Frank Lucas

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 342, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 342, the Cost-Share Accountability Act of 2023 introduced by my friend, Representative Obernolte. H.R. 342 is a good-government bill that does exactly what it says it will: it improves accountability. When making awards, the Department of Energy is subject to cost-share requirements for most research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities. DOE can modify or eliminate those requirements when necessary, an authority which has been critical to supporting and developing new technologies. This bill is very simple. It requires DOE to submit a quarterly report to Congress describing the instances where they have modified or waived those cost-share requirements. The bill also makes those reports publicly available. H.R. 342 doesn't prevent DOE from waiving cost-share requirements. It just ensures that those decisions are made public. This transparency and accountability is important because it allows us to ensure we are making the best possible use of taxpayer resources. It is a smart, bipartisan policy. I thank Representative Obernolte and Representative Foster for working on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 342 will create more transparency around the DOE awards and help us better oversee our investments in cutting- edge energy technologies. It is bipartisan, commonsense legislation, which is why it passed the House on suspension last year. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill once again, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the PFAS Act. PFAS refers to a large group of high-strength, high-durability chemicals used in industry and consumer products. They are critical to the reliable and safe function of essential products like cell phones, military aircraft, solar panels, wind turbines, and medical devices. But because of their durability, they don't break down easily and last a long time in the environment. In some cases, but not all, that creates hazards to human health. There are more than 5,000 strands of PFAS in use, and their tremendous variation means we need to take a thoughtful and nuanced approach to regulating them. We absolutely need to protect the health and safety of firefighters, the military, and individuals exposed to harmful PFAS. That means preventing exposure to unsafe PFAS and addressing PFAS contamination now. But not all PFAS are harmful, and some are indispensable for things like fighting fires and protecting our servicemen and women from chemical warfare. Others are used for lithium batteries and solar energy equipment. So my concern about some of the legislation on PFAS is that they would ban their use entirely, even when that might not be necessary. The fact is that we don't fully understand the properties of all PFAS. Maybe a newly created strand has better fire suppression power and dissolves in a solution, or another has absolutely no human health effects and breaks down organically. We simply don't know yet, and we can't shut the door on innovation. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee is working hard to improve and expand our knowledge about PFAS so that we can make individual determinations about what is safe and what is not. For example, this summer, the House passed our Federal PFAS Research Evaluation Act which directs the National Academies to study the toxicity, effects, and behavior of different strands of PFAS. It also will study emerging PFAS strands in hopes of finding more harmless strains with effective and useful properties. This is groundbreaking research, and it can't be done overnight. So while the experts are working on it, my fellow Science, Space, and Technology Committee members and I urge the rest of this body to respect the scientific process. Do not pass legislation that outright eliminates all 5,000-plus strands of PFAS without the scientific understanding to support that decision. Here is the good news: The bill we are considering today isn't intended to put us on a path toward banning PFAS. While some of the language could be construed by a creative mind to be broadly anti-PFAS, I know that is not the intention of the sponsors of this bill from Michigan, nor is it the intention of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. To further support this, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) to engage in a colloquy on her intent related to this bill.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks in agreement. We both share the understanding that instead of banning PFAS, this bill focuses on education, understanding, and knowledge of these chemicals. Specifically, it will ensure that we are protecting our firefighters who rely on PFAS to extinguish fires. There aren't many alternatives to PFAS when it comes to fighting fires, but firefighters put their lives at risk every day, and this bill will ensure they aren't facing long-term health risks simply because of the equipment and the tools they use daily. We can mitigate harmful effects by carefully studying what chemicals first responders are exposed to and ensuring they are properly educated about safety procedures and risks. The curriculum authorized by this bill is just that. We are focusing on education, understanding, and knowledge. I support its passage today. When the time comes, I have every intention of working with the gentlewoman from Michigan to make sure we are targeting the truly bad PFAS--those with health and environmental effects. But for now, I appreciate that my friends on the other side of the aisle are leaving the door open for future development and letting science determine the outcome, not politics. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, firefighters and emergency response personnel put themselves in harm's way daily with no questions asked. They do this to save lives and protect their communities. Therefore, it is only fitting that Congress does what we can to protect their lives in return. The bill we are considering today, the PFAS Act, arms our first responders with knowledge and procedures to avoid long-term health effects from harmful chemicals. This bill is also an example of strong bipartisan collaboration, with all the discussion and refinement that entails. My colleague from Michigan understood my concerns about not getting ahead of the science and banning all PFAS. I understood her desire to take immediate action for her constituents. We worked together to both walk away happy with the result. My sincere thanks to Congresswoman Dingell, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee staff, and everyone involved in these discussions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the SBIR and STTR Extension Act. This bill is extremely timely, as the authorizations for these programs expire in just a few days. I am pleased that the bill we are considering today represents a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that provides both small businesses and agencies clarity by reauthorizing the programs for another 3 years. The SBIR and STTR programs play an important role in our innovation economy. Through these programs, research agencies provide opportunities to small businesses who are then able to leverage private-sector funding to propel research forward. The programs incentivize economic growth in two ways: They support entrepreneurship and job creation at small businesses across the country. They also support high-risk research to drive breakthrough technologies that make America more competitive. These programs are a notable example of how public-private partnerships can provide value and stimulate innovation. Importantly, this reauthorization includes several reforms to the programs that are priorities for Republican Members, including: Protecting our research enterprise, bolstering transparency and oversight, and focusing on successful commercialization. I am pleased that this reauthorization includes strong due diligence measures that each agency with an SBIR or STTR program must enforce. These safeguards build on the bipartisan research security framework that the Science Committee has championed. Additionally, an increased focus on transparency and oversight of the programs will bolster public transparency, safeguard taxpayer dollars, and provide more opportunities to new small business applicants. I thank my colleagues on the House Small Business Committee for working with me to reach this bipartisan agreement, and, in particular, I thank Ranking Member Luetkemeyer for his leadership throughout the process. As always, many thanks to my Chairwoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, for her tireless work to ensure that the Science, Space, and Technology Committee remains a bipartisan, productive committee focused on legislating. The SBIR and STTR programs are vital to our research enterprise, especially as we strive to maintain American leadership and technology. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LUCAS

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just 24 hours ago, I expected my remarks on the CHIPS and Science Act to be very different. I have worked on this bill for more than 3 years. When I first took leadership of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee as ranking member in 2019, developing legislation to strengthen American science and technology was my highest priority. After extensive work, in January of 2020, I introduced a comprehensive bill that created a long-term strategy for investment in basic research and infrastructure to protect the economic and national security of the United States. Our committee's chairwoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, shared my desire to refocus, revitalize, and reinvest in American science, and so we worked together for 2 years, gathering extensive stakeholder feedback and technical advice, while holding multiple hearings with expert witnesses to chart a path forward. This has been an exemplary bipartisan process. Chairwoman Johnson and her staff have put in countless hours of work with my staff to find strong, consensus policies to support Federal R&D. I thank the chairwoman for her partnership and leadership and her staff for their diligence. I also thank my committee staff members, who have put in long hours and hard work to craft what I believe could be a transformational science policy. I particularly thank Jennifer Wickre, who led this process for us from the very beginning. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee's efforts over the past few years and the bipartisan legislation we produced is truly an incredible example of what we can achieve when we work together as responsible legislators in regular order. Unfortunately, not everyone shares our commitment to that process. Mr. Speaker, I was frustrated last year when Democratic leadership put off conferencing our competitiveness legislation with our colleagues across the Hill in favor of focusing on the doomed Build Back Better Act. I was frustrated when the proposed funding for semiconductor manufacturing jumped from $24 billion to $52 billion with no explanation. I was frustrated when, after finally starting on conference negotiations, the other body tied our research policy to reconciliation. I was frustrated when negotiations were shut down, and I was even more frustrated when the House was shut out of discussions once they picked back up. So maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but I am frankly, in all fairness, disgusted by the developments over the last 24 hours. House Republicans have been working in good faith this entire time to come to consensus legislation that could be passed by both Chambers. But time and time again, we have been thwarted by Democratic leadership that has moved the goalposts, shut down the process, chosen their divisive partisan policies over a smart bipartisan bill that would benefit our country for generations. I understand why people on my side of the room are furious. I share those concerns, and I have been around here long enough to know that this is not the way to do things. For better or for worse--and it is very clearly for the worse, I would note--the CHIPS and Science Act has been irrevocably tied to a massive tax hike and spending spree in reconciliation. The decisions on how to pursue scientific policy are out of the hands of this committee, and at this point practically out of the hands of this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I remain incredibly proud of the good work we have done to strategically strengthen American research and development. And yet I cannot ignore the fact that the immense tax hikes and irresponsible spending in the expanded reconciliation package change the calculus when it comes to supporting spending bills, particularly a bill that has come to be tied to reconciliation. This is one of those occasions that, as a statesman and responsible Member of Congress, I have to put aside my own pride in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's work and cast a vote that represents the best interests of Americans, and particularly the good people of the Third District of Oklahoma. So, regrettably--and it is more regrettably than you can possibly imagine--I will not be casting my vote for the CHIPS and Science Act today. I emphasize that this is in no way a reflection of my feeling about the transformational research policies in this bill. I am grateful to Chairwoman Johnson for working with me every step of the way to create a strategic, bipartisan, forward-thinking policy. I just wish other legislators in both Chambers would follow our example instead of forcing indefensible votes like we have today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever it is appropriate, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.