check twenty three eighteen testing one two three four five six seven eight one two three four five six seven eight twenty three eighteen  good morning everyone many will come to order and pursuant to notice the committee on science technology meets to consider the following measures h r thirty six fifty the harmful algae blooms and a proxy research and control amendments act of two baird and coauthored by research and science education ranking member dr tiller's h r thirty six fifty the harmful algae blooms and a poxy are researching the troll m m s act of two thousand and six to address the devastating effects that the rapid over production of algae can have on aquatic plant and animal life in human health the bill directs the national oceanic and atmospheric administration to implement research strategies to better understand and respond to algae blooms and events next we will consider h r thirty five eighty five the solar technology roadmap that authored by this space in aeronautics subcommittee chair mrs gabrielle giffords this bill instructs the department of energy to coordinate with public and private sector entities in developing a comprehensive updated roadmap for solar research development and demonstration activities in the u s this roadmap would be a critical tool in the you know utilizing limited research dollars as effectively as possible to harness the truly immense solar resources we have in the u s finally we will take up h r thirty five ninety eight the energy water research integration act in the last congress this committee undertook a comprehensive review of federal research and technology development efforts focusing focusing in on improving utilization of our precious water resources we have since hailed five hearings and passed out of the house three bills pertaining to this important topic h r thirty five ninety eight in which we will address that critical linkage between our nation's energy and water resources by directing the department of energy to better integrate water into existing federal energy research efforts the three bills we have before us today target several important research needs as always we appreciate the minority offering a number of valuable ideas and suggestions and we have worked hard to incorporate almost all of them in an effort to improve these bipartisan bills research and control amendments act of two thousand and nine h r thirty five eighty five the solar technology roadmap act and h r thirty five ninety eight energy and water research integration act i'd like to thank you mr chairman and thank your staff for working with us working with minority work with us only males and helped us address as much as possible our concerns unfortunately we were not able to come to agreement on all of our concerns but i the energy and environmental subcommittee dr baird to describe the bill thank you mr chairman h r thirty six fifty s amended last week in the energy and environment subcommittee markup establishes a national harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program this program is charged with developing a comprehensive national strategy and coordinating regional research and action plans to address marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and poxy a bad act requires the under secretary to work cooperatively with other offices centers and programs with the know as well as with states tribes non governmental organizations and other federal agencies on the task force and it requires that they avoid duplication of efforts with other entities in addition the undersecretary is directed to build upon existing research and assessments and consider u s waterways such as the chesapeake bay in the development of the plans the e p a administrator and the no under secretary are instructed to coordinate their efforts to address the fresh water harmful algal blooms and i poxy it to build rex the mississippi river gulf of mexico watershed nutrient task force to transmit a report to congress and on progress made towards attaining the goals of the two thousand and eight gulf hypoxia action plan h r thirty six fifty directs the interagency task force to transmit an assessment report and plan to congress addressing i poxy in the coastal and estuary waters of the pacific northwest fin the bill provides an authorization to thirty five million a year to the undersecretary for five years for the program and six million a year to the e p a administrator for the fresh water habs activities of the program i want to thank particularly my colleague from michigan dr elders for his work this year and over many many years context mr chairman the week we were working on this bill a lake in my district someone went there with their dog through their favorite tennis ball in the water dog jumped in grabbed a tennis ball got out of the water and died that's how serious these harmful algal blooms can the bill thank you mr chairman first i'd like to come in my colleague dr elders and and dr baird for working together to move this bill they they work very well together that i think been worked out before then but still if you outstanding items although this bill is intended to address a problem that affects nearly every state we want to make sure that you raise no research and action plants that are called for these plans are not a top down mandate but that true collaboration between the federal government and states and local areas that have been directly affected by these balloons the bill calls for the development and implementation of these plans involved in the development of these these plans that will have arose in future implementation are ones with the highest level of integrity be offering an amendment to this mail that addresses our concerns with states rights several of my that we desist bill recognize that most if not much of algae blooms are naturally occurring events it does it is well it the first spanish recognizes and fact the local tribes specifically like the listener or they call me i would not stay on the coast during the summers when red tides came and they actually migrated into the to the hills and basically live in the hills away from that so these the fact of red tide at least in california as an area i'm very much aware of working on water quality is a naturally occurring has been going on for centuries and and actually is something that that i want to make sure that we identify as the naturally occurring even though it does cause problems that is why you'll see and at least in the west and my part of the world i assume your your part of the world that you know shellfish collection has never been allowed can better warm beachgoers government regulatory agencies to deal with clam seasons etc and we've got some real progress on both coasts where research funded under prior iterations of this bill has allowed us to make better predictions of when harmful algal blooms that are presumably in these cases many times naturally occurring so the general one is well taken us charm my biggest concern is the years i served working on air water quality issues the frustration was washington is eyeing the system based on the experience in the chesapeake in the eastern seaboard and its application in the pacific was just absolutely off bounds and the clean water act still has problems because it was engineered for the east coast which is logical and chesapeake would be absurd in the deep acidic ocean and so that is i just want to make sure that we we keep on that that the nation is a global approach on a lot of this but the fact is that when we go to these regulations we've got to give the local flexibility reflect the environment in the neighborhood rather than just here whether this is increasing or not it is increasing in the gulf coast area for example it's considerably worse than it was some years ago but also it's unique in the sense that we are now beginning to to discover the same problem in the great lakes particularly and that's a matter of huge concern because they have not seen these sorts of things before in the in the great lakes system they're now beginning to seem so it subcommittee just to get a sense of how articulate the freshwater toxins were familiar with red tide the freshwater toxins if they were to invade your primary reservoir blue green algae all the normal ways we have a purifying our water virtually all don't work so we're used to killing protozoa with chlorine we're used to filtering things out with filtration we're used to saying you can boil your water turns out that if you boil water with blue green algae in it you actually concentrate the toxin that is in proceed with the men within the order of the roster that objection so ordered first a member on the roster is a manager's memo offered by the gentleman from washing dr baird are you ready to proceed with your memo indeed i have an amendment at the desk the clerk report the  the manager's amendment response to concerns expressed by no e p a and other expert witnesses at the hearing and make several clarifying changes the amendment strengthen and expands in section four to provide more direction to the administrative e p a in addressing fresh water harmful algal blooms be a member also clarifies language for the new infrastructure program to be established by the under secretary finally the amendment make small adjustments to the authorization section to provide specific direction for funding certain internal research efforts of knowing the amendment is the product again of discussions of dr raiders and minority staff strengthens the bill to ensure an effective approach to both marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms i urge my colleagues to support it in your back is there for the discussion on the amendment just mr chairman mr holt recognized i thank you and i'd like to  elders and dr baird for working together so well on this management as men and what they were direct opposite in some ways and yet they're so parallel in many ways and they really work well together it provides a  no that is have it is agreed to the second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by my friend the ranking member mr hall are you ready to proceed with your minute have an amendment to the ask the clerk report the amendment thirty six fifty from forcing state tribal or local governments to shoulder the economic burden through the requirements of the federal government h r thirty fifty aims to ensure dialogue with state travel and local governments however this bill calls for the development of review no research and action plans at all then need to be implemented this implementation could lead to an unintended financial burden on these government entities and although the onus is currently on the federal government the identified in these plans are ones that are most likely to be executed by state tribal and local governments as it's written right now h r thirty six fifty does not contain any safeguards against unfunded mandates which would result if the state tribal and local governments were forced to undertake the activities identified in the plans that the federal government is responsible for developing and implementing that's my problem now your ba is there further discussion on the memmott miss miss johnson thank you very much mr chairman and ranking member on yesterday my subcommittee had a hearing on this very thing and it is we've had hearings on it most of the large about is a water in the country all of them are contaminated we do not have the money to correct all of it but what we are tempting to do is get all the stakeholders around like the chesapeake you know other large about as a water and each of them take some responsibility for keeping it clean it seems to me that this would  that but we know that we cannot clean up the chesapeake without the participation of pennsylvania and new york and all the other places that it touches and it's the same with the sound in new york and we've talked about trying to develop regional play ends where these larger bodies of water exist because the government is not going to be  able to do all of it by itself so the we're asking local governments to be stakeholders in it this might interfere with that but it's because of the contamination we experience and we talk directly on this water limit thing and how it is causing a number of seafood death because it produces a lot of nitrogen and for that reason i have some question on whether this would interfere with regional play as you know we've got states all over the country for us and with each other about water but somehow we've got to pull all that together and get various states to work yes i i agree that the coordination needs to be done i would don't think anyone here would assume that those of us from texas or california care more about long island sound than the individual the people that live in new york in new jersey so i think that this is one of those issues of saying we're in washington wants to work with the local communities but let's not take the the position of we know better we care more we have more of a vested interest and the speaking to every official that has anything to do with water and each of the states and i think that the amendment basically says is that we will do our part and we will pay for our what we think ought to be done right but we won't basically be imposing a cost on the states or the local community that basically are the ones who have the biggest vested interest and so we work with them and not not on top all of them and so i  again not just say that i think the people in the local communities we ought to give them more credit that they have more at stake than we do and work with them and not not really like my tack you agree with you that's why we are working with and we've had round tables where we say yes sit around the table and talk about it for example connecticut and new york are taking this a lot right now of that contamination but we know that new hampshire vermont and  governments of thought unfunded mandates against state governments and state governments of thought on mandate and founded unfunded mandates against the national government here we're trying to protect the local governments and the state governments and my men wouldn't prevent stakeholders from pitching in however the concern is a top down mandate and serve are for states to take on too much seem like it's answer any better than than unfunded mandates that we've all thought at one time or another whether we were taking the local government's position stay i've been a stakeout been a state senator i'm a federal congressman here and i've thought unfunded mandates all the way up down the road there this is just another protection for stakeholders it's another protection for local governments and other protection for states it looks like it's ok to me but i recognize and i respect the wishes of others in the complaints of others and i'm willing to let the committee vote on reclaiming my time i support this amendment i think it's a commonsense amendment many states like my own state of georgia is having difficulty balancing our budget we have a balanced budget amendment to our constitution the state of georgia and what we see is teacher salaries are being cut services are being cut i was up in the mountains and i just talked to some of the department natural resources folks and they've had some of their biologists cut and adding more unfunded mandates upon the states going to put more of a financial burden upon those states we in georgia can afford and any more on phantom out mandates from washington d c and i'll continue to try to fight to get those monday unfunded mandate birds off a ma state as well as every state in this country i think it's unfair to the state so unfair t taxpayers and this is a commonsense amendment it just says the federal government's got to do their part the states certainly have the progressives and they have the interest and they have with the all the the if you'll give me a half second i'll be glad  you have every incentive to try to look at these problems but putting unfunded mandates from washington d c on states is is unfair to the taxpayers of those states is unfair to the the communities it affected and so i think it's important for us to stop these unfunded mandates on the states from washington d c and i'll yield thank you sir as you know your state tennessee and a lot of been fighting for the last probably ten years over water and we cannot get them together we have to pass some legislation to force them to work with each other i should think that everyone ought to be willing to h to clean up the water that they drink and this is this is a protection against allowing it to get to that point cleaning up before it gets to that point is much better than trying to clean up afterwards which is what we're trying to do all over the country now so if this does not affect the play in any of the agreement between these areas i don't know if we don't get your state together because they've it's their benefit that they continue to fight over the water that's california right absolutely not just you know back thank you like real job five minutes to dr baird to among other things to clarify whether georgia can put a pipe in the tennessee river by virtue of this bill i would choose not to go there the i understand the gentleman's intent and i understand and i have great respect for the ranking member but the challenge is the research we've heard is made to reverse and so rivers feed into asteroid feed into the large waterways the dead zone in the gulf of mexico is now hundreds of kilometers anything that swims into it or out of it you know you go into it you die so it's having a profound impact on the fisheries there the coast of florida when they get red tides their beaches are shut down their tourism industry gets killed so you have an unfunded mandate imposed on those states by the upriver states whose effluent is is contributing to the harmful algal blooms in the hypoxia and the the problem is if you don't have a federal government one up  state as well nots to the guys down river we're just going to you know that whatever runs in there run in there we're just not going to add the expense and they pass on what is effectively an unfunded mandate so it's not you know it's not like a local control issue where you just got to constrain city council boundary or you've got a river that flows on down into a bottom body of water shared by many many states and downriver folks and as i read this bill it's saying that and i would guess i would just ask the gentleman from texas or some of my colleagues if we get we have evidence that something being done up river is causing a lethal toxin to develop down river don't we have a right or a responsibility to tell the operator folks they've got to do some about that well i'll reclaim my time i mean that's the challenge here i understand the intent but that's the nature of this particular problem and i think we just have to defeat this every well intentioned amendment because i think it's adverse consequences i'd be happy to yield thank you this may seem strange from a position but isn't that what the courts for is to try to sort out these types of things where one entity is harmed by another well reclaim my time i serve the court must operate under laws we establish laws like the clean water act that the court then interprets unless we're going to somehow imply that there's a tort action from one state against another for the pollution i'm in we have federal laws and what this bill predominately i want to reiterate is a research bill but it also has and i want to underscore some that mr bilbray and others have talked about the importance of local planning and state collaboration the reason we have task force mr bilbray is precisely so it's not say a chesapeake bay solution provided to sacramento or los angeles or puget sound we've got regional entities they're instructed to work with regional governments specifically in the bill but at some point if you reach a point where upriver state activities are imposing undue burdens on the down river states you've got to have a mechanism to say all have got that out and that's the scientists are telling us that some of this hypoxia harmful algal blooms seem to be connected to nitrogen and phosphorus in the water system and we're going to have to reduce that or we're imposing a huge on funded mandate on the beaches that mr mack represents or the folks in the gulf are present or conceivably  if the mr holmes amendment really doesn't go to a there's no ability under the bill to to mandate something in this scenario just described downriver writing well let me read the language of the amendment ok nothing in this act or the amendments made by the actual construed to require state tribal or local government to take any action that may result in an increased financial burden to such government the bill does include the development of regional plans and the build includes regional plans to try to reduce that my concern is a very broad language the absolute language of the proposed amendment would suggest that you can't require any implementation implementation at any point down the road you might even say if the act is funding research and the research knowledge is pointing to a particular pollute in a particular state you can't use that research knowledge from generated by the act to impose some kind of a strain on the cause on the behavior of the action and that's the concern i have i think it's just so broad somebody's going to say you can't do anything based on this and at some point you have to say that's part of what the federal government does it looks at these broad issues and tries them to do to take action for the benefit of the overall good of the of all the states there's money in the building to pay for that research would be harmless to the bill except for making a point about unfunded mandates so in that way i wonder if it's really except to pull i mean i know where we're having this debate about unfunded mandates but it is really a situation where we don't have we don't have jurisdiction over regulation and there's money in the bill to pay for the expenses of the plan it's a very it's a  as far as the expenses of the plan absolutely right the money in the bill pays for that the bills not mandating necessarily the bills not mandating that the states pay for these research plans there would be an assumption and a hope that the states have some expertise and knowledge of you know whether it's their their department fish and wildlife fisheries agriculture whatever the state entities are that they would participate we're trying to cooperate with the not mandate that they deploy all these folks if the if the gentleman's point is that that that the lack of the media regulatory authority in the bill obviates the amendment then we could just withdraw the amendment i'm ok with that if you're saying that the m m a superfluous because of the nature of the bill itself i'm certainly ok with that but i'm not ok with saying we're going to add this on here so that someone can retroactively come back and say no this plan grew out of this bill and any effort to in that implement  we served in the red a lot and i get red skin but i might note at night when you're surfing in the red tide there's phosphorus and it's like a light show as you're going through that through the do and i will be supporting the bill however mr hall's amendment does make sense i mean it we're just talking about unfunded mandates i for example have supported we just were voting on the chesapeake bay bill the other day and i joined in with my some of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of that because they were trying to what you're doing something in a body of water that affects different states now  we gave we provided money for that all this is saying that if there is an unfunded mandate we should fund it if it's dealing with different states right i mean this is a gentleman yell about yes the problem with that  is it allows the states to be the least common denominator if a certain upriver state says it's for other states to clean up their pollution we're not going to clean up our pollution unless the federal government that isn't my point ok point was that if we indeed are going to be doing something that requires some major expense spend if you're by the state well we should just provide the money because it by definition it's an interstate issue and not simply a one state issue and that's what the federal government is here for the federal government is here to be involved with interstate issues that cost money and to solve so i don't see anything wrong with the congressman talking about unfunded mandates to the state because that money should be coming from the federal government just as we just did with just a big bag with the gentleman you serve and i appreciate your bringing up the the red tide if you in fact let me just say to anybody if you haven't sailed through a red tide on moonless night it's incredible it's so closest thing to fly into space with fire where wherever the boat touches it lights up it's quite an experience but i think that they need the gentle lady from texas the gentleman from  doctor points out something i think that everybody has to be aware of as there is a third party victims in this sometimes nobody goes down in history as more of a villain in this kind of activity than the city of chicago you've got chicago river flowing into your lake the which is your water supply you've got pollution in your water supply so what do you do you dig a canal so you can send all you make the chicago river flow backwards into the illinois down the mississippi and all the way through to new orleans and say it's not our problem anymore so i think there's a legitimate concern about when the federal government should step in and fact my wife from new orleans she always talks about that she grew up in a city that the water was flush fifty five times before i got to her but and i and i think that chicago is an example of where the chairman that dr baird is talking about i only ask that we find that fault before we bring down the federal government's involvement to protect the third innocent party what frustrates me especially working in a clean water act stuff is that the third parties never existed in certain locations especially where hawaii is a good example of being required to fulfill these the treatment standards and being able to be have regulatory oversight by the federal government over something that didn't affect anybody but their own population so all i ask is that we before we make the step to step in to protect a third party that the legislature or somebody down the line has to assure that there is a third party to be defended because right now you've got hawaii be having regulations on pows and them that there was never an intention by the authors of the clean water act to impose that no situations but because it was it specifically clarified that there needs to be a burden a proof or burden that there is a third innocent third party which triggers federal intervention it always goes the other way you always trigger up being going over all so i think the amendments appropriate dr baird as long as we're sure that there are going to be times that if the studies do because this is a research bell this research bill will probably bring up items that we do need to have the federal government intervene but there are so many places that we shouldn't and all i ask at this time we don't take this step we use the data in the science here to take the next step when the facts are located and you know we know where there's going to be but they're not going to be everywhere and that's why i think the amendments appropriate for the gentleman you know i have the time i'll be this want to point out that the federal government is going to do the implementation and that implementation could lead to what i would refer to as unintended i do not know what rules have been changed but if the rule for this bill does not weigh points of order could not a point of order be lodged against a bill if in fact there are unfunded mandate exceeding five million dollars collectively if there was if the rules were not waived that's correct would not mr hall's concern could not be addressed in on the floor if the rule did not weigh points of order why would we want a bipartisan committee to have a rule that way points of order well you have two questions there yes we would like  downstream we now have a problem in chicago and just outside of chicago and haven't had to build electronic barrier to keep the asian carp of chicago and into the whole great lakes and it really is a very serious problem but we do have the asian carp swimming upstream from down states and and it's a real problem right now where we've had to have emergency funds because they are really approaching that electronic barrier in my district so i think we should look at both upstream and downstream when you're considering this thank you speaker if there's no further discussion the clerk will call the ro mister mr baird mr barrett votes no mr miller mr miller votes no mr lipinski if there's no one else is available then the clerk will report quote at the request of the states unquote in two parts of the bill the first is where h r thirty six fifty outlines the duties of undersecretary as head of the task force and requires the national oceanic and atmospheric administration oversee the development and implementation  updating of the regional research and action plans the second is where h r thirty six fifty describes the plan details including the fact it is the undersecretary who is responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of the plans inserting this phrase would insure the states as part of regions affected by harmful algal blooms and epoxy would be involved from the ground up in ascertaining there was a problem and identifying potential solutions the intent of h r thirty six fifty is for know it to be responsible for the ultimate development and implementation of the plans although the bill requires know it to coordinate with state tribal and local officials through this process my men would strengthen the concept of states maintaining primacy over their fresh water and coastal resources by requiring states initiate the process start with requesting the plants instead of having the plants forced upon them it is not anticipated any state would refuse to request such a plan considering the widespread economic and environmental impacts blooms and hypoxia could impose some states are already encouraging some sort of action on this issue compelling know what to wait until the states in each region request a plan would preserve state control over their fresh water and coastal resources thank you mr chairman i yield back dr baird recognize this amendment the well intentioned raises many of the same issues we just went over so i won't be r the bill as the gentleman mentioned specifically instructs collaborative effort with the state's goal my concern about the amendment is it would effectively give one state or another veto power and if that state happens to be a major contributor in some fashion this whole notion would not be the heavy hand of the federal government that comes down and that we urge states to step up i guess it boils down to basic  philosophy but certainly i think that this amendment would encourage states to work together that i think will bring about a much more effective product work product in resolving these issues rather than encouraging mr davis mr davis votes no mr chandler mr chancellor votes no mr carnahan mr carnahan votes no mr he'll mr hill votes no mr mitchell mr mitchell votes no mr wilson mr and he has had it so i now recognize myself for a motion and the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the house for consideration the question is now on the motion to report to bill five like those in favor the motion will seven to be able to paper reported that objection the motion to consider is like a public table the members will have two subsequent kalar days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on the measure we now consider h r thirty five eighty five the solar technology roadmap act and i recognize the chairman of this well so i will recognize mr h bail and while we're certainly supportive of solar energy and see great potential it has to be a contributor of energy to our constituents we do have some concerns with the large authorization in the mail and the requirement of funds to be directed to the road map recommendation first the bill authorizes two point two five billion over five years now it's a lot of money and one wonders if it would be better to provide at least some money for investment tax credits for solar energy or long term incentives to develop renewable energy in general and that's kind of been the thrust of the past and they set forth by the roadmap committee at least one third of which roadmap committee is made up of industry who are explicitly exempted from the federal advisory committee act  and d that that could benefit their companies will not have an answer to anyone or defend their recommendations aban when they fail and benefit by their own failure i'm sure this is not what or wants to happen but there's nothing in the legislation as written that would prevent it from happening we do appreciate the inclusion at our request nurse a guest in the language they did with potential conflicts  forward where we can more specifically talk about some of the concerns that the minority have i would just like to state that one of the benefits of this committee is from a bipartisan standpoint members really understand and get renewable energy  we get clean energy would understand it i know some of the details is something that we go back and forth about but i'm just excited by the fact of the united states has a tremendous potential for this resource in fact we have some of the best solar potential  industrialized country in the world we have enough solar power to power the whole country seven several times over and of course these resources are not limited to states like my state of arizona or even to the southwest major companies in europe and china have been very aggressive over the last several years and building up their manufacturing capacity and competing internationally to meet the demand and of our policies and they should model for solar energy don't change united states may simply transition from importing foreign oil which we do tremendously right now to importing foreign made solar panels our country actually invented the first photovoltaic technologies and we still have some of the smartest most talented people in the world working to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of solar cells today but in order to use our precious resource dollars as a spectacle is possible these people these patriots in fact need a serious roadmap and that's why i am so pleased to offer today's  after many substantive discussions with a wide range of industry and academic leaders as well as the department of energy i believe there's a lot that the united states solar industry can learn from the experience of our national semiconductor industry years ago about twenty years ago the united states was in danger of losing its semiconductor industry to the japanese in response the industry created the technology roadmap for semiconductors the focus of the initiative was creating a roadmap that was to guide research and development efforts across the industry and by increasing communication between the diverse members of the supply chain the united states semiconductor industry was able to develop standards and avoid the duplications of research efforts these organized coordination efforts gave rise to the united states on my conductor giants like intel and a m d and the united states continues to lead the world and semiconductor development today solar researchers the united states are almost in the same exact situation to maintain a competitive edge they must come together to meet their common pre competition goals whether in simulation developing new materials energy storage power grid management mounting or even weather forecasting but your chairman this bill would require the department of energy to engage diverse stakeholders in the solar community and work across programs to complete to create a comprehensive plan erode map to guide funding for research needed to the united states the global center for solar innovation the roadmap would identify short medium and long term research goals and make recommendations on how to channel r and d resources to meet these goals the bill would make d o a more responsive to our solar industries needs and encourage increased collaboration and communication across minority i also look forward to supporting several amendments offered by both majority the minority today and greatly appreciate the sponsorship of chairman gorton chairman baird mr mccall chairman lipinski mr chandler mr lew honna mr taco as well as several members outside of the committee  another sign of the time and effort i think you will put together again and i want to be able to make sure that members understand that industry leaders like i b m cea which has about twenty five hundred members national semiconductor industry also support this we have letters of recommendation and we also consulted with and received verbal support from first solar units solar applied materials sun power p c recycling again many are members of cea in addition we've also consulted with researchers from some of the premier solar universities university of delaware colorado state george washington university as well as dio we've top program managers just in closing the united states has an opportunity to lead and be a developer exporter of solar technologies in the coming years and decades and i want this committee and this bill to be a part of that the bill is designed to advance this goal and i urge my colleagues to support it thank you ms giffords for all your really good work on bringing this bill to us i know you have put a lot takes this country in the direction we need to go in terms of investments towards energy independence my home town of austin texas has as become a green technology center the university of texas obviously is working a lot of projects in this area and i appreciate the gentle lady's leadership and involvement of the private sector on this commission with applied materials in my district and many other solar companies this is exactly the direction i think we need to go if we are talking about being a true leader in in this area the smart grid technology that's in this bill is also i think a very very good point to make and you know again i think we come from states with a lot of sunshine arizona and texas and i think we need to harness that energy we're beginning to do that but there's a lot of advancement that needs to take place there's a lot of technology challenges that need to take place including storage transportation transmission of that energy and bringing the price down once these folks the tags the price comes down a level that consumers everyday consumer can purchase i believe that this is one most promising areas of future energy that we have for this country and so let me just again voice my support and with that you'll back thank you mr carrados anyone else wish to be recognized  and just point out that this isn't just about states that have a lot of fun one of the world leaders and solar technology and solar use is germany not exactly known as a country of sunshine so other states around our country can use this technology benefit from it and i think this is a great way to keep us in the forefront of this technology going forward so thank you  recognized thank you very much mr chairman let me just note that before i proceed that i have a history of a record of supporting solar energy research when republicans  took the majority in one nine hundred ninety five i was the chairman of the energy and environment subcommittee on this committee and while we made dramatic cuts in other research like fusion  research i was not supportive of cutting solar power research and so just to note that before i mention these my objections to this particular bill if this bill was simply increasing the level of funding for direct research i would be much more supportive but frankly i just disagree with the entire approach that this bill represents otherwise i mean yes we beat the japanese and their competition from semiconductors and i doubt it's because we had more central planning than the japanese had what we've got here is a suggestion that we are on the edge of this great change over into solar power which i agree with and and have been pushing for and we're going to set up a commission  to set a road map you know does this just sounds everything sounds and i have a central plan i mean do we really need a commission  russian commission manes soviet do we really need to set up by a soviet commission and have our comus ours the commissioners make a plan the central plan a five year plan is that what's really going to bring progress this change in our society i don't think so that's just a totally alien approach to what i believe now there are honest disagreements as to what's how to bring about change this is not the way to do it we need to be encouraging dreamers who are not confined by a road map entrepreneurs who are not confined by a road map investors who are not confined by a road map we need instead to free our people rather than restrict them and guide their energies that's the whole difference in the why america has succeeded in the past and not that we've had better commissions and better controls and better central plans than others and let me just know one other thing about this bill which is we can do all the research we want we can have all of central plans we want into that research but unless  an implementation of the research we should be now we are energy have reached a point now that we should be focusing on the implementation of solar energy or what's more important eliminating the impediments in our society to the utilization of solar energy we have a hundred and fifty mr chairman one hundred fifty requests to build solar energy plants in the desert that and we have at last come to the point where those solar plants would be competitive with gas fired coal fired plants but the bureau of land management hasn't approved one not one of the hundred fifty applications to move forward implement and put t utilization of this great new technology that we've developed in these last twenty years setting up a commission and having a five year plan and making sure that we've got the roadmap and and the controls and you have been here in this committee for a very long period of time credibly promising there's so much development happening in solar if if you read the bill and if you really take the time to understand it you'll understand that this is not a plan for the entire solar industry for example the department of defense has a requirement that by two thousand and twenty five twenty five percent of their energy will come from a renewable energy resource so a lot of that the research they're doing they're moving forward in a very grass of way obviously not included in this what this bill does is set a road map for federal money coming from the department of energy and that money has already been spent in the past will continue to get spent but instead of having some some bureaucrats and department of energy deciding where the money is going to go this is an opportunity for the private sector for the universities to collaborate together to actually have a plan rather than a piecemeal effort towards where federal funds are going so it's not a plan for the entire industry there's a lot of innovation there's a lot of other state funding other types of federal dollars that efforts on this this is a field that desperately needs encouragement because the economics just haven't been there but they are very close to being there in a number of ways first of all you heard the comments about centralized power sources which i am very skeptical of because you have to recognize that sunlight is everywhere it's very diffuse it is not good quality energy it's what scientists call low quality energy because of the thermodynamics of the sun's rays and it's very diffuse diffuse it's everywhere but if you have a diffuse source you should have diffuse set of collectors and the best way to do that is to have solar panels rather call them ching goes on every house in the country and that would be a very effective way of collecting sort of energy as someone observed germany as a leader point as you do not need direct sunlight but you do need and so even with the clouds the u v still gets to a lot of energy still gets through and we can we can collect that yeah i spoke to some individuals from dow chemical just a few days ago and they believe they are at the point where sold or shingles will be competitive with the new year with the price of ordinary shingles and housing that totally changes the dynamic of this obviously it weakens a case for centralized collection and sending it through electrical lines transmission lines and so forth if you can collect it on your house user then your house that's by far the most efficient and least costly way of doing it so suddenly we are reaching a point where there's a huge amount of development throughout the entire field of solar energy and i think it's very important that the the help that the department of energy can give is making clear what the physical parameters are that you have to deal with not every company that gets into the sort of business totally understands all the physics involved in photovoltaic collectors and so forth whereas we have the in real lab in golden colorado  studying this as a part of doing it's been studying this for years and that information and knowledge should be spread out i would i would hope that this bill would lead and it may have to be amended and time  but would lead to the deal being a leader in solar energy not in terms of just funding research or anything like that but also by saying to companies helping companies who want to develop solar energy this is a pathway that will work this is a pathway that will not work we have a lot of good scientists and do a they've done a lot of good work and i sometimes think they keep it too much energy efficiency and cut costs for business was a p a waiver not with a green light a program where they went around the country income and convince business people that they could put in efficient lights in their factories their plants their offices and save money and use less energy and have more light and it worked payback was typically a year and a half for the cost of putting the cent that's the sort of information that  believe if we ever do to control solar and have access to solar as to where it would be and what we'd call pay and quantities and pads it would be wonderful you could do without fossil fields and never have any more get along with the author of this bill i'm trying to get along with the source of the bail the chairman of the bail those of you who are for the bail but i want to point out that at least a third of this road map committee made up a man and women of industry and they have a right to tax payer money and and that and history could be part of the thrust and part of the people who serve as contractors to the government and i don't see anything in here where it talks about it being open to the public maybe that's one reason you know they're explicitly exempted from the federal advisory committee act i don't understand that's why that has to be in there because the very first saying one of the first things in the advi is advisory committee meetings shall be open to the public i don't see that anywhere in here i think it's probably intended but just not in here own down on page four radiates section twelve of the federal advisory acted says she shall keep records that will fully disclosed the disposition of any funds which may be made at the disposal of the battery committee and the nature of the extent of their activities i think you're in a journal here that you might be interested in it says renewable fuels may provide twenty five percent of u s energy about twenty twenty five that was in two thousand and six as to november of this year  seventy eight august the twenty second we've been pursuing this is a good but we never before put two point two billion dollars or two point two five billion dollars on the line and turn it over to a board that has further discussion then i ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open to remember at any point that the members proceed with the members in the order of the roster without objection so ordered first a member on the roster is a manager's amendment offered by the with the reading without objection so ordered i recognize the gentle lady for five minutes to explain to a member mr chairman thank you as i mentioned before in my opening remarks we worked very closely with the minority in crafting this amendment in fact the vast majority of the text was suggested or provided by my colleagues and their staff on the other side of the aisle and i did make the bill better beyond technical changes the amendment adds important language to address potential issues of conflicts of interest among the robot committee members ranking member hall talked about this actually capping the private industry to under fifty percent so that by by far his concerns that he brought up will not overrun the roadmap committee members in that setting the threshold of thirty percent of the base and it provides further guidance on establishing a photovoltaic material data base i'd like to go back to some of the concerns that were brought forward by member ranking member hall about the issues of the exemption of the federal advisory committee act want the solar technology roadmap to the committee to be as nimble as possible with the ability to quickly respond to issues or opportunities as the need arises while the facts are requirements make sense for some activities such as guiding long term basic research programs conducted by the dealey office of science and and s f they can be an obstacle to providing time sensitive guidance for fast growing industries like solar we want the roadmap committee to have the flexibility needs to be as effective as possible a committal committee following factor requirements must meetings in the federal register well in advance also factor committees also have core requirements to meet and in some cases it may be and may be more appropriate or productive for a subgroup to work through particular issues or topics committees automatically expire every two years unless little ministration works through the process of renewing them which can further impede or delay committee actions the roadmap committee's activities are still subject to the freedom of information act again we work with the minority to address any concerns about faca exemption in the manager's amendment of course we're happy to continue to work with ranking member hall and other members but going back to this larger point about the private sector and private industry i mean frankly i'm a little surprised to be hearing from the minority the concerns about the involvement from the private sector the department of energy is not going to be delivering this technology but the technology is delivered through the private sector through these businesses these are the folks on the front lines that  are that are making the installations that are rolling the panels out there not being manufactured the department of energy so i think it's exciting that we will have industry representation and these folks are going to be at the table because again we're not buying our panels from the federal government we're not thank you very much madam chairman let me just note that when you're talking about the industry having to say if we're doing that wouldn't it be better rather than having some big corporate interests that have their a tax credit for that research and let them determine and other companies determine for themselves what the best way to use that research rather than having a central plan  of you know i suppose i respectfully disagree i think by having the private sector by having the research institutions and the department of energy working collaboratively so that eventually seventy five percent of federal r and d funds will have to go through the roadmap not all twenty five percent is still is still not fall under the roadmap but i think it's exciting to have a plan rather than piecemeal approach to the already funding at proximate twelve fifteen being told we're going to have four minutes so if there's no recognize a gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment thank you mr chairman h r thirty five eighty five is certainly an important piece of legislation that's going to strengthen our nation's solar energy industry and help us meet our domestic goals for renewable energy production the bill establish a road map and demonstration program to further advanced solar technologies and i commend the committee for bringing this legislation forward my home state of michigan is currently a leader in manufacturing of solar cells we are the home to great companies like united solar oven equip support many manufacturing and high tech jobs in my area through their two production facilities and all been held in a global r n d headquarters in troy his company is also able to fill the void for workers in greenville michigan after the shutdown of an electrolux plant and now operates and employs people there making solar panels high tech jobs like these are the source of hope in my state and provide workers an opportunity to apply their skills in a new industry and enter the workforce of the twenty first century federal partnership is critical to effectively develop new renewable industries and those efforts should to the greatest extent possible work towards the creation of new u jobs these investments are key to restoring jobs lost in recent years for this reason my m m and asked the secretary consider states that have been hit the hardest by the recession and which are experiencing high unemployment rates when providing awards under this program there is a great potential to revitalize our domestic manufacturing base by strengthening the domestic solar industry while states like michigan and many other certainly have the existing infrastructure and workforce to manufacture more solar technologies the united states continues to lag behind china japan and europe in the manufacturing of photovoltaic modules we must commit it at the federal level to increase our domestic production of this technology if we're going to truly take advantage of the full economic benefits of a growing solar industry my m m and states of the secretary will strongly consider projects utilizing solar technologies manufactured in the united states in carrying out the demonstration program the men also specifies that representatives from the domestic solar industry will be represented on the solar technology road map committee federal dollars should work to create american jobs in this amendment seeks to ensure that this new program works towards that and i applaud the committee's commitment to bolstering the u s solar industry and the development of this road map like to thank chairman gordon ranking member hall chairman baird ranking member inglis and of the subcommittee and representative giffords the bill sponsor for considering this amendment and for bringing this important legislation forward i urge my colleagues to support the adoption of my memon and to join me in reporting the final bill favorably from this committee of the discussion on the amendment know all  for your work on this important bill my mammon today expand the long distance transmission research and development vision of the solar technology roadmap to include the development of direct current superconducting long distance transmission technology as our country increasingly uses the power of solar technology states like new mexico are positioned to be leaders in solar energy production but we must invest in the development of technology that will make it easier to transfer power from region to region with advanced power lines that can carry power for hundreds of miles with a minimum loss the development of direct current and super conducting long distance transmission technology can promote energy efficiency and reliability so any part of our country including remote locations can access the solar resources that are abundant in the us superconducting materials have almost no electrical resistance so they can carry large amounts of the tricity with minimal electricity loss however today superconducting transmission technology is still very costly and most superconducting have only been used for short distances direct current transmission also reduces electricity loss from the line and move large amounts of electricity from one point to another development in a hansom and the of these two technologies will benefit the long distance transmission of expects will be the most effective use of solar power i happen to agree with his assessment although my job neral approach to energy is that we should be going at it as many different directions as possible again  not trying to focus but trying to go at a problem from many different directions this amendment would permit us to utilize solar technology in yet another direction meaning large scale solar plants in the desert which i believe are something that we should at least move forward with to see if they are cost effective and i believe at this point they are cost effective again mr lew hon i support your amendment in it but it also we need more than research even if we do make it more efficient in transmitting solar energy that is produced by solar energy projects  via the transmission lines that you're talking about if the bureau of land management will not give the companies that want to build these plants permission to do so all of this research has been for nothing it's been a total waste unless it's implemented so i want to draw my attention to my colleagues again to add to my bill h r nine sixty four which would require the bureau of land management  to act upon the one hundred fifty applications they already have rather than refusing to let anybody move forward in order to protect the habitat of some lizard or insect in the middle of the desert would speak in favor of the amendment because this transmission issue does not just apply to solar it is across the board the fact is the loss of power is a big issue same time i want to commend the states the gentleman state of new mexico that they've led by more than just spending money and putting mandates out but that their regulatory oversight is to a point to where our scientists in california who have a major breakthrough in green technology have to pack up out of california and bring that that technology to new mexico because your state has regulatory oversight that is encouraging the development of great true green technology when california who develops and this is really an analogy for the american people that we can spend all the money on research we can do all these breakthroughs but if government doesn't get out of the way or government doesn't stop being obstructionist you're not going to have a new mexico's been great about that and so i think we need to move forward but i also think we need to talk about this transmission issue of federal government and state governments and mandating that people be on the grid no matter where they live rather than us going after is anybody talking about getting people off the grid and making it legal to be off the grid especially in rural areas like new mexico where we have federal mandates that you have to hope people up rather than get them off the grid and go to this technology so i strongly support the the amendment and think that we just got to look at this is one of those steps that need to be made the other step which transmission is it is a the federal government is not involved at all at citing the lines to be efficient like we do with our interstate highway system we expect the private sector to do all that study and research rather than having a as the sons of sunshine state i do think that this is a is a good bill but i have you know some concerns with it my man and i would sunset the solar roadmap committee after five years and this would allow the department to put out a roadmap and update but not dictate the focus of solar technology research development and demonstration which according to my reading would be for for fifteen years utilizing the expertise of industry national labs academia and other federal agencies to develop a road map for solar technology research is a good idea but i think that that we may be creating now more government with less oversight and ultimately doing more harm than good i support the development of advanced solar technologies to recognize the energy security it can provide for our country and i'm concerned though that we would be creating a fund stream that exists in perpetuity and i think this is this is a crew who shall point for all research of stablish timeline with goals and dedicated resources unfortunately the energy and water conference report we just voted on last week contains over eighty earmarks worth seventy six million dollars just in the office of science and looking at that that would there was an increase of one hundred thirty one million dollars over the two thousand and nine appropriations and that so that means that  taking seventy six million dollars just for earmarks and i i think that this can have a devastating effect on research goals when can we really afford to happen to have this happen again this is no to two million dollars that would be spent on this  would i would be great you know that just say that this is a committee has done such a great job that we would want to put it back into existence but i think that we need to we need to have additional  don't agree with her that the first one the second one i do support and let me tell you why the purpose of this road map is to direct the deal we with a committee private sector public sector researchers i mean variety of members and that committee is controlled to look at short term which is defined by up to two years mid term up to seven years and long term up to fifteen years research development and demonstration needs and solar technology so the problem with sunset in this act by two thousand and fifteen it really doesn't make sense for the committee's continued existence by this is really the point of this committee is to create that short medium and long term plan for solar energy so i understand represented big concerns but i really think it would really undercut the relevance of the committee's work if we would sunset in twenty fifteen what the judge let me let you know yes would there be a date that you think would be appropriate like twenty twenty to got to come back and take a look at it and let me just say that you know just like we are we're all lawmakers and we work with the public sector by recommendations from private industry from federal agencies if you get to the point where solar technology is so effective and we've been able to achieve some of these these these objectives which i know that we can do is really we focus on solar technology there may not be a need for it but i don't think that by putting a commission together to ask them to again not direct all funding or all research and technology it is federal r and d seventy five percent as it's ramped up you know i think that would be a sunsets or something that the public really really feel strongly about it's just where the sunset ought to be and i would strongly encourage the author of this bill so give a sunset so that you give that level of of assurance that this is not just an institution recommendations into consideration at this point i don't think it's necessary we are we have so far to go and we are so far behind that at this point i just don't you know i think we have more to gain by making sure that the private sector and the public understand that we are a review if they're doing their job because this isn't something that we usually do we're putting this much money in seventy five percent of this money over this will be one point two billion dollars and i think that it's really necessary that we have a review and that's all  sunset is is just to make sure that they're doing their job and represent a bigger if you read the bill the committee must contain eleven members and these members will serve three year terms one third of the industry must come from solar industry that that is th base but we also are going to have representatives from other areas as well from deal we from the from research institution so we put a we put a ceiling on top just because of some of the concerns that were brought up by the minority but i really don't think it's necessary at this point to put a sunset provision in place it's generating we'll i'll point out that this committee obviously has a restriction on this bill and so has constant oversight and  committee act that way take care of this amendment take care of any amendment about it being open to the public no where in here does it say it's open to the public or will know when the openings are going to be no where in here does it say they're going to be available for public inspection no word of the say the detail minutes of everything all that would be required by the federal advisory given the disposition of any funds it's very important here where they're telling the department of energy how to spend that money and how much money to spend and when to spend it that's controlled by the federal advisory committee compliance the numbers of any member of advisory committee the staff of many advisory committee shall receive compensation in a rate is set by the advisory federal advisory committee those things are all taking care i go a step forward on that other than the disposition of funds all those things would take care if they didn't put these fifteen percent of these people or third of these people out of industry who have a direct interest in it no way in a world that you can control them keep them from voting for something that could be contra to the public good when it's to the good of the industry and bob and i think that gives rise to a lot of questions that are going to be brought up from this point forward parliamentary inquiry i support the amendment to move the date to two thousand and twenty and to speak to the the amendment first of all i'm really kind of taken aback at some of the conversations going on from our side of the aisle i know that mr hall flashes back to his days when he was a member of another political affiliation that took a habit of attacking participation of industry so i have to say that i think the participation industry is very important here and i think the authors put together a good yes the problem is that the bill actually sunsets at twenty fifteen so we wouldn't even be extending any overview the authorization is twenty fifteen so we would be   and i support him as a republican i don't believe though that they ought to have control of the funding and how the money span or any direction to congress are to the department of energy and something that they could be personally involved down the line to where the burden of proof to be able to continue our authorisations and there because then there's a level of comfort that if a mistake is made today at least we will have within the next few years the ability to go over it again and correct these problems so gives more trust that trying new things and moving forward when you know that there is a break that you can see you've got on there and there's a sign off that's in the future so that level of confidence will be much higher for you that if there was a mistake the sunset allows you to correct it now you  dr bartlett is recognized let me ask a question if in fact the authorization expires in twenty fifteen if the committee did not reauthorize it helpfully not sunset the commission it's the same effect yes or ok so then since the the authorization expires in twenty fifteen we have to look at that time is whether or not we want to continue i think that it's not clear because you're you're talking about going forward the seven years that three years or seven years they said trap so it's not clear that you're ending that sunsetting could still appropriate money for it so it's similar but not the same but if we sunset it they can appropriate money whether or not can't they i would assume that at that time there would not be a commission that grayson i just want to say that we'd love to have mr hall come back to our party and all is forgiven with eight and a half minutes to go then if there's no further discussion  you mr chairman my amendment would require the secretary when providing grants to fund demonstration projects for the solar technology to focus on those that provide the greatest per kilowatt hour for electricity by contrast existing solar technology would require a cost of point twenty four point twenty five per kilowatt hour so this results in a significant difference in cost for the average consumer and we can support solar technology demonstration and significant investment by including ways to reduce the cost for consumers in our initial real research goals so my management is a common sense one that requires the secretary to keep the end user the consumer in mind and i would urge my colleagues to support it and y congresswoman giffords and committee staff to draft this and then it makes two changes in section one zero five concerning demonstration projects first that will strengthen the ability of u s companies to regain america's world leadership in solar technology by expanding from at least three to no more than five the number of large demonstration projects over thirty megawatts it also clarifies that these large projects will be technology neutral second it will maximize benefits to society and taxpayers from these demonstration projects by adding meant to and i quote promote overall electric infrastructure reliability and sustainability should grid functions be disrupted or damaged and quote our grid while very efficient and cost effective is also remarkably vulnerable to natural disaster or deliberate attack furthermore the capability of operating independently of the grid to ensure uninterrupted electricity at critical sites for vital nations is not incorporated into the present requirements for demonstration project thirty five eighty five this amendment ensures that solar energy technologies will contribute to strengthening our country's economy environment and national security and i appreciate very much a support that i've had for this thank you very much and yield back thank you  must consent to its fans with the reading about objection so ordered the gentleman is recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman i don't plan on using the five minutes i've used enough of your time already today but as point out by the author of the underlying bill the fact is that the technology call of sol solar voltaic for actually invented here in the united states and sadly the major production of it has gone overseas a lot of members may not know that even the  basic technology of solar water heating was invented here in a teen eighty's by a company name day and night the fact is our technology breakthroughs are so quickly adopted or stolen by other countries and my mema just basically tries to protect the proprietorial information and trade secrets out of the companies that participate in this program it will just amend page twenty line fifteen and specifically identifies the fact that it should include a protection for propriety or information trade secrets and another confidential business information very short very precise but could be very important for our future to make sure that our future breakthroughs stay in the united states as much as possible and with that i especially those people who are backing this legislation need to look at it as an alternative to simply creating new authorities within the system or just simply spending more money as directed by those people within the governmental system there are ways that that we will and things we need to do that will facilitate the a ctual implementation and and the development of solar energy in this country without great cost or without taking control of large amounts of revenue and directing them as this whatever elite group decides should be directed one of we mentioned earlier tax credits but another is to pay attention to the intellectual property rights of those people who own the research and have developed the products themselves we have a there's a piece of legislation making its way through congress which is supposedly a patent reform bill every one of the individual inventors around the country are scared to death of this bill because what it does is empower the big guys to basically take their their inventions and thus take away the incentive for people to invest in this very very solid initial research that comes up with these breakthrough technologies so i would suggest that as we move forward in discussion of how to deal with solar energy how to make sure this technology is brought to play that we look at these type of all rigged alternatives and think of them as alternatives to what is being proposed and that is please consider the piece of legislation that's going to be called patent reform when in reality it's what i called steel american technologies act because it will open up thousands of the little guys and really by the way i've talked to many people in the solar  industry who've told me had those rules been in existence that they're trying to now put in place the new patent bill they would never have been able to invent the things and develop the solar technologies that they have because they would have been they have been in production in china before these guys ever got their patents so with that said i had further i agree with mr brightman saying and add that to the  brown of georgia eyes unanimous consent to dispense with the reading without objection so ordered recognize jemma for five minutes explaining like mr chairman all for this amendment is the way to give the secretary of energy some discretion in choosing the best way to allocate funding for research development demonstration of solid technology i'm concerned that the bill is drafted would gives way too much power to the solar roadmap committee that must be comprised of at least one third of the energy of the industry i'm not comfortable with requiring that seventy five percent of the funding be required to go to activities chosen by such a committee this leaves the secretary with no choices if you feel such activities are inappropriate or if he determines or she determines another technology not considered by the committee for whatever reason to receive more than twenty five percent of funding given to the department mom it would require the secretary to devote a percentage of the research shows him by the committee but would not require it to be a set amount i feel much more comfortable having the secretary was confirmed by the senate and has some accountability of the congress making the decisions on funding with i hear your concerns but i want all the members on the committee to know that it is that the secretary of the department of energy that will be making selection for the committee members so he or she will really have a tremendous amount of discretion about who is going to be the member sitting on the levin member commission i've also heard earlier some concerns about the seventy five percent number as we all know look at the bill it ramps up it starts with thirty percent in fiscal year two thousand and twelve and culminating in seventy five percent  year twenty fifth tiene and i understand that seventy five percent is a significant majority of the total funding for solar r and d but again looking at the purpose of the bill what we would do is establish a multi stakeholder process for creating a long term plan to direct deal we efforts for solar are in the development the resulting plan or the most road map would also be published for everyone to see so in terms of transparency and long term thinking and integration of diverse views this process would far exceed anything required of our today what's more the roadmap idea is not one that has been pulled out of the blue as i said in my opening statements this is based after  highly successful semiconductor technology roadmap the process that is widely hailed as contributed to a steady and rapid technological advancement in the semiconductor industry in contrast right now r and d funding decisions at  are is made by a program manager with the support of his or her staff according to whatever rationale he or she sees fit there is no transparency currently there is no long term plan there is no requirement for consultation with industry or any other stakeholders is just a small group of people in an office at the department of energy i can't understand why members would object to allocating more funding to the result of a road map process rather than the status quo for anyone concerned with ensuring the wise use of taxpayer dollars and should take at heart this road map process because it's designed to integrate the idea of a wide variety of solar experts from a wide range of perspectives and guiding r and d funding the gradual increase in the percentage of required allocation would provide for a smooth transition to the roadmap and even at the end of the ramp up fully twenty five percent of the r and d budget would still be free to be allocated to projects of all with outside the purview of this multi stakeholder effort with a  brown well i understand that the secretary of energy could konami nate whoever he wants to for this committee announced and also that a third up to half of the committee members could be out of industry itself my concern is not so much that well it is a how this committee is made up but also who makes the decisions when the secretary but for the responsibility and the energy secretary is going to be the best way to do that and by by reducing them out and letting the energy secretary just just turman what kind of amount is needed i think it just proves this bill and allows the flexibility to the secretary that that secretary needs to be able to make sure that the that the roadmap committee doesn't dictate exactly what's going on against what's best policy so that's reason i put forth this amendment i think it's a great amendment i think it gives the energy secretary the flexibility the secretary needs and i think it's critical for us to not lock the sectarian energy into a formula particularly when the road map committee is going to dictate seventy five percent so i think the secretary of energy should be able to do  make a whole lot of decisions in and the secretary of energy could give up seventy five percent if they decide to do so so it's not to try to change from the roadmap crafting this legislation and they are in support of it also looking at what would be required to follow a road map is subject to a comprehensive revision every three years and may be updated annually as needed so there is going to be a more transparent process with us the members of congress understand again how these decisions are being made and where the funding is going so i would like to assure you obviously i don't see support your amendment because i don't believe it's the best way to determine the best form of solar policy i think this is a really integrated plan that will provide for a more focused and targeted approach but also a more comprehensive approach because again they can determine if they want to fund small projects large projects concentrated solar power photovoltaic for the next type of of solar technology that may come it's fast changing it's got some flexibility but i think the secretary of department of energy will have and energy want to put into place to lose control over seventy five percent i think that's just on tenable is just something that even though we're going to have the possibility of a revision on a yearly basis or  three year period we i think we need to give sector energy a whole lot more more flexibility and and and i appreciate  should have and we don't know who the secretary of energy is going to be six months from now maybe the same one we have today maybe someone else and so i think it's critical that we give the secretary of energy the flexibility that they need  department of energy to to study and publish the best practices to improve performance of photovoltaic installations the study will also examine the effectiveness of federal state and local incentives to enhance system performance also and this was of course improved upon by mr bartlett there are there are solar projects ranging from one to three megawatts in size and also projects greater than thirty megawatts in size are going to be funded and of course you know we're all going to know about those projects and be interested to see where they end up the interagency activities identified and recommended from the solar technology roadmap should be coordinated by the director of waste and and again because this is such actually it's really transparent process we will all unlike we currently have with be very much in the know of what the decisions of the roadmap of the committee members what they come up with this you know is precisely why this bill is being brought forward it is because we don't have to experience the right now and this is an opportunity for the private sector and the public sector research institutions all have an important voice in determining where our federal r and d dollars go towards thank you if there's no further you'd be afraid of having people on the committee that have a self promoting interest and if something came up with a lock it probably augustine would be obligated to take their position and their reported but from the federal advisory committee act i don't know of any major committee and men guided by that are relegated by that are if they're excluded from that they had a very definite reason other then that it would slow them down that's all i've heard so far you know so what if you have two point five billion dollars involved they ought to go a little bit slow but at this rate i think feel a bit to the secretary is not required under the roadmap part of the bill so there is in the roadmap portion of the bill there's nothing that will guarantee any transparency or any openness and and  reporting necessary required there is no transparency required does the only way that we're going to have the transparency the only way we're going to have the ability to have at  least a portion of it being transparent and required on the roadmap portion is by having the secretary energy have the the wherewithal to direct what the secretary wants to do and so it's i think it's important to not handcuff the secretary but allow the secretary to have some flexibility and give give the secretary the option of given seventy five percent are  american public to have the transparency that they deserve and so i think it's important for us to give the secretary the flexibility i still hope that the folks on your side will see fit to vote for when we go through the freedom of information act which would be the only way to know we we still couldn't get the process revealed we couldn't get the ses you making faults revealed to them to the american public and again we just lock it into seventy five percent with this bill the way it is and so i don't think that's in the best interest of the secretary good decide to give one hundred percent of the funds to what the roadmap committee horse but right now the decisions are being made by the e r ribeye a program manager with their staff in an office at the d o a with absolutely no requirement for any consultation with the industry with congress with with researchers right now that is none of that has happened it's just a small group of people stuck away at the deal we i mean this is a process a public process where we're going to have the best of the brightest in the industry private sector public sector universities and actually have a plan so mr brown i mean i understand your concerns and obviously society because we have the same concerns this is why the road map is being created it's not my kind of yes reclaim it's the process today is flawed and congratulate the gentle lady for bringing that forward the biggest objection i have is that we don't have a  flexibility for the secretary to be able to look at valid awards there are outside that twenty five percent that they will have and so there may be other things that secretary would this particular piece of legislation but i like the idea of the private industry academia national labs collaborating together making these decisions rather than some bureaucrats behind closed doors you know in washington and i  country is in dire need of a strong and stable domestic energy supply missions i've also been co sponsored many pieces of legislation that is designed to do just that tearing down the barriers that exist today on new nuclear power sources to line for safer environmentally friendly all in gas exploration to new wind and how droll electricity projects we have it in our power to allow our own private industries to solve the problem set before us today mr chairman i believe we should be passing leisure legislation which will encourage innovation expansion in all of the arenas energy solution growing more numerous by the day and they're not only the ones among us who know firsthand about the great potential available in this field we should be doing all that we can to foster that potential and t scale back the regulatory burdens that exist in our markets to allow easier pathways for private industry to help make that goal riyadh lety but we must also recognize one plain and simple fact we do not currently have enough money to do all of the things that we all would like to do the goal of energy independence is rightfully senate around getting our country away from its dependence on this specific foreign countries who it best have very shaky internally ship and at worst outright hostile toward america but realizing this nodal noble and bottle goal cannot come at the expense of shifting our monetary needs on and on to still other countries that have proven to be unpredictable towards us and even the most stable of economic times i think that we can all agree that our current economic situation is far from stable so with an eye towards balancing the notable self interest of energy independence and sustaining a stable monetary system the memon i have offered today would freeze them out authorized in this legislation for the next five years at two hundred million each year the chairman while i'm still not certain that there should be a federal role in the expansion of solar energy other than to make it easier for the private sector to do so i'm quite certain that we simply do not have the monetary resources to spend well over two billion dollars over the next five years out of the federal treasury and children our grandchildren certainly cannot afford that bill i ask my colleagues to understand that our financial resources are not unlimited we must be responsible with our spending we must also be aware that the debt we force upon our children grandchildren even in the concerns but i would like to remind the members of the committee that your amendment would cap the authorization for solar r and d a two hundred million dollars per year which is fifty million dollars less than was authorized in fiscal year zero nine in the energy policy act of two thousand  that was of course passed by the republican led congress i believe the best justification for the proposed author is only authorization levels for this bill comes from taking a historical look at the investment that we've made in energy r and d between  seventy eight and two thousand and five the united states government spent thirty billion dollars on r and d for nucular energy alone we spend another twenty four billion on fossil fuel research but during the same time period we spent less than half  spent less than six point five billion on solar energy more than half of that research was actually performed prior to nine hundred eighty five which was twenty five years ago now maybe some people think these disparities are appropriate maybe they think solar does not merit the same level investment because it is not able to provide as much energy as other technologies but today that's simply false our solar resources are vast in scale and they are capable of making a significant contribution to our energy needs using today's technology solar power could meet the electricity demands of the united states on a square piece of land only one hundred by one hundred miles or ten thousand square miles that's just one quarter of the land area currently covered by artificial lakes behind hydroelectric dams which provide less than ten percent of our nation's electricity scott stevens an engineer with a solar energy technology program at the department of energy recently stated publicly that with the right incentives solar power has the potential to provide twenty percent again twenty percent of america's electricity needs by the year two thousand and thirty that equal the amount of power currently provided by nucular power plants yet today we have spent just one tenth the resources developing solar technologies and we've spent developing in the last thirty years we've spent four times more money developing coal technology than solar and burning coal is a technology that's over one hundred fifty years old at the end of the term covered in my bill it would authorize five hundred fifty million to solar r and at the peak of the energy crisis in the one nine hundred seventy s we spent three billion a year on nuclear power development and one point eight billion on fossil fuels in two thousand and seven dollars so as i've said before solar is not a fringe energy solar solar and solar today specifically is really serious i've spoken many times in this committee about the benefits of solar power economic growth and good jobs increased security and reduced environmental impacts it is time for our investment in this resource to match the scale of the opportunity before us in fiscal year two thousand and eleven the solar technology roadmap authorized three hundred fifty million which is only about ten percent of today's energy r and d budget as a solar technology roadmap ramps up it will allow we've seen tremendous strides in that field just through the private sector i don't think the federal government is the so arbiter of solar energy or any energy sources i think the marketplace is going to be the best way to do that and i want to facilitate the development of all these technologies you talk about a hundred miles about a hundred mile grid that could provide time that we did an authorization under republican leadership we were in a different economic times and we are today we are borrowing from our grandchildren's future and in fact they're going to live at a lower standard of living today if we don't stop the outrageous spending here in congress i'm all for solar energy and when when when families have have  billion dollars with the largest transference of wealth we need our dependency off of foreign energy is a national security priority it's a priority because we are our growth will continue our need for energy will continue yet without aggressive smart steps like the solar technology roadmap we won't get there other countries get it they're moving forward we are falling behind this is a plan to put us on the right path i'm concerned about deafened debt and deficit just like you are but unless we take some aggressive steps like actually planning for this new type of energy we will continue to be left in the dust the gentle lady as time expired and we have enjoyed the conversation between gentle lady and dr brown but if there's no further discussion  bail here today all of us are and count of mind on this because we're all pro so are we all know we need solar we know shoulder could be that answer to every problem we have power wise and i think i'd feel bad if i left here and had voted against the bill a solar bill but with this amendment mr brown that he's given us a little bit of cover their gold wing always say yeah we voted knock it down to six hundred million but that brings me to talking about money you know even the bailout you know they did eight hundred billion if i just waited a little bit there and then when the president new president came in and asked for it and the old president joined them when bush and obama got together that passed that eight hundred dollars eight hundred billion dollar bailout bill rate wouldn't pass but they had they were there then mr chairman with four hundred fifty made billion and they have the assy that they could to use and i happen to know that was our fall back position they could to use that instead and they wouldn't throw away that three hundred sixty nine billion they threw it so you can throw too much money at anything but we're not without money here and yes madam arthur they did authorize that much money but they didn't appropriate it it's just the i don't believe that happened if it did somebody correct me vote on it when we could just voted out voice vote and they're biting always playing they voted either way but but i'm really i really have a hard time voting against a solar bayless is a good the least well i'm not really ready to quit talking i would  i would hope that we can pass this bill and then we can have some talks with you on down the line on what we're going to do with all this money and how they're going to allocate it and how they're going to report it and maybe get a little more strength in your bail as to the requirements for notice and require much for hearings and requirements for the public other than just those folks to be in it and to get with my go to ruth's committee mr hall to your point obviously authorization is a different process than appropriations what we are we are setting the optimal levels for the spending but of course appropriators will then have to  step in and make the decisions that they make in their committee you know relative to historical times and that's why i took the time to lay down lay out how much our investment has been throughout the course of the last twenty five years in this country to colons nucular it is big compared what we've done historically but compared to the amount of opportunity for solar energy would take today's technology this amount is actually relatively small so of course i'm always interested in working with you and members of the committee to make this bill better the manager's men and then as i said earlier the majority came from the changes came from the minority members and minority members brought some great amendments today and i will continue to look forward with you but i don't want to lose sight of this opportunity and i want this committee to think big and the opportunities are great for our country and putting this roadmap  in fact substantially beyond what's going to be appropriate in so it's just causing the question why while we authorize such a large number and then appropriations any come way below that but meanwhile we we went way out there on a very large number especially with the with the money in the stimulus bill and with the other expenditures i think it does make sense to spend that money is a lot of money on solar it is and i would i disagree with mr brown's comments even when a government is in deficit you would spend money if you're going to make money and if you've got a company it's in financial trouble you can go borrow money even though you're in big trouble if they think you've got a great idea you can find lenders who will lend you money to power your way out of your trouble and that situation that the country's in i think as to energy makes sense to spend money on energy the question is whether it makes sense to spend this much money in order to authorize this much money you know of course is his ranking member said we could just saw take solace in the fact well it's not going to be appropriate to just build for the thing and just wait for how much the appropriators knock it down to but that it gives us a little bit of a feeling of having authorized a huge number when it's not going to be appropriate and mr inglis if i may i just want to again remind everyone that and eleven the fuller roadmap calls for three hundred fifty million which is only ten percent of today's energy are indeed budget so it is a number but in the big picture it's only twenty percent and look at the potential that solar energy has for the nation so i want to make sure that you keep that number in perspective thank you but the general view of the jamming of yes i'd like to throw in a couple things it goes about fifty million a year first thing secondly i don't think that solar research is has to be necessarily found about the federal government particularly when the federal government is in such great debt it's important for us to be fiscally responsible and just contained to spend money and spend money and spend money that we do not have even the authorize the money at these huge levels that we do not have  believe that if we are not energy independent as a nation we're not a secure nation so i agree with ms gifford on that and and i'd like to see us energy independent i'd like to see us develop wind and solar and all these alternative energy sources i'd like to see us have greater development easier permeating for nuclear power and i've been a very strong advocate for doing so i'd like to see new energy sources developed and i'm a strong advocate for all of those things it's just that that i think authorizing a much less amount of money than what we're authorized in the bill as it currently is written is being more fiscally responsible and doesn't preclude the private sector from spending whatever they want to spend and i think we've seen breakthroughs in many areas of science and technology across the spectrum that have come from the private sector certainly in my business of health care medicine we've seen the private sector develop lots of things festus lasik surgery was never funded by the federal government and the price has been lowered because the marketplace as it just is a good example so just because we we do or don't authorize amount of money doesn't make the appropriate is appropriate they get appropriate more than we authorize and we've seen that in numerous cases too but it's i think it's just incumbent upon us as representatives not rulers of the people  that are in our district but representative the people in our district and representatives of our children and grandchildren's future that that we need to cut down the amount of money that's been authorized in this bill now you know back thank you mr brown if there's no father the chairman record thank you very much you know if oil was still one hundred fifty dollars a barrel we wouldn't be here today talking about funding in this bill because an oil was one hundred fifty dollars a barrel in this area spending plenty of money on alternatives the problem is that the government did not do the responsible thing and that is to put a floor under oil we needed to have told industry that oil will never be less than say eighty dollars a barrel which i think is a reasonable figure where industry will now invest in alternative we didn't do that and so now that oil has plummeted down to sixty now seventy dollars a barrel there just isn't a lot of private capital out there i wish we had done the other rather than fund each of these individual bills because we need to put no public money in this if oil was one hundred fifty dollars a barrel now there was plenty incentive for the private sector invest money but the government we in congress did not do the responsible thing and that is putting a floor and in effect a floor under oil tell industry if it ever drops below a certain value i'm not sure what that value is the driver just below a certain value will make up the difference so you can continue to invest in alternatives because there's going to be a future in alternatives we didn't do that and now we're stuck so here we are and i'm not sure this is too much money to spend we face a huge huge crisis in energy you don't see it now because the world is in recession but the sad fact is that never ever again can the world have sustained good times unless we do something about alternative energy because as soon as the economy comes back worldwide the demand for oil will go up it will be one hundred fifty two hundred two hundred fifty dollars a barrel and that will squelch the economy so because we didn't do the right thing and now we have to do something which many of my members my psych think is the wrong thing to do but you know here we are we're the and rightfully so and there are choices that work knowledge we need to be made the real choices are we going to commit our nation to compete with other emerging energy powers in the world that is so obvious right now if we do not commit to winning this green energy race like we did forty years ago with the space race we're going to fall behind we can talk about a safe a secure sustainable future for our children that doesn't happen unless we provide the sort of green energy outcomes that are you know fueling the innovation economy in this nation we must emerge from this race as the go to nation that will be the exporter of energy and select energy innovation that government has a role to play in that we have to shape the price in this off of some of the renewables we have to commit to the most efficient use of dollars in the sciences and technologies that are developed for renewable opportunities and so i commend the sponsor and i think it deserves a support about here votes no mr ross no ok mr matheson mr matheson votes no mr davis mr davis votes no mr chandler mr chandler votes no mr carnahan mr mr lamar smith mr roy bock or mr ward barker vote side mr bartlett mr bartlett votes present if not when the tally is made please report the bill h r thirty five eighty five as amended all those in favor will say i am i all those opposed no an opinion of the chair the ayes have it i now recognize well i recognize mr taco for motion  mr chair i move that the committee favorably report h r thirty five eighty five as amended to the house with the recommendation that the bill do pass furthermore i move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report to make necessary technical and conforming changes and that's chaired take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the house for consideration the questions on the motion to report the bill five really those in favor of the motion will signify by saying  it the bill is favor reported without objection the motion to reconsider ok without objection the motion is reconsidered upon the table members will have two subsequent counter days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on the measure we will now consider h r thirty five ninety eight the energy and water research integration act i recognize myself for five minutes to describe the bill the country faces amidst challenges with increased  demand on our energy and water resources h r thirty five ninety eight will provide us with new tools to meet specific technical challenges occurring at the nexus of energy and water bill require secretary to consider water related issues in the architecture council that will facilitate the collaboration of industry academia and the federal government in improving energy and water resources data collection reporting and technological innovation this legislation is a product of recommendations from five committee hearings on water several reports from the national academies the government accounting office the national sas tech technology council and the department of energy encourage my colleagues on the committee to join me in this effort and support r ninety five ninety eight i now recognize mr hall to present any remarks to the bill thank you mr chairman and we agree with you the energy water interaction is a very important issue that needs to be taken into burdensome could do more harm than good in particular the bill as it currently written and as it's written in the manager's amendment would place an additional energy water requirement on every energy research development demonstration program and project of the department of that moving forward with such requirements prior to gather in the proper background data and information such as a comprehensive assessment of which programs and projects will be affected mightily unintended consequences wa groups currently in existence the worst possible scenario is setting up a situation in which we have different groups developing parallel standards and data collection methods for the energy water interaction may be very difficult and such a task would involve some level of data manipulation which could very well lead to a loss of scientific integrity in the findings i miss chairman we've worked very hard in this  effort exactly like this i believe streamline and organization of one of the main motivations for the national water research and development initiative act it was passion for  amendment at any point and that the members proceed with amendments in the order of the roster without objection so ordered the first amendment on the roster is a chairman of the manager's amendment offered by the chair the clerk report the m m m m a to h r thirty five ninety  thirty five ninety eight that are the result of good suggestions put forward by the minority staff and we thank you for those insightful cause it's section two h r thirty five ninety eight is amended to ensure that the secretary of energy minimizes wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars by collaborating and coordinating with other agencies within the program's other partner to avoid duplication of research efforts to make certain that the secretary shall not unnecessarily delay or disrupt programs or including technology development of carbon capture and storage the technologies that will mitigate impacts on water from energy resource development this image strengthens the bill and adds the oversight necessary to ensure that the department addresses the like to have all of the changes we asked for a little hope and we could work out a few more in particular one suggestion was made to add the words as you remember as as appropriate to the end of section  staff have been able to see that we are in many many areas and that we want to continue to work with you to try to to clarify that language that we both agree upon and i concerns is have which my meant amendment attempts to alleviate will have some time to do that as i said earlier the energy water interaction is a very important needs to be taken into consideration addressed by the v o a and other relevant map to define research development demonstration and commercialization efforts at the road map would follow the same guidelines laid out in the chairman's mail and generally take into account the same for a sceptic considerations that are incorporated in the chairman's ma information and reporting requirements after receiving a roadmap sectors in required to implement the findings and a way that would deliver the most i guess bang for the direct in our day and date of those programs understand the studio has been required to submit a similar report to congress under previous legislation that are currently available reports from the subcommittee on water availability in quality and the national academies of science on the issue would do not see this roadmap language as intended to replace any work that has previously been done or to ignore the work that could be forthcoming but instead intend for the road map in this amendment to be an authority document that can serve as a and this amendment would also cut the five year authorization from sixty million a year for five years to thirty million a year for five years the electric power industry released report two years ago that proposes a research and development program on the report calls for further more understand that the chairman's intent may be just average a program that's more aggressive than the industry may propose on its very own even with all these considerations the authorization level included in my memory funding level of thirty million per year should be more than sufficient to address the needs of this back unless somebody wants a second rate thank you mr hall as i mentioned earlier the managing member included twenty good suggestions from the minority i think that we are in sync on much of what you're talking about here we just have not had the time to go through it and as always we will continue to work with you to perfect  timely bill which takes strong steps to see that we make better use of both our energy resources and our water resources it does so by coordinating our consider the use of water when we produce energy as well as the energy demands of supplying water i applaud chairman gordon for his leadership in this important initiative and once again dealing with the important and challenging topic of water resource planning i believe conservation of water and energy are complimentary components of any plan to ensure that both are available and adequate supply to our nation's households and businesses clearly we cannot afford to waste either my management requests the secretary of energy when carrying out energy research development and demonstration projects to consider increases in energy efficiency of water distribution and collection systems and to consider technologies for of energy generation from water distribution and collection systems as appropriate thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time our own water distribution and collection systems it means that they're going to look at this is one of the parameters that's going to considered as this goes forward when they are in court you know incorporated as appropriate for the project and you f a reasonable enough thank you for that the second provision would require the sector to consider technologies for energy generation from water distribution and collection systems the way i'm reading sounds like you're describing putting under pressure because it's being pumped the company that this technology is being looked at the company right now that is looking at this technology both waste water as well as other kinds of water so right now what they're looking to see what would be the impact of that if this water is running downhill you'll get some energy from it if you're putting this in a pipe that is pressurized by a pump you're going to get no energy because whatever lose energy because the energy you'll get from that is going to be less than the energy this is the second law of thermodynamics which you will violate so unless this stuff is run downhill you're not going to get any energy from this just put it in a pressurized pipe that's being pumped by a pump you've got put a whole lot bigger pump on the other end which is going to consume more energy than you're going to get out of your little turban in the flow am i wrong not i don't believe so not in that example now consent i do request that they be considered on block without objection the court report the amendments should not b the basis for any new federal regulations regarding state local or tribal use of water bill shall not be used to increase the financial burden on state local and tribal governments by restricting their water use the purpose of this legislation is to ensure water and energy  research programs and support research furthering the continued availability of both water and energy these are certainly a lot of the goals unfortunately the bill makes three references which could be construed to lead more lead to more regulation  one modeling of issues relating to energy required to provide water supplies another the interagency collaboration section which may impact the reclamation and its customers and the third one the energy water architecture council which is charged with developing data collection standards and protocols for the energy required to provide water supplies by members from sure the legislation accomplishes only its stated intent and cannot be read to restrict the use of water energy by state and local governments any regular try reading could contradict existing jurisdiction and oversight of local stakeholders as a representative of a district which leads into water energy intensive industries agriculture and biofuels and where water quantity is problematic i'm very sensitive to these issues i appreciate the chairman and my fellow committee members for sharing the concerns those concerns and believe that the intent of this bill is to simply improve data collection certainly but it should be no concern with the amendment thank you and i yield back the balance of mr smith it's my understanding that our staff have collaborated considerations this part of the bill provide specific items for the research program that the sector of the energy should consider supporting for example new it bans cooling technologies for energy generation are listed technologies that  bed methane and mining activities texas is a state that's rich in natural gas resources and i would like to ensure that research supported by this program would also include water that may be used during the exploration and mining for natural gas as you know i chair the subcommittee on water resource an environment on the transportation infrastructure committee and research on water and energy production is an issue of focus of mine i'm glad to see this committee's answer is in energy and water and i believe that h r thirty five ninety eight will enable the department of energy to support some vital areas of research again my mentor will only add that under  consideration which would include technologies to utilize produced waters that are this charge from natural gas mining activities and i want to thank chairman gordon ranking member hall for considering that man that  main issues water water and water up until the recent flooding that georgia experienced my home state and most of the southeast was experiencing what most people would finally call a prolonged drought in fact some even call it a century long drought the savannah river right sure runs along the eastern border my district in the state of georgia is not only a key economic driver for the region as a chairman can attest linchpin around that which entire cities are based and i know that george is not alone in our cost to struggle with the usage and protection of our water resources just about every state from florida to california arizona to maine has dealt and is dealing with their very own local and regional water issues is because orders via orders vital an ever increasing role in our country including in our energy production which is what this legislation is decided to address i am asking the committee to incorporate my amendment earlier this year this congress passed the omnibus public land management act among the many provisions of protections included in this legislation was the national water availability and use assessment program this program task the united states geological survey with assessing the availability and use of the nation's water resources the study would help us gain  clearer understanding of the status of our water resources and the land use water use and natural natural climatic trends that affect them the goal of this program is to improve our ability to forecast water availability for future economic and environmental uses simply put this estimate will help characterize how much water we have now how water availability is changing and how much water we can expect to have in the future the minute that i've offered the implementation of section two of the underlying bill until the u s d a has completed their study and reported back to congress their findings the findings to be brought forward in this study will give the secretary of energy well defined narrowly focused template to carry out section two of h r thirty five ninety eight the chairman i strongly believe that war is one of our greatest resources and we should do all that we can to utilize it when possible but guard against waste and abuse at all times is my hope that the pending u s g a study will set out a pathway to help us accomplish those goals and mom in ask this committee to delay any new water briefly for a response on behalf of chairman gordon the gentleman's point is important certainly we we need to understand the veil ability of various water resources and there are studies underway but it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to wait for those studies before we can move forward with this legislation there is ample information now about volumes of water that are available there's an urgent need because just some of the numbers of some of the major energy product projects where there are certain solar projects or carbon sequestration etc we need i think to move this legislation forward rather than waiting because we're using that water right now and the more we wait the more water's getting used gentle lady for five minutes to explain the amendment thank you mr chairman my amendment would strike the energy water architecture so in section three of this bill while the concept has a lot of the goal it seems to me that it's duplicate the work done by other federal departments agencies in the private sector the other bodies were created under prior statues including the secure water act and are working on these issues and a participates in such efforts in fact we found over thirty groups involved in water research ranging from state regional and privately coordinated entities the need for a new console isn't necessary when the infrastructure already exists action to see of the text specifically calls for interagency collaboration at the direction of the secretary i think that serves as a better foundation from which the same goals could be achieved but without the extra layer of  bureaucracy i support your efforts to you know to better coordinate and plan for water use and availability in the energy sector through a chair at thirty five ninety eight but i'm not sure that another energy water research group is the best use of this scarce research appreciate the concern about duplications of effort i think is something we all share however hearings on this topic we heard from a number of agencies this is suggesting that the precise function of this bill  thank you are there any others wishing to go any others wishing to comment on the amendment if no the vote occurs on the amendment all those of ever say i those opposed no new thing in the chair the nos have it and those i just don't i don't want to go by this bill without pointing out that one of the things this bill does well it's high energy and water supply together too often they're divided and i just hope those of us that will always talk about water remember that we always talk about the liquid stuff but in reality if we're going to have safe drinking water it's more important to have clean cost effective electricity than to have fresh water available  natural form the fact is if you do not have clean inexpensive electricity you can either transport that water that you have or you can't create it locally and so this nexus of tying the two together is absolutely essential i hope to see that this comes out and we talk about the way we can use different technologies but a great example is the fact that in san diego we're pumping massive amounts of water from five hundred miles away though we have just now rebuilt our nuclear power plants are sounding off right nobody even thinks about why we don't go to peak production with with a zero emission technology like new we're on off because they said well what are you going to do with the power off the what we could do with the salvation and eliminate all of the impact of pumping and transporting and digging the canals but no one's taking the two and sticking together and i think this technology can do that this technology can go beyond that and look at things like the fact of why are we using fresh water to sequester and carbon impress when we've got the algae technology that can grow in salt water and be able sequester the emissions from our power plants or farm other locations so by putting these two things together i think is really a great step and i hope every time somebody on this committee talks about water we always remember where was going to be the clean inexpensive electricity to be able to pump the water correct the water and i think this committee will help do it thank you very much m point well taken and of course the bill works in the opposite direction as well as we look for alternative energy sources we need to look at the water impacts of those sources and so i think the gentleman's points are well taken and the other comments if not then the  recognize mr tomko to offer a motion yes mr cherry move that the committee favorably report h r thirty five ninety eight as amended to the house with the recommendation that the bill do pass furthermore i move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the chair take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the house for consideration thank you mr toggle the question is now on the motion to report the bill favorably those in favor of the motion will see that i by saying i  the ayes have it in the bill is favorably reported without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional on the measure i want to thank the members for their attendance and the staff on both sides for their good work this