```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4465-H4482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      HYDROGEN FUTURE ACT OF 1995

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 136 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 136

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 655) to authorize the hydrogen research, 
     development, and demonstration programs of the Department of 
     Energy, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Science. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] 
will be recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 136 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act. 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science.
  The rule also makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the 
amendment shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides for 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Bob Walker and ranking
   minority member George Brown for continuing their longstanding 
tradition of requesting an open rule for bills reported out of their 
committee. They set an example that I hope all committees will strive 
to follow whenever possible. As always, they did a great job.

  Consumption of energy has grown at almost twice the rate of the 
growth of the population, and it is critical that we pursue the 
potential of alternative sources of energy such as hydrogen to address 
our long-term energy needs.
  The Hydrogen Future Act authorizes appropriations for basic hydrogen 
research, development, and demonstration programs of the Department of 
Energy for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. The bill promotes Federal 
efforts to research hydrogen as an alternative fuel and ensures that 
hydrogen research is given priority by the Department of Energy.
  Mr. Speaker, similar legislation passed the House by voice vote last 
Congress, and this open rule will allow Members the opportunity to 
address any concerns they may have.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                               [As of May 1, 1995]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 22                 73
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                  8                 27
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 30                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             

                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                               [As of May 1, 1995]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              

                                                                                                                
[[Page H4466]]
                    SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                    
                                               [As of May 1, 1995]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/1/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/6/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1158...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     ...................
                                                                   1995.                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous 
  question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.                           

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we join our colleague from Tennessee in supporting the 
open rule for this bill. The hydrogen research enjoys bipartisan 
support. As our colleagues will recall, we passed a similar bill last 
August by a voice vote. Several amendments were considered at that time 
and four or five perhaps are expected to be offered today.
  All of us, but perhaps especially those of us from regions such as 
southern California that have severe air pollution problems, are 
particularly interested in and fully support research that will lead to 
a clean burning, environmentally safe, energy source that is a viable 
substitute for fossil fuels. For that reason we support carefully 
written legislation that will give the impetus needed to determine 
whether or not hydrogen can be an energy source that is economically as 
well as environmentally acceptable.
  We do, however, have some specific concerns about several provisions 
of the bill as reported. At a time of huge spending cuts in so many 
Federal Government programs, this bill provides for a steep increase in 
funding for hydrogen research. In fact, the bill authorizes more 
funding for the hydrogen program than either the Hydrogen Technology 
Advisory Panel, which advises the Department of Energy on hydrogen R&D 
activities, or the President requested.
  An amendment will be offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Olver] to reduce the authorization levels in the bill to those 
recommended by the panel. Interestingly, the advisory panel's experts 
believe that necessary research can be carried on with about $31 
million less than what H.R. 655 authorizes.
  While increasing annual spending on the hydrogen program 
dramatically, the Committee on Science imposes in this bill a cap on 
spending for the Energy Department's energy supply research and 
development activities.
  That decision, which the chairman of the committee defends as the 
best way to make the bill deficit neutral, means that the Department 
will have to limit promising research in areas other than that to 
develop hydrogen technology, and with no guidance from Congress on 
where those cuts will be made. In fact, we have no way of knowing the 
true impact of this arbitrary spending cap.
  As the ranking member of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] has argued, instead of imposing the cap, we 
should be making a rational judgment about which programs should be cut 
to offset the cost of the hydrogen research program. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] will offer an amendment to strike the cap so we 
will have the opportunity to debate this controversial provision.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we question these decisions even more because 
we are uncertain about how much interest there is in private investment 
in hydrogen research. As the additional views in the committee report 
on the bill note, if hydrogen were so promising and so near-term, we 
would have already seen much more private sector investment without 
perhaps requiring this much Government encouragement.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a moment to commend 
the ranking member of the Committee on Science, Mr. Brown, and the 
chairman, Mr. Walker, for the good work they have done over the years, 
not only in this area, but also in so many vitally important to our 
future. As a former member of the Committee on Science myself, I know 
just how difficult this subject matter is they deal with, and just how 
few of us understand it as well as these two gentlemen do.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that hydrogen is promising, even if its 
popularity or convenience as a major fuel is still uncertain. We 
support the open rule and encourage our colleagues to support it so we 
may proceed today with consideration of H.R. 655 and the amendments 
which may be offered to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the Committee on 
Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this open rule which 
provides for consideration of H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act of 
1995.
  Our committee, the Committee on Science, has a long history of 
requesting open rules for this legislation, and I am pleased to join 
with my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the 
ranking minority member of the committee, to continue in that tradition 
with this open rule here today. I want to thank the Committee on Rules 
for the consideration they gave to our committee on this and for 
bringing forth the particular item under an open rule.
  As I will discuss in more detail when we proceed to debate on the 
bill itself, the hydrogen research legislation will direct the 
Department of Energy to refocus more of its resources to basic research 
on this nonpolluting, abundant, renewable fuel. Great care has been 
taken to draft a bill which is budget neutral so as not to increase the 
deficit. We are interested rather in reprioritizing the Department's 
research efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I have 
shared a deep interest in hydrogen research during the time we have 
served together on the Committee on Science, and I am pleased we were 
able to move this bill through the committee so early in this session. 
I understand that he has some concerns about the funding provisions and 
that other Members may have amendments. I welcome that debate. I think 
it will help to clarify the bill and I am happy to support this 
[[Page H4467]] rule to provide for the upcoming discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of this 
legislation. I want to commend the chairman, Mr. Walker, and the 
ranking member, Mr. Brown, for the work that has been done trying to 
foster research and development into specific areas that I believe will 
help our country.
  I was able to attach an amendment in the markup process that deals 
with section 7, the technology transfer area. It states that:

       The Secretary shall foster the exchange of generic 
     nonproprietary information and technology developed pursuant 
     to section 5 among industry, academia, and the Federal 
     Government. The Secretary shall ensure that economic benefits 
     of such exchange of information and technology will accrue to 
     the United States economy.

  Now, I know everybody is trying to finish this bill. It is a good 
bill. The chairman has done a good job. But the language is that this 
exchange of information shall accrue to the benefit of the United 
States economy.
  I have a little amendment that says in the report process, when they 
do all of the reports back to Congress, that they also give special 
emphasis to section 7 and let us know if there is an accrual of benefit 
to the United States economy.
                              {time}  1415

  From what I understand, the amendment is going to be accepted. I 
appreciate that. I think it strengthens the bill. I think it is time 
that Congress asked for these things, if the economy is supposed to be 
strengthened by our legislative action. Many times we do not ask to 
find out if it really happens. So in this case I am, and I am glad to 
see that perhaps we will enact it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Pursuant to House resolution 
136 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 655.

                              {time}  1416

                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 655) to authorize the hydrogen research, development, and 
demonstration programs of the Department of Energy and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Hansen in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] is recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we consider on the floor of this House, H.R. 655, 
the Hydrogen Future Act of 1995.
  Imagine a fuel which is unlimited in supply and is environmentally 
friendly. Imagine a fuel which produces no carbon dioxide or other 
noxious pollutants. Imagine a fuel that produces only water when it's 
burned. Imagine a fuel that can be produced entirely within the borders 
of the United States. Imagine a fuel that finds a virtually limitless 
supply in water. There is such a fuel and its name is hydrogen, the 
fuel of the 21st century.
  Ever since the oil crises of the 1970's and the recent conflict in 
the gulf, Americans have been justifiably concerned that our energy 
supply is not guaranteed. This concern has been heightened by the fact 
that our hydrocarbon resources are limited, and it has been 
increasingly expensive to produce domestically.
  The shipping and burning of hydrocarbon products has been a major 
cause of pollution. We all know the cost of dealing with the effects of 
pollution in terms of health care and restoring our environment. The 
Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, Superfund, and other legislation 
have generated numerous expensive regulations in an attempt to address 
health and pollution concerns. The use of hydrogen as a fuel would help 
solve these issues.
  Hydrogen holds tremendous promise as an environmentally benign energy 
source. It is practically limitless in supply and the byproduct of its 
combustion is the same water that is used to produce this gas. Its 
common use faces large technical hurdles, however, especially in 
production and storage.
  The Hydrogen Future Act will focus Federal research on the basic 
scientific fundamentals needed to provide the foundation for private 
sector investment and development of hydrogen as a fuel without 
increasing overall funding for the Department of Energy energy supply 
research and development programs.
  During the 1980's and 1990's, the Committee on Science held several 
hearings on hydrogen. In 1989, the Renewable Energy and Energy 
Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act, Public Law 100-218, directed 
DOE to provide a separate line-item for hydrogen research in its budget 
request. In 1990, Congress passed the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, Public Law 101-566, which 
directed the Department of Energy to develop a hydrogen research 
program implementation plan. Then in 1992, section 2026 of the Energy 
Policy Act, Public Law 102-486, further addressed hydrogen research and 
development. The legislation we are considering today, H.R. 655, the 
Hydrogen Future Act of 1995, continues Congress' intent to prioritize 
hydrogen research.
  H.R. 655 focuses the hydrogen program at the Department of Energy on 
basic research, development, and demonstration. The bill limits 
demonstration to validations of the technical feasibility of theories 
or processes.
  The legislation requires a cost-sharing commitment by the private 
sector for any research, development, or demonstration project funded 
under the bill. It also requires that any financial assistance given 
under the bill: First, could not be obtained from the private sector, 
and second, must be consistent with GATT provisions on Federal cost-
sharing.
  The bill directs that the Department of Energy's hydrogen program 
should be a competitive, peer reviewed process, and that a percentage 
of the authorized funding be available for basic research into highly 
innovative technologies. Both of these provisions will ensure that 
people with new ideas have the opportunity to interact with DOE's 
resources and facilities.
  Although this bill increases funding for hydrogen research, it is CBO 
certified budget neutral. H.R. 655 requires corresponding offsets to 
pay for hydrogen research by freezing the Department of Energy's 
overall energy supply research and development account at fiscal year 
1995 levels. By offsetting funding from other DOE programs, the 
legislation does not ask the taxpayers to bear any additional costs.
  The development of hydrogen as a fuel will also conserve our vital 
feedstocks of fossil fuels, freeing them solely to produce plastics, 
medical supplies, and other useful products. Using hydrogen in our 
cars, planes, and homes would also save billions of dollars in energy 
costs related to byproducts, pollution, regulations, and medical 
expenses. Hydrogen is the answer to fill the energy needs of our 
future. We are looking for a nonpolluting, abundant, renewable fuel. 
Hydrogen is that fuel!
  After all, energy produced here in the United States grants security. 
Security not only from disruptive conflicts in the Middle East and 
elsewhere, but also financial security. More than half our trade 
imbalance is due to the import of oil. With domestically produced 
hydrogen as a fuel choice, we can substantially reduce our trade 
deficit.
  [[Page H4468]] So I would ask support for H.R. 655, the Hydrogen 
Future Act. It is good energy policy. It is good environmental policy. 
It is good research policy, and it is good budget policy.
  This is exactly the type of futuristic technology-based solution to 
some old problems that face our society and have been so often 
addressed by regulation and subsidies in the past.
  More precisely, it is a vision of an opportunity society that many of 
us in this country have been talking about over the last few weeks and 
over the last several years.
  This is a chance to begin to live the vision. So I would ask the 
support of the Members for this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be on the floor today on the first of 
what I hope will be numerous Science Committee authorization bills. 
While H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act, represents only a single, 
relatively small, energy R&D program, this bill is a good opportunity 
to begin to illustrate the importance of the Federal investment in 
science and technology.
  I recognize that the majority of Members who serve here today have 
served less than two terms. So it is not surprising that many Members 
have very little information about the purpose, extent, or 
accomplishments of the Federal science and technology investment. As we 
tackle the task of cutting spending over the next few months, I am 
deeply concerned that science and technology funding will become a 
politically expedient sacrificial lamb for balancing the budget.
  I know that the chairman of the Science Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, shares those concerns and is working to 
educate his colleagues on the Budget Committee about the importance of 
science and technology funding. Indeed, the Federal Government's 
investment in science and technology has long had strong bipartisan 
support in recognition of their critical role in addressing such 
national needs as economic growth, environmental quality, defense, and 
health care.
  The chairman and I have our disagreements in certain areas, as indeed 
we have on the bill before us. But we do share a belief in the 
fundamental importance of science and technology to a nation that seeks 
to remain preeminent in the next century. I look forward to working 
with him over the next few months to ensure that science and technology 
continue to receive a high priority in the national budget.
  H.R. 655, the Hydrogen Future Act, augments a small, but important, 
program within the overall Government effort in research and 
development and continues a long tradition of bipartisan support for 
the development of hydrogen as an economically viable and 
environmentally friendly fuel. The committee passed the Spark M. 
Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act in 1990 
on a bipartisan basis, and extended the program in the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992.
  I want to commend the chairman, Mr. Walker, for his efforts in 
bringing this bill through the committee and to the floor. Mr. Walker 
and I have long shared a belief in the future of hydrogen. This bill 
represents Mr. Walker's most recent effort in his long-standing support 
for hydrogen-related research and development within the Department of 
Energy. It will provide needed new focus and additional resources for 
the Department's programs.
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania has indicated in his remarks, 
hydrogen is a promising fuel with many potential applications for 
replacing more polluting energy sources. Hydrogen becomes particularly 
attractive if we can find a way to produce it using solar or renewable 
energy sources rather than from petrochemical feedstocks. The DOE, 
working with industry and academia, is working on a number of fronts 
which could provide critical breakthroughs to making hydrogen a cost-
effective alternative to conventional fossil fuels.
  While I generally support this bill and DOE's hydrogen research 
program, I have a number of procedural concerns and disagreements with 
several specific provisions. I would note that the administration has 
expressed similar reservations.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I am disturbed that this bill is being brought 
to the floor ahead of a comprehensive energy research and development 
reauthorization. Hydrogen research is unquestionably an important 
program, particularly given the need to find replacements for fossil 
fuels which can meet our energy needs with less pollution. At the same 
time, DOE is supporting equally important research devoted to other 
promising nonfossil energy sources, such as solar energy, renewable 
fuels, and fusion. In addition, given our near-term dependence on 
fossil fuels, other DOE research programs designed to increase the 
efficiency of fossil fuels and reduce their polluting effects are also 
important. And research on nuclear fission designed to increase safety 
and reduce radioactive waste deserves continued support.
  However, the bill before the Members today authorizes only a single 
DOE R&D program, which precludes us from setting priorities among all 
of the energy R&D programs. Members will have no opportunity today to 
reallocate energy R&D funds, a process that is all the more important 
given the fact that the total amount of funding for these programs may 
well be cut far below the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request.
  Instead, Members are being asked to approve a 300 percent increase in 
the funding for a single energy R&D program--an increase well above the 
President's budget request of $7.3 million, and above the levels 
recommended by an independent, external advisory panel. Singling out 
hydrogen R&D for aggressive growth in a declining budget envelope 
suggests that hydrogen ought to be DOE's highest research priority. 
Members may or may not agree with that, but my point is that we will 
never know because Members will have no opportunity to vote on 
different priorities.
  We need a balanced research portfolio that, taken as a whole, is most 
likely to provide us with cost-effective and reliable energy supplies 
for the future. For that reason, I am very reluctant to support the 
level of increases contained in the bill without a better understanding 
of the effect of such funding levels on other important DOE energy R&D 
programs. In understand that Mr. Olver will be offering an amendment to 
reduce the authorization levels to a more reasonable level, which I 
will support.
  Second, I cannot support the provision in the bill which limits the 
obligations for DOE's energy supply R&D funding at fiscal year 1995 
levels for the next 3 fiscal years. This is simply bad policy 
masquerading as political cover. The cap was included so that 
supporters of the bill could claim that the increased funding 
authorized for hydrogen would be offset by unidentified cuts somewhere 
else in DOE's energy supply research and development activities.
  But the cap won't even do what is proponents suggest. Instead, what 
it really does is cut $250 million across-the-board from the requested 
budget for dozens of DOE research programs and DOE's environmental 
clean-up efforts--programs that the bill does not even authorize. Yet 
the proposed increase in hydrogen research is only about $18 million 
the first year--and only if Congress appropriates, and the Department 
spends, the entire authorized amount. The fact is that the cap does not 
force DOE to spend more on hydrogen.
  Further, as the Members well know, overall spending is controlled by 
the budget caps and the appropriations process. This cap isn't going to 
save the taxpayers any money; all it does is to tie our hands in trying 
to set budget priorities by creating artificial and arbitrary fences 
around some programs.
  I intend to offer an amendment to strike section 10(b) of the bill 
which contains this limitation and will speak more about it at that 
time.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would note that this bill raises some 
interesting issues in the context of a broader debate about the best 
way to promote the economic and social benefits of this Nation's 
investment in science and technology. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has been very critical of a number of applied technology programs, like 
the Advanced Technology Program, at the Department of Commerce. ATP 
helps companies pursue 
[[Page H4469]] novel ideas in advanced technologies--such as hydrogen--
by supporting research, development, and demonstration activities at a 
50-percent cost share. The chairman of the committee as well as other 
Members on that side of the aisle have argued that such programs are 
examples of ``corporate welfare'' that distort the market by having the 
Government pick and choose ``winners and losers.''
  Ironically, in my view, H.R. 655 has many similarities to the ATP 
program. While the bill speaks specifically about basic research, the 
reality is that the major barrier to the increased use of hydrogen as a 
fuel is an economic one. We know how to produce, store, and transport 
hydrogen; we know how it works as a fuel and how it can be used in fuel 
cells to generate electricity. What we need to learn is how to produce, 
store, and transport hydrogen more cheaply so that it can economically 
compete with other energy sources. To my ear, that sounds suspiciously 
like an applied technology program that does not differ dramatically 
from the ATP and other technology development and demonstration 
programs.
  The language in H.R. 655 is a valiant effort to cloak this 
inconvenient point in semantic ambiguities. But it cannot be seriously 
questioned that the primary push of the technology effort must be to 
cut hydrogen's cost. Industry will never pick up the final stage of 
demonstration and commercialization unless the underlying Government-
supported work shows that hydrogen production, transportation, and 
storage is not only technically feasible, but also economically 
attractive. Fortunately, H.R. 655 seems to authorize precisely such a 
program.
  What ever our semantic disagreements, the important point is that the 
bill does represent another step forward in developing hydrogen as a 
national energy resource, and for that reason I support the bill. I 
could support it more enthusiastically if the amendments we offer this 
afternoon are adopted.

                        hydrogen/atp comparison

       This table shows the great similarities between the 
     Advanced Technology Program of the Department of Commerce and 
     the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Research Program. At 
     least as much as the hydrogen program, ATP focuses on long-
     term noncommercial research and development with potential 
     for great scientific discovery. Also, it stops earlier in the 
     development cycle than the hydrogen program. In short, if a 
     Member supports the hydrogen program, he or she should 
     support the ATP program as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Hydrogen program                       ATP program            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-year grants. Three to five     Multi-year grants. Three to five   
 year time horizon.                   year time horizon.                
Funds research, development, and     Funds high risk, high payoff       
 demonstrations leading to            research and development in fields
 production, storage, transport,      identified by industry as critical
 and use of hydrogen for              to future success of key          
 industrial, residential,             industries. Emphasis on generic   
 transportation, and utility          technologies that can benefit     
 applications.                        whole industries.                 
Majority of research done by         Maximum of ten percent can be done 
 national laboratories.               by government laboratory.         
Majority of industry grants so far   Grants evenly split between big    
 to large business including Air      business and small business. Big  
 Products and Chemicals, Praxair,     business and potential suppliers  
 and AD Little.                       sometimes team together (e.g. auto
                                      industry).                        
No limit on size of grants.........  $2 million limit on grants to      
                                      individual companies.             
20% industry cost-share for          50% cost-share minimum required for
 research and development. 50         research and development.         
 percent cost-share for                                                 
 demonstration.                                                         
Will fund incremental but important  Pre-commercial scale demonstrations
 demonstrations such as increasing    and improvements to existing      
 the efficiency of steam reforming    products are ineligible for       
 of natural gas.                      funding.                          
Has funded industry surveys........  Marketing surveys and              
                                      commercialization studies not     
                                      eligible.                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman form Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to congratulate the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] for their hard work on this important 
legislation.
  H.R. 655 will support very, very vital work for us to look into the 
hydrogen field and research, development, and demonstration projects. 
This is a thoughtful bill. I think it has very important energy 
ramifications for this country's policies in the future.
  We need to become more environmentally friendly. We need to find ways 
to produce and transport hydrogen more efficiently. As the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], and the former chairman, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], have said so articulately, we know what 
many of the problems are, but we need to invest in ways to more 
efficaciously solve the problems we are faced with in transporting and 
delivering this very potentially vital source of clean burning energy 
to our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has also talked in a very, very forceful way about the policy 
on the budget. He has said that we offset the increase in the budget, 
and as we are coming back from a break where we have heard in our town 
meetings that our constituents are very concerned about the deficit, we 
want to make sure that this does not call for tax increases, which it 
does not. We want to make sure that this policy has vision with 
relation to the rest of our Energy Department, the DOD, and the 
National Laboratories.
  I would say that this is a very good bill, and I would encourage my 
colleagues to support it. I do have two concerns, not problematic, but 
concerns that I would just express to the distinguished chairman that I 
hope to work with him on over the course of the next few months. One 
would be that we do have a very, very good vision for hydrogen in this 
bill, but we do need to develop a vision for our Department of Energy.
  We are bringing out today on the floor one splinter, one very small 
area of our energy policy. We need to come to the floor with our energy 
authorization bill. We need to do that both for reasons of the budget, 
because we are going to be cutting some programs and reorganizing some 
programs. We need to show the American people where our priorities are 
in terms of the National Laboratories, which National Laboratories as 
our treasures are we going to keep, which ones might we downsize, which 
ones can become more effective.
  I have introduced legislation with respect to the National 
Laboratories. I look forward to working with the chairman and the 
chairman of the subcommittee on that legislation.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, I would say I have a concern in terms not only 
of the vision but of the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, as we bring one part of our policy on energy to the 
floor with an increase, how does this affect the other policies and 
programs within the Department of Energy? I think the chairman has 
articulated some of the ramifications and ancillary effects of those 
programs. We look forward in our hearings and in our markups in energy 
on our committee to continue to discuss these in broader ways, and in 
more specific ways. I congratulate the chairman of the committee for a 
thoughtful bill on new U.S. policy with hydrogen and look forward to 
voting for this piece of legislation.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his statement. I 
just wanted to assure him, based upon the one concern that he raised 
with regard to overall authorizations, that it is our intention to move 
aggressively ahead in that area. As the gentleman knows, we have 
already held hearings in the subcommittees on a number of these 
programs, and our intention would be that as soon as the budget numbers 
are fairly firm, which should be within a matter of the next couple of 
weeks, that at that point the authorizing committees will be able to 
move with their authorizations. I share the gentleman's desire to see 
to it that those organizations are moving so they provide some guidance 
in the appropriations process, but also that they provide the kind of 
vision statement that I think we need to make in a tough budget 
situation. We need to begin to lay out how we are going to both balance 
the budget and at the same time maintain an aggressive science and 
technology policy for the country, and I think that is going to be some 
of the very, very instrumental work that the various subcommittees are 
going to be assigned to do. I am going to try to give those 
subcommittees the latitude that they need to work within budget caps, 
but to prioritize the science of this country in a way that makes sense 
within that budget constraint.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, and I know the gentleman 
has 
[[Page H4470]] much more experience upon this committee than I do, I 
have only been on the committee since 1991, but as a member of the 
authorizing committee, I would hope that we could get this bill out to 
give guidance to the appropriators as to what the new priorities in 
this 104th Congress might be for spending on new technology, on 
programs such as hydrogen. I think that the expertise shown by this 
committee in the past has been a very valuable one.
  Also, the chairman and the ranking member would be not only working 
with the appropriators on the House side, but hoping to work with the 
Senators on the other side of the body so we do pass an authorizing 
bill. I think that is very important, not just institutionally, but 
given that the Members of that committee do have a great deal of 
expertise in this technology and in this field of science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that that 
is certainly my hope, not only in the energy area but in the other 
areas of jurisdiction of this committee.
  I would say to the gentleman that we are going to be bringing forth a 
budget document. That will have a series of assumptions in it. Those 
assumptions will simply assure that you can in fact meet the budget 
targets we are going to lay out, but they are only that, they are 
assumptions.
  It is going to be the work of the authorizing committee to take those 
budget numbers and decide what the priorities are that our committee 
wishes to lay forth on the Nation. I think then that that will provide 
the kind of guidance that the appropriators will respond to, so there 
is going to have to be a lot of interactive work over the next several 
months here, but I think it is interactive work that will produce a far 
more stable policy than we have seen in the recent past.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would only conclude by saying that as a Member of the Committee on the 
Budget, our distinguished chairman will be able to make sure that we 
get that floor time and have these authorization bills come to the 
floor on time.
  Mr. WALKER. As I say to the gentleman, yes, I have had an opportunity 
to participate in the budget deliberations, but the budget 
deliberations should be seen only for what they are. They are a road 
map in terms of overall numbers, but it is going to be the work of our 
committee that is going to literally lay forth the policy, and I think 
that is the kind of important work this committee should be doing.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me continue that interesting discussion a little 
bit. First, I appreciate the dialog with regard to the need to move the 
authorization legislation ahead promptly, and I hope that the Chair of 
the Committee on Science will be able to do this.
  As I think I have pointed out to him, the way the schedule has 
slipped here, we may not actually see Committee on the Budget numbers 
for at least the 2 weeks that the gentleman referred to, possible a 
little bit longer, and the window for authorization bills is going to 
be correspondingly shorter. I know the gentleman recognizes that.
  If we have done all of the necessary preparatory work in the 
subcommittee and in the full committee, we can still move authorizing 
legislation, and I will assure the gentleman of my very strong desire 
to cooperate in this.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, referring to the caps situation, however, 
authorizing bills are caps. Appropriators cannot exceed those limits 
when it comes to spending money. What the gentleman has done in this 
bill is to authorize one program and in effect cap that, but then in 
addition to that, he has capped more than 10 times as much that are not 
in the subject matter of this bill; in other words, other forms of 
energy supply R&D.
  I would contend that is more appropriately done in the Committee on 
the Budget itself as it considers energy legislation, and I would make 
a bigger argument about it, and I will, probably, when my amendment 
comes up, but actually, as he well knows, the whole question may be 
moot if in fact the Committee on the Budget decides and the 
administration decides that we will have a reduction in energy 
expenditures over the next 3 years, in which case the cap, which I 
think is inappropriate to this bill, would nevertheless not have any 
impact, and I would see no harm in it at that point.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 655, and I commend the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Science for bringing 
this measure to the floor. I do, however, have several reservations, 
and I believe that they are shared by many on the Democratic side of 
the aisle.
  First, the bill elevates hydrogen research above all other research 
priorities at the Department of Energy. While I hope that hydrogen will 
be an important fuel in the future, I believe that other research and 
development programs in the Department are also important and deserve 
authorization.
  Second, H.R. 655 caps spending in the Energy Supply Research and 
Development account at fiscal year 1995 levels. All of us want us to 
cut the deficit, but I do not believe any of us advocate placing 
arbitrary caps on programs without a discussion of their merits. The 
Science Committee had no hearing record on these programs on which to 
base a decision. I suspect that the cap might be a political tactic to 
prove that more money will not be spent by the Department to cover the 
increases mandated in this bill.
  Finally, the increases authorized by the bill are higher than 
requested by an outside expert hydrogen advisory panel to the 
Department, and the Department has no plans to spend the additional 
funds. In this time of budget cutting, I cannot support sending money 
to programs that lack a plan to us it, while action plans are starved 
for proper funding.
  I am hopeful that these points will be addressed in the debate, and I 
look forward to an improved bill to send to the Senate. Hydrogen 
research, development, and demonstrations are important to our Nation's 
future, and I support the program authorized in the bill.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his statement. I 
understand his concerns. The only thing I would say to the gentleman is 
that the most recent update of the Hydrogen Technology Panel's numbers 
in fact indicate that that particular panel will have numbers that are 
more than what are in this bill, not less, so that we are in fact in 
the bill not coming up to what the panel is prepared to request.
  I have a letter here from what particular panel at the University of 
Hawaii making that case, so I think we are in the right range here, 
anyway, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7 
minutes to the distinguished gentlemen from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. I wish to use this time to engage in a colloquy.
  Recently, there has been a lot of talk in this body about the 
appropriate Federal role in funding technology development, much of it 
coming from the other side of the aisle as an attack on what is called 
corporate welfare. This criticism is generally directed at programs 
that were started in the Reagan and Bush administrations, but which 
have been greatly expanded in this administration as a useful way to 
develop good, high-technology jobs in the future. I am talking here 
about programs like the Advanced Technology Program at the Department 
of Commerce and the Technology Reinvestment Program at the Department 
of Defense.
  The Hydrogen Future Act is the first bill we have considered this 
year that would expand industry-Government partnerships in technology 
development. On its face, this bill seems to be aimed at promoting 
programs which are very similar to ATP or TRP.
  I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], 

[[Page H4471]] the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Technology of 
the Committee on Science, whether that is his understanding.
  Mr. TANNER. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  It is my understanding, the purpose of the bill before us is to fund 
research, development, and demonstrations in a particular technology 
that the bill's authors have chosen; namely, hydrogen. This work will 
be done primarily through government-industry partnerships, with 
industry supplying a substantial share of the funding. This is the same 
general formula used by ATP and TRP, except that their focus tends to 
be much broader; that is, ATP is applicable to many different 
technologies besides hydrogen.
  I would also like to add that the bill before us authorizes $31 
million above the recommendation of the Hydrogen Advisory Panel. 
Although I support government-industry partnerships promoted by this 
bill at its recommended funding level, currently supported industry 
programs will be cut to pay for this inflated hydrogen program. 
Meaningful, constructive research at various labs around the country 
such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, 
Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore will certainly have to pay the 
price.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I notice that the report on the hydrogen bill contains 
six criteria that the committee leadership endorses for prioritizing 
Federal R&D funding. Would it be useful to measure both the hydrogen 
program and the ATP against these same criteria?
  Mr. TANNER. If my colleague would continue to yield, I believe that 
it certainly would.
  First let's look at the hydrogen program. It appears that the 
hydrogen program authorized by this bill generally meets these 
criteria, although there are some close calls. For instance, the bill 
as introduced authorized 15 different demonstration projects, including 
a hydrogen jet engine and economically feasible hydrogen vehicles. The 
bill before us today would still allow any of these demonstration 
projects to be funded. However, while the economics of these 
demonstrations may be questionable, the basic technology no longer 
seems novel. Therefore, this bill may in fact violate the committee's 
criterion related to technical feasibility.
  On the other hand, if the hydrogen vehicles developed under this bill 
were to utilize novel, renewable energy technologies, then we would 
certainly conclude that the program is within the scope of these 
criteria for discovery.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I agree with the gentleman that the hydrogen program 
authorized by this bill is a useful R&D program, but it is questionable 
whether all of these hydrogen activities are revolutionary or 
pioneering or that in fact they are not evolutionary advances or 
incremental improvements. For instance, I would note that the program 
currently has a cost-shared, noncompetitive contract with Air Products 
and Chemicals Corp. to increase the thermal efficiency of hydrogen 
production from hydrocarbons from 85 to 93 percent, an incremental 8-
percent increase. This is useful, but it certainly could be considered 
incremental. It is not revolutionary, it is not pioneering, and, 
therefore, in my opinion would violate one of the committee's six 
criteria.
  I would ask the gentleman, if the hydrogen program authorized by this 
bill barely meets the six committee criteria, how then would you rate 
ATP against these same criteria?
  Mr. TANNER. I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], I 
believe ATP as currently structured easily meets the criteria. I have 
here an example from ATP's proposal preparation kit explaining what ATP 
does not fund.
  They do not fund precommercial scale demonstration projects where the 
emphasis is on demonstration that some technology works on a large 
scale rather than on R&D.
  They do not fund improvements of existing products.
  They do not fund product development.
  In short, ATP does fund the kind of long-term research and 
development which the committee report advocates.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I totally agree. From my experience, ATP awardees tend 
to be real entrepreneurs. Most have been rejected by venture 
capitalists who are less entrepreneurial than they are.
  Mr. TANNER. That is true. High-technology entrepreneurs have told us 
many times in hearings that ATP is the only U.S. program that is 
willing and able to meet their needs. Without ATP, they would have had 
to go overseas where foreign governments have established technology 
development climates that are more focused on future wealth than short-
term profits.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Am I missing something, then? Why do you think that some 
people have a philosophical problem with the ATP program but not with 
the hydrogen program?
  Mr. TANNER. This is the very same question the entrepreneurs who 
testified before our committee raised. They have expressed dismay at 
this apparent inconsistency.
  It seems to me that if you are for this hydrogen program and its 
approach, which I support at the recommended level, one would 
automatically embrace the ATP program enthusiastically. These programs 
are good for our country, they are good for our technological base, and 
they have proven their worth in the private sector. I hope that the 
Members will bear that in mind today as we vote and review and vote on 
the programs like ATP and TRP later this session.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I wish to thank the gentleman for participating in the 
colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue one other area that I briefly 
alluded to in the colloquy. That is, under the present program, the 
hydrogen program, a major billion-dollar corporation, multi-billion-
dollar corporation has the largest grant for hydrogen under the energy 
program, and it is for only an incremental approval of producing 
hydrogen from hydrocarbons, to move it from 85-percent efficiency to a 
93-percent efficiency.
  Where is that corporation located? My understanding, from an article 
in the science magazine that I have, it is located in Allentown, PA, 
and that some of its facilities are in Pennsylvania and in other 
places. It is my understanding also it is the largest hydrogen producer 
in the whole United States, if not in the world.
  Yet through its task force established to get more additional funds 
for hydrogen research, it comes here today to increase the amount that 
we give for hydrogen research so that they, this big company, billion-
dollar company, can get additional up to $40 million for further 
research, not into pioneering research, not into something brand new, 
but just for developmental research.
  At one time this bill, the original version of this bill, was even to 
give them money to come up with a better hydrogen-propelled motor 
vehicle. We have had hydrogen-propelled motor vehicles for a long 
period of time. That is nothing new at all. Why would we want to give 
millions of dollars more to a billion-dollar company? Mr. Chairman, I 
call that corporate welfare. I believe that any company that is this 
big can afford to do their own research.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would simply say that the colloquy that we just heard is the old 
order reasserting itself. It is interesting to note that the gentleman 
ignored the fact that this bill does concentrate on basic research and 
one of the complaints that he has is because the previous bill did not 
concentrate on basic research; this one does.
  With regard to the corporation in Pennsylvania, I am surprised that 
the gentleman from Missouri feels so badly about the district of his 
Democratic colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale], 
getting a benefit out of programs that have previously been done. The 
fact is that the money in Allentown, PA, goes to the district of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I think would probably disagree with 
the gentleman and would be in favor of this particular bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 655. As a new 
member of the Committee on Science, it has been interesting to listen 
to some of this debate today, but I must say that I have become more 
and more 
[[Page H4472]] enthusiastic about the long-term potential of hydrogen 
as a fuel.
  It has been said that what the mind of man can conceive and believe, 
it can achieve. I am convinced that long-term hydrogen power will 
happen, but I think it will happen faster if we give it this kind of a 
boost.
  The numbers that we are talking about in terms of the appropriation 
are relatively modest. As the chairman of the committee just alluded 
to, we focus on basic research rather than applied research. I have 
also come to the conclusion now, as a new member of this committee, 
that basic research is an important function of the Federal Government.
  In fact, a few years ago I had the opportunity to meet the gentleman 
from the 3M Company who developed the Post-It note. He said something I 
thought very important and very interesting. He said, ``If we knew what 
we were doing, it wouldn't be research.''
  There is a lot of research that goes on in this country that can be 
funded in the private sector. On the other hand, there is a lot that 
cannot and would not happen if we did not give it some kind of a boost 
at the Federal level.
  I have said, too, to some of my colleagues that a number of years ago 
we had a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin by the name of Proxmire. He was 
fond of giving out these Golden Fleece Awards. I think sometimes he 
probably did more harm than good with those Golden Fleece Awards, 
because many times he focused on basic research programs that the 
Federal Government was underwriting.
  I would remind him and my colleagues that some of the research that 
is done is very hard to justify at that particular point in time. I do 
not think that this one of those programs. I think this is one that 
will be easy to justify, and I think that our children, our 
grandchildren, and future generations of Americans will be happy and 
glad that we were willing to make some sacrifice to see that this 
program was funded in 1995.
  I support the bill; I think it is as strong as it needs to be; I do 
not think we need any amendments; and I hope we can send it to the 
Senate and ultimately perhaps to conference with the version that we 
have in front of us today.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, in reply to the words of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, it makes no difference to this gentleman where Air 
Products is located. It does make a difference to me that a 
corporation, a billion, billion, billion-dollar corporation, is coming 
to Washington and wanting a handout in order to help do some research 
that they have got fully enough money to do themselves.
  It makes no difference to me where that corporation is located. It 
does make a difference to me that it is corporate welfare, and I do not 
believe in corporate welfare.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Missouri for his position on 
corporate welfare. I would simply point out to the gentleman again that 
it was he who suggested there was something sinister in the fact that 
this particular corporation was in Pennsylvania.
  He was the one who raised that point, and I got the implication that 
it might have been directed at the fact that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is from Pennsylvania. The gentleman raised that point in 
the classic cheap-shot technique. In my view, he was in fact raising 
the geographic issue.

                              {time}  1500

  It is also worth pointing out, I think, that in the particular case 
of the project that the gentleman talked about, I in fact wrote the 
Department of Energy myself questioning the grant of that contract that 
I do not believe was done on a competitive basis, and so therefore I 
have raised questions myself about that particular contract.
  It is also worth noting to the gentleman that the actual research is 
being done in Texas under that program. Only the engineering is being 
done in Pennsylvania. The actual research work is being done in the 
district of another Democrat, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. 
So the gentleman was the one who raised the point.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I do not care where the research----
  Mr. WALKER. Why did the gentleman mention Pennsylvania?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I just made mention of it because the article that I 
read in the science magazine said that Air Products and Chemical 
Corporation is from Pennsylvania, Allentown, PA, is what it said.
  Mr. WALKER. That is right.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That is all I mentioned and I know it.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman indicated, I reclaim my time, and the 
gentleman indicated that that might have some bearing on the fact that 
the legislation is on the floor.
  And I am just saying that the gentleman is absolutely wrong, and he 
is even wrong with regard to his facts as to where the money is being 
spent. So I think that what we ought to do is talk about the substance 
of the bill. It is too bad the gentleman did not want to talk about the 
substance of the bill. The substance of the bill is that this is a 
hydrogen promotion program. It is in fact an attempt to make certain we 
have a good hydrogen program, and there may be lots of companies around 
the country that will benefit from that.
  But this is a basic science program, something the gentleman seems to 
ignore. This is about basic research; it is not about corporate 
welfare.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I picked a good time to come, did I not? I 
will try to get us out of this ditch here.
  I was on the Science Committee reluctantly, it is not one of my 
choices, but I am glad I am on it. I have really enjoyed it. The 
spirited debate here today has been fun.
  But hydrogen research is something I knew zero about when I came to 
Congress. I am excited about it too. And I understand the concerns of 
the gentleman from California about the cap and present funding, but we 
have to make some suggestions that are good for the country.
  And I am also against corporate welfare. There are some programs when 
analyzed over time I do not think have too good a report card grade 
about how we sent money to corporate America to develop energy sources 
of the future, but I think by capping the money we are making priority 
decisions, and that is what we need to do in the budget. We are putting 
$100 million over 3 years on hydrogen research, which means something 
else has to go. That is a political decision we have made up here, a 
bipartisan political decision that hydrogen is important.
  In about 18 months we are going to get a report card back and we will 
be graded about our judgment. I am willing to stand up here today and I 
say it is a good expenditure of the money, a good priority too, and 
overall I think it will help our country.
  One thing we cannot forget is we built airplanes and we built cars 
without any Government grants. Let us not get too far away from the 
idea in America that our best resource of the future is entrepreneurs 
in the private sector, but the Government does play a role. It should 
be a partner, but should not be the dominant partner.
  This is not about corporate welfare in my opinion. But in 18 months 
we will see the success of this program. I am optimistic, but if we are 
wrong, I will be the first one to say we were wrong and we made a 
mistake. But given the knowledge I have now, I think it is a good bill 
and I think we should press forward.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina that it may be 
beneficial not to know anything about hydrogen research to be a part of 
this debate here today.
  [[Page H4473]] Mr. Chairman, I rise in general support of H.R. 655. 
As a scientist I support hydrogen research, and one of the last 
research programs I worked on in my academic career was in fact a 
hydrogen fuel cell research program, and it was one of the most 
promising ways to utilize hydrogen as a fuel.
  The distinguished chairman of the committee claims that the Hydrogen 
Technical Advisory Panel has recommended more spending than is even 
included in H.R. 655, and indeed the distinguished chairman is correct 
if we include the demonstration projects that the HTAP believers should 
be done, but the distinguished chairman has opposed the inclusion of 
those demonstration projects and in fact they are not included in the 
legislation.
  Under those circumstances, I wonder why we would be offering funding 
or defending funding as high as would include those demonstration 
projects. As an aside, I would say I believe we ought to be authorizing 
demonstration projects as proposed by the HTAP, but they are not 
included in the legislation and we should not be authorizing funding 
for them.
  So a little bit later I am going to offer an amendment that would 
provide for exactly the amount of funding in this bill that would 
provide for the research and development that the HTAP calls for, that 
HTAP is essentially a peer review panel for the whole program. Peer 
review panels are something that the chairman very strongly supports, 
as I support also. But I would strip out of it in the amendment I will 
offer later funding which goes beyond what is authorized in the bill 
and what is recommended by the HTAP panel and its recommendations, and 
I will offer that amendment at a later time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is sincere in what he said, but I 
have a letter here from the chairman of HTAP, the Hydrogen Technical 
Assistance Panel, Pat Takabashi, and he simply says there was an error 
made that the gentleman is now going to evidently try to compound. It 
says:

       I can see why there was an erroneous interpretation that 
     HTAP was advocating a figure lower than the $25 million, $35 
     million, and $40 million sums indicated in 104-95. We should 
     keep in mind that Year Zero's $7 million represented fiscal 
     '94. Year One was a reflection of what we thought fiscal '95 
     (current year of expenditure) would be, and Year Two the 
     first year of your bill. Thus, your $25 million is actually 
     lower than the $28 million advocated in the HTAP report.

  So, in fact, the chairman of the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel is 
saying that the figures used in our bill are actually lower than what 
their request is, and I think that should be a part of the debate as we 
move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 2 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret that some of this debate has appeared to 
wander a little bit afield from the essence of the bill before us. I 
think we have pretty much concurred that the continued support of 
hydrogen research is a good thing to do, and that the bill will do it. 
There is some question about the exact level, which coincides with the 
recommendation of the advisory committee, but in the overall scheme of 
things that is not all that important.
  In my opinion, the primary objection to the bill has to do with the 
extraneous matter of the cap on the energy supply research and 
development in general, and as I indicated in earlier debate, even that 
point may be moot because it will depend on whether additional changes 
are made through the budget process that would reduce the budget of the 
Department of Energy in that and other categories.
  So let me just conclude by saying what we have here is an essentially 
good bill which I intend to support which is complicated by a few 
extraneous matters which have been attached by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] in pursuit of his desire to constrain 
spending, which I think most of us would agree has merit, but I differ 
rather strongly with the methodology which he is using in order to 
achieve that end.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hydrogen 
Future Act. Hydrogen research has long had broad, bipartisan support, 
and with good reason: Hydrogen has the potential to be a cheap, clean, 
and efficient fuel.
  As one of the strongest environmentalists in this Congress, I believe 
we need to do everything possible to develop such resources. Regulation 
and improvements in internal combustion technology can only get us so 
far. Our greatest hope for a future of economic prosperity and 
environmental health is to develop new propulsion technologies, such as 
hydrogen.
  This bill will bring government, universities, and industry together 
to conduct research on hydrogen in a way that would not happen without 
government involvement. And the bill ensures that the Government would 
be active only in research that would not occur absent its assistance. 
That is a sensible R&D policy directed at an important end.
  Hydrogen research has not been a source of controversy in the past. 
And there is no technical reason that it should be controversial now. I 
urge all my colleagues to support this work to develop an 
environmentally benign fuel.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in 
the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute rule by sections, and 
pursuant to the rule, each section shall be considered as read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hydrogen Future Act of 
     1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in 
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) fossil fuels, the main energy source of the present, 
     have provided this country with tremendous supply but are 
     limited and polluting;
       (2) additional basic research and development are needed to 
     encourage private sector investment in development of new and 
     better energy sources and enabling technologies;
       (3) hydrogen holds tremendous promise as a fuel, because it 
     can be extracted from water and can be burned much more 
     cleanly than conventional fuels;
       (4) hydrogen production efficiency is a major technical 
     barrier to society collectively benefiting from one of the 
     great energy sources of the future;
       (5) an aggressive, results-oriented, multiyear research 
     initiative on efficient hydrogen fuel production and use 
     should continue; and
       (6) the current Federal effort to develop hydrogen as a 
     fuel is inadequate.
     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide for a basic research, development, and 
     demonstration program leading to the production, storage, 
     transport, and use of hydrogen for industrial, residential, 
     transportation, and utility applications; and
       (2) to provide for advice from academia and the private 
     sector in the implementation of the Department of Energy 
     hydrogen research, development, and demonstration program to 
     ensure that economic benefits of the program accrue to the 
     United States.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``demonstration'' means a validation of the 
     technical feasibility of a theory or process;
       (2) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy; 
     and
       (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.

     SEC. 5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (A) Authorized Activities.--Pursuant to this section, the 
     Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and 
     Demonstration Act of 1990 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
     and in accordance with the purposes of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall provide for a hydrogen energy research, 
     development, and demonstration program relating to 
     production, storage, transportation, and use of hydrogen, 
     with the goal of enabling the private sector to demonstrate 
     the technical feasibility of using hydrogen for industrial, 
     residential, transportation, and utility applications. In 
     establishing priorities for Federal funding under this 
     section, the Secretary shall survey private sector hydrogen 
     activities and take steps to ensure that activities under 
     this section do not displace or compete with 
     [[Page H4474]] the privately funded hydrogen activities of 
     United States industry.
       (b) Schedule.--Within 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the later of this Act or an Act providing 
     appropriations for programs authorized by this Act, the 
     Secretary shall solicit proposals for all interested parties 
     (including the Department's laboratories) for carrying out 
     the research, development, and demonstration activities 
     authorized under this section. Within 180 days after such 
     solicitation, if the Secretary identifies proposals worthy of 
     Federal assistance, financial assistance shall be awarded 
     under this section competitively, using peer review of 
     proposals with appropriate protection of proprietary 
     information. The Secretary shall use appropriations 
     authorized by this Act that are not allocated for such awards 
     to carry out research, development, and demonstration 
     activities in accordance with the purposes of this Act.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--(1) Except as otherwise provided in 
     section 6, for research and development proposals funded 
     under this Act, the Secretary shall require a commitment from 
     non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent of the cost of the 
     proposed program. The Secretary may reduce or eliminate the 
     non-Federal requirement under this paragraph if the Secretary 
     determines that the research and development is of such a 
     purely basic or fundamental nature that a non-Federal 
     commitment is not obtainable.
       (2) The Secretary shall require at least 50 percent of the 
     costs directly and specifically related to any demonstration 
     project under this Act to be provided from non-Federal 
     sources. The Secretary may reduce the non-Federal requirement 
     under this paragraph if the Secretary determines that the 
     reduction is unnecessary and appropriate considering the 
     technological risks involved in the project and is necessary 
     to serve the purposes and goals of this Act.
       (3) In calculating the amount of the non-Federal commitment 
     under paragraph (1) or (2), the Secretary shall include cash, 
     and the fair market value of personnel, services, equipment, 
     and other resources.
       (d) Certifications.--Before financial assistance is 
     provided under this section or the Spark M. Matsunaga 
     Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 
     1990--
       (1) the Secretary must certify that providing such 
     financial assistance is consistent with the Agreement on 
     Subsidies and Countervailing Measures described in section 
     771(8) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(8)); and
       (2) industry participants must certify that they have made 
     reasonable efforts to obtain non-Federal funding for the 
     entire cost of the project, and that such non-Federal funding 
     could not be reasonably obtained.
       (e) Duplication of Programs.--The Secretary shall not carry 
     out any activities under this section that unnecessarily 
     duplicate activities carried out elsewhere by the Federal 
     Government or the private sector.

     SEC. 6. HIGHLY INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.

       Of the amounts made available for carrying out section 5, 
     up to 5 percent shall be used to support research on highly 
     innovative energy technologies. Such amounts shall not be 
     subject to the cost sharing requirements in section 5(c).

     SEC. 7. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.

       The Secretary shall foster the exchange of generic, 
     nonproprietary information and technology, developed pursuant 
     to section 5, among industry, academia, and the Federal 
     Government. The Secretary shall ensure that economic
      benefits of such exchange of information and technology will 
     accrue to the United States economy.

     SEC. 8. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       Within 18 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     the Congress a detailed report on the status and progress of 
     the Department's hydrogen research and development program. 
     Such report shall include an analysis of the effectiveness of 
     such program, to be prepared and submitted by the Hydrogen 
     Technical Advisory Panel established under section 108 of the 
     Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and 
     Demonstration Act of 1990. Such Panel shall also make 
     recommendations for improvements to such program if needed, 
     including recommendations for additional legislation.

     SEC. 9. COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION.

       (a) Coordination With Other Federal Agencies.--The 
     Secretary shall coordinate all hydrogen research and 
     development activities within the Department, and with the 
     activities of other Federal agencies involved in similar 
     research and development, including the Department of 
     Defense, the Department of Transportation, and the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration. Further, the Secretary 
     shall pursue opportunities for cooperation with such Federal 
     entities.
       (b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the 
     Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel established under section 
     108 of the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, 
     and Demonstration Act of 1990 as necessary in carrying out 
     this Act.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) General Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act--
       (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; and
       (3) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
       (b) Related Authorizations.--(1) For each of the fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, and 1998, the total amount which may be 
     obligated for Energy Supply Research and Development 
     Activities shall not exceed the total amount obligated for 
     such activities in fiscal year 1995.
       (2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not authorize the 
     appropriation of any Federal funds.
              amendment offered by mr. brown of california

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California: Page 4, lines 
     14 and 15, strike ``(including the Department's 
     laboratories)''.
       Page 4, line 17, insert ``The Secretary may consider a 
     proposal from a contractor who manages and operates a 
     Department facility under contract with the Department, and 
     the contractor may perform the work at that facility or any 
     other facility.'' after ``authorized under this section.''.

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this is essentially a 
technical amendment which I think the chairman of the committee has 
agreed to. It clarifies the question of whether a Department of Energy 
laboratory may compete for an award under this bill, and as I 
understand it this is in accordance with the gentleman's feelings about 
the bill.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman on this. The 
staffs did work together closely with the Department of Energy on these 
changes. I thank the staffs for that. I think it is a good amendment. 
The change will clarify the intent of the bill as to the language 
concerning the involvement of the Department of Energy laboratories 
with the hydrogen program.
  The intent of the bill was to allow the laboratories to participate 
in Department programs, and this change reflects this intent. I would 
ask our colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Traficant: Page 7, line 8, insert ``, 
     with particular emphasis on activities carried out pursuant 
     to section 7 of this Act'' after ``research and development 
     program''.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, during the amendment process and markup 
I was able to include language which says the Secretary shall ensure 
that economic benefits of such exchange of information and technology 
accrue to the U.S. economy.
  My amendment simply says when we get a report back, as this bill 
requires, that it would give some emphasis to in fact if that accrual 
of benefit to the U.S. economy has occurred, and give us some 
information in that regard.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to support the gentleman's 
amendment, and would urge other Members to do the same.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California, the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. We agree with the gentleman with regard to the need for this 
amendment, and have no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote in the affirmative.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                    amendment offered by mr. walker

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 4, line 1, insert 
     ``basic'' after ``hydrogen energy''.
       Page 5, line 2, strike ``and development''.
       Page 5, line 4, strike ``20'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``25''.
       Page 5, lines 7 and 8, strike ``and development''.
       Page 5, line 11, insert ``development or'' after ``related 
     to any''.
       [[Page H4475]] Page 5, line lines 13 through 21, strike 
     ``The Secretary may'' and all that follows through ``and 
     other resources.''.
       Page 5, line 22, insert ``and Requirements'' after 
     ``Certifications''.
       Page 6, line 1, strike ``certify'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``ensure''.
       Page 6, lines 3 through 5, strike ``described in section 
     771(8) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(8))'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``as approved in section 101 of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511)''.
       Page 6, line 17, insert ``basic'' after ``used to 
     support''.

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that will clarify the 
intent of the bill by conforming the bill language to the GATT language 
adopted in the Uruguay round.
  The two main changes made in language reflect raising the 20-percent 
cost-share for research programs to a 25-percent cost-share as required 
by GATT, and changing the referenced GATT citation to the Uruguay round 
itself.
  This language regarding Federal funding of research became effective 
January 1 of this year.
  Staff has worked with the Department of Energy on the intent of this 
amendment.
  I would ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked as was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, because this legislation 
provides for cooperative funding of research and development with 
private industry, it falls within the purview of certain GATT 
provisions which deal with this.

                              {time}  1515

  And Mr. Walker's amendment seeks to resolve the issue of whether or 
not this comports with GATT by the language which he has offered.
  It is our view that in doing so he has created additional problems 
which need to be resolved that are going to be extremely difficult to 
resolve because of the fact that it is not clear exactly what the 
definition of some of the terms being used within the bill and within 
his amendment is. This situation is an interesting one, because it is 
the first time that we have had to attempt to reconcile legislation 
involving what might be considered legislation involving what might be 
considered U.S. Government subsidies to industry, and it is important 
that we do it in a proper way.
  I had originally intended to offer some language which I thought 
would resolve this more effectively, but I have decided merely in this 
statement to try and clarify the situation and to express my hope that 
as we go forward that we can have further consultative process with the 
administration and that perhaps when the bill gets to the other body, 
as I hope that it will, we can resolve this issue of the proper 
language to accommodate the bill to the GATT provisions in a fashion 
which is satisfactory to the administration, to the Department of 
Energy and hopefully to those people who are trying to interpret GATT.
  At this point, I am going to content myself with expressing my 
feeling that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker] does not resolve the problem and, hence, I am going to 
oppose it, but I will not ask for a rollcall vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment is intended to try to fix 
a problem in the bill that arises from new language in the GATT 
Agreement which we approved in the last Congress. The new GATT rules 
fix an upper limit on the amount of Government subsidies that can be 
given to certain kinds of industry-related research, development, and 
demonstration efforts.
  Unfortunately, GATT's definitions of the key terms do not mesh with 
the terms ``research, development, and demonstration'' terms which we 
traditionally use, not only in this particular bill, but throughout the 
wide range of Government R&D programs. This bill marks the first time 
Congress has had to grapple with these difficult definitional problems. 
Unfortunately, this problem was only recently called to our attention, 
and we have not had much time to consider careful solutions.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania attempts to 
force a rough solution to this delicate problem. To achieve superficial 
compliance with GATT, the amendment would treat all development 
activities under the bill as what GATT refers to as precompetitive 
development activities. It is certainly not clear to me that many of 
the activities which we would call development fall within the GATT 
term. Indeed, the GATT term seems much closer to the activities that we 
would traditionally call demonstration activities.
  The net effect of this amendment would be to increase the private 
sector cost-share requirement for development activities, from the 20 
percent set out in the bill as reported to 50 percent. In my view, the 
development stage of research is entirely too early to require such a 
large private sector cost share. At this point in the process, any 
potential commercialization of a product or process is entirely 
speculative, and the technical risks of failure are generally high. The 
result is that a high mandatory cost-share will drive industry away 
from investing in hydrogen development, with the exact opposite result 
of what the sponsors of this bill hope: Less innovation, less private 
sector investment, and slower progress toward the development of 
hydrogen.
  My preference would have been to adopt an amendment which simply 
requires the DOE to administer the cost-sharing requirements in 
accordance with GATT, and leave to the administration the untidy task 
of determining precisely what compliance requires for the particular 
programs at issue. After all, this issue will have to be addressed by 
the administration under numerous other research and development 
programs, and we typically leave to the administration the task of 
interpreting and carry out our international obligations.
  If this amendment is adopted, I would urge the distinguished 
gentleman to consult with the administration on this point as the bill 
goes forward and see if some better solution could be developed.
  For the reasons noted above, I oppose the amendment, and urge a 
``no'' vote.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

                     amendment offered by mr. olver

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Olver: Page 8, line 9, strike 
     ``$25,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$16,000,000''.
       Page 8, line 10, strike ``$35,000,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$22,000,000''.
       Page 8, line 11, strike ``$40,000,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$26,000,000''.

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we obviously have some contention here about 
numbers, but I think I am correct on the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It reduces the authorized 
levels of spending in H.R. 655 by a total of $36 million over 3 years.
  On March 1, 1995, the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel released its 
recommendations for the future of the hydrogen research program. The 
Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel, or HTAP, is a panel of professionals 
from industry, universities, and government, specifically convened to 
provide expert advice to the Department of Energy on the development of 
hydrogen programs. This panel's work represents essentially peer review 
of the overall research program.
  HTAP has adopted as its long-range goal that ``hydrogen join 
electricity in the 21st century as a primary energy carrier in the 
Nation's sustainable energy future,'' and HTAP has laid out a 20-year 
budget plan to achieve that goal.
  My amendment simply adopts the level of funding proposed in the 
advisory panel's recommendations for research and development 
activities. As an aside, I believe we ought to also authorize the 
demonstration projects as proposed by HTAP, but since the bill does not 
authorize such demonstration projects, it would make no sense to 
authorize funds for those demonstration projects. Therefore, my 
amendment would authorize the hydrogen research program at the levels 
that have been listed in the amendment. It does not cut hydrogen 
research funding. In fact, it doubles the authorization for hydrogen 
research compared with current spending. However, my amendment 
[[Page H4476]] does cut $36 million from the authorization levels 
proposed in the bill, and it is achieved by limiting the funding 
increase to what the people involved in the program, the industry and 
outside academics alike, have said they need.
  So you can vote to save $36 million, and yet you can rest assured 
there is full funding for the research program as requested by the 
professional advisory panel, except, of course, for the demonstration 
projects which are not included in the authorization.
  As a scientist, I support hydrogen research. In my academic career, I 
personally have done research on fuel cells, one of the most promising 
ways to utilize hydrogen as a fuel.
  As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I do not see why anyone 
thinks we should spend more money than even proponents of the program 
think is needed.
  The Members of this House have spent the last 100 days cutting 
spending. We have cut lunches. We have cut fuel assistance. We have cut 
safe drinking water moneys for our towns. We are going to spend the 
next 100 days cutting spending. We will cut the Department of Energy. 
We may even eliminate the Department of Energy.
  So I challenge each Member then to figure out why we, on this first 
day back, are increasing spending on this program by at least 300 
percent above the current program, and far above what the professionals 
in the field think is necessary.
  Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the distinguished chairman of 
the committee, will say that the budget cap in the bill will prevent 
increases in the hydrogen program from increasing Federal overall 
spending, but if the spending is unjustified, none of us should be 
mollified that it is offset by cuts to other programs.
  Let us restore a measure of reasonableness to this program to adopt 
the advisory panel's recommendations and save $36 million.
  I would urge Members to vote yes on the amendment, and I would point 
out the letter that is being circulated in regard to this expenditure 
level includes the demonstration projects, the moneys that are listed 
which are, indeed, numbers above the numbers in the authorization in 
the legislation that that recommendation from the HTAP includes the 
demonstration projects which are not authorized and which the chairman 
has opposed.
  I would urge the Members vote to reduce this authorization to what is 
included as authorized in the legislation and to what the HTAP panel 
has recommended in their 20-year budget for the development of the 
hydrogen research program.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment saves no money. There is no 
savings here. We are simply talking about how much money you are 
willing to put into a hydrogen research effort.
  The whole intent behind this bill is to reprioritize hydrogen in the 
overall research scheme. Why is that necessary? Well, because hydrogen 
has had a very minor role. It is an energy source, an energy resource 
with a very, very great potential that has been virtually ignored by 
the Department of Energy.
  Now, the gentleman tells us that he is doing this because of guidance 
from the Hydrogen Technology Assessment Panel. The fact is that the 
HTAP recommendations are higher than what is in the bill and very much 
higher than the amendment that the gentleman offers. Now, he says this 
relates to demonstration programs. I am not real hot on doing 
demonstration projects. The gentleman is absolutely right on that.
  The fact is under amendments adopted in the committee, there are 
demonstration projects in the bill. Now, they have to be peer reviewed. 
They have to meet standards and so on. But the fact is the bill makes 
allowances for demonstration projects.
  It is not one of the things I think is the greatest piece of the 
bill, but the fact is they are there.
  But what the gentleman is really doing is he is cutting back on the 
prioritization of hydrogen. That is what his intent is. This is not 
saving any money because of the cap. It just simply is that he does not 
agree we ought to spend as much money prioritizing hydrogen. I think we 
ought to understand where he is going to put the money. He is going to 
put the money into solar R&D, which already gets $400 million. He is 
going to put the money into fusion that already gets $370 million. He 
is going to put the money into nuclear R&D that already gets $300 
million.
  Now, when you are talking about a $25 million hydrogen program, it is 
not even in the same league as these other programs, and yet what the 
gentleman is going to do is come out here and protect the old order, 
just keep everything in place that is now there, Keep spending money 
for things like fossil R&D and solar R&D, fusion R&D, nuclear R&D, and 
all of these kinds of things, all of the programs that have
 been prioritized over the past. The gentleman would say keep them in 
place, do not touch them, let us let the old order prevail. This is all 
fine and well.

  We are actually attempting to do something that is a little different 
here. We are attempting to move away from the old structure of the past 
and build a program up that deserves a little bit of prioritization.
  The gentleman does not want to move in that direction. I think that 
is sincere. He can be very sincere. If he is antihydrogen, he is 
antihydrogen. That is fine. Let us not suggest that what he is doing is 
in line with what the hydrogen program wants. The hydrogen program has 
said the figures they want is $28 million in 1996, $37 million in 1997, 
and in 1998 they want $48 million.
  This bill does not give them as much as they are requesting, but the 
fact is it is in an order of magnitude that is little bit more and does 
begin to reprioritize the program. That is what I am attempting to do.
  But we ought not accept anything in the gentleman's argument that 
suggests that he saves a dime. He does not save a dime with his 
amendment. All he does is he says that we are going to spend more money 
for things like solar and fusion and nuclear instead of spending it on 
hydrogen.
  I just happen to think that is the wrong set of priorities, and the 
gentleman's amendment in that regard is the wrong direction to go. We 
ought to reprioritize our research. Our research has gone badly in 
terms of prioritization in the past. We ought to begin to reprioritize.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I never mind being called correctly for what I am doing, but I must 
say that the thought-for-word ratio there is very low in the 
gentleman's comment.
  I am not antihydrogen. I have said quite plainly in the beginning 
that I am prohydrogen research. I am even a scientist who has done 
research on fuel cell technology and hydrogen-based fuel cells. I am 
for hydrogen research.
  I am not, as the amendment is very clear, so let us be quite, quite 
specific about this, when the gentleman says that I am for more nuclear 
R&D and solar R&D and fusion R&D, and whatever other R&D's he is 
talking about, my amendment does nothing of the sort. All it does is 
reduce the amount in this particular authorization for the hydrogen 
research so that that comes from the essentially peer review panel, the 
HTAP panel which works on this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. I would like to end this so the gentleman will have time 
to take part. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Now, the gentleman says that there are demonstrations allowed in the 
legislation, but I would point out, and I am sure he agrees with this, 
that the demonstrations allowed in the legislation and authorized by 
the legislation are limited to the validation of the technical 
feasibility of theory or process and the demonstrations which are part 
of HTAP's program of their development of hydrogen as a fuel, the 
demonstrations are utility demonstrations, transportation 
demonstration, remote 
[[Page H4477]] transportation production demonstration, clearly not 
related to the validation of the technical feasibility of theory or 
process.
  And so the demonstrations that are included in their budget, in the 
HTAP-proposed budget are not authorized by the legislation, and we 
should not be authorizing money for the bill.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for his opinion. The fact is we are 
trying to reprioritize some of the things going on in the program as 
well. All the gentleman is doing is cutting back our ability to do 
that. The gentleman is not reducing moneys overall, here.
  The only reason I am saying what he is doing is protecting other R&D 
programs such as nuclear R&D is because they are in the same account. 
If, in fact, what we are doing is capping the account and the gentleman 
simply wants to spend less for hydrogen, the fact is what he is doing 
is giving more money to these old order programs. The only comment I am 
making is the old order would continue to stand tall in the gentleman's 
amendment, and instead of getting some new solutions with some new 
ideas, moving toward a new resource, that the gentleman would cut back 
on our ability to do that.
  In my view, he is offering an amendment that is well below that which 
the HTAP panel has suggested are the right numbers.
  Now, whether HTAP wants to spend those in ways different, my point is 
that all of that ought to be peer reviewed, that we ought to have a way 
of figuring out whether or not there is good science involved.
  Reject the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Olver] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to expend more money on any 
of the other places.
  We can make cuts in those, those places where it is appropriate to 
make cuts through the reprioritization of our expenditure programs 
which I think is what we are really trying to do, to reprioritize how 
the expenditures in the Department of Energy should go.

                              {time}  1330

  And the proposals here, even if correctly calculated, and taking out 
those demonstrations, which all the words aside, if demonstrations 
which are not of a nature that deal with the validation of the 
technical feasibility of the theory or process are not authorized in 
the legislation, then those demonstrations that the HTAP is suggesting 
ought to be done, which I think ought to be done actually; those are 
not possible to be done under the provisions of the legislation, and we 
should be authorizing money that is appropriately based upon the 
legislation that we are passing. I think we should be eliminating 
unnecessary spending wherever we can make that elimination.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] require any additional time?
  Mr. Chairman, I will not prolong this unduly. I think that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts has propounded a reasonable amendment that 
would conform to our previous practice which is, in general, to try to 
authorize not higher than what has been suggested by the official 
technical advisor groups that are responsible for a particular program, 
or if it is a recommendation from the administration not higher than 
the administration has recommended. I am somewhat constrained in my 
enthusiasm for the amendment because I think I tend to agree with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that this is a program which 
has been underfunded in the past, but the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] in my opinion would comport 
with what I think is the view of most Members of the House, that we 
confined the increases in programs to those that can be justified on 
the basis of technical recommendations.
  Now I understand the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] is that his figures do comply with those technical 
recommendations. I am not wholly assured that they do, but he may be 
justified in that position.
  On balance I would like to support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] and ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 214, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--214

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     [[Page H4478]] Oxley
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Clay
     Fattah
     Gallegly
     Hilliard
     Istook
     Menendez
     Moakley
     Moran
     Norwood
     Pelosi
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Saxton
     Thompson
     Wilson
     Wise

                              {time}  1552

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Norwood against.

  Messrs. ALLARD, EWING, GUNDERSON, UPTON, BENTSEN, and SMITH of 
Michigan changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PACKARD, ZIMMER, SCHUMER, TIAHRT, WAXMAN, and PORTER changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?

              amendment offered by mr. brown of california

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California: Page 8, line 
     7, strike ``(a) General Authorization.--''.
       Page 8, lines 12 through 18, strike subsection (b).

  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to 
strike the provisions in the bill which put a cap on the 1995 outlay 
level on the expenditures on energy supply research and development.
  Now, let me explain this amendment. It is very simple. It just 
eliminates the cap language which occupies a few lines in the bill.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, has asserted that the 
purpose of the cap language is to make sure that the bill itself is 
budget neutral, that it does not add to spending in the Department of 
Energy. The gentleman is being unduly modest in this respect. The cap 
language would appear at this particular time, and before the 1996 
spending level has been determined, to cut the spending in this account 
by $250 million, plus or minus a little bit. This cutoff $250 million 
is intended to offset the additional expenditures, which amount to some 
few tens of millions of dollars contained in this bill.
  So the actual reductions in the Department of Energy spending not 
only cover the cost of the increases, the minor increases in this bill, 
which I support, but they overcompensate by probably 10 times the 
amount.
                              {time}  1600

  Now, if the purpose of the bill, of the cap was to offset the cost of 
the increases in hydrogen research spending, I would 100 percent 
support it. I want the bill to be budget neutral. But if it cuts 10 
times as much as the bill spends, then I think it is a first step 
toward the dismantling of the research budget of the Department of 
Energy.
  Now, that may well occur, but it is not appropriate to use this minor 
bill as a vehicle for determining future energy research expenditures 
for the next 3 years. That is appropriately the role of the Committee 
on the Budget, the role of the administration, the role of the 
Committee on Appropriations, but not the role of this particular bill. 
So I am objecting very strongly to this device.
  Now, as I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], he 
continues to assert that the purpose of the cap language is to make 
sure that this bill is budget neutral and that, if we can find other 
language that is better than the cap to do that, I gather that he would 
support it. I suggest that he look for that language in the Committee 
on the Budget, which he also serves on, and include it there, rather 
than in this bill.
  I will not try and belabor this point, Mr. Chairman. You do not need 
to make $250 million in cuts to support a bill that adds $25 million to 
the cost of hydrogen research. What you will do, as a result of these 
cuts, is to force cuts in all of the other programs, which I am sure is 
what we will have to make eventually, but this is not the way to make 
them. We will force cuts which will have an impact on every laboratory 
of the Department of Energy, including Los Alamos and Livermore and 
Argonne and Savannah River and all of the others which are now in 
discussion, are now being discussed in terms of what our future policy 
should be.
  The discussion has not ended; it has not been resolved. We do not 
have an answer. Yet here in this bill we are going to force that 
quarter of a billion dollars per year cut without any guidelines, 
without any knowledge of what the impact will be. I very much object to 
that process, not to the funding of this bill by offsets. As I have 
said, I would be glad to support a bill directed at that. But this is 
not the way to do it. I object very strongly, and I ask support for my 
amendment to remove the caps.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering to section 10(b) of 
this bill would eliminate the authorization cap on Energy Supply 
Research and Development [R&D] activities conducted at the Department 
of Energy [DOE]. In offering this amendment I want to make it clear 
that I support hydrogen research and even feel that this research can 
be offset by reductions in other energy R&D programs. But the caps 
contained in H.R. 655 are arbitrary, have little to do with thoughtful 
energy policy, and are directed at a broader effort to cut DOE 
programs, beyond the amount needed to offset the cost of this bill. I 
feel strongly that until these issues are addressed, we cannot go 
forward with the caps as currently written.
  The major problem with this language is that it is a poorly disguised 
attempt to arbitrarily cut the DOE research budget. The accounts under 
the Energy Supply R&D heading total around $3.3 billion dollars per 
year. The cap imposed by this bill cuts outlays in these programs by 
$250 million in fiscal year 96 and an unknown amount in the next 2 
fiscal years. But the program authorization for the hydrogen research, 
which is the supposed reason for this legislation, runs between $25 and 
$40 million per year over the next 3 years.
  Thus, the caps cut much more than is envisioned being spent on the 
hydrogen research. The hydrogen research funding is the tail wagging 
the dog, and the dog is major program reductions across the board in 
Energy Supply R&D. If the goal of H.R. 655 is to cut DOE funding, let's 
do it in a broad authorization bill. If the goal of H.R. 655 is to 
offset the cost of the hydrogen research authorized in this bill, then 
lets find appropriate offsets and identify them. But let's not bring up 
a hydrogen research authorization that is really a trojan horse for 
other political goals, namely the first move toward the dismantlement 
of DOE.
  Beyond these questions about the true motivation for imposing these 
caps, I also object to the rather arbitrary nature of the language in 
H.R. 655. There is no mention of any process by which the 
Appropriations Committees or the Secretary of Energy are to make 
decisions about which programs to cut. No priorities are established. 
No vision about our future energy supply mix is outlined. No reference 
is made to the existing omnibus energy policy document, the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992.
  What the bill does is authorize a modest research program and then, 
almost as an aside, in the next-to-last paragraph of the bill, draw in 
the entire $3.3 billion Energy Supply R&D program and cut $250 million 
from it in the first year.
  Where are these cuts to be made? Who knows? Under the heading of 
Energy Supply R&D are a wide range of programs all put at risk under 
this bill. Will the cuts come to the fusion program or the TPX at 
Princeton, NJ? Will the Environmental Restoration program be used as an 
offset, possibly forcing non-compliance issues at DOE facilities around 
the country? Will the fossil fuel research programs be cut, reducing 
oil and gas or coal research? Will we have to cut operating time at DOE 
user facilities, delaying industry research at these sites? Do the cuts 
hit the DOE labs at Argonne, Livermore, Albuquerque, Oak Ridge, and 
numerous other sites around the country? Unfortunately, no one on the 
floor today can 
[[Page H4479]] answer these questions. The truth of the matter is that 
we do not know what we are voting for in this bill.
  When I was chair of the Science Committee, we tried to move a series 
of authorization bills to address these issues. We tried to set out 
relative priorities for funding and indicate the importance of various 
programs at DOE. We did not succeed, but at least we tried to do a 
comprehensive job of authorizing DOE programs.
  Mr. Walker now faces that task and I pledge to help him work on a 
comprehensive DOE research authorization. In that bill, at that time, 
we need to discuss the broad goals and priorities of our Nation's 
energy R&D programs. In that bill, we can debate offsets, program 
reductions, and a host of other policy issues. Mr. Walker will, I 
believe, agree with me on the need for a comprehensive look at DOE's 
programs.
  In fact, Mr. Walker endorsed this approach last year in a similar 
debate on a similar proposal for an energy R&D cap. Last August, during 
floor debate on H.R. 4908, the Hydrogen, Fusion, and High Energy and 
Nuclear Physics Authorization Act, Mr. Walker agreed that his 
preference was for a full authorization for the entire range of energy 
programs, rather than a simple cap. He is now in a position to propose 
a comprehensive authorization.
  Where today is the debate on the proper funding level for nuclear 
energy R&D, or a discussion on the proper allocation of resources to 
the DOE labs, or the funding needs for environmental restoration? We 
are not having a debate on anything other than a small hydrogen 
research program yet we are affecting all of these other programs. If 
you are concerned about the DOE energy portfolio, if you have a DOE lab 
in your district, if you have interests in energy R&D, you will join me 
in striking the caps and asking Mr. Walker for a chance to debate this 
important issue in the open, instead of seeing funding priorities for a 
$3.3 billion program stuck at the tail end of the Hydrogen Future Act.
  All I am asking for in this amendment is a chance to do what Mr. 
Walker has said he wants to do. I feel that we should strike the 
authorization caps until we have a chance to debate all of the other 
programs touched by this language.
  Vote for the Brown amendment. Vote for regular order.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, what funny roles we have as we change. Now the last 
debate was over whether we should cut the hydrogen fuels program. The 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I both support the hydrogen 
fuels program but he felt constrained to cut $10 million a year. Now we 
are going to take the caps off. And go ahead, Katie bar the door, let 
us spend more on this and spend more on that, we will spend more on the 
nuclear programs, spend more on the hydrogen program, spend more on 
biomass and every other kind of research program for energy.
  We want to set responsible levels. And this cap does that. The fact 
that we have increased slightly by around $10 million a year the 
hydrogen fuels spending does not mean we have to take the cap off and 
allow this Government to continue to spend in excess year after year. 
Let us keep these responsible levels. Let us keep the cap and vote 
against this amendment.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise as strong opponent of the arbitrary cap on research and 
in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown].
  I believe that having spent now 3 weeks in Silicon Valley and 
listening to the CEOs of the most exciting and productive companies in 
our Nation that the key to our economic future is research and learning 
new things and cutting-edge endeavors. I believe that putting a cap on 
this research area will have an unfortunate and hopefully and quite 
possibly unintended consequence.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] really 
picks one promising area of research out of all, and that is this 
hydrogen bill before us. I agree that hydrogen research is worthy of 
exploration and may, in fact, play a useful role in our country's 
future. But it is only one of a rich environment of research 
possibilities that include solar and even more excitingly fusion 
research. If we are going to put a cap on the amount of money that will 
be spent in this environment and then single out only one area of 
hydrogen for our research dollars, in effect what we are doing is 
saying here on the floor, without analysis in the appropriate 
committees, including Science on which I serve, that fusion research is 
not worth our time, that fusion research really is not going to receive 
the kind of support that I believe it needs if it is going to be the 
energy source for our country and, indeed, the world in the 21st 
century.
  When I think about a world that could be supported by fusion, I think 
of a nation that would have limitless supplies of energy, that is 
clean, nonpolluting and readily available for all. I think to imagine 
that country and that world really puts in perspective the reason why 
we need to protect the fusion program. I find it disturbing that in a 
backdoor way this bill would really direct the scientific talent of our 
Nation only to one area, that would be hydrogen, to the detriment of 
even more exciting, long-term endeavors.
  So I would strongly urge approval of the amendment of the gentleman 
from California and, frankly, should this amendment fail, I will be 
unable to support this bill because, in effect, it will be killing the 
fusion research program that I think really merits our attention more 
than anything else.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of us, when we went home, found a lot of our 
constituents were wondering how we got ourselves into this $4.5 
trillion debt mess and why we have huge deficits. This amendment is 
really the reason why.
  This amendment says it does not matter, the fact that we are trying 
to reprioritize. What we want to do is just spend more. Because if you 
take off the cap, as this amendment proposes to do, it simply is add-on 
spending, add-on spending over and above anything we are doing now.
  The statement that was just made that somehow this is going to kill 
fusion research and all that sort of thing is just plain nonsense. We 
are talking here $15 million worth in total. That is one-half of 1 
percent of a $3.3 billion account. All we are suggesting is that $3.3 
billion account ought to be capped at the 1995 spending level. We ought 
not spend anymore in order to reprioritize the hydrogen program within 
that account.
  By doing that, what you assure is we have no add-on deficit. We have 
no add-on debt. And it seems to me that as a Congress right now we do 
not want to be approving programs that increase the deficit and 
increase the debt.
  In fact, when we get a budget bill out here in the near future, we 
are going to be talking about trying to find ways to reduce the rate of 
increase of Government even further than we have done in the past.
  So this particular bill is aimed at assuring that you just do not 
have anymore add-on deficit, add-on debt. If you vote for the Brown 
amendment, you are going to create add-on debt in this bill. In my 
view, that would be the wrong thing to do.
  We want to reprioritize hydrogen within the programs that are 
presently there. We do not emasculate any program to do this. As I say, 
the total amount of spending, the increase in spending in this bill is 
less than one-half of 1 percent of the totality of the account.
  So it seems to me we ought to do this.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] mentioned the fact that 
there may be other ways of getting at this. I asked the department to 
help us to do that. The department came up with no language. I asked 
members of the Committee on Science to help us do that. They came up 
with no language.
  The only way anybody knows to make certain we do not spend more on 
the program is to cap it. And so that is what we have indeed done.
  I think that this is the right approach to take. I would urge anybody 
who is talking about reducing deficits and reducing debt to vote 
against this amendment because otherwise what you are going to do is 
have a program here that potentially would be add-on spending. I do not 
think that that is the correct course for us to take in the present 
economic environment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  [[Page H4480]] Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like 
the House to be aware of this discourse. I am not sure that I have a 
fundamental disagreement with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker], but the way in which he chooses to express his criticism of my 
amendment leaves me a little bit nonplussed, because he states that 
defeating this, by defeating this amendment will be simply add-on 
spending.
  I want to ask the gentleman, if we could devise language which would 
offset the increased authorization for hydrogen by a similar amount in 
other fields so that there is a true offset and no increase in 
spending, is it the position of the gentleman that he would agree to 
this kind of language?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have said that all the way along, that I 
thought that if we could find other ways of accomplishing this to 
assure that there is no add-on program here, that that would be 
perfectly acceptable to me. But your amendment goes right at the heart 
of the bill's language that seeks to put that kind of cap in.
  By striking the cap, you are simply doing all of the additional 
spending in the bill as add-on to the present account.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, it is not this gentleman's intention to deliberately add onto 
spending. I think that the semantic problem here is that you are saying 
that capping the Department of Energy's spending for this account at 
the current year's level, 1995, anything in excess of that is add-on 
spending, whereas the base line basically is the administration's 
projections for what the spending would be over the next several years.
  I do not intend to go beyond the administration's projection, and if 
it is possible to cut those projections sufficiently to fund this 
program, I would agree to that.
  In other words, I am objecting to the gentleman characterizing my 
proposal as add-on spending.
  Now, would the gentleman agree with me also that based on our present 
knowledge of the President's budget for 1996 and anticipated 1997 and 
1998, that his language constrains that by a quarter of a billion 
dollars?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, does the gentleman agree with me that his language not only 
prevents add-ons, it reduces the spending in this account for the 
Department of Energy by a quarter of a billion dollars below the 
department's base line?
  Mr. WALKER. Below the projected increases, I would say to the 
gentleman. But I would also say to the gentleman that at the beginning 
of this Congress, we developed a new rule in this Congress with regard 
to spending.
  We said we were going to use the base line, all baselines, as the 
amount of money that was actually spent in the previous year. So I 
would say to the gentleman the base line for spending is the 1995 
appropriated amount. And what we are attempting to do is hold it in 
line with the 1995 appropriated amount.
  If you are saying that by holding it in that line, we will not allow 
the projected increases out into the future, the gentleman is 
absolutely correct. Because I think in order to get the budgetary house 
in order, we are, in fact, going to have to begin to consider not what 
we want to spend for programs but what we are actually spending on 
programs and that the baseline has to be the amount of money actually 
being spent.
  Washington, for too long, has decided that going from $20 a year of 
spending to $22 a year of spending is not an increase, if what they 
wanted was $25 a year. And in our view, what we think we ought to do is 
say the $20 that we are spending this year is in fact the proper base 
line.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, I would ask the gentleman, has that action been taken by the 
Committee on the Budget, and does it apply to all categories of 
spending?
  Mr. WALKER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is 
correct. The Committee on the Budget has been working within its 
deliberations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Brown of California and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, with the exception of Social Security, 
every other account is being calculated based upon 1995 spending as the 
baseline.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Including Medicare?
  Mr. WALKER. Medicare would be included in that particular area as 
well, that is right.
  Mr. BROWN of California. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. 
Chairman, so the policy of the Committee on the Budget would be to keep 
Medicare at the present 1995 levels?
  Mr. WALKER. Our intention on Medicare is to reform Medicare and 
transform the program so it can live within the bounds over the next 7 
years of spending $1\1/2\ trillion.
  That would in fact be an increasing kind of program, and we think we 
can manage that within a balanced budget, but in terms of calculating 
it, we are not saying that everything is going to be held at the 1995 
baseline, we are simply saying that is the baseline which we use. Some 
things will go above that baseline, some will go below, but the fact is 
we are not going to use an accelerating baseline for what we are doing.
  In the case of Medicare, simply the demographics of the account will 
have it go up, so Medicare will actually be spending more in the year 
2002 than it spends in 1995, but then that will be an increase.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification, 
Mr. Chairman. I think this colloquy has helped the Members to 
understand the situation. I do not agree with the gentleman that the 
1995 baseline is the one that will finally be in effect for the 
Department of Energy. I do not know at this point.
  Mr. WALKER. I think it will probably be lower, I would say to the 
gentleman, and the fact is that the 1995 baseline therefore may be a 
figure higher than where we are when we finally come out of the budget 
process, so all we are trying to do here is to make certain that the 
Department understands that as this program is authorized, it is being 
authorized within the accounts that are presently available, not as 
add-on spending.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the total amount given in this subsection 
B applies to all research and development activities of the Department 
of Energy, is that correct?
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, since I have taken a leave of absence from 
the Committee on Science, normally the Committee on Science annually 
puts out a bill for research and development, an authorization bill. 
Does the gentleman plan to do that this year?
  Mr. WALKER. Sure, we are going to put out an authorization bill.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Do all the programs within that bill have to do with the 
same figure?
  Mr. WALKER. We will in fact have an authorization bill that will 
include these accounts, that is correct.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Include all these accounts?
  Mr. WALKER. Sure.
  Mr. VOLKMER. So the figure that the gentleman has here will be 
basically, first there is the budget to come yet. Before we do the 
authorization bill, we are going to have the budget. The budget may say 
more or less, I would guess less, less than the figure you have here, 
is that correct?
  Mr. WALKER. That is correct, it could be.
  Mr. VOLKMER. When the committee does the authorization bill, that 
figure may be more or less?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Walker 
[[Page H4481]] was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I Yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, is it correct that this will be done one 
way or another, when we do the authorization bill?
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is correct, we will do both, and when we do 
the authorization bill.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
so that figure may or may not, depending on the will of the House, be 
the figure that is finally determined at a later date?
  Mr. WALKER. Sure.
  Mr. VOLKMER. So this figure that we have of the 1995 level, which I 
understand is something like $3.3 billion, is only in this bill, Mr. 
Chairman, but we are going to have another bill later on and a budget 
that could say it is different, is that correct?
  Mr. WALKER. We are authorizing a program here. What we want to do is 
make certain that as we authorize the program, it is not add-on 
spending. That is the only signal we are sending. It may well be this 
program will have to survive within reduced cuts or within a reduced 
budget in the future, sure.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Also, that in that authorization bill that comes on, 
this whole program can be once again reexamined within that bill?
  Mr. WALKER. Sure, absolutely. It is going to have to face the same 
kind of prioritization as everything else. The fact is this is a 
program that the Department has refused to prioritize in the past. What 
we are trying to do now is give it a new sense of priority within what 
the Department does. That is subject to all of the budget restraints.
  However, the only point I am making here in opposing the gentleman's 
amendment is if we take off the cap we have in the bill, what that 
suggests is that we want this program as an add-on, and in my view, we 
ought not be out here considering an add-on. We ought to be out here 
considering what the priorities are, where we ought to spend money in 
the Energy Department.
  In my view, one of those priorities ought to be hydrogen. Others may 
disagree. There were some people who just voted a few minutes ago to 
not prioritize hydrogen. They voted to reduce the priority for 
hydrogen. They are antihydrogen. I understand that. That is fine. That 
is their sense of priority. I think an environmentally friendly fuel 
might be something that people ought to be for, but evidently over 200 
Members did not agree with that. That is fine. That will be their 
record on this.
  However, in this case, what I also want to say is I also do not think 
there is a need for additional money over and above the caps.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take my full 5 minutes, but as a result of 
the discussion I just had with the chairman of the committee, it is 
very apparent to me that we are going to have to rehash this whole 
thing over again if and when we ever get to a full authorization bill 
for all the research and development programs, because at that time 
every Member is going to be able to look at the total research 
demonstration projects within the Department of Energy to make a 
decision whether or not they want to spend $25 million on this one and 
$40 million on this one, or $15 million on this one and $25 million on 
that one. That will be done then.
  What I see right here and now, Mr. Chairman, is just an individual 
bill that the chairman, as he said before, feels very strongly about 
hydrogen, so we are doing a separate bill rather than waiting for the 
total authorization bill to come forward, so we are going to be doing 
it twice.
  Really, as far as amendments are concerned, the amendment does not 
mean we are going to spend a lot more money. Like I said, we still have 
the total authorization bill to come up. At that time the House may 
very well vote not for $3.3 billion, but it may very well vote for $3 
billion, or $2.5 billion, or $4 billion. That is going to be the 
future.
  Right now I do not think most Members are ready to vote and decide 
what the cap will be, because they do not know what all programs are 
affected and how they are going to be affected. It is only when we get 
a total authorization bill that we are really able to see how all the 
programs are affected by the cap. Right now it is just a general 
discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, I personally feel that the amendment of the gentleman 
from California is a wise amendment at this time. I do think to be 
honest, that the whole purpose of this bill seems to be to focus on 
hydrogen, to take the time of this House for 1 day or half a day, and 
the expense of the House, just to say how good a thing hydrogen 
research is, when we are going to have to do it all over again maybe in 
another month.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] a question.
  In our area, Mr. Chairman, in the Southeastern United States, there 
has been a big emphasis put on solar energy. I think the American 
public has also participated in this dialog. It is my understanding 
that in this bill, whether the money that may be available, whether it 
is more or less or whatever, that all we are doing here is saying that 
we are going to prioritize or look only at hydrogen experimentation, 
and not looking at the dollars that maybe could be spend in solar or 
nuclear fusion or any of those? Is that my understanding of this issue 
here?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Would the gentlewoman yield, Mr. Chairman?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, it would appear that what this 
bill before us does is to focus entirely on hydrogen, and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, has indicated that 
legislation authorizing these other programs would be brought forward 
later.
  This is in part the problem that I have with the bill, although my 
own interest in hydrogen is such that I would overlook the fact that it 
does not contain the others except that this bill also forces a 
reduction in all of these others, which I do object to.
  Mr. Chairman, in the last energy authorization bill that was passed, 
which was in 1992, we carefully laid out the authorizing levels for all 
of the major programs. We increased solar, for example. We increased 
some of the other categories of research. We cut some of the older 
ones, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has indicated he 
wants to do. Coal research is cut back, for example, and fossil 
research in general.
  In other words, in that authorization bill in 1992, Mr. Chairman, we 
did prioritize and gave general policy directions. This bill does not. 
It gives a general policy direction for hydrogen and then it says in a 
blanket fashion ``cut $250 million off of everything else.'' That is 
not prioritizing.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Regaining my time, Mr. Chairman, does that mean that 
appropriations of somebody other than the committee of substance would 
actually make the determination as to those dollars, so we would lose 
the expertise of the committee as far as this appropriation goes?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Of course. I have confidence in the good 
faith of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that we would 
bring along an authorization bill that would deal with these others. In 
the absence of that, however, this would merely provide to the 
Committee on Appropriations complete discretion as to what they would 
do with the remainder of that budget item.
  Mrs. THURMAN. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 257, not voting 22, as follows:

[[Page H4482]]

                             [Roll No. 307]

                               AYES--155

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--257

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Cox
     Gallegly
     Hall (OH)
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     LaTourette
     Menendez
     Moakley
     Moran
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Saxton
     Stark
     Thompson
     Waters
     Wise
     Wolf

                              {time}  1644

  Mr. REED and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 655) 
to authorize the hydrogen research, development, and demonstration 
programs of the Department of Energy, and for other purposes, pursuant 
to House Resolution 136, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to speak out of 
order.)

  announcement by chairman of committee on rules regarding h.r. 961, 
                   clean water act amendments of 1995

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House to make an 
announcement.
  Next Tuesday, May 9, the Rules Committee will be meeting to consider 
a rule for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995.
  Members should be aware that this rule may include a provision giving 
priority in recognition to Members who have caused their amendments to 
be printed in the amendment section of the Congressional Record prior 
to their consideration. In this case, the preprinting of amendments is 
optional.
  Since the bill is expected to be considered on the House floor on 
Wednesday, May 10, Members should try to have their amendments printed 
in the Congressional Record by Tuesday, May 9. Amendments to be 
preprinted should be signed by the Member, and submitted at the 
Speaker's table.
  Members should use the Office of the Legislative Counsel to ensure 
that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the 
Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments 
comply with the rules of the House. It is not necessary to submit 
amendments to the Rules Committee or to testify.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
authorize basic research, development, and demonstration on hydrogen as 
a fuel, and for other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________
```