good morning everyone the committee will come to order pursuant to notice the committee on science technology meets to consider the following measures h r twenty eight fifty the green chemistry research and development act of two thousand and seven and h r twenty three thirty seven the energy policy reform and revitalization act of two thousand and seven now i'd like you would like to briefly talk about h r twenty three thirty seven h r twenty three thirty seven was referred to the committee on own natural resources the committee on agriculture and also the committee on science technology the natural resources committee held hearings on the bill in may in marked up the bill last month the agriculture committee has not yet acted on the bill the comm staff on a bipartisan basis have been working i've been in discussions over the last week or so with the natural resources committee about provisions in h r twenty three thirty seven where there are policy differences within the science to technology with these bipartisan good faith negotiations and let me say that i think we all democrats republicans are concerned about maintaining the certainly the prerogative of this  get a good product my hope is and i think we can do this without being a jerk the fact of matter is as we go through the energy bills there's going to be a lot of joint jurisdiction sometimes two sometimes three committees that wants  matheson or another that we're working on some joint things and so my hope is again that that we can work these things out without getting into a lot of really problems between committees the fact matter is democrats republicans on this committee going to our brothers and sisters on resources energy and commerce agriculture we're going to be working together for a while i think we want to deal with everybody hon issue that he has particular expertise with and that is doing chemistry with an undergraduate degree in chemistry followed by a medical degree dr gingrey has long been an advocate for increasing government research into the green chemistry  chemical manufacturing can result in harm to human health and the environment you do to the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous by products green chemistry seeks to mitigate such harmful outcomes and short the go green chemistry is to minimize or to eliminate this harm by using safer materials and manufacturing process sees besides the protecting human health and environment green chemistry can offer economic advantages improvements to this legislation will provide grants to individual researchers spur university industry partnerships fund research at federal laboratories and train students in growing chemistry science h r twenty eight fifty is the third iteration of a bill that congress introduced addressing this issue democratic democratic amendments were agreed to and now make up sections of the h r twenty eight fifty this bill is a product of good bipartisan cooperation however there h and there remains apprehension among some democrat members that this simply does not go far enough to promote the adoption of green green chemistry but h r twenty eight fifty is a good first step and i urge my colleagues to on the committee to support this legislation and i'm sure dr gingrey will be glad for us all to take credit for it at home when we get this passed i want to thank all the members for their cooperation and participation during this first half of the year i look forward to working with all of you as we move into the congressman let me particularly say thank you to the staff both democrats and majority i know we have done we've asked you to do a lot you have done a lot the fact the matter is that we're going to be a major participant in the energy bill that's going to come down here very soon we could have decided no we did not going to do it so but we didn't we decided we're going to work hard get things done nothing's going to pay off because we're going to have a lot of we're also going to be major players in the conference and so there'll be many of us on that conference so we can have more input also i went over to the senate yesterday to talk with lamar alexander the conference will not the conference but the preconference is coming along on our competitors agenda he is very anxious to move this forward he's doing a really a very good job over in the senate chuck adkins who i don't think it's here now but has been a great taskmaster in setting forth an agenda for all of these and we have we have no time to have any committees of jurisdiction in the senate that are all working together again on a bipartisan by cameral basis i think we're going to be able to get this thing done by the end of this session if we can get it done in past and i remind you that it that we only passed unanimously out of this committee we only had twenty one negative votes on the house floor i think this competitors agenda will be the major legislative accomplishment this for six months and again we'll all be a part of that and i thank you for working in helping us let me also say that for the ones of you that are going on the  shots that we need to take and we'll get ready for that so now recognized mr hall to present his opening remarks was chairman i think enough listen carefully to what you've said and it's obvious that we want to get along we want to work together we have from here back we hope we can from here forward and we thank you for wholeness markup today and i'm very pleased that we're marking up dr gingrey green chemistry research and hear that the committee may not mark up h r twenty three thirty seven the energy policy reform and revitalization act of two thousand and seven and may instead have an exchange of letters with the resources committee pending agreement on a couple of provisions administration yet our committee is not even held a hearing on this provision and hope that we could have a full and open debate on this legislation i have a number of concerns with this legislation i'm primarily concerned it may have a negative effect on american consumer energy independence as i've expressed on number of occasions america is at a crossroads we're faced with a large energy challenges such as an ever increasing demand for energy that will inevitably drive up our costs for taxpayers threaten our national security and to compete in the world marketplace this going to turn it shared by several organizations that you're very familiar with the chamber of commerce and national chamber of commerce and national association of manufacturers could go on an international brotherhood of electrical workers  we have to meet these challenges energy challenges head on by increasing our domestic supply using all available resources this bill however could move our country in the opposite direction it repealed several bipartisan provisions of the energy policy act two thousand and five and it will result in increased dependence on foreign energy higher prices for american consumers and the loss of american jobs these are provisions in this bill that limit upgrading energy transmission and distribution facilities the delay development of all shale and tar sands leasing contracts and layers of bureaucracy this flow of oil and gas operations impose new theories on all and gas leases and they stablish new requirements that will make wind energy absolutely on affordable chairman to move forward with the markup of this committee this legislation in this committee the science and technology committee has a lot to add to the debate i'd be disappointed if we didn't get to give our members that opportunity and mr chairman i have copies of to we're waiting for the parliament tearing into what may we may know it looks like right now all the resources bill i know there are some concerns on the resources bill as as i understand it now  looking into a couple of the areas where we've asked for that and that's one reason that we've asked for this the recess to find out obviously we can't be marking up areas even though you may not like those areas if they're not within our jurisdiction so just so you will understand that also we are preserving our rights to have a markup in those areas where we do have that jurisdiction and we are working in a bipartisan by committee effort to accomplish that so again you deserve an that and so unless they you know we're still trying it we're we're pushing for all of it and but we can't go where they don't allow us to go on the parliamentary inquiry is a twenty three thirty seven on the only responded to two of the seven areas of jurisdiction secondly we are in a bipartisan by cameral negotiations and i think that we're going to be better off if we can work these things out in a bipartisan by camera not by camel scuse me back committee basis rather than just slam bam because i think that they would treat us the same way with our bills and again we're trying to establish with the minority a majority and with different committees to treat each other you know we want to try to have a golden rule here i think we're better off by doing that it's exchange of letters of math that you make you we have not had an exchange of letters i don't think yet until  with the minority staff on those areas we thought that we might have jurisdiction to preserve our jurisdiction the parliamentarian again as i understand it and please i do not want to misrepresent this so if anybody if i say something that someone has better information i well can be to be corrected but it's my understanding that they have they have not referred all of those seven and only a poor only a portion of those to us that we are still working with them to get further referral and again sections that were set out but has the parliamentarian said that we do not have jurisdiction over the other five or seven sections in question if i will let me check with two of those and likely a third but lot but then just as we likely a third unlikely own for others and again this is another reason that we feel like that we are re to deal with another committee in a way that's appropriate what we're finding in this is just for your information what we're finding is some committees are holding their bills to report to the very last moment so that can thank you mr chairman just a quick follow up with the obviously both a majority and certainly the chairman in the minority as well would have an interest in not ceding jurisdiction unnecessarily because this is a this is all of our committee we'll have an interest in it would it be appropriate for the minority to weigh in with a letter to the parliamentarian as he makes a decision about these last five we work we would welcome that i would hope that that i that our original letters to them was  then all of us should have an opportunity both on the minority and majority side both on the science committee and the resources committee where this bill was debated for twelve hours and passed on a twenty six twenty t vote so certainly not an uncontroversial piece of legislation that if the parliamentarian is going to be pertained in his mind then we should have input as well in this interim while we're discussing which sections has said you have to restriction in two you probably have to restriction the third we have not made a decision on that yet and you probably do not have jurisdiction in four others and so  well it's our intention to work on a bipartisan basis with the resources committee in an effort to work those out if a backup is necessary we may have a markup but it is not necessary it is it is not been determined where that's necessary you noticed him for seven and they said two are good and we're here and ready why is it we're not going to have a markup on the well by the same reason we want to work together we got sense enough you know my story about my mathematical problem  know i still can can we can get out voted and we understand that we don't mind that it's not going to have some input on it well that's it's my understanding that your staff has been in all the meetings i think one of those two sections which was worked out yesterday on a bipartisan basis and i think there is a meeting this afternoon on the second one and it would seem to me is long as we've got bipartisan  going on it would be a little bit presumptuous to try to to have a markup while we're still working to work these things out list chairman i'm satisfied but i'm not happy i'll yield back my time to mr chairman but certainly the gentleman from michigan mr ehlers to mr chairman just to add to this a little bit of history and concern on my part as we know this committee has been the youngest committee of the congress for many years until homeland security came along and when it was created it was given pretty much over the space program but most of the other committees were reluctant to give jurisdiction over things that should have been assigned to this committee for example the nuclear power program stores an energy and commerce it clearly belongs under our jurisdiction and i could give many other examples of  observe in my years here that we often victimized by the big powerful committees who claim jurisdiction and fight very hard to get jurisdiction over things that we are working on and i have had several of my bills stymied arguing with the parliamentarians are going with the resources committee and one of my bills which deals with invasive species was basically stopped by the resources committee over a dispute like this fight hard because this poor little science committee often is victimized by these big powerful committees that have been around for a century or more and i think we have to fight for every little little bit we're going to be holding our ground and part of our objective my objective so far as to make this committee more relevant that's what we're going to be we're getting into health care ati we're getting into financial security data security i mean you're going to see this committee cast a wider net using nest using a number of areas so we are not pulling back where we are going forward i will give you a quick a little little note i was talking with john dingle a while back and i was real proud i was telling him you know i was playing the origin of science committee and some of the things that you know that we're doing and he sort of looked at me gruffly and said i'm well aware of the origins ask the chairman yes or long would say that this is necessarily a parliamentary inquiry but pakis it is other words we have scheduled a committee market today for a bill that we are not going to mark up is that  we gave notice and the reason is that we're in a bipartisan buy committee let me give an example let's just say this let's say the democrats had had a bill today and it was marked and the republicans had some amendments that were that were good but we got in late what we could say you know to heck with you we're going to go ahead mark this up or we could say you made a good faith effort to get involved this bill what we want we wait a day or two and try to work these things out it's the same situation i think with the natural resources committee right now we have bipartisan back committee negotiations going on and it was saying to me that it would be the more prudent thing is to let the talks proceed and narrow the issues and then we can go forward we are preserving our right make no mistake about it we are preserving our right to have a markup if that's necessary to the point i was making the chairman are we going to market this bill if we feel it's necessary who's going to determine if it's necessary the chairman will chairman i mean is something is important is national energy policy in this country for those kinds of the stations be made in closed door meetings but they're not going to be made in closed doors or not they're not in this meeting this is a public forum where you well let me say let me let me make what time is the meetings afternoon with ok at four o'clock this afternoon all of your staff know that there is a bat partisan back committee meeting just like all your staff have been involved in the other ones is i remember the chairman's remarks when he opened up this committee for the first time as the new chairman said we're going to work in a bipartisan open while we're going to have markups we're going to discuss we're going to work on this product in the end we're going to vote on it and that's the process that we're going to move forward with and yet today we're told is well we're going to put this on the agenda but we're going to work out the details behind the door with committee staff and when i lock it then it's moving forward without any open debate and consideration for this committee where you know i guess is one of those things to people can see an accent and see it different ways the fact the matter is once again let me let me this is how we proceed with most bills we start off with bap partisan discussion with on the staff level representing you you're welcome to attend so that we can narrow those issues that we can try to you know knock down the ages so that we can have informed markups the fact the matter is you are more than welcome to attend the afternoon you're already noticed about it you're welcome to attend that meeting and we would hope that you would bring your best ideas let them be  bipartisan back maybe way and that's the way we should proceed what can we do that and then bring that whatever everybody thinks is kind of the consensus product been back to this committee and let's debate it make sure that there is a consensus that that's the way we're proceeding well now you told me that we weren't going to work this bill no i did not tell you that this the question you said no no no i said that has not been determined whether is going to be necessary to the answer to my question are we go  i don't like to position the man but i once again i can can't but seems to me and the chairman of man of character and longtime friend but seem to lack having a markup is one of the grand you talk about holding the ground i think i think that we're holding our ground if you go on and have this mark was to keep you from doing this because the issues haven't been fully vetted and it would be it would seem to me there to be irresponsible to move forward when we've just gotten a simple you know right now we parliamentarian haven't even told us whether we have jurisdiction in four and five areas we're still trying to get those five years of jurisdiction i mean we've got it's sort of difficult to mark up a bill  that you don't have to restriction on and we don't know that yet so and that's the reason that we want to give full notice and we have given notice so that and we and the reason that we're recessing is to keep the hammer the resources committee to know that we can have this markup and get i think most of the concern that that that particularly my friends from the all producing area in texas are having or in those areas of the resource bill that we don't have to restriction at least we haven't given it yet so i mean i think that's the main concern and concern is just that i think every other issue that's come before this committee i said in here under the chairman's leadership and of appreciated the very open in exchange between ideas brought forward on both sides but yet on what i think maybe the most important piece of legislation estimation the best policy for this country moving forward the energy because quite honestly maybe the greatest security risk this country faces today is energy and something as important as that i don't think should be done with letters  in people's progressives i think it all be done in an opening fair way so that the american taxpayers can see that we did give this full consideration you know i agree with you but again let me let me again point out we can't markup visions that we don't have jurisdiction on and i think your concerns virtually exclusively in areas that we have not yet been given jurisdiction so we cannot mark up just like we can markup the dairy subsidies i'm concerned about dairy subsidies i'm concerned you know about a variety of issues but we don't have to restrictions that you cannot mark up a bill well i guess you could if we wanted to take you know the time to go through some kind of photo exercise but so it is simply not and i guess the easy thing would have been not to have even talked about it i would had this but i don't think that was a fair thing either you know we're putting a notice so that we can believe we should have it at the committee level at the public level but but i think it would be unfair to imply that this committee is not had hearings on energy we've had a number of hearings on energy since this congress began and those hearings have had a good give and take about various policies and their effects on our economy and our environment and other things so we've had hearings in the markup is a place where you debate the particular amendments but to suggest that this markup would come without any hearings on energy i think it's inaccurate and i just just for the record i would just point out that my dear friends on the other side of the aisle voted repeatedly in the last and prior congresses to that unanimously or nearly so for rules that allowed bills such as the medicare bill to come to the floor of the house with less than twenty four hours for review and not a single amendment offered that they locked the chairman of the ways and means committee out of conference committees and it's standard operating procedure standard operating procedure in the prior congress was that the more important legislation the less public the process and the less input the minority party ha so i find it admirable that my friends on the other side have come to realize that a fair and open process is part of a democratic republic but i would ask them where the heck they were where were they votes were taken on the floor i don't recall a single member of that party saying to their leadership in public this is wrong this is wrong you ought to allow the minority an opportunity for amendments you ought to allow time for deliberation and you ought not block the chairman of a committee out of a conference committee and you'll back you know i think we need to move on let me just say i think that's an example of what we don't want to do we're trying to do better and every provision within the resources bill that we've been given jurisdictional now is there is bipartisan back committee discussions on that with an open door and we just can you know you can't do any more than that and so it with no objection i'd like to proceed to mr  not even had a hearing on this and that's what i said and i don't remember having to hear if it did correct me but that's we've not had a hearing on section four seventy three it could cost up to one hundred million dollars a year and i just think that we talk about government in the sunshine and if the republicans did it they shouldn't have and the democrats are going to do it i don't think you'd be proud of it let's just go forward we'll work our way as it goes and i yield back my time on the green chemistry bell but i very much at this point in time look forward to the markup on the green chemistry bill all right so we will now consider h r twenty eight fifty the green chemistry or research and development act of two thousand and seven you know to the gentleman from georgia minist describe his bill mr chairman thank you and i want to thank you especially and of course i want to thank ranking member mr hall i want to thank the original co sponsors my subcommittee chairman david  with us on this very important bipartisan piece of legislation in your opening remarks mr chairman you mentioned some of the history of the green chemistry research and development act and it goes back to the hundred eighth congress and  and then right at the end of the day when we approached sandy damage chairman you remember i had a conversation with you about this bill and you did everything humanly possible to get the body to to get it through and at the  last minute a member of my party put a closet hold for whatever reason i don't know but i just want to as we get into this question the bill thank you for your efforts and your commitment to me  and this is good legislation please we can work together to bring it through the committee again and i hope the third time will truly be the charm that we will see h r twenty eight fifty quickly pass by both chambers and signed by the president in the way of explanation h r twenty eight fifty the green chemistry research and development act it is stablished is a program that promotes and coordinate federal green chemistry research and development activities within several federal agencies specifically the n s a at the national science foundation the environmental protection agency the national institute of standards and technology nist and of course the department of energy kim is can design chemicals to be safe just like they can design them to have other properties like color and texture this technique of considering not only the process in which products are manufactured but also the environment in which they are created is a basic definition of green chemistry that's basically what this bill is all about it's a method of designing chemical products and processes that are at the very least reduce that at the very best eliminate the use or general of hazardous material the basic idea is this preventing pollution and has ways from the start of a design process a lot more preferable to clean up that mess pollution and wife satellited additionally the innovation created by this and hants research will subsequently spur economic growth as developing new products and prophecies is an integral component of many industries from fabrics to fuel cells brain chemistry doesn't just help protect our environment it protects our workers to the conditions under which chemicals are created and used present many risks to those who work on their production but if companies utilize green chemistry the materials they use will be as bananas possible and vastly improve an employee conditions unfortunately despite all of the promise of green chemistry the federal government invests very little in this area h r twenty eight fifty works to remain to this point by promoting great a federal investment in and coordination of this important research area and mr chairman i want to thank as you pointed out earlier the excellent staff of both the majority and the minority of the science committee and working with us in i think indeed even improve in this bill in regard to authorizing additional funding but only in the proportion that we have already increase of funding of those particular agencies basically at the same percentage so make no mistake right a federal attention will encourage universities and academic institutions around the country to train future workers in this exciting technology h r twenty eight fifty will achieve this by supporting research and development grants to partnerships between universities industry and nonprofit organizations that will also promote education through curriculum development and fellowships that will collect and disseminate information about green chemistry in past years many industries from chemical companies and pharmaceutical ration to carpet manufacturers and biotechnology businesses have endorsed this bill showing a broad range of support for the merits of the legislation this bill as i say is nearly identical to the version passed in the hundred eight hundred nine in the companies and corporations that have voices strong support for this bill realize that the in vans bit of brain chemistry is positive not only but their specific business but also for the country's environment our economy and our nation's sort of sins i urge my colleagues to support r twenty eight fifty i know there are a couple of amendments mr chairman on the democratic side i know mr lipinski has an amendment and i want to thank him the gentleman from illinois for offering it he i agree with him that one of the most basic and underwrite it steps toward a greener environment is to encourage recycling that saves energy and it decreases solid waste and i believe adding recycling to the green chemistry research and development act strengthens a bill and i'd be glad to accept the amendment from the gentleman my friend from illinois and then there's another amendment from the gentlewoman from texas ms eddie bernice johnson and her amendment again is something that i am supportive of and i'm sure she'll we need to report the bill was recognized thank you mr chairman i i i want to make a brief statement to recognize that we have a good bill before us it is a bipartisan bill i want to recognize the hard work gingrey to bring this bill back to the committee and again back to the floor we have passed this bill a couple of times through this committee and we have passed it through the entire house this is a good bill that  r twenty eight fifty offered by mr lipinski of illinois eyes unanimous consent to dispense with the reading without objection so ordered the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the amendment thank you my man is very simple saying a small yet important addition to the underlying bill amendment actually has two words increased recycling the amendment would help supply chain manufacturers to increase recycling with the goal of reducing or even eliminating the use of youth or generation of hazardous substances manufacturing extension partnership centers or m e p centers would assist in these efforts as they work to enhance the productivity and technological performance of u manufacturers i firmly believe by corporation innovative recycling practices in their manufacturing processes american industries will better position themselves to compete in the increasingly global marketplace in addition through the increased practice  will help to reduce the production of solid and hazardous waste in improving our environment in potentially lower greenhouse gas emissions and make our country more secure by lessening our need for foreign sources of energy a new do a do a great job have a lot of many factors in my district who work very well with the m e p centers and i think this is just a great opportunity to improve this bill by adding consideration back the questions on the motion report the bill favorably those in favor the motion will signify by saying i i suppose know that having a bill this favor reported that objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table members will chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the house to adopt and pass h r twenty eight fifty the green chemistry research development act of two thousand and seven is made without objection so ordered i want to thank members for their tenants under rule i j for the gentleman deserves to have his inquiry i'd just like to inquire and i think we want to know here as to when we expect to committed to mark up the committee markup to resume when we can get back to work on it a lot of to you know to take care of the provisions and their jurisdiction and and and it's also my understanding since this is merely a recess we have to return in a relatively short order to complete the business of the committee is that your understand is correct i would hope that we're going to come back that we will come back if necessary to thursday or friday again we are waiting to hear from the parliamentarian on what section of the bill we will have referred to us and there is a meeting afternoon at four o'clock in which everybody is invited to discuss the second i understand that there right now we have two provisions the first of which has been agreed to the second of which will be on a bipartisan basis second which will be discussed this afternoon and then we're waiting for the par that way we can get back maybe this afternoon or early sometime tomorrow within the twenty four hour period and if we intend to follow the rules and we don't know your know you know i'm not a question yet out there and if this is what we will do what is necessary and we again welcome your suggestions and have had a copy i may want more but i can't