Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to join my colleagues in support of this amendment to restore funding to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, known as ARPA-E. In the report language for this bill, the…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise to join my colleagues in support of this amendment to restore funding to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, known as ARPA-E.
In the report language for this bill, the committee's majority correctly notes that projects funded by ARPA-E ``are capable of significantly changing the energy sector to address our critical economic and energy security challenges.'' This Agency is funding research to advance more efficient power transmission, energy storage, transportation fuel alternatives, energy-efficient buildings, and so much more. So it is puzzling that the committee would then recommend reducing the funding for activities that promote American energy and independence by 27 percent compared to the current funding of 43 percent below the President's reasonable request.
It is thanks to our strategic investments in R&D that we have captured the full benefit of America's ideas and innovations through partnerships with the higher education community and the private sector. More than half of the Nation's economic growth since World War II can be traced to science-driven technology research and innovation that has stemmed from that partnership. It was central to our ability to capitalize in the space race in the 1960s.
Since then, the magnitude of research supported by the Federal Government has actually grown and revolutionized health care, transportation, the digital economy and, yes, energy delivery and efficiency. For example, a Federal energy grant at Georgia Tech evolved into a private company, Suniva, that manufactures solar energy cells that are cost competitive with fossil fuels. In fact, the company technology was named the world's best commercially applied innovation in 2010. So it's unfortunate to see the majority continue a pattern of disinvestment in basic research, which typically yields a 2 1 return on investment. Cuts like this actually wind up costing our country in the long run.
The real question is: Who is going to fill that gap if we start to retreat on this historic partnership? The answer: our foreign competitors. It's already happening, Mr. Chairman. More than half of U.S. patents were granted to foreign companies in 2009. China is now the world's leading high-tech exporter, and we rank 27th in the number of graduates with science or engineering degrees.
On a related note, I would highlight another issue of which the majority is paying lip service to the need to address the shortage of American scientists and innovators. The report language correctly expresses concern with the long-term science, technology, engineering, and math workforce development pipeline, particularly for underrepresented minority students. Yet the majority then continues to underfund the very programs aimed at supporting strong teachers and scientists to recruit and train the next generation of innovators.
Mr. Chairman, we need to invest more, not less, in these Federal research partnerships. I urge my colleagues to restore these vital funds so we can continue to nurture promising industries, provide entrepreneurs with skills and capital and allow American companies to be globally competitive and help American workers get jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when we should be working together to find ways to save taxpayer money and reduce the deficit, this bill proposes to waste millions of dollars on research into an inefficient and highly polluting energy extraction process known as oil shale. For 100 years, oil shale advocates and big energy companies have been selling us the promise of cheap energy through oil shale. Despite those efforts, no company has been able to deliver on that promise.
It's time to end the sham and stop wasting taxpayer dollars. That's why this amendment, which I offer with my good friend Congressman Jared Polis of Colorado, would save $25 million and invest it in deficit reduction.
Despite what some in the industry might claim, oil shale development won't produce affordable American energy or jobs. Mr. Chairman, just a few weeks ago, Interior Secretary Salazar pointed out that the House majority continues to confuse shale oil with oil shale, two completely different things.
While they clearly sound similar, any undergraduate in geology can tell you that, in fact, one is a rock and the other is a liquid. Let me say that again so my colleagues understand. Oil shale, derived from a rock, is not to be confused with shale oil.
While shale oil is experiencing a boom in development, oil shale technology simply doesn't exist, a fact recently confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO estimated that implementing a commercial leasing program for oil shale on Federal lands under the PIONEERS Act would not generate revenue for at least 10 years.
The amendment I'm offering with my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis) would simply eliminate the research and funding dollars designated in this bill for oil shale production. This is a simple commonsense amendment. Given the current budget constraints we hear so much about, we cannot continue to throw good money after bad for a nonexistent, uneconomic energy source. There is no sense in wasting $25 million in taxpayer dollars on oil shale research and development when there is no commercially viable technology to bake rock and turn it into synthetic oil.
In addition to the technological and economic hurdles facing oil shale, oil shale threatens already scarce water supplies in the West. According to the Bureau of Land Management, industrial scale oil shale development could actually require as much as 150 percent of the amount of water Denver metro area consumes every year. That not only would threaten Denver and eastern agriculture in Colorado, but it would also throw a wrench in the delicate multistate agreements that govern the Colorado River and its use, which is already overtaxed.
Simply put, every Colorado River State, from Colorado to California, should be concerned by this use of this money and water and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we need more affordable American energy. Achieving that goal includes responsible oil and gas exploration, better use of technology to capitalize on all available resources,
and greater focus on the cleaner energy future from renewables such as solar and wind. Some might call it an all-of-the-above approach, but all of the above should not include things that science tells us aren't really viable and represent an unwise investment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the Polis-Connolly amendment. I ask for consideration of this issue that we, in fact, save $25 million and put it to deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.