Expanding Access to Sustainable Energy Act of 2019

Floor Speech

I rise in opposition to this bloc of amendments and to express my profound disappointment with this process.

As I said yesterday, climate change is a generational challenge, one where our work today will have an impact for decades to come. I believe our work on something of this importance deserves thoughtful consideration, careful analysis, and substantial debate. After all, what is at stake here is no small matter.

The policy decisions we make on this issue will not only impact our greenhouse gas emissions; they will also have a direct effect on what Americans pay to cool and heat their homes. They will determine whether we hamstring our energy sectors or give them a global advantage.

Congress has an established process to make smart policy decisions on important issues like this. We consider issues in hearings, debate and vote in committees, and then bring legislation to the House floor.

That is not what happened here. Instead of following regular order on individual policy proposals, we were given 1 week to review 900 pages of legislation.

In an effort to have a voice in this process, Members offered 176 amendments to this bill. Only 99 were made in order.

And now, Mr. Speaker, we don't even have the chance to debate and vote on those amendments individually. Instead, we are expected to vote to pass or reject 26 amendments en bloc right now. With only one exception, this is how we will vote on all 99 amendments made in order.

That is a problem because it forces us either to vote in favor of policies we don't support or to vote against the ones we do. That is where I find myself right now.

Not surprisingly, I strongly support my own amendment in this bloc. It expresses the sense of Congress that in order to reduce emissions, the Secretary of Energy must prioritize funding for fundamental research infrastructure and for basic research and development activities carried out through the Office of Science.

Office of Science programs have long served as the cornerstone of U.S. energy innovation. Our clean energy future will be built on next- generation technology areas like grid-scale energy storage, advanced grid security, and integrated carbon management strategies. These technologies are dependent on Federal support for basic research programs and infrastructure.

The Office of Science at DOE is behind some of the most groundbreaking scientific discoveries and technology developments in recent history. Without the innovation that has come from DOE basic research, we wouldn't have successfully reduced emissions through clean, affordable natural gas.

That is why a clean energy legislative package that fails to include comprehensive Office of Science provisions is not a serious proposal even if it is 900 pages long.

I would urge my colleagues to remember that Americans need affordable and reliable energy, and that has to be a central goal in our policy to address climate change.

We can reduce emissions, keep energy prices competitive, and ensure that the U.S. remains a world leader in science and energy technology by committing to prioritize basic research and critical infrastructure supported by the Office of Science.

I believe my amendment would improve H.R. 4447 by establishing that Congress is fundamentally committed to research and development of breakthrough clean energy technologies. Unfortunately, I can't support my amendment because it has been lumped in with so many others that actually worsen the underlying legislation by increasing our support of well-funded applied research programs that are duplicating the work that private industry can and should be doing on its own.

But that is what happens when you force through a massive, partisan messaging bill instead of allowing for individual policy consideration. This shows a lack of good faith from the House Democrats and is no way to pass legislation for the public good.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I would note to my colleague that I have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to close whenever she has concluded with her speakers.

As the Chamber of Commerce noted in a letter to Congress, there is a growing consensus that the research, development, and commercialization of new technologies is an important factor that will determine how quickly and at what cost greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced. The Chamber has recently taken issue with this package because of the inclusion of a number of provisions that diverge from its core focus area, threatening to undermine the otherwise favorable bill.

I am sorry to say it again, but too many provisions of this bill have undermined areas where we could have found bipartisan consensus. The same is true of the bloc of amendments. I, therefore, must urge my colleagues to oppose this bloc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, my amendment contained within this en bloc emphasizes a critical priority for House Republicans. It expresses the sense of Congress that the United States must prioritize investment in domestic energy sources and supply chains, as well as in research and development of exportable next-generation energy technologies.

This is absolutely necessary if we are going to maintain U.S. competitiveness in science and technology while reducing emissions. These priorities should play a key role in any realistic and responsible global clean energy strategy.

With the current public health crisis, the need for sustainable domestic energy chains has never been more important. Whether it is medical supplies or energy sources, we need to be able to depend on our own resources if foreign supply is voluntarily or involuntarily cut off. That requires us to invest in basic research, which drives breakthrough technologies.

For example, due in part to Federal investment in R&D that has led to new horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology, the American shale revolution has led the U.S. to be a net exporter of natural gas since 2018. This is how basic research results in energy independence, an achievement our Nation must prioritize for long-term success.

Basic research is also instrumental in the fight against climate change. For emissions reduction technologies like carbon capture, storage, and utilization to be effective, they must be used globally.

Over the past 20 years, Asia has accounted for 90 percent of all coal-fired capacity built worldwide, and these plants have potentially long operational lifetimes ahead of them. We can't force them to change their energy profile and amount of emissions, but we can make cleaner energy technology appealing by making it efficient, inexpensive, and commercially marketable.

If fundamental clean energy research is conducted here in the United States and developed into deployable technology, we can export the resulting knowledge, tools, and energy itself, as I mentioned with natural gas. By investing in this way, we can grow U.S. industry, reduce our reliance on foreign countries for innovation, and, most importantly, make a significant impact on mitigating the effects of global climate change.

If we want to innovate, and we want to export our technologies, we have to focus on breakthrough science, not on propping up mature energy technologies and slowing the development of new ones.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this position, my amendment, and this en bloc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed in its current form.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, my motion will ensure that none of the $135 billion in taxpayer funds authorized in H.R. 4447 will be used to build up foreign countries' intellectual property and technology at the expense of our own.

Specifically, in order to receive Federal grants, loans, or demonstration money through H.R. 4447, organizations must certify that the results of that funding, whether technology, intellectual property, or data, will not become the property of a foreign state-owned enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, China has made it an explicit goal to surpass the United States as the global frontrunner in science and technology. The Chinese Communist Party's Made in 2025 initiative outlines a clear strategy to get ahead of us in critical technologies and industries of the future.

Part of the CCP strategy is acquiring U.S. technology and intellectual property, whether through investment, coercion, or theft.

Let me repeat that: through investment, coercion, or, yes, even theft.

This isn't a hypothetical situation. Already, China has recruited U.S.-funded researchers for things like the Thousand Talents program.

This is much more than a single recruitment program or an exchange of knowledge. Researchers joining the Thousand Talents program sign legally binding contracts that require them to transfer information and property to China.

We have seen a consistent pattern where China expresses interest in a specific technology and then the U.S. experiences intellectual property theft in that same technology.

The full scope of the CCP's influence and presence in the U.S. is not entirely known to the public, but FBI Director Christopher Wray has said that the Bureau is opening a new China-related counterintelligence case about every 10 hours.

Simply put, we are spending the time, the money, and the effort to plant the seeds of new technologies, but China is the one harvesting the crop. We cannot afford to spend $135 billion in taxpayers' funds on technologies that China will then steal and use to compete against us. We must protect our Nation's research and intellectual property.

The Trump administration has taken good steps towards protecting American IP from Chinese aggression, but we must do more to work together to protect sensitive American research while maintaining the spirit of open science that has fueled, literally, generations of discoveries.

Mr. Speaker, this motion provides commonsense, practical protections for taxpayer-funded research and the incalculable innovations it creates. I urge my colleagues to support this motion and ensure that we are not spending billions of dollars on research that China will then use to outcompete us.

Ms DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source