H-Prize Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, after the defeat of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, the brutal Taliban took over the country. The Taliban ruled that country through terror, through systematic assassination, torture, intimidation. They denied Afghans all personal freedoms and made women fifth-class citizens. They also provided safe harbor to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It is from that safe harbor that al Qaeda was able to plan and train for the horrendous attack of September 11, 2001, against the United States of America.

Following the fall of the Taliban, due in large part to the heroic assistance of the United States Armed Forces and coalition forces from many, many countries throughout the world, the international community worked together under the auspices of the Bonn Compact to make possible what was really a wonderful, historic accomplishment, a democratically elected government in Afghanistan.

In 2004, Afghanistan adopted a new constitution and held successful presidential elections. Parliamentary elections followed in 2005. Factions that once fought on the battlefield now, after decades of violence, debate and resolve their differences in parliament with ballots instead of bullets.

However, Mr. Speaker, there are remnants of the former Taliban regime, along with al Qaeda, that are intent on overthrowing the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. The Taliban is using suicide bombings against U.S. and NATO troops, against Afghan officials, against civilians, both international and Afghan humanitarian workers, assistance workers.

Opium poppy cultivation and drug trafficking have become significant negative factors in Afghanistan's fragile political and economic order. Afghanistan currently accounts, unfortunately, for a majority of the world's illicit opium production.

As the democratically elected government faces grave challenges, we must not turn our backs on that young democracy. We must continue our support as that country moves from a brutal dictatorship to a consolidated democracy.

In 2002, this Congress passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. That law provided both economic and military aid to the young Afghan democracy.

This legislation will reauthorize the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act through the year 2010. The programs reauthorized in this bill focus on countering narcotics production and boost security efforts to protect United States and NATO forces as well as Afghan officials and international assistance workers. This legislation calls for the President to set out a detailed strategy for Afghanistan and provide reports on progress there.

The Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007, this legislation that we bring to the floor today, builds on congressional initiatives enacted in 2002 and 2004; and I again congratulate the leaders, who in those Congresses back in 2002 and 2004, worked so hard to ensure that these initiatives that are being reauthorized today were passed. And these initiatives now are, as I say, reauthorized in this legislation, H.R. 2466, that will be before the House today.

Among those initiatives passed in 2002, 2004 are the creation of multiple programs, but this legislation calls for the creation of a coordinator role for the development of a coherent, consistent counter- narcotics strategy, and to strengthen the fight against the drug trade's links to totalitarian Islamic terrorism.

We also insured in this legislation that initiatives passed in 2002 and 2004 continued, such as prohibition on assistance to Afghan officials who are

found to be supporting criminal activities such as narcotics trafficking.

This bill, good legislation, Mr. Speaker. This bill reaffirms the commitment of the United States to support Afghanistan in its transition to a stable, representative democracy.

This bill, good legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we bring to the floor today, authorizes the appropriation of $1.7 billion annually for humanitarian and economic assistance and $320 million annually for military assistance during fiscal 2008 to 2010.

This is important legislation. It's important legislation for the fight against the international drug trade and totalitarian Islamists, dangerous remnants of the defeated Taliban, the Taliban who were overthrown, thank God.

Remnants of the Taliban are festering, and they use deadly tactics against United States and NATO forces, as well as Afghans and humanitarian workers. Those people have no scruples, and we only have to remember, Mr. Speaker what they did to the Afghan people when they were in power. So they use horrendous tactics, brutal tactics without limits against our troops and other international forces that are in Afghanistan pursuant to the request of the democratically elected government to secure the peace.

And, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, poppy cultivation and opium production continue to directly support insurgents, militias and terrorist groups. In the face of these very difficult challenges, we cannot allow that fledgling democracy, that budding democracy striving to be a stable society, to fail.

With regard to process, our friends on the other side of the aisle, again, the majority had another opportunity yesterday in the Rules Committee to open the process and comfort with an open rule. They voted down an amendment by our ranking member of the Committee on Rules to bring this legislation forth under an open rule. Yes, they made in order all of the amendments that were presented before the committee, and that's commendable. But why not come forth with an open rule? I think that was disappointing.

Let's not fail to see, however, Mr. Speaker, that this is, this underlying legislation that's being brought forward is extremely important. It's a very important piece of legislation.

And by the way, with regard, again, to process, precisely since it's such an important project that as a Nation we're working on and there's great national consensus on the need to do everything we can to consolidate, to help consolidate the representative democracy and the peace in Afghanistan, precisely I think there would have been no harm in allowing, as this debate proceeds, to allow any Member who's hearing the debate who has an idea for an amendment to bring it forth. That's why an open rule is appropriate.

I'd like to thank, Mr. Speaker, the chairman, the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Lantos, for his hard work on this important facet of our foreign policy and the legislation that's being brought forth today, as also the distinguished ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who's also worked very hard on this legislation, and other members of the International Relations Committee. I want to thank them for their hard work on this important issue, which constitutes, as I said, a project where the American people, in consensus fashion, are moving forward and doing everything possible so that our friends and allies in Afghanistan can survive and defeat the brutal Taliban and al Qaeda.

This legislation brought forward today is an important bill. It is of the utmost importance to our national security and obviously to the region where Afghanistan is and, of course, to the people, to the noble people of Afghanistan, as they continue their efforts to consolidate their representative democracy and achieve peace and prosperity in their great country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' kind words. What I had been referring to before with regard to the process is that I don't believe that any harm would have been done if the majority would have kept its promise of open rules. It is the majority that promised during the campaign that they were going to bring a significant amount, as many as possible, of bills to the floor under open rules. And this is a noncontroversial bill, and, yes, they made the amendments in order by the Members who went to the Rules Committee, and that is appreciated.

So what harm would it have caused if this legislation would have been brought forth under an open rule, as was proposed, in amendment form, by the ranking member of Rules? That is what my point was. No harm would have been done.

And, simply, I would like to remind the majority of the promises that the majority made during the campaign of bringing forth legislation under open rules. So I don't believe that any harm would have accrued if they would have kept their promise. That's all.

But with regard to the apology, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' kind words, Mr. Speaker.

And, again, with regard to this underlying legislation, which is of extreme importance, there is a national consensus in the United States that we not only have an obligation, but we must do everything in our power so that the democratically elected government in Afghanistan survives, and that is what this legislation is about. We will have other continuing debates on nearby countries and what our obligations are or what is, rather, in our national interest with regard to the stability in neighboring countries of Afghanistan as well and in trying to prevent neighboring countries from becoming basically safe harbors for international terrorism.

Those are legitimate debates.

Today, the legislation being brought forth, Mr. Speaker, is one where there is a national consensus in the United States, thank God, fortunately, and that is that with regard to that country that was for so long oppressed by the brutal Taliban and that had given sanctuary to the terrorists that carried out the mass murders of September 11, 2001, against the United States of America, that we certainly have an obligation to do everything we can to make certain that the people of Afghanistan have as much ability, that they have the wherewithal to proceed along a path towards a consolidated, representative democracy in peace and with prosperity.

That is why we agree that this legislation is very important; and it reauthorizes critical programs, programs of critical importance with regard to our assistance to Afghanistan that were authorized initially and appropriated by the Congress of the United States in 2002 and 2004.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 453 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 453.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 453 provides for consideration of H.R. 2446, the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007 under a structured rule that makes in order all of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee, except for those withdrawn by their sponsors.

I want to acknowledge and express my respect for the work of Chairman Lantos and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for bringing such a fine example of bipartisan cooperation and collaboration before the House for consideration.

Following the ouster of the Taliban regime in late 2001, the United States, the United Nations and the international community embarked on what they hoped would be a comprehensive assistance program to help the new Afghan president, of President Hamid Karzai, establish a new democracy, rebuild the Afghan economy and provide for the general well- being of the Afghan people.

Regrettably, after a most promising start, progress has slowed in most parts of the country. Remnants of the Taliban continue to resist the new government and are reorganizing and strengthening their networks from neighboring countries. Instability has increased, including the introduction of suicide bombings against U.S. soldiers, NATO troops, Afghan officials, and civilians and international and Afghan humanitarian aid workers.

Narcotics production threatens to overwhelm the country. According to UN studies, a large percentage of Afghans, including farmers, laborers, traffickers, war lords, insurgents, and officials participate in and benefit from illegal poppy trade.

Congress first addressed the issue aiding Afghanistan by passing the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, which established a reconstruction program, mandated a relief coordinator, provided support to the NATO-led international security forces, and gave new security assistance authority to our President.

In addition to food aid, refugee relief and other forms of emergency disaster assistance, the United States implemented a wide-ranging assistance program for Afghanistan, including aid for schools, hospitals and farms, and support to reestablish the participation of women and girls in society, education and the workplace.

The legislation the House will take up today, H.R. 2446, reauthorizes programs created by the original Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, creates a new focus on counternarcotics efforts, and provides for stronger and more enhanced oversight of U.S. strategic goals and performance in Afghanistan.

Overall, H.R. 2446 provides modest increases in authorized levels for humanitarian, development, democracy building and security assistance. I cannot stress enough how important it is that Afghanistan succeed in establishing and consolidating a representative government and rebuilding the country's economy and civil society.

When we overthrew the Taliban regime, we made promises to the Afghan people with the full backing of the international community. We cannot renege on those promises. We cannot fail the people of Afghanistan who came together in support of a common vision for the future.

I am very, very concerned that many of the difficulties confronting Afghanistan today, especially in the areas of security, are due in large part to taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and exhausting our economic and military resources in Iraq. We had the chance to make Afghanistan secure. We failed to do so because we chose not to invest the necessary resources in Afghanistan, but, rather, to transfer our attention and our resources to Iraq. We are now playing catch up in Afghanistan as the situation there is deteriorating.

I applaud the chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for this timely reauthorization.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say that, again, the underlying legislation is incredibly important. We do have an obligation, a moral obligation, to the people of Afghanistan. And, quite frankly, from a national security perspective, that is where our attention should be and where our attention should have been. It is regrettable, it is regrettable that the President of the United States and his administration and many in this Chamber have chosen to take their eye off what our responsibility is in Afghanistan over these last several years, and instead, we find ourselves bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq.

Those who are responsible for September 11, those who are responsible for the murder of so many of our citizens, they were in Afghanistan. That is where al Qaeda was. And instead of holding al Qaeda accountable in Afghanistan, instead of making sure that our resources go to promoting democracy and stability in Afghanistan, instead of focusing on this ever-growing drug problem in Afghanistan, we have spent over half a trillion dollars in Iraq. And that is regrettable. And, quite frankly, when history looks back on how these last few years were conducted, they are going to take note of the fact that we missed important opportunities to better protect our country by taking our eye off of what our responsibility was in Afghanistan.

And let me just say about the rule, I will apologize to my colleague from Florida for a rule that we bring to the floor today that makes every single amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee and not withdrawn by its author in order. Every Republican amendment, every Democratic amendment. And I know that that is different from the way things used to be when the Republicans were in charge of the Rules Committee. They had a tendency to just shut us all out routinely. But things are different now, and under the Democratic administration here in the Congress, we are trying to make sure that all points of view have an opportunity to be heard on the floor.

So I am happy that we have this rule, and, again, I apologize to the gentleman that it is not like what they used to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, again, I regret that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not pleased with the rule that makes all of the amendments that were offered in order, but I think that that is the way we should do business around here. It is in sharp contrast to the way they used to do business when the Republicans were in the majority, where there was a tendency to shut everything down, to close everything up, to not allow Members of the minority to be able to have amendments. But we're different, and I'm glad we are different.

On the underlying legislation, there should be unanimity in this House about the importance of passing this legislation. It is important that we keep our commitment to the people of Afghanistan. It is important that we keep our commitment to the people of the United States, who after September 11 we said, in the Congress and in the White House, that we are going to do everything we can do bring to justice, to hold to account those who are responsible for September 11.

Unfortunately, today, we are not anywhere near where we should be in Afghanistan; and the reason for that is because we have diverted our resources, we have diverted our soldiers and our political capital to a never-ending war in Iraq. We have put our soldiers in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. We have spent over half a trillion dollars in Iraq; and, as a result, those resources have not been sent to Afghanistan; and I think that is regrettable.

But we need to pass this bill today. I hope it passes with a unanimous vote. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 632) to authorize the Secretary of Energy to establish monetary prizes for achievements in overcoming scientific and technical barriers associated with hydrogen energy, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 632, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act of 2007, an innovative bill I introduced, along with Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, and that we passed in this House last year by a vote of 416- 6.

America faces a great challenge today, finding a new clean energy source that will free us from our dependence on foreign oil and will combat global climate change. Hydrogen has great potential to be this new source and the H-Prize Act will help focus America's technological and entrepreneurial talent on making it happen.

Hydrogen-fuel cars already exist. Last year I had the opportunity to drive a hydrogen-fuel car. It didn't drive much differently than a gas- powered car, except for the silence, silence that I am used to somewhat from driving a hybrid. But that was the only real performance difference. There is no performance difference. The only difference I know of is the silence.

But there are really currently significant technical and economic barriers that must still be overcome before we can put a hydrogen car in every American garage. Current hydrogen-powered vehicles cost about $1 million. But while several significant technological advances are necessary, they are within reach.

Just yesterday, it was reported in the Chicago Tribune that engineers at Purdue University are researching methods of producing hydrogen gas by combining aluminum with another metal, gallium, and adding water. This research could yield ways of overcoming hydrogen storage problems, allowing automobile engines to burn this gas with little modification.

While we must continue to invest in traditional grants to fund university research, we in Congress have the responsibility to find creative and new ways to inspire researchers, business leaders and our youth to solve the problems that society faces today.

The H-Prize will help expand the possibility of hydrogen research, promoting people not normally involved in Federal research to explore one of the greatest challenges facing us today.

Specifically, this legislation would establish competitively awarded cash prizes to spur innovations that advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel for transportation. Every 2 years, four $1 million prizes would be given for advances in the production, storage, distribution and utilization of hydrogen, and one $4 million prize would be awarded for advances in prototype hydrogen vehicles. At the end of 10 years, one grand prize of $10 million would be given for a transformational advance in hydrogen energy technology.

In addition to this $10 million grand prize, we are also seeking to raise up to $40 million to add to that grand prize, $40 million in private contributions.

When these advances are made, hydrogen can fill critical energy needs even beyond transportation. Hydrogen will also be used to provide heat and generate electricity. The future possibilities of this energy source are enormous.

Most importantly, hydrogen will be a clean, domestic energy source. When used for energy, hydrogen produces no emissions besides water, zero emissions, an amazing advance over current energy resources. By utilizing hydrogen, we can improve our national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil that often comes from unstable countries.

Mr. Speaker, America has always been at the forefront of technological breakthroughs. We have responded to great challenges, perhaps most famously, President John F. Kennedy's challenge to land a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s. We have seen that prizes have been an effective way to inspire technological advances.

Perhaps most famously the prize won by Lindbergh for his successful nonstop flight across the Atlantic. More recently, the Ansari X-Prize given to the first private team to build and fly a spaceship 100 kilometers above earth. The H-Prize is patterned after this X-Prize.

We have seen that challenges and prizes help to spark the imagination of scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs, who invest blood, sweat, tears and often large sums of money, sums of money even larger than the prizes being given, to achieve a great goal.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill today. Perhaps one day we will look back on the H-Prize as a catalyst to a better, cleaner, more secure America and world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is another great example of what we have been able to do on the Science and Technology Committee by working together in a bipartisan manner. Led by Chairman Gordon, working with Ranking Member Hall, I hope that we can continue this cooperation on other critical issues related to America's future technological competitiveness, energy dependence and global climate change. This is the type of bipartisan work we need to continue to be doing to make progress.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Inglis for all the work he has done on this. We worked on this bill last year. We worked together on that, and Mr. Inglis is the one who came forward at that time with the original idea on this. He's worked very well. We have continued to work to make progress, and I'm very hopeful that this year we have worked with the Senate and the administration. We can get this past not just the House but signed into law. Because I think this H-Prize act has really great potential. It has the great potential to solve the great energy challenge we face today. But perhaps it may be most important in spurring the imagination of our youth, our most valuable resource in this country.

I remember in the 1970s there was great excitement about alternative energy. There was an environmental movement, and there was the gasoline crisis, and there was great interest in helping clean up the environment, investing in alternative energy.

It's something that really got me excited. I was caught up in it when I was in grade school back in the 1970s. I remember I did my eighth grade science

fair project on solar energy. That was back in 1980. We saw, unfortunately, though, that the interest in alternative energy really dropped off after that time. Not only interest, but then Federal funding dropped off.

Just in talking to the Science Coalition this morning, they talked about how critical that was when that research funding dropped off. We can't afford to let that happen again. But what did happen with me is it really inspired me, got me interested. I went out and got a degree in mechanical engineering, and although I did not continue down that road, today I bring that background to this House and continue to work on these issues, understanding the importance of this issue and understanding the importance of the Federal Government's really investing in our future and especially in alternative energy. And these challenges are great. We must really confront them.

So today maybe this H-Prize Act will inspire another child out there today. He or she may become an engineer or a scientist or an entrepreneur who plays a hand in the next technological breakthrough. So there is great hope with this H-Prize Act. And today, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me by passing this bill, and hopefully in the future we can look back to today and see it as a major change and a major move forward for America and for the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to one of the co-chairs of the House Hydrogen Caucus, Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his work on a number of energy initiatives that we're collaborating on. This is one of those. I think it's a very exciting bill that won't solve all of our challenges, but it will get us down the road toward a brighter energy future.

And it's always helpful to have a picture tell a thousand words. This is a picture of a gas line in a province in China on August 17, 2005. That's a line of cars waiting to buy gas.

ExxonMobil tells us the global energy demand is expected to grow by 60 percent between now and 2030. So we've got to find something to do in order to get to a brighter energy future, one that does not involve the restricted supply that we have when it comes to petroleum. So what we've come up with is an idea of using the incentives of a prize to make it happen, to make some breakthroughs happen when it comes to hydrogen.

Well, the good news is we've done prizes before. In 1927, Charles Lindbergh won a prize for being the first to make a successful transatlantic flight. It worked with flight, and it worked again here more recently when the Ansari X-Prize was created to incentivize space flight. On October 4, 2004, Burt Rutan's Spaceship 1 became the first private spacecraft with commercial potential, succeeding in going into space twice within 2 weeks; and the result was they won the Ansari X- Prize.

So the concept here is to build on that kind of legacy and create the H-Prize. The good news for our colleagues is this shouldn't be a terribly controversial vote. The last time we did it, we got 416 votes in favor of the H-Prize. So it's a do-over with a 416-6 margin last time. So we're hoping that it's going to be successful here today on the floor.

As my colleague from Illinois just said, Mr. Lipinski was telling us that the concept is to incentivize breakthroughs in hydrogen technology; and, as he said, technical breakthroughs would be rewarded with a $1 million prize and then prototypes every other year, $4 million. And then the transformational technology prize, the big one, would be a $10 million prize, hopefully augmented by up to $40 million of private money that's authorized under the bill.

So the concept is to, basically, create the most nongovernmental way to achieve a governmental purpose, which is to break this dependence on oil. So we've created the H-Prize. It's a way of incentivizing entrepreneurs and inventors to come together and to create teams that can make this breakthrough.

The beauty of a prize, two beauties of the prizes to point out here to our colleagues, one is, if nobody does it, you don't pay the prize money out, so they've got to win it in order for us to incur the obligation to pay the money out. That's a good thing about prizes.

The second thing that's very important about prizes is the breakthroughs may come from way outside the normal realm that you would expect; and it could be that it's not the normal people or the normal suspects that might come forward with a breakthrough. It may be somebody way afield.

For example, hydrogen breakthroughs may come from biological agents that create hydrogen as part of their metabolism. That's way outside the field of where a lot of people are expecting hydrogen production to come from. But if you have a prize that isn't restricted as to how you create the hydrogen, then you get a lot more entrants, and you get interest from a broad range of fields that may come in with the out-of- the-box thinking that can transform our energy supply.

So I'm very pleased that we've got it on the floor today. I thank the gentleman from Illinois once again for his collaboration on these topics. I'm hopeful that today we'll pass it with a large margin and that we'll be successful with the other body and then a signature by the President, and this will be one of the ways that we can break this addiction to oil and move to a more stable energy future for America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I too want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) for working together so well to bring this important piece of legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join 415 of my colleagues in supporting this bill last Congress, and I am pleased that the H-Prize Act has been brought up again so that we can have an opportunity to enact this important legislation into law.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act. The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. We, in Congress, have an opportunity and obligation to promote scientific advancement today. For more than a century, America's industry, transportation, and households have been heavily reliant on foreign oil. We must now face newer realities.

Petroleum is a finite resource. No matter how much we explore and discover, we will one day run out and booming worldwide demand is burning up resources and driving up prices. We must search for alternatives to wean us off our addiction to foreign sources of oil. The drive to produce energy economically can be advanced to American innovation and competition.

Fossil fuel technology was the impetus for 20th century industrial development. Today, hydrogen holds a promise of being the driver for the economy of the future and ushering in a new generation of an American energy independence.

Hydrogen makes up 98 percent of the known universe, and it is the third most abundant element of the earth's surface. It is the lightest of all gases, the coldest of all liquids, next to helium. As a component of water, minerals and acids, it makes up a fundamental part of all hydrocarbons and organic substances. Hydrogen is renewable, abundant, efficient and clean. Unlike carbon-based fuels, it does not create fumes or other harmful emissions.

In fact, using hydrogen in fuel cells produces only electricity and pure water. By awarding prizes in three of the most critical areas of technological development, the H-Prize Act will incentivize the realization of scientific advancements that will break down the obstacles that stand in the way of the hydrogen economy.

Specifically, H-Prize will promote technological advancements in hydrogen production, storage, distribution and utilization. Prizes will be awarded for the development of hydrogen vehicle prototypes that meet ambitious performance goals. Finally, the bill will award the implementation of critical transformational technologies.

We are not that far away from making hydrogen a functional source of energy. H.R. 632 will speed the development of breakthrough technologies that will make hydrogen a practical alternative to oil in our transportation sector and set our Nation on a path toward energy independence. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 632.

Again, I do want to commend the two gentlemen, Mr. Lipinski of Illinois and Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, for their strong advocacy on this critical issue.