: No, you have to come in and qualify for each and every time you want to see that specialist. This bill does away with that. Will someone offer an amendment that says to someone with a disability: I do not care; you have to go through that gatekeeper time after time to see the specialist you need to see. I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts; the bipartisan commission worked this out. These are commonsense approaches. You can take this bill to any townhall meeting in Massachusetts, Iowa, or Arkansas and lay it out for average Americans, and they will say: Yes, this makes sense. This bill makes sense and that is why we have to do it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand there are 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. HARKIN. Later, after they are kicked out.

Mr. HARKIN. I point out to the Senator, in all fairness, the paragraph just quoted leaves our ``pursuant to section 615(k)'' of the underlying bill which provides for that due process hearing. That is not in your amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I was saying, we have come a long way, and we should not turn the clock back. On this very bill we are discussing, Senator Hagel and I offered an amendment that fully funds the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that we passed 26 years ago. That is in this bill. It is not an authorization; it is actually an appropriation in this bill, and it was adopted unanimously by the Senate by voice vote. That means school districts now will have more Federal funds coming in to help them provide the services these kids need. Let's not resegregate these kids until we see the outcomes of full funding. We are now going to give the schools the support and the finances they need to make sure they get the appropriate services for these kids with disabilities. The amendment I have pending in many ways is similar to the amendment of the Senator from Alabama, but it does not segregate and it does not stop services. It does allow schools to discipline kids with disabilities, it allows them to even kick them out, but it does not allow them to segregate or stop services to the kids with disabilities. I think that is a vital, important difference between these two amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Sure, that is all right.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Right in ``(2) Limitation.--(A) In General.--'' where you say ``shall receive a free appropriate public education which may be provided in an alternative educational setting.'' My amendment adds the words ``pursuant to Sec 615K'' which does provide that. The Senator's amendment does not provide that. I ask him to look at that. That is not provided. To me, that was the biggest problem. I have other problems with his amendment. That is the single biggest problem right there. I point that out. Look at my amendment; I put in the words ``pursuant to Sec 615K.'' That is one big problem with this amendment. The second problem is the cessation of services, and this is equally as important, perhaps, as the segregation. I agree with the Senator from Alabama; if a student with a disability violates a school rule and if that behavior is not related to his disability, that child should be disciplined in the same manner as any other child, and IDEA allows for that. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, let's say a child with a disability is caught smoking in the parking lot and that is a violation of school rules but it is not a manifestation of that child's disability. That child can be disciplined just as any other child who was caught smoking in that parking lot. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Here is the point: They can be disciplined, but the educational services cannot be stopped. We continue the services to this child. Here is the difference between the approach of the Senator from Alabama and mine. I do not believe educational services ought to be stopped for any child. Two years ago, we had the juvenile justice bill before the Senate. I offered an amendment at that time, which was adopted, which said that if a student with or without a disability was disciplined and was segregated or moved out of the school setting, educational services had to be continued. Why is it that if we are going to expel a student, we are just going to throw them out on the street? We shift the problem to the streets when it may be a family problem or it could be a host of reasons why this young person is acting up. The juvenile justice bill continued services for every child, not just kids with disabilities, but every child who was disciplined and removed from a school setting continued to receive educational services. My approach was to expand the concept of IDEA to all students. The approach of my friend from Alabama is let's take away everything, all of the services, even from kids with disabilities. That is the difference in approach. If one believes that a kid with a disability who is caught smoking in the parking lot and is kicked out of school because that is the school policy ought to be thrown on the street and receive no educational support, no educational services, then that is what the Sessions amendment does. But if one thinks that child should continue to receive educational services, that is not contained in his amendment; he wipes that out. Under IDEA, as the law is constituted today, that child will continue to get services. Two years ago when I offered this amendment on the juvenile justice bill, I had major police and law enforcement agencies of America supporting my amendment because they wanted to continue educational services to these kids. Law enforcement and parents all agree that ceasing services is the wrong answer, and yet I point out to my friend from Alabama, under paragraph (C) of his amendment, all of these services are ceased. My amendment leaves the same language as the Senator from Alabama, except I say ``except as provided in 612(a)(1)'' which means they continue the services. They can still be kicked out of school, make no mistake about it. They can be kicked out, but educational and other services that a disabled child needs will continue. I have lived with this now for most of my life. I have lived with IDEA for 26 years. It just seems as if every year we get some amendment that comes up to do something about kids with disabilities and discipline in school. Look, I do not mind, I say to my friend from Alabama, if he wants to do something about discipline in schools. I am sure there is something we can do about discipline in schools without encroaching on local control. But why focus on kids with disabilities? Why pick on the most vulnerable of our society? When we look at all of the school shootings from Columbine to Oregon to Pennsylvania, and I think there was one in Arkansas, not a one of those involved a child with a disability--not one. Yet every time we have something like that flare up, there is always an amendment that comes out that goes after kids with disabilities. It is not right. It is not fair. We have been through this before. We have been through it time and time again. I repeat for emphasis' sake what the Senator from Massachusetts said. We had a GAO study done of this. I wanted to get a study done to find out whether or not kids in special education were getting special treatment in the schools. Here is what the GAO report said in January, and I quote: Special education students who are involved in serious misconduct are being disciplined in generally a similar manner to regular education students based on information that principals reported to us and our review of the limited extent research. That means IDEA is not limiting the ability to discipline children with disabilities. Really, what the Sessions amendment does is, under the guise of discipline, it will allow schools to turn the clock back and segregate these kids again. It will allow us to turn the clock back and stop services to these kids. As the Senator from Massachusetts said, we know a lot of times families with kids with disabilities are struggling. They do not have a lot of wherewithal. Kids get kicked out, they get disciplined, families throw up their hands, the kids get thrown on the streets, and they never come back. They do not come back. We all know what happens then, and we know what happens to them after that. They wind up in our jails, in our prisons. We have taken major steps in this country to integrate kids with disabilities.

Mr. HARKIN. My amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if you look at my amendment, section 2, limitation, in general----

Mr. HARKIN. Just one minute. Yes, I will yield, but I may ask for more time if I yield. I would not mind getting into a discussion.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to associate myself fully with the statement just made by the chairman of our committee regarding the amendment I spoke on last night. I intend to speak a few more minutes this morning. First of all, sometimes good things happen, and we ought to take notice of them. Apropos of this debate we are having about kids with disabilities in schools, there is an article that recently appeared in the Washington Post on June 10th. It is a great story of the success of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is headlined, ``Autistic Teen in DC School Goes to Head of Class.'' It talks about ``Lee Alderman, a shy 19-year-old with autism, who will become the first special education student in the district, and perhaps in the metropolitan area, to graduate as valedictorian of his public high school class.'' This kid with a disability had a lot of problems going through school. He had the support of IDEA. Mr. President, I talk about that because in these debates we hear about discipline problems and all the things that are happening. We forget the hundreds of thousands of success stories that happen because of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, such as the one I just mentioned here with Lee Alderman. Yet we pick out a problem in this school or one in that school and we blame the kids with disabilities. I don't know why we continue to do that. I have pointed out many times how I have looked at schools where they have discipline problems, and they get a new principal and institute procedures according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and their problems go away. The easy thing is always to get a kid with a disability out of the classroom, segregate them. My principal objection to the Sessions amendment is that it results in segregation--we are going to once again turn the clock back to the days when we segregated kids with disabilities, when we took kids from their homes and their communities and sent them sometimes halfway across the State to live in an institution to go to a special school. As I said last night, that is my personal story. My brother, who was deaf, was taken from his home, his community, his family, his friends, and sent halfway across the State to a boarding school for the deaf and the dumb, as they called it in those days. He was segregated from his family, his community, only because he was deaf. Mr. President, I don't want to go back to those days--back to the days when these kids were shuffled off to institutions. That is why we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--to mainstream kids. That is why we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act--to say that it is wrong to discriminate against anybody, not just on the basis of race, sex, color, creed, national origin, but also disability. As a result of this, kids with disabilities have gone to school with their friends and their neighbors, kids they know and with whom they associate. It has provided opportunities for these kids with disabilities. But more than that, it has provided the opportunities for kids without disabilities to be intimately associated in the classroom with kids who do have disabilities. I believe both have gained from this experience. I don't want to turn the clock back. The Sessions amendment basically would allow that segregation--take the kid out and put him in some segregated setting, without the protections of current law. Under IDEA, the law as it is presently constituted, can a child with a disability be segregated? The answer is yes. If that child is a safety risk to himself or herself, or to others. And, even if it is a manifestation of their disability, that child can be segregated, but only after a process in which the school has to show that they have provided adequate services for this kid. Last night, I gave an example of a child in a classroom. They had a TV monitor. He was watching it. The kid was deaf and some of the educational materials were put on the television monitor. But there was no captioning on it. So this went on, I don't know how long--a couple of days. Then the kid started throwing things. Then he started punching the kid next to him and things like that. Well, they kicked him out of the class. But, because of IDEA, there was a process to find out why that child acted out. When they brought in an interpreter, they found out the kid was frustrated because he could not understand what was going on. He was not getting the proper services. Under the Sessions amendment, that would not happen. That kid could be taken out, if he done something like that, without the protections of current law and could be segregated from that classroom.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time remains?

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know that all Senators--I talked with them in the well--are concerned about discipline in classes. This Senator is no different. I put two kids in public schools. We are all concerned about discipline in the classroom. But the Sessions amendment is the wrong approach. To segregate kids with disabilities and take them out and put them in a separate setting is not the right thing to do. The Sessions amendment would cease services to these kids with disabilities. That is not the right thing to do. There may be other things we can do to help provide for discipline in the classroom but not to segregate kids with disabilities. That is extreme. Those of us who have lived in families with siblings who were disabled and watched them taken from our families and our communities and sent halfway across the State, segregated from their friends, do not want to go back to that. That is what the Sessions amendment does.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Virginia if he would please provide to my office these specific examples and the schools because I would like to take a look at those. I would like to look at them because, under the 1997 bill that we passed, if you bring a bomb or a gun or drugs to school, you are out. You are out. So I would like to ask publicly if the Senator from Virginia would provide those to my office so we can take a look at those to see why there is this disagreement. In the 1997 bill, which we passed 98-1 on the Senate floor, if you bring a bomb or drug or guns to school you are out. I say to the Senator from Alabama that I realize he has good intentions. All of us want discipline in schools. I brought two kids through public schools. Of course, we want discipline in our public schools. None of us wants our teachers or busdrivers to be subject to violence by kids who may harm them or harm themselves. None of us wants that. We want safe schools. That is why in the process of 26 years we have worked hard on a bipartisan basis in the Senate and in the House to fashion and change this legislation so that we meet the needs of those public schools. That is what the 1997 bill was all about. It is working. Let's not turn the clock back and segregate these kids as we did in the past. We have come too far for that. That is what the Sessions amendment does. It just segregates these kids.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to allow Lisa Ekman, my policy fellow, floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 1.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Hydrogen Future Act of 2001, a bill to reauthorize the Department of Energy's hydrogen energy programs. I am especially pleased that this bill has strong bipartisan support. I worked closely with my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in developing the bill, which builds on the great work of his predecessor, Spark Matsunaga, and I thank him for his support. Other cosponsors include Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Reid, Domenici, Kyl, Bayh, Inouye, Lieberman, and Jeffords. There has been a wide-ranging and sometimes fierce debate recently over what should be in a national energy policy. But while there is significant disagreement over near-term strategies, there is a widely shared vision of where we need to end up. For the sake of both the economy and the environment, we need to develop clean, domestic renewable fuels, such as solar heat and power, wind turbines, geothermal power, hydroelectric power, and biomass and ethanol. These fuels are domestic, avoiding the risks of dependence on foreign sources; indeed several of these fuels are widely available in the U.S., so that many states, such as Iowa, that now import virtually all their fuel could bring that work home. The use of multiple fuels, and the local availability, should make supplies more reliable as well. And these renewable fuels are truly ``green''--they cause almost no pollution and result in almost no global warming. However, the sun, the wind, and even the rivers are not always available when you need them, and you can't store sunlight, wind, or the electricity you make from them. If they are to be major sources of power, you need a way to store the energy. The need to store electricity is not just a hypothetical problem for an energy future. The California energy crisis this year has vividly demonstrated that electricity is not just another commodity. The terrible price spikes and rolling blackouts occur in part because customers need electricity but cannot store or stockpile it, during brief shortages purchasers have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars a kilowatthour, or found there was no electricity to buy. Californians hoped to create a free and fair market in electricity, but instead find themselves at the mercy of electricity providers. The automobile industry has also recognized for some time that electric cars could be much more efficient than any combustion engine vehicle, as well as quieter and non-polluting. But they have lacked an effective way to generate electricity on board. These issues may be even more important abroad. Our world population continues to increase at an almost alarming rate. Back when I was born in 1939, there were three billion people on the earth. When I turned 60 not long ago, there were 6 billion people. And 40 years from now, when by daughter turns 60, there will be 11 billion people on earth. As countries like India, China and the African Nations become industrialized consumer societies, billions of additional people will want, and deserve to have, a better quality of life. That means heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, televisions and microwave ovens and cars. But if they develop the same way we did, we are all in trouble. The air pollution, water pollution, and global warming could make our earth unlivable. And if China and other developing nations import oil to fuel a billion cars, our recent $2 a gallon gasoline prices will look like bargains. For the sake of these countries and for our own sake, we've got to help these developing countries leap-frog fossil fuels and move directly to sustainable development based on renewable energy. The Hydrogen Future Act is about the solution to the electricity storage problem. Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas that can be obtained from ordinary water using electricity or from plants such as switchgrass and trees. Hydrogen can be stored and transported much like natural gas. And it is an almost perfect fuel. When burned, the main waste product is water. But hydrogen can more efficiently be used to power fuel cells, making only electricity, heat, and pure water. And it's safe, escaping harmlessly into the air if there is a leak. Because of these qualities, hydrogen has long been a technologist's dream. Jules Verne imagined hydrogen from water powering machinery, trains, and and lights back in 1874. But in 1990, when the Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act first became law, hydrogen was still used for energy more in space, by NASA, than on earth. How things are changing. Hydrogen fuel cells are no longer a laboratory curiosity. Today, the First National Bank of Omaha, just outside my home state of Iowa, uses fuel cells to power its credit card service operations. They wanted fuel cells because of their reliability. They figure it costs them one million dollars for every hour their power is out, and that the $3.8 million system has already paid for itself. The New York Central Park Police Station relies on a fuel cell for off-grid electricity because it would have cost over a million dollars to run power line extensions to the building. And at the Kirby Cove Campground in California, fuel cells have another advantage: they're quiet. We've seen public buses running on hydrogen fuel cells in Chicago and Vancouver and Southern California. Every major car manufacturer has prototype fuel cell cars and vans on the roads. And there are hydrogen fueling stations in places such as Dearborn, Michigan; Las Vegas, Nevada, and Sacramento, CA. Some companies are developing fuel cells to power cell phones and personal computers, others for full-size power plants. Companies have announced plans to deliver commercial fuel cell products in the next few years in cars, buses, and homes. Soon hydrogen may be powering the world. It's potential is so great that some people look forward to a ``hydrogen economy,'' an economy in which hydrogen is the ubiquitous energy ``carrier'' between renewable sources and all end uses. Larry Burns, a vice president of General Motors has said, ``We believe hydrogen will be the fuel of the future.'' And Don Huberts, of Shell, said ``The stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones, and the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.'' Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ahmed Zaki Yamani has used almost the same words. Now Iceland has embarked on a visionary program to create the world's first hydrogen economy using their abundant hydroelectric and geothermal resources. The Department of Energy hydrogen energy program is a critical part of this revolution. The program conducts research in the efficient and cost-effective production of hydrogen from renewable sources and from fossil fuels, in effective storage of hydrogen, and in potential uses such as reversible fuel cells, as well as in necessary infrastructure including hydrogen sensors. The program demonstrates technologies such as hydrogen fueling and remote off-grid power applications. The program also conducts invaluable process and market analyses, as well as doing necessary work on codes and regulations. They are working on ceramic membranes, combined electricity generation and hydrogen production, and niche markets such as vehicles in mines. Almost all projects are funded in party by industry. The bill we are introducing today will extend, expand, and improve this DOE program. Because of the enormous promise of hydrogen energy, and the current rapid expansion of opportunities, the bill authorizes a significant increase in funding for the hydrogen program, to $60 million next year, with a total of $350 million over five years. It also establishes a new program aimed at demonstrating hydrogen technologies and their integration with fuel cells at Federal, State, and local government facilities. The program would be based on a plan to be developed by an interagency task force. It would focus on hydrogen production, storage, and use in buildings and vehicles; on hydrogen-based infrastructure for buses and fleet transportation; and on distributed power generation, including the generation of combined heat, power, and hydrogen. This new demonstration program would be funded at an additional $20 million next year, with a total of $150 million over five years. The bill makes other improvements, including: Modification of cost- sharing requirements to enable more participation in research projects by small companies and to exclude from cost-sharing analytical and service work that will not lead to commercial products. These changes are intended to conform more closely to the requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 that govern the rest of the renewable energy program, without violating WTO rules; Language incorporating international activities where appropriate in the DOE programs. A global perspective is necessary both to develop world markets for our products and to encourage international development on a sustainable path; Clarification of the composition of the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel that oversees the program for DOE; Reporting requirements to further enhance inter-agency and inter-governmental cooperation in the hydrogen program. This bill has the support of the chairman and ranking members of the Energy Committee as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. I understand that a bill to reauthorize the Hydrogen Future Act will also be introduced today in the House by Representatives Ken Calvert and Sherwood Boehlert, key members of the Science Committee. And the recent report of the administration's National Energy Policy Development Group recommended reauthorization of the hydrogen program. I hope with this strong bipartisan support we will be able to pass this bill quickly and to help realize hydrogen's potential in providing the clean, reliable energy we so desperately need.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Hydrogen Future Act of 2001, a bill to reauthorize the Department of Energy's hydrogen energy programs. I am especially pleased that this bill has strong bipartisan support. I worked closely with my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in developing the bill, which builds on the great work of his predecessor, Spark Matsunaga, and I thank him for his support. Other cosponsors include Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Reid, Domenici, Kyl, Bayh, Inouye, Lieberman, and Jeffords. There has been a wide-ranging and sometimes fierce debate recently over what should be in a national energy policy. But while there is significant disagreement over near-term strategies, there is a widely shared vision of where we need to end up. For the sake of both the economy and the environment, we need to develop clean, domestic renewable fuels, such as solar heat and power, wind turbines, geothermal power, hydroelectric power, and biomass and ethanol. These fuels are domestic, avoiding the risks of dependence on foreign sources; indeed several of these fuels are widely available in the U.S., so that many states, such as Iowa, that now import virtually all their fuel could bring that work home. The use of multiple fuels, and the local availability, should make supplies more reliable as well. And these renewable fuels are truly ``green''--they cause almost no pollution and result in almost no global warming. However, the sun, the wind, and even the rivers are not always available when you need them, and you can't store sunlight, wind, or the electricity you make from them. If they are to be major sources of power, you need a way to store the energy. The need to store electricity is not just a hypothetical problem for an energy future. The California energy crisis this year has vividly demonstrated that electricity is not just another commodity. The terrible price spikes and rolling blackouts occur in part because customers need electricity but cannot store or stockpile it, during brief shortages purchasers have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars a kilowatthour, or found there was no electricity to buy. Californians hoped to create a free and fair market in electricity, but instead find themselves at the mercy of electricity providers. The automobile industry has also recognized for some time that electric cars could be much more efficient than any combustion engine vehicle, as well as quieter and non-polluting. But they have lacked an effective way to generate electricity on board. These issues may be even more important abroad. Our world population continues to increase at an almost alarming rate. Back when I was born in 1939, there were three billion people on the earth. When I turned 60 not long ago, there were 6 billion people. And 40 years from now, when by daughter turns 60, there will be 11 billion people on earth. As countries like India, China and the African Nations become industrialized consumer societies, billions of additional people will want, and deserve to have, a better quality of life. That means heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, televisions and microwave ovens and cars. But if they develop the same way we did, we are all in trouble. The air pollution, water pollution, and global warming could make our earth unlivable. And if China and other developing nations import oil to fuel a billion cars, our recent $2 a gallon gasoline prices will look like bargains. For the sake of these countries and for our own sake, we've got to help these developing countries leap-frog fossil fuels and move directly to sustainable development based on renewable energy. The Hydrogen Future Act is about the solution to the electricity storage problem. Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas that can be obtained from ordinary water using electricity or from plants such as switchgrass and trees. Hydrogen can be stored and transported much like natural gas. And it is an almost perfect fuel. When burned, the main waste product is water. But hydrogen can more efficiently be used to power fuel cells, making only electricity, heat, and pure water. And it's safe, escaping harmlessly into the air if there is a leak. Because of these qualities, hydrogen has long been a technologist's dream. Jules Verne imagined hydrogen from water powering machinery, trains, and and lights back in 1874. But in 1990, when the Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act first became law, hydrogen was still used for energy more in space, by NASA, than on earth. How things are changing. Hydrogen fuel cells are no longer a laboratory curiosity. Today, the First National Bank of Omaha, just outside my home state of Iowa, uses fuel cells to power its credit card service operations. They wanted fuel cells because of their reliability. They figure it costs them one million dollars for every hour their power is out, and that the $3.8 million system has already paid for itself. The New York Central Park Police Station relies on a fuel cell for off-grid electricity because it would have cost over a million dollars to run power line extensions to the building. And at the Kirby Cove Campground in California, fuel cells have another advantage: they're quiet. We've seen public buses running on hydrogen fuel cells in Chicago and Vancouver and Southern California. Every major car manufacturer has prototype fuel cell cars and vans on the roads. And there are hydrogen fueling stations in places such as Dearborn, Michigan; Las Vegas, Nevada, and Sacramento, CA. Some companies are developing fuel cells to power cell phones and personal computers, others for full-size power plants. Companies have announced plans to deliver commercial fuel cell products in the next few years in cars, buses, and homes. Soon hydrogen may be powering the world. It's potential is so great that some people look forward to a ``hydrogen economy,'' an economy in which hydrogen is the ubiquitous energy ``carrier'' between renewable sources and all end uses. Larry Burns, a vice president of General Motors has said, ``We believe hydrogen will be the fuel of the future.'' And Don Huberts, of Shell, said ``The stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones, and the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.'' Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ahmed Zaki Yamani has used almost the same words. Now Iceland has embarked on a visionary program to create the world's first hydrogen economy using their abundant hydroelectric and geothermal resources. The Department of Energy hydrogen energy program is a critical part of this revolution. The program conducts research in the efficient and cost-effective production of hydrogen from renewable sources and from fossil fuels, in effective storage of hydrogen, and in potential uses such as reversible fuel cells, as well as in necessary infrastructure including hydrogen sensors. The program demonstrates technologies such as hydrogen fueling and remote off-grid power applications. The program also conducts invaluable process and market analyses, as well as doing necessary work on codes and regulations. They are working on ceramic membranes, combined electricity generation and hydrogen production, and niche markets such as vehicles in mines. Almost all projects are funded in party by industry. The bill we are introducing today will extend, expand, and improve this DOE program. Because of the enormous promise of hydrogen energy, and the current rapid expansion of opportunities, the bill authorizes a significant increase in funding for the hydrogen program, to $60 million next year, with a total of $350 million over five years. It also establishes a new program aimed at demonstrating hydrogen technologies and their integration with fuel cells at Federal, State, and local government facilities. The program would be based on a plan to be developed by an interagency task force. It would focus on hydrogen production, storage, and use in buildings and vehicles; on hydrogen-based infrastructure for buses and fleet transportation; and on distributed power generation, including the generation of combined heat, power, and hydrogen. This new demonstration program would be funded at an additional $20 million next year, with a total of $150 million over five years. The bill makes other improvements, including: Modification of cost- sharing requirements to enable more participation in research projects by small companies and to exclude from cost-sharing analytical and service work that will not lead to commercial products. These changes are intended to conform more closely to the requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 that govern the rest of the renewable energy program, without violating WTO rules; Language incorporating international activities where appropriate in the DOE programs. A global perspective is necessary both to develop world markets for our products and to encourage international development on a sustainable path; Clarification of the composition of the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel that oversees the program for DOE; Reporting requirements to further enhance inter-agency and inter-governmental cooperation in the hydrogen program. This bill has the support of the chairman and ranking members of the Energy Committee as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. I understand that a bill to reauthorize the Hydrogen Future Act will also be introduced today in the House by Representatives Ken Calvert and Sherwood Boehlert, key members of the Science Committee. And the recent report of the administration's National Energy Policy Development Group recommended reauthorization of the hydrogen program. I hope with this strong bipartisan support we will be able to pass this bill quickly and to help realize hydrogen's potential in providing the clean, reliable energy we so desperately need.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.