Solar Technology Roadmap Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule before us today. The underlying legislation is being brought to

the floor under yet another structured rule that does not allow for many of the amendments my colleagues on both sides of the aisle presented during the Rules Committee hearing. This is especially wrong when debating one of the important issues of our time, our Nation's energy policy. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the minority and their own colleagues from having any input in the legislative process.

My assumption is that, along with me, all other Members want to see more solar power used in this country; but the Democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor and what constituents can be adequately represented in the House.

Our constituents in both Republican and Democrat districts are struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are simultaneously being shut out of participating in debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the Federal Government.

Why is the majority blocking debate on such important legislation? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process?

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts that the manager's amendment incorporated 10 majority amendments. The only amendments that came in from the Republicans were put in in the names of the majority. There was only one Republican amendment made in order for today under the rule.

I would like now to recognize for 3 minutes my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Smith.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves the emperor's new clothes award. We all, again, want to see improved and increased use of solar energy in our country, but this rule and this bill are not going to do it.

The bill before us authorizes $2.25 billion in borrowed money for the creation of a new committee which would devise a solar technology road map or plan. This wasteful spending does not reflect the hard economic times our country and our constituents are experiencing right now and, instead, is spending borrowed money that we do not have.

Whenever I am home in North Carolina, which is every weekend, I hear from numerous constituents their concerns that the Federal Government in Washington is borrowing and spending too much. The American people know that in these tough economic times that they should save, not spend money. However, the Federal Government does not reflect the common sense I see throughout my district. Instead, the Democrats in charge here continue to borrow more and spend more, increasing our Federal deficit on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

The money that Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration want to authorize today is all borrowed money. We cannot say that often enough. We do not have this money. Our constituents do not have this money and the Federal Government does not have this money. The Democrats in charge have made the irresponsible decision to borrow it in order to spend it at their whim.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. national debt is currently $11.5 trillion. With over 300 million people in the United States today, each citizen's share of this debt right now is $38.8 thousand. This bill will increase the deficit even more by borrowing and spending money we don't have. We can no longer blame the deficit and economic difficulties today on the previous administration.

Those in charge have shown they don't care about the deficit by continuing to dig America into a deeper and deeper hole with more reckless spending. This borrowed money is all being spent by Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration. As a result, the unemployment rate continues to rise and the deficit continues to rise also.

Since the Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt has increased by $3.282 trillion. Since President Obama was inaugurated just months ago in January, the national debt has increased by $1.325 trillion. The Department of the Treasury has reported that under the Democrats' control, 2009 is the worst fiscal year in this Nation's history. The results get more disastrous with each passing day.

Mr. Speaker, the debt limit has been raised at least three times since 2008. A debt limit increase was included in H.R. 3221, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 raised the debt limit again.

The Democrats in charge raised the debt limit yet again less than a year later with passage of H.R. 1, the, quote, stimulus, in February of this year. That bill raised the debt limit to $12.104 trillion, where it now stands. As if that weren't enough, the fiscal year

2010 budget resolution adopted on April 29, 2009, triggered the automatic passage of a separate measure, House Joint Resolution 45, to raise the debt limit to $13.029 trillion, which was then sent to the Senate.

We will soon be asked to raise the debt limit again just as soon as the majority can find a way to do it and hide it in some other bill so that the American people hopefully are fooled by what they are doing. They are not going to be fooled because they are paying attention to what's going on here in the Congress.

I have opposed all these efforts to raise the debt limit. According to an analysis by The Heritage Foundation, the White House projects $10.6 trillion in new deficits over the next decade. This is nearly $80,000 per household in new borrowing. It's beyond time to stop digging.

The new budget estimates, including an estimated total national debt of $24.5 trillion in 2019 under President Obama's budget, are alarming and unsustainable. The result will be the highest level of spending and debt in American history. This is an irresponsible lack of fiscal restraint carried on the backs of our children and grandchildren. My constituents at home and Americans across the Nation are not operating their family budgets as recklessly as this Congress is spending their taxpayer dollars.

On top of all this, the President and Congress' shameless proposals to create a $1 trillion health care entitlement are careless and unaffordable. We should be focusing on capping Federal spending, restraining entitlements, and eliminating wasteful programs. When will the Democrats learn that out-of-control spending will not solve our Nation's problems?

Last week, a group of us had the great opportunity to hear Mr. John Allison, who is chairman of the board of Branch Banking and Trust Company in North Carolina, one of the most successful banks in the United States. He told us then that we are on an unsustainable course in terms of accruing debt.

He said if we do not stop this almost immediately, we have fewer than 25 years left as a great Nation, that within 25 years we will become a Third World country similar to other Third World countries, particularly in South America. We cannot sustain this. We owe our children and grandchildren a better future. We need alternatives.

But what the Democrats in charge are doing is shutting off our opportunity to use alternative sources of energy that we have available to us in this country. We have plenty of oil, plenty of gas, plenty of coal. We could be using all of those sources of energy, but they are shutting us out. We should be utilizing those and not doing what our colleague from California showed, and that is wasting money on setting up committees to devise road maps to bridges to nowhere, when we could be developing the resources that we have, allowing the private sector to do it, and not having government involvement.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while solar energy is an important resource and worthy of support, there are many flaws in this legislation and in the rule. This is not the right policy to advance our Nation's energy needs.

As usual, the Democrats' approach to another problem is to take money from hardworking citizens to use for their pet projects and their supporters. This approach fails to incorporate creative solutions that do not rely on ever increasing the size of the Federal Government.

According to the Science and Technology Committee, solar energy has been on the forefront for over 30 years, and yet it still makes up only 1 percent of the 7 percent of renewable energy consumed in the United States. Because there is no silver bullet, our Nation's energy policy must encompass many energy alternative solutions.

Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats in charge were serious about achieving energy independence and freeing our Nation from the grip of foreign oil, they would bring legislation to the floor that invests in several energy initiatives, not just one.

Republicans have alternatives. We have alternatives to everything that they have been presenting. We've introduced legislation that would encompass a multitude of energy initiatives, including solar technology. H.R. 2846, the American Energy Act, of which I'm a cosponsor, is a comprehensive energy solutions plan that would create jobs, make energy more affordable, diversify our energy sources, and help the U.S. become more energy independent.

The American Energy Act would increase both the supply of American- made energy in environmentally sound ways and achieve the goal of energy independence for our Nation. Instead of investing billions in taxpayer dollars we don't have for one energy resource, the American Energy Act would establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the

Arctic coastal plain. It would permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen; and it would eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production. The comprehensive strategy is budget neutral, without tax increases, and would make independence achievable without wasting billions of our constituents' dollars.

But instead of taking real action, this bill places restrictions on solar technology research and development by requiring that the Secretary of Energy allocate at least 75 percent of funding to those solar R&D projects directed under the committee's road map. This leaves little flexibility for innovations that may be feasible and yet were not included in the road map.

When Speaker Pelosi took office, she promised the Nation that this Congress would be the most open and honest in history. This bill works against that objective. At least one-third of the road map committee created by this bill is made up of industry officials who are explicitly exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which is intended to provide an open and transparent process. The Democrats in charge could have ensured the road map committee was open and transparent, but curiously they chose not to.

When it comes to solar technology research and development, we must have the collaboration of the Department of Energy, universities and industries. However, this bill would create a committee, half of which could be industry, telling DOE where to direct taxpayer money into research and development that could benefit their companies while not having to answer to anyone or defend their recommendations. This is not a responsible policy when billions of taxpayer dollars are on the line.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 900, of which I'm a cosponsor, would liberate energy companies from being suffocated by extreme environmental litigation and allow them to move forward and get approval to implement energy products.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is wrong. This bill is a bad bill.

Since 2005, more than 200 applications have been submitted to the Bureau of Land Management for permission to build solar power projects on federally controlled land. To date, the Bureau of Land Management hasn't approved a single one of them. Mr. Rohrabacher has introduced H.R. 964, the Emergency Solar Power Permit Act, of which I am a cosponsor, to exempt solar energy projects from costly and prolonged environmental impact statement requirements. Enacting this legislation would do more to expedite solar energy than the underlying bill.

Even though the public has repeatedly demanded to take advantage of the resources we have here at home, attempts to develop these resources are consistently and adamantly opposed by radical environmentalists who claim to be in favor of domestic development of renewable energy. The American people are suffering the consequences.

The Democrats' radical environmentalist friends and campaign donors continue to block domestic energy development by imposing excessive environmental litigation on energy companies. This excessive litigation prevents our country from moving forward to implement policies that will develop renewable technology and free us from the grip of foreign oil.

H.R. 900, of which I am a cosponsor, would liberate energy companies from being suffocated by extreme environmental litigation and allow them to move forward and get approval to implement energy projects. However, the Democrats in charge will not allow this bill to come to the floor for debate because they have more allegiance towards their radical environmentalist friends than towards the American people.

Mr. Speaker, amendments to reduce the authorization, give the Secretary of DOE discretion as to how much funding should go to the Roadmap recommendations, and sunset the Roadmap Committee in 2015 were all voted down in the hearing on this legislation.

Amendments to protect small businesses, veteran-owned businesses, and fund this bill through unspent funds authorized under the ``stimulus'' earlier this year were blocked by the Democrats on the Rules Committee so we will not be debating them in order to improve this flawed legislation. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire of the gentleman from Colorado if he is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers, and I will make my closing speech now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 554, a resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not affect the bill made in order by the rule.

The amendment to the rule provides the House will debate the issue of reading the bill within 3 legislative days. It does not disrupt the schedule.

The bill currently has 164 cosponsors. The discharge petition has 182 names, including five Democrats. This bill has gained support of an overwhelming majority of Americans and is widely respected by government watchdogs.

The existing House rule, that committee reports be available for 3 days prior to floor consideration, has been repeatedly waived by Republicans and Democrats alike. This is not a partisan measure. As Members of Congress, we ought to agree that regardless of the legislation brought before us, we should always have the opportunity to read and understand the legislation before we vote.

The American public agrees with this commonsense position. A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports found that 83 percent of Americans say legislation should be posted online and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on it. The poll also found that this is not a partisan issue: 85 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 92 percent of unaffiliated voters favor posting legislation online prior to its being voted on.

In the beginning of the year, Democrat Members of this Congress voted to spend almost $790 billion in taxpayer dollars on a stimulus package that most Members did not even read. All Republicans voted ``no.'' The 1,073-page document wasn't posted on the government's Web site until after 10 p.m. the day before the vote to pass it was taken.

Furthermore, before debate on the cap-and-tax bill offered last summer, the House was presented with a 300-plus-page amendment at 3 a.m. for debate the following morning and a vote

the following afternoon. This was unacceptable and further demonstrated the need to read the bill and the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we are elected to Congress to represent our constituents. How are we supposed to determine what is right for our fellow Americans if we have to vote on something before we even have time to read it? We need to have this debate. If people oppose having the text of bills available to read, they should make their case. This amendment to the rule allows them to do just that.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate and do the right thing for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule and yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will not be in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business, and on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills, as is the custom, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology and Roadmap Act of 2010, sponsored by Gabrielle Giffords, and H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. In addition, we may consider Senate amendments to the House unemployment extension legislation, assuming that is passed by the Senate.

I certainly think it's the case not to expect it before the last week in October.

As I've indicated in the past, we intend to give 72 hours' notice of having the bill posted for the public and for Members prior to bringing it to the floor. We are still working to bring that bill to a point where CBO can give us a final score. We believe CBO is going to take probably a week to maybe a little longer than a week. So it certainly would not be before the last week in October, and it may well be the first week in November.

We will wait 72 hours until after the bill is posted. Now, I don't think I said that that necessarily will be after the scoring. But essentially, we don't think we're going to post the bill until the scoring. If, however, for some reason there was somewhat of a delay in scoring but we had the majority of it and posted the bill, the 72 hours will run from the posting of the bill.

In addition, Mr. McCarthy, what I indicated last week, and we still will hold to, if there is a manager's amendment, as there may well be, we will also assure that there is 72 hours from the posting of the manager's amendment. Now, if the manager's amendment and the bill are posted at the same time, obviously that would be the same 72 hours. If, on the other hand, the manager's amendment is posted a day or so later, then the 72 hours would run from the posting of the manager's amendment.

It is our intent to make sure that everybody has 72 hours to review whatever legislation and/or amendments will be considered on the floor.

We're not going to do 72 business hours. We're going to do 72 hours. We're going to have the full 3 days if people want to read the bill. If they want to read it at night, they can do that. If they want to read it on Saturday or Sunday, they can do that.

But it was a good try.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate what the gentleman has said; however, the gentleman, I am sure understands, the overwhelming majority of this bill will have been on the Web site since July.

The overwhelming majority of this bill, it's going to be a new bill and will have a new number, but this has been probably the most transparent, reviewed bill in the 29 years that I have been in the House of Representatives, I will tell my friend. As you know, we've been working between the House and the Senate. I've had discussions with Mr. Cantor and others on your side. We haven't reached any agreement, as the gentleman knows. I'm sorry about that. But I want to say in all honesty, I can't remember a bill in my 29 years in the House of Representatives that has had more review, more discussion, more people involved in town meetings around this country, more discussion in the media, and has been longer on the Internet for review from beginning to end than this particular piece of legislation.

So I think when we talk about transparency, this bill has probably been the most transparently considered bill that I have been involved in in my tenure here.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to be accurate, and I want to characterize it as I did characterize it. Clearly, many of the proposals that came out of the Ways and Means Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Education and Labor Committee will be very much alike, or similar to, what will be in the bill that is put together

from those three committees. I think that would not come as a surprise to anybody.

Will there be, as we put these together, some changes perhaps from what was in the original three bills? There may be. My point was, and I think it is valid, is that the overwhelming majority of the proposals that will ultimately end up either in the Senate or the House bill have been available to the public for a long period of time, either in the HELP bill out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee of the Senate, or in the Senate Finance Committee, of course, has been a shorter time because they have just completed their work. But it is certainly not going to be H.R. 3200; it will be an amalgam, and it will have incorporated many of the additional thoughts and comments that we've received from the public during the month of August, September and frankly since July.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I can't tell you when it will come to the floor. As you know, the Senate just passed it recently, the latter part of last week or the beginning of this week, I think, and we have not appointed conferees. So I can't give you the answer, really, to either question, because we don't have conferees appointed as it relates to the D.C. bill, as you know.

We have talked about the Defense bill. We have an Armed Forces. The Armed Forces is dedicated to the defense of freedom and the preservation of democracy. We have lost over 4,500 troops in Iraq. The people of Baghdad can elect members of their parliament today because our young men and women, and some not so young, fought, and too many died so that the people of Baghdad could elect a voting member of their parliament.

It is somewhat ironic that in the symbol of democracy around the world, that our fellow citizens, some 600,000 of them, don't have a voting representative in their parliament, the House of Representatives, the people's House. I think that's an egregious undermining of the principles for which our men and women fight, for which we stand and to which we have pledged support of our Constitution. Now whether or not that will be included in the Defense bill, it is about democracy. It is about participation. It is about respect.

I will tell my friend, I don't know whether that's going to be. I've heard some discussion about that myself. But whether it is or not, I will tell my friend that I will continue to fight as hard as I can to try to figure out how I can bring that bill to the floor, get it to a vote, and give the people of the District of Columbia, our fellow citizens, the right to vote as the citizens in Baghdad can do, the citizens in Moscow can do, the citizens in every free country in the world except the United States of America, can do. I think that's a blot on our democracy. I would hope that we would erase that blot as soon as we can in any way that we can.

I yield back to the gentleman and thank him for yielding.

Most things are possible.

Will my friend yield?

I appreciate that representation. I pose a question to my friend.

Would he help me bring the District of Columbia bill to the floor as a clean bill on the question of whether the citizens of the District of Columbia's representative ought to be able to vote as every one of us can on this floor?

That was not an answer to my question, I respectfully suggest to you. It was a serious question.

The reason the hate crime bill was on the armed services bill, which it shouldn't have been, it was because we couldn't get 60 votes to bring it up on the floor, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the Senate and the majority of the House supported that bill.

The gentleman talks, very persuasively in my view, about bringing up bills in the proper order. The problem is, very frankly, we don't have the Interior bill this week and we don't have some other bills because frankly we can't get 60 votes to consider them on the floor of the United States Senate. I think that is lamentable. It's also unfortunate.

Again, if you will yield, what I was responding to is your observation about a clean bill. My response was, would the gentleman work with me to perhaps get both of our sides to vote on a rule that provides for a clean consideration of whether or not the representative of 600,000 of our fellow citizens who live in the capital of the United States of America, the symbol of democracy throughout the world, but who do not have a voting representative, would my friend help me do that? Because I haven't been able to do it. With all that power you think I have and with the gavel that you think we have, we haven't been able to that.

Would you help me do that?

Do you know who helped build this dome? Slaves. We thought that was wrong.

My comment is a very simple question, and you wanted to have an open rule.

I'm talking about the Defense bill and your concern about D.C. vote being added to the Defense bill. My retort to you, because you wanted the Defense bill clean to deal just with the subject matter of defense. That's as I took your question. My response to you was, I think that's a good point.

Would you help me, then, do the same for the D.C. bill, which also stands for democracy, clean, not obstructed by issues which are obviously very controversial, which are not consistent with considering simply the very simple, straightforward question, do the 600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia, American citizens, our neighbors, have the right as our citizens have, of having us have a vote that counts on the floor of the House of Representatives? That's all I was responding to.

I expect to consider it. The chairman has announced that he expects to consider that, not next week but the week after. I have told the chairman, as I told Mr. Cantor last week, that I expect to bring it to the floor shortly after it's passed out of committee.

He says not next week but the week after. And whenever he passes it, I will bring it out shortly thereafter. So it could either be the last of October or the very first few days of November. So in 2 or 3 weeks at the outside.

I don't know whether I made a pledge. I am very much for this. I am a cosponsor of that. I want to pass it as soon as possible.

It's been the chairman's judgment as to when to bring it up. He is going to bring it up, and I am going to bring it as soon thereafter as is practical, which I suspect to be a matter of days. But if he passes it on Thursday and if we are not scheduled to be here on a Friday, I don't know that I will schedule Friday; we may pass it Tuesday, but I expect to pass it very shortly after it passes out of committee.

This bill, frankly, with all due respect, your help would be nice, but not needed. It's the other bill I need your help on.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 846 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 846 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science and Technology Committee shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. Such amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report and shall be offered by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. All points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico, a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Lujan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Tonko.

(Mr. TONKO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, by creating a solar technology road map committee made up of experts representing a variety of perspectives from the private industry, the solar technology industry, from the national laboratories, one of which borders my district, the National Energies Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, from academia and from the relevant Federal, State, as well as local agencies, we can ensure that we have all the stakeholders on board with a forward- thinking strategic plan for using our Federal solar energy research, rolling out development and demonstration, and making sure that funds are spent effectively and efficiently.

The road map that this bill will create is a model that's tried and true. This bill's road map is modeled on the successful National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors which has been instrumental in helping the semiconductor industry and semiconductor technology advance rapidly over the past two decades. The progress in the semiconductor industry has helped make the technology exponentially more cost competitive and has grown the industry to help establish America as the international leader in semiconductors, just as we have the opportunity to be the true international leader in solar technology.

Like solar technology, the semiconductor industry at one point in time also needed focus. It needed a road map to point it in the right direction, a road map to ensure that its investments were being used wisely and efficiently, allowing us to compete with other countries. This bill will do the same for the solar industry.

Mr. Speaker, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act has gained a wide variety of bipartisan support, support from institutions and organizations from many different perspectives on the energy issue.

I strongly urge passage of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Carolina earlier alluded to her concern that, if we passed this bill and others, our economy will begin to resemble the Third World. She particularly cited, she said, the Third World, particularly South American countries. I would like to remind my colleague that South American countries, in particular Argentina and Brazil, have been on a tear of growth. They have had economic growth. Their currencies have gained value against the dollar. And I hope that our country can enjoy the same kinds of economic growth that in particular Brazil and Argentina have enjoyed this last year. And certainly the technology industry, in having a road map for our solar industry, can be an important part of that economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a responsible and well thought out and proven approach to moving our Nation away from its addiction on fossil fuels and towards independence. This is a mission that will help us address some of the largest challenges we face, reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Time and time again, it has been shown that solar energy is a tremendous win in terms of national security, lessening our reliance on foreign oil. Whether having emergency response centers powered individually during disasters or having additional solar supplying the grid during blackouts, we are learning that energy security means homegrown renewable energy.

What good does it do for us to be dependent on Europe or China for our energy in the future just as we are today on Saudi Arabia? I think not. We can change our future and take ownership of our future here today. The unfortunate truth of the matter is right now Europe and China are winning the technology wars to dominate our renewable energy future; and this will become worse with every day that we fail to act.

Today, Congress can take action to change our future and take ownership of our future for America. We need to realize that the technological gains of China and Europe are a good thing, but not if they are to the detriment of our own small businesses, our own investment, and our own jobs.

There is one factor that every place with a booming clean energy industry has in common. It's not just the sun, which we have in our country, it's not just the wind, which we have, it's not just the biomass, which we have in spades; but it is the policies, the policies that underlie creating a playing field that enables the growth of the solar technology industry.

You may think that California and Colorado are the number one and number three, respectively, renewable energy States in the country because they are sunny or windy. But, in fact, we in Colorado, and the State of California is number one, are in their place because they have the right policies, the right policies to attract investors, the right policies to grow clean energy jobs, friendly State leadership from the Governor to the State legislature, to counties. To prove this point, coming in at number two is actually the somewhat cloudy State of New Jersey, due to their State leadership of embracing a renewable energy economy.

In Colorado, this fact has been known for years. Our State and my hometown of Boulder know the benefits of policies that attract technological advancement, support small businesses and create jobs all because they promote investments in renewable energy.

In fact, today the American Solar Energy Society will unveil a new national report that shows the economic and employment boom that clean energy could provide if only we enact the right policies, which we can through the road map that we have contained in this bill. Policies like net metering, interconnection standards, Property Assessed Clean Energy Bonds and the expansion of distributed generation are the next steps of policies that will give our Nation the benefits that clean energy has given to places like Colorado.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, this bill has been officially endorsed by business groups across the board, like the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and the National Semiconductor Association.

In passing the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, we are passing on confidence to investors that our support will be around for the long haul. It is predictable. We are saying to small clean energy businesses that you can hire more employees, and we are saying to researchers that without a doubt you will be inventing technologies that will make our country cleaner and will make our Nation stronger in the world.

Establishing a research road map and prioritizing Federal funding for solar research will help commercialize new solar technologies and make clean, renewable energy sources more affordable and accessible for all Americans. Solar technology offers tremendous opportunity for America, the potential to create tens of thousands of good, high-paying, clean energy jobs that we are currently losing to overseas companies as we build our energy independence future.

The U.S. has some of the best solar resources of any industrialized nation in the world, both intellectual as well as geophysical. Yet while America is currently a leader in solar technology development, other countries, like Spain, Germany and China, are devoting much more of a concerted effort and attention to deployment, putting the U.S. competitive position in jeopardy.

The Solar Technology Roadmap Act has diverse and bipartisan support.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Chairman Gordon of the Science and Technology Committee for his commitment to this important issue, and my friend from Arizona (Ms. Giffords) for her hard work championing this legislation to ensure that America retains and grows its position as a leader in solar technology and job creation for the future.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, to speak on H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act.

I would first like to thank the sponsor of the bill, Representative Giffords, and also Chairman Gordon, for working with our side of the aisle to address concerns and incorporating suggestions to the extent that you were able to. While we didn't come to an agreement on everything, we came to an agreement on a lot of things. But I do feel that we were given the opportunity to state our case and make our arguments. Unfortunately, the areas in which we were not able to reach an agreement remain of concern.

Let me start by saying that as a conference, we're supportive of solar energy, and we have so voted--most of the people on my side of the aisle. We certainly see the great potential it has to be a contributor of energy to our constituents. However, as already stated, there's some lingering concerns in the bill before us today.

First, the bill authorizes $2.25 billion over 5 years. This is not an insignificant amount, especially in our current financial climate. The question was raised during consideration of the bill in committee whether or not investment tax credits for solar energy, long-term incentives to develop renewable energy in general or an easing of burdensome regulations would be a better way to encourage the development and use of solar energy.

Solar energy has been on the forefront for over 30 years, and it still only makes up 1 percent of the 7 percent of the renewable energy consumed in the United States according to the Energy Information Administration.

This authorization, coupled with the requirement that the Secretary of Energy allocate at least 75 percent of funding to those solar research, development, and demonstration projects directed under the road map, leaves little flexibility for innovations that may be viable and yet not included as part of the road map.

Second, the bill directs, not requests, it directs the Secretary to spend at least 30 percent in 2012 and culminating with at least 75 percent in 2015. It could be as much as 100 percent on the research, development, and demonstration set forth by the road map committee.

Moreover, at least one-third of the committee must be made up of industry members who are explicitly exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. And this act, as you know, was intended to require an open and transparent process. While I support the Department of Energy, the university, and industry collaboration in the area of solar research, development, and demonstration, the optics of this examination are that you now have a committee, half of whose membership could be industry, telling the Department of Energy where to direct taxpayer money into R&D that could benefit their own companies while not having to answer to anyone or defend their recommendation to the entity that was set up to oversee and to require open and transparent processes.

While I appreciate the inclusion at our suggestion of language dealing with potential conflicts of interests in regard to the road map committee membership, more transparency needs to be incorporated.

During the full committee markup, Republicans attempted to address concerns through amendments that would have reduced the authorization, given the Secretary of DOE some discretion as to how much funding should go to the road map recommendations.

We had some suggestions to sunset the road map committee in 2015. While these amendments were all voted down, I remain hopeful that these issues can be addressed as we move forward.

I would like to point out that the Department of Energy shares some of these same concerns with this bill, and it made the Science and Technology Committee aware of those concerns earlier this week. In particular, they expressed concerns with using the road map committee to direct DOE activities; the requirement of a percentage of funds to be used to support activities identified by the committee; the Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption for the committee; and potential conflicts of interest with the members of the committee.

I support research and development into solar energy technologies, but believe me, this bill has a lot of room for improvement.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), who is a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask how much time we have under general debate and how many speakers Mr. Gordon has.

Thank you.

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

I would yield to the chairman my time if he needs it. I may be more friendly to this bill than he thinks I am.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not necessarily opposed to all of them.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment includes 14 separate amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee. I am supportive of a number of the provisions, including those that promote solar demonstration projects on Federal lands and those that promote geographic diversity for members of the solar road map committee. Most of these amendments make minor changes, and I don't oppose those. I have some questions with a few of the provisions, which I hope the chairman might be able to speak to.

Mr. Hastings' amendment would fund community implementation of solar technologies, which I am not sure is an appropriate use of funds in the bill. Mr. Polis' amendment seems to be the attempt to study financial incentives available to convince people to use solar energy, but I am uncertain what he really seeks to accomplish.

Can the chairman shed some light on the need for this language and whether this is an appropriate use of funds in the bill?

Finally, Mr. Thompson's amendment that would use funding in the bill for demonstration projects to protect against solar technology equipment theft, I am concerned about the cost of this project and whether or not this is

an appropriate research and development project for the bill, it is a research and development project, and how big of a problem is this and what types of products are being stolen.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Dr. Broun's amendment is a fiscally conservative amendment that makes financial sense when our country is carrying a $1.4 trillion debt. Instead of authorizing a total of $2.25 billion, Dr. Broun's amendment would authorize $750 million, keeping the authorization level more in line with the incremental increases the solar program has been appropriated over the past several years, not to mention the $117.6 million that the program has already received in the stimulus bill. This could be the amendment that would make the bill more acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to ensure minority institutions are represented on the solar technology road map committee established in this bill. I certainly have no objections to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply expand the types of technology the Energy Secretary can consider from solar thermal electric technology to solar thermal power technology and require the Secretary to include at least two solar thermal technology projects with thermal storage in the demonstration project funded under the bill. I see no problem with that, and I have no objection to the amendment.

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

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I do have some concerns about this amendment.

While I agree with its intent to help commercialize the technologies that come around as a result of solar technology research, I am concerned that we may not want to spend research dollars retooling and refurbishing manufacturing facilities, some of which may be represented on the Solar Roadmap Committee. That's my problem with it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the

amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the Secretary to evaluate the potential to establish large solar facilities and evaluate the electrical grid, current, voltage, and energy storage requirements associated with large solar facilities, which I think this is a good time for.

We have no objection to this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply include research on solar energy storage technology as eligible for funding under the research and development program established in the bill.

I have no objection to this amendment.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment. It's a good amendment, as solar energy can be a large user of water, and we're looking at ways to reduce the use of water in all forms of energy production. I think it's a very good amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in light of the exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act in this bill for the road map committee, I think it's a good idea to make the draft road map available to the public for input. This will help shed additional light on the decisions of the road map committee. I would support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am pleased that we're considering H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act sponsored by Science and Technology Subcommittee Chair Gabrielle Giffords. This bipartisan bill has a number of cosponsors including myself, subcommittee Chair Brian Baird, and Dan Lipinski, as well as committee members Michael McCaul and Roscoe Bartlett.

I assume solar power is not the first name that comes to your mind when you think of the State of Tennessee; but over the last few years we have really seen firsthand the major potential that solar energy has to create new jobs across the country and reduce our dependency on foreign oil in the process.

Recently, two major producers of special materials used in solar panels have chosen Clarksville and Cleveland, Tennessee, as sites for their next large factories, each with over $1 billion investment creating hundreds of jobs, plus many more jobs in larger investment with the supply chain, as well as universities now setting up courses in management for the solar panel industries. And this is happening all across the State and communities all across our Nation. And that's why we need a national plan, and that's why we are discussing this important bill today.

H.R. 3585 establishes a comprehensive road mapping process for solar technology research, development, and demonstration activities conducted by the Federal Government in partnership with industry. The Secretary of Energy is also directed to award grants to carry out these programs by merit-based review specifically to provide awards to industry-led consortia research, development, and demonstration in solar manufacturing.

The road map provision in the bill is molded on the successful National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, which has been instrumental in helping semiconductor technology advance rapidly over the past two decades.

H.R. 3585 incorporates recommendations of the witnesses who appeared at the Science and Technology Committee, as well as input from a variety of academic, government, and industry experts. Science and Technology Committee staff closely consulted with the minority in the development of this bill. We accepted several minority amendments, and the vast majority of items in our manager's amendment in committee were also suggested or requested by the minority. The bill was voted out of committee on a bipartisan voice vote.

H.R. 3585 has been officially endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Solar Energy Industries Association, British Petroleum, IBM, Intel, and National Semiconductor.

I look forward to voting for several good amendments today and strongly urge my colleagues here to support a bill that will help our country take back the leadership position in this fast-growing industry and put our best minds to work to meet our future energy needs.

Once again, I want to commend Ms. Giffords, Mr. McCaul on their leadership on this issue. I would also like to take a moment to recognize staff who worked on this bill: Adam Rosenberg, Wyatt King, and Elaine Ulrich on the majority side; and Elizabeth Chapel and Tara Rothschild on the minority side. Without the hard work of the staff on both sides of the aisle, producing good bills like this one would not be possible.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the passionate solar advocate and primary author of this bill, the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank Mr. McCaul for his significant contribution to this and, more importantly, really, for the constructive role he has played on our committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. Hall, if the gentleman would yield, to answer your question, I have about six different speakers at about 2 minutes for most of them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to an outstanding member of our committee from Michigan, Mr. Peters.

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

We have a number of other Members who wanted to speak on this bill, because it is a good bill and they participated, but I do not see them at this time. I don't think it would be respectful to the minority to hold them up with just a filibuster by me.

I yield to the gentleman to see whether he has anyone else who would like to speak.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

This amendment includes a number of good ideas from my colleagues who today were not fortunate enough to be on our committee, so I am happy to support them all, and I appreciate their contribution to making this a better bill.

The amendment also incorporates important clarifying language that the our staff worked out with our committee colleagues and partner, Dr. Bartlett, to ensure that the road map committee only has the power to provide guidance on technological goals and activities and cannot recommend or select specific recipients of funds. This amendment provides further protection against any conflicts of interest on the road map committee, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from San Diego, Mrs. Davis, for as much time as she may consume.

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

Ranking Member Hall, to respond to your question, the manager's amendment was a compilation of a variety of amendments that had been presented to the Rules Committee. In an effort to expedite the process here today, there was no mention of opposition to these. The minority staff had access to these amendments at the same time that we had them. We heard no opposition, so we tried to batch them together so that the process could move forward more expeditiously.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield the gentlewoman from Arizona 3 minutes.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

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

Dr. Broun is a valued member of our committee and has well deserved credentials for looking after the taxpayers' dollars. But I really think in this case it is being penny wise and pound foolish.

In the short time that I have, I want to make one quick point. The United States invented the technology for the solar industry now. Yet China is the largest manufacturer, exporter and deployer of solar in the world right now. The United States simply cannot compete with them in terms of wages. We do not want to work for $2 or $3 an hour. We do not want to have our kids to do that. So we have to be ahead of them in technology.

For that reason, we are going to have to invest in that technology so that we can make our solar panels and our solar industry be such that we are not only manufacturing it, but we are also putting forth the best technology. That is why this investment is important. That is why this is an investment in our future and our kids.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Marshall. I want to let you know that the author of the study that you put forth testified before our committee. It was made part of the record. And you are absolutely right, the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, so we need to also find ways to be able to have the storage. I think it is a two-fer with this proposal, and we gladly accept your amendment.

As my friend knows, even in Florida the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, so to make the most use of solar technology, storage is very important. I think there will be a combination there. That storage benefit, the technology, will also be used for wind power and other types of renewables.

So I think you have an excellent amendment. It makes a good bill even better, and I appreciate your addition to this bill.

I thank the gentlelady from Nevada.

Certainly, as we have had various hearings in the Science and Technology Committee, we've determined very easily that there is a nexus between water and energy. In most cases, it takes water to make energy and it takes energy to move water, and certainly in the area of large plants with solar thermal, there is a lot of use of water in that regard. To make those plants more efficient will help us to conserve water and help us with that nexus.

And again, I thank the gentlelady for this good amendment to this good bill.