[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 24 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1350-H1393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ADVANCED FUELS INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 133 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 133

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 547) to facilitate the development of markets 
     for alternative fuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel 
     through research, development, and demonstration and data 
     collection. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Science and Technology. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science and Technology now printed in the bill. Each section 
     of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill 
     for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time we 
are adopting a rule that will allow Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner to vote in the Committee of the Whole, does the rule allow 
for a separate vote on any question once the Committee rises?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Rule XVIII contemplates automatic, immediate 
review in the House of certain recorded votes in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. As a point of clarification on the inquiry, so 
any question may be put to a separate vote once the Committee rises?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 6(h) of rule XVIII, both 
affirmative and negative decisions of the Committee of the Whole may be 
reviewed in the House under circumstances in which votes cast by 
Delegates were decisive in Committee.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Under what circumstances will a separate vote 
not be allowed?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee will not automatically rise 
for such an immediate review in the case where votes cast by Delegates 
were not decisive.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. When a vote is not decisive, but a question put 
loses, is there any opportunity for any Member, certified Member of the 
House, to ask for a separate vote?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 6(h) of rule XVIII, immediate 
review in the House occurs automatically when recorded votes cast by 
Delegates were decisive, without regard to whether the question was 
adopted or rejected. In ordinary proceedings of the house on the 
ultimate report of the Committee of the Whole, the House considers only 
matters reported to it by the Committee of the Whole, which would not 
include propositions rejected in Committee. Simply put, an amendment 
rejected in the Committee of the Whole is not reported back to the 
House.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. On any question put?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Not if it is rejected in the Committee of 
the Whole.

[[Page H1351]]

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during 
consideration of this rule is for debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. WELCH of Vermont asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 133 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research 
and Development Act, under an open rule. The rule provides for 1 hour 
of general debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order 
the Committee on Science and Technology amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, now printed in the bill, as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, which shall be considered for amendment by 
section with each section considered as read.
  The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and the underlying 
bill. As this Congress is well aware, our country faces a pressing need 
to chart a new energy future. In the crisis of global warming, it is 
real, it is urgent, and it requires our immediate action.
  Furthermore, there is a growing recognition that our reliance on 
fossil fuels and foreign sources of energy threatens our economic 
future and our international security.

                              {time}  1030

  We as a Nation must seize opportunities, not miss them, to be a world 
leader and promote our own domestic economy, to take steps similar to 
what Brazil has done and has successfully demonstrated with the 
reliance on increasing access to biofuels.
  Today, the Chair of our Science and Technology Committee, the Member 
from Tennessee, Chairman Gordon, with the assistance of the ranking 
member, the Representative from Texas, Mr. Hall, are providing us with 
an opportunity to take a concrete step forward to increase the use and 
the supply of alternative renewable fuels through research and 
development.
  These alternatives provide hope for reducing our impact on global 
warming while giving a boost to our local and national economies. The 
particular beneficiaries of success in building capacity for biofuels 
will be our rural economies, Mr. Speaker.
  We have a potential, if we embrace it, in facing the challenge we 
face with energy, to revitalize our rural economies. What this bill 
will do is a number of things. It will fund research to make renewable 
biofuels more compatible with existing infrastructure. One of the 
practical problems that we face in making biofuels generally available 
is infrastructure challenges.
  Right now, the low sulfur fuels that are potentially available can do 
damage to the basic pumps and tanks that are in the 160,000 gas 
stations across this country. Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel has just 3 
percent of the sulfur in traditional diesel. But current technology 
does not allow for the easy testing to ensure that this standard is 
met.
  This is the second area where the bill will help, by establishing 
clear national standards for testing that will allow verification about 
what the sulfur content is in our biofuels. New low-cost testing 
methods will give rise to consumer confidence and create the 
possibility for greater demand.
  To that end, this bill will make alternative fuel compatibility 
information more available to the public. You know, the expansion of 
biofuels is going to mean additional revenue options for local farmers, 
like those in my State of Vermont, and a cleaner environment with less 
dependance on foreign oil.
  As gas prices rise, we are further reminded that we are held hostage 
by a single source of fuel that threatens our economy, constrains our 
foreign policy, and does damage to our environment. The most basic 
level, the budgets of our seniors and our schools, our farms, and our 
families are strained by high energy prices.
  All of the time we are exporting dollars to import energy, we are 
depriving our local economies of job creation potential. This 
legislation takes small but very specific steps that will bring us 
closer to a readily available source of fuel that is local and can have 
tremendous potential for our local economies.
  We are moving in a new direction. Our first step in this Congress, 
the 110th Congress, last month was when we stood up to Big Oil and we 
rescinded tax cuts that went to an industry that had been enjoying 
record profits, and instead put that money into research and 
opportunities for alternative renewable energy sources.
  Many of us come from States that have been taking steps to focus on 
energy independence and clean energy sources. My own State of Vermont 
has established a utility called Efficiency Vermont that actually makes 
benefits for Vermonters by finding ways to use less energy, keeping 
money in our pockets.
  We have created a clean energy fund, something in effect that we are 
on a start to do with the legislation we passed in the 6-for-06. We 
established appliance efficiency standards that when implemented can 
save Vermonters and other citizens from States that have joined us 
millions of dollars in energy costs.
  You know, in addition to just the very practical steps this 
legislation is taking, having government assist in coming up with 
standards to measure what biofuel content is, having government help 
come up with research money so that we can add additives to these low 
sulfur, less polluting fuels, helping our small businesses, the mom and 
pop convenience stores that have gas pumps, and would face an expense 
of $30,000 to $200,000 to retrofit or to replace existing facilitates 
in order to be able to dispense the new fuels that our private market 
is producing, this is a concrete step where government is helping on 
the energy front, helping small business by assisting and coming up 
with practical low-cost ways to make it easy to dispense this fuel and 
get it to the consumer.
  These are steps where the government is acting as a partner with 
industry, a partner with our small businesses and doing some things 
that require the practical and efficient application of resources of 
the people of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, there is also another element to this bill that I think 
is very important for the 110th Congress. This is a bipartisan piece of 
legislation, presented by the Science and Technology Committee. I want 
to quote some remarks that Chairman Gordon made at the outset. What he 
said, when he took the reins of that committee as the new chairman was 
this: ``I made a promise that this would be a committee of good ideas 
and a committee of consensus. We are here to solve problems. In fact, 
the entire Congress is here to solve problems.''
  Mr. Gordon and his committee, with the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Texas, have presented to us a bill that has broad bipartisan 
support. Why? Because it is practical. It does something concrete. It 
recognizes we have an energy crisis that requires action, and it has 
found constructive ways to address that.
  The committee allowed the process to be open for new ideas, inviting 
Members to present amendments. The chairman then came before the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Speaker, and asked for an open rule so as to permit 
Members of this body who may have amendments that will strengthen or 
improve this legislation to have those considered by the full Congress.
  So what this bill does is two things: one, it presents us with a 
practical step that we can take that helps continue to move us in the 
right direction on energy independence, on reducing global warming, and 
on building our local economies.
  Second, it is a model of how we can work together, the presentation 
of

[[Page H1352]]

good ideas in a bipartisan piece of legislation in an open rule where 
other Members are invited to present relevant and thought-out ideas 
that may improve this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise to express my 
appreciation to my friend from Hartland, Vermont, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and 
Development Act. I congratulate Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon 
and Ranking Member Ralph Hall on their efforts; and I applaud my 
colleague, the Rules Committee Chair, Ms. Slaughter.
  I extend my congratulations to my colleague, Ms. Slaughter, for 
granting such a fair and judicious rule. I am very proud to stand here 
extending that congratulations to my friend and colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, in his January 24, 2007, State of the Union address, 
President Bush called for the increased use of renewable and 
alternative motor fuels. As the 110th Congress begins, alternative 
fuels and advanced technology vehicles have already received a good 
deal of attention, especially in discussions over U.S. energy security. 
The rising cost of oil, the country's dependence on foreign oil, the 
debate over global warming, and the concern with air emissions have led 
to a heightened interest in developing clean and alternative energy 
sources and facilitating their use by the American consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Congress is in the forefront 
of this research and our effort to look for alternative energy sources.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 547 is a good bill that authorizes $10 million for 
the Environmental Protection Agency to launch a research and 
development program aimed at making alternative fuels more compatible 
with the Nation's existing petroleum-based fuel infrastructure.
  It also directs the EPA to develop portable, inexpensive, and 
accurate methods for fuel suppliers to test the sulfur content of 
diesel fuels. While biofuels such as ethanol are regarded as clean-
burning alternatives to fossil fuels, it is clear that they can corrode 
or compromise pipes and storage tanks designed for petroleum products.
  Now, unfortunately, retailers themselves often bear the cost of 
solving this problem and revitalizing the old infrastructure. This bill 
tasks the EPA with testing additive and other technologies to ease such 
problems. With new findings we will be able to mobilize the 
infrastructure necessary to distribute and dispense alternative fuels. 
With so much emphasis being placed on the development of these 
alternative fuels, it is only fitting that we develop the 
infrastructure that is necessary for us to handle those new alternative 
sources of energy.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to point out that in the 109th 
Congress legislation that is virtually identical to this, H.R. 547, was 
introduced to help facilitate the marketing of alternative fuels to 
consumers. In fact, the provisions of H.R. 547 are, as I said, 
virtually identical to section 15 of H.R. 6203, which was introduced 
last year.
  Now, H.R. 6203, the Alternative Research and Energy Research and 
Development Act, was sponsored by our colleague from Illinois, Mrs. 
Biggert. And, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that that legislation which is 
virtually identical to this was passed under suspension of the rules by 
a voice vote. It was passed unanimously.
  Democrats and Republicans in the last Congress came together on the 
29th of September, clearly a time where there was a lot of division, 
and yet we came together on this very important piece of legislation 
designed to help us find ways in which we can deal with the 
infrastructure challenges of putting new alternative sources of energy 
into the hands of consumers in this country.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I applaud this open rule. I 
commend Chairwoman Slaughter for her first attempt at beginning to open 
up this legislative process to all Members. Frankly, I was wondering 
exactly when it would happen. However, I feel it is necessary to point 
out, as I have said before, that this almost exact same bill did pass 
under what is know as suspension of the rules. I know that that is an 
inside baseball, an inside baseball issue here, Mr. Speaker.
  Suspension of the rules means that there is little or no controversy 
to an issue. It is required to have a two-thirds supermajority vote 
with 20 minutes of debate on each side. So that is the way this 
legislation passed the last time. I mean, I think it is very safe to 
say that consideration of this measure, H.R. 547, could have been very 
appropriately provided for under suspension of the rules, or even as 
was requested by the distinguished ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Science, Mr. Hall. In his discussion with Chairman Gordon, 
the discussion was, why do we not bring this under unanimous consent?
  I made the same proposal yesterday in the Rules Committee. I 
understand that the new majority does in fact want to have an 
opportunity to point out that we are going to be considering an issue 
under an open rule. I commend them for that. I am just saying that it 
is very, very easy to bring a noncontroversial issue that will likely 
have unanimous support at the end of the day under an open rule.
  Now, while I think that the research and development of clean 
alternative energy sources is highly critical to our Nation, I hope 
that in the future, in the future that we can save productive, yet 
noncontroversial, bills for consideration under the provision known as 
suspension of the rules, or under unanimous consent agreements which we 
easily could have propounded.
  I hope that we can grant open rules. I hope that we can grant open 
rules to pieces of legislation that are very crucial and frankly where 
there is disagreement, where we can see what James Madison envisioned 
as that clash of ideas, because that is really when the open amendment 
process is very, very worthwhile and we can engage in extensive and 
vigorous debate. I know we are going to have amendments that are going 
to be considered on the floor today.

                              {time}  1045

  I suspect that most of them will be passed, and I suspect that there 
will be bipartisan passage of those amendments. And so when I am 
talking about the future and open rules, I hope that when we do deal 
with that Madisonian clash of ideas, we are able to do it under an open 
amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Rules Committee there were seven 
amendments that were offered by Members, which did require protection, 
point-of-order protection, which, as we all know, is something that the 
Rules Committee can do. One amendment would have doubled the tax credit 
for making biodiesel from recycled restaurant grease. Now this is an 
issue that came forward by Dr. Mike Burgess from Texas, and I know my 
colleague on the Rules Committee from Dallas, Mr. Sessions, is going to 
be talking about this amendment.
  This is a very, very creative way which will help us address this 
issue of alternative sources, and it is being done privately. And the 
notion of providing a tax incentive to deal with the utilization of 
restaurant grease for biodiesel is, as I said, a very, very interesting 
and innovative concept, and we could have allowed it to be considered 
during the debate here on the floor. But to my disappointment, these 
amendments were not made in order.
  As I said, the Rules Committee does have the power to do this. And I 
would say that as we look at this new-found openness and opportunity 
for debate, I hope very much that when we have creative amendments like 
this that could be considered, the Rules Committee would do what the 
Rules Committee often has done in the past, and can do, and that is 
waive points of order so that a creative idea like this can come 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I am overjoyed to be here in strong support of this open 
rule. And as I said, I look forward to many, many more open rules as we 
deal with controversial questions that the American people want us to 
address in the future. The Democrats pledged regular order and a 
transparent and fair legislative process, and I am very glad, I am very 
happy and

[[Page H1353]]

very grateful to see it beginning at this point.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, just before I yield to the next 
speaker on our side, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) for his support for this open rule. As he knows, and I think 
the Members of this body know, the Chair of the Rules Committee, the 
Member from New York, is completely committed to fair debate.
  And also, what we have seen is that there has been vigorous debate on 
the legislation that has already come before this body, resulting in 
votes of passage that included substantial support from the other 
party. So we have had a significant increase in the level of bipartisan 
support for the legislation that this body has passed.
  Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall have presented to us a bill 
that will be considered by the body, that has broad bipartisan support. 
They had an open amendment process in effect in their committee.
  Chairwoman Slaughter and the Rules Committee, with the support of the 
Member from California, presenting this bill once again on an open rule 
process. This side is committed to fair debate, and the Rules Committee 
will act in ways that are consistent with that.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch) for yielding me time. He has quickly become an excellent 
contributor to the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal energy policy has been lagging behind forward-
looking States like California. It is now time for the Federal 
Government to lead America's transformation to a clean energy economy.
  Here in Congress, we must enact smart policies that demonstrate a 
serious commitment to changing the way this Nation produces and 
consumes energy.
  In the House, we took an important first step as part of the 100-
hours agenda when we repealed $14 billion in subsidies and incentives 
for oil companies, and redirected that money to a clean energy fund.
  That legislation sent a clear and strong signal to our constituents 
and to industry. I can tell you that businesses, universities and 
research institutions in my hometown of Sacramento are enthusiastic 
about helping America move forward on clean energy technologies.
  One of those technologies, biofuels, has tremendous potential to 
decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and if we are serious about 
incorporating alternative fuels into the economy, we need to ensure 
that our infrastructure is compatible with them.
  I am a cosponsor of H.R. 547 because it is a commonsense next step on 
biofuels. Chairman Gordon's legislation will allow for research and 
development to ensure that alternative fuels, such as E-85, biodiesel 
and advanced biofuels can be handled by our gas stations and pipelines. 
This is a smart investment because it makes a lot more sense to modify 
the existing infrastructure than to rebuild it.
  I hope all my colleagues will be able to support this important 
legislation. But this is just a first step. We know that. Congress must 
continue to send signals that we are serious about transitioning to a 
clean energy economy. That means supporting the range of technologies, 
including clean alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, 
geothermal and biomass, as well as energy-efficient technologies for 
buildings and transportation.
  Congress and the administration should not pick winners and losers. 
There will be no magic bullet. When it comes to research and 
development, we must hedge our bets.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to 
move toward a clean energy economy effectively and expeditiously. This 
is the most important domestic priority for Congress and a generational 
challenge for the Nation. There is absolutely no time to waste.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 5 minutes 
to our very hardworking member of the Rules Committee, my friend from 
Dallas, Mr. Sessions.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate noncontroversial legislation 
that will help to develop markets for biofuels and ultra-low sulfur 
diesel fuel through research and development.
  And I am very, very pleased, and I appreciate the majority's decision 
to suspend its policy of a closed rule without regular order. I hope 
that this will not prove to be a unique circumstance, and one in which 
we will continue to see more open rules like the one which this 
legislation is being considered today.
  However, I also believe that we are missing an important opportunity 
to improve this legislation by offering an additional provision to be 
considered that was offered yesterday in the Rules Committee by our 
colleague, Dr. Michael Burgess from Texas.
  Congressman Burgess' amendment would have doubled the tax credit for 
making biodiesel from recycled restaurant grease from 50 cents a gallon 
to $1 a gallon, thereby encouraging its further use and production. 
This incentive would encourage the marketplace to reduce petroleum use 
and the pollutant associated with removing this grease without removing 
arable land from food production.
  Mr. Speaker, this technology works. This technology is something that 
we need to do more of. But, this amendment is not germane; it requires 
protection from a point of order, which is what the Rules Committee's 
job is all about. Unfortunately, yesterday, the Rules Committee voted 
it down along party lines with every Democrat on the committee voting 
to prevent this amendment from getting the protection that it would 
need to be considered by the House. Said another way, good ideas don't 
necessarily pass in the Rules Committee.
  This amendment would allow the House to consider new and innovative 
ways to achieve our goal of energy independence in a responsible way. 
And I am disappointed that my Democrat colleagues on the committee 
prevented us from debating that and passing that in the bill today.
  I support Congressman Burgess through his thoughtful legislation to 
provide incentives for the free market to create new, responsible and 
leading-edge solutions to end our dependency on foreign sources of 
energy.
  I hope, despite the setback that he will likely encounter today, that 
Congressman Burgess will continue to offer his amendments in the 
future, and I also hope that he will continue to come up to the Rules 
Committee to make sure his ideas, thoughts, are well understood and 
communicated.
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is open for business. That should 
mean that the best thoughts and ideas that may or may not have been 
considered throughout the process of going through regular order would 
be permissible in the Rules Committee. Good ideas should find the light 
of day upstairs in the Rules Committee, and it is my hope that the 
majority will continue to allow not only an open process, but will 
perhaps allow itself to engage in these ideas for the betterment of 
people who want us to make sure that we work not only in a bipartisan 
way, but solve, through creativity, the problems of this great Nation.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch) for yielding me the time to speak on this open rule, and I 
congratulate him for managing his first rule in this body.
  And I should say that after listening to the previous speaker, my 
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), I have a bad case of 
whiplash, first, because when his party was in the majority, he 
routinely supported closed rules and, second, because when his party 
was in the majority, I can't recall a time when he supported waiving 
germaneness rules for a Democratic amendment.
  Now, having said that, I want to tell my colleagues that the 
gentleman from Vermont is part of an extraordinary new group of Members 
who are helping to change the culture in Washington. And I thank him 
for bringing forward this open rule. These new Members, the ``majority 
makers,'' as the majority

[[Page H1354]]

leader likes to call them, were elected to this body because they stand 
for change. They stand for openness, transparency and honesty.
  They spoke truth to power during the 2006 elections, Mr. Speaker, and 
they are here to do what is in the best interests of their constituents 
and the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, with this open rule, the gentleman from Vermont is 
carrying forward the promise these new Members made to the voters.
  Now, some of us who have been around here for a while and lived under 
the previous Republican leadership may have forgotten what an open rule 
looks like. I thought it was extinct, except on appropriations bills. 
But the rule that we are considering today is open, and that means that 
any germane amendment offered by any Member, Democrat or Republican, 
can be debated and voted on by this body. It is the way a deliberative 
body should act.
  Now let me assure my friends on the other side of the aisle that this 
is not the only open rule that you will see in this Congress. This is 
the return of the House of Representatives as a deliberative body.
  And I am also pleased to note that with this open rule we have 
equaled, in 1 month, the number of open rules provided by the previous 
Republican majority on nonappropriations bills in the 2 years of the 
109th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud that this new majority has moved in such a 
fashion, and I am proud that we were able to organize this House and, 
at the same time, pass meaningful legislation that will affect everyday 
Americans across this great Nation. A higher minimum wage, stem cell 
research, reduction in student loan interest rates, an increase in Pell 
Grants, ethics reform to clean up the culture of corruption that 
existed in the previous Congress, these are just a few of the 
accomplishments of this new majority in just 1 month.
  Now we are moving on to the next phase, Mr. Speaker. Most of the 
House committees are organized, and they are beginning to hold hearings 
and they are producing legislation. The Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and the Judiciary Committee recently held 
markups. The Ways and Means Committee and Financial Services Committee 
are scheduling markups as we speak. Legislation these committees 
produce will come to the Rules Committee, and we look forward to trying 
to bring that legislation to the floor in a more open and honest 
fashion than we experienced in the previous Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the 110th Congress is a new Congress, but it is also a 
different Congress, and I am pleased to be able to serve with new 
Members like Mr. Welch of Vermont, who is managing this open rule; 
Kathy Castor; Mike Arcuri; Betty Sutton; along with Dennis Cardoza, who 
is also new to the Rules Committee. These Members are ushering in a new 
era in helping shape this new direction for the House of 
Representatives.
  So I want to thank my friend from Vermont for the time. I 
congratulated him on this open rule, his first, but certainly not his 
last.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardoza).
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont 
for yielding me the time and for his able leadership on this rule.

                              {time}  1100

  I rise in full support of the rule on H.R. 547.
  As a new Member of the House Rules Committee, I am very pleased that 
we were able to have an open rule so quickly in the 110th Congress. 
This rule will allow an open and honest debate on one of the most 
important issues facing our country: energy independence.
  H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development 
Act, addresses an extremely important, however often overlooked, 
component to our emerging domestic biofuels industry: pipeline and 
storage infrastructure.
  When ethanol and other biofuel additives are mixed with traditional 
fuels, it can cause disruptions to the pipeline infrastructure through 
corrosion and contamination, even clogging. These small obstacles 
should not be impediments to the full development of the biofuels 
industry, but they are still issues that must be addressed in order to 
move forward.
  This important legislation we are considering today would authorize 
funds to EPA and the Department of Energy to develop a program for 
alternative bio-based fuels and low-sulfur diesel fuels to be more 
compatible with existing infrastructure used to store and deliver 
petroleum-based fuels to the point of final sale.
  In California's San Joaquin Valley, we are watching the development 
and progression of our domestic biofuel industry with a particularly 
close eye. We have some of the most fertile agricultural land in the 
country. My district alone grows over 200 different kinds of crops, 
contributing over $5 billion of the $30 billion agriculture industry of 
our State.
  But as we are blessed with our soil, we are similarly blessed and 
cursed by our geography. The steep mountains on both sides of the 
valley create a trap for air which in turn creates some of the worst 
air quality problems in the entire Nation. We are currently in a severe 
ozone non-attainment area and quickly moving towards an extreme level 
for both ozone and particulate matter. Limited emissions from ethanol 
blends and other biofuels have the potential to contribute to our 
increasingly dangerous air quality levels.
  My colleague Ms. Anna Eshoo and I will be offering an amendment 
during general debate on H.R. 547 to expand the current areas of 
research covered under this legislation to include strategies to 
minimize potential impacts of volatile emissions from biofuels. Our 
amendment exemplifies the importance of this open rule. Neither Ms. 
Eshoo nor I sit on the Science Committee; however, through this open 
rule, we are able to weigh in on important legislation on behalf of our 
constituents.
  While I realize that the bill may have passed by unanimous consent 
last year, clearly numerous Members are interested in offering 
amendments, and I am pleased that our leadership has provided this 
opportunity to Members on both sides of the aisle.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this open rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I congratulate my colleague Mr. Cardoza on his very thoughtful 
statement and want to say that I am very pleased that he and my other 
California colleague, Ms. Eshoo, are looking forward, through this open 
amendment process, to offering their proposal. He stated very correctly 
that neither of them serve as members of the Science Committee, but by 
virtue of having an open amendment process, they will have an 
opportunity to participate. So I join him in stating that I hope very 
much that as we look at issues where we see great controversy in the 
future that we will be able to have Members participate in a way that 
Members will be able participate today on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and 
friend from Vermont for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to respond to 
something that my colleague from Texas said just a few moments ago with 
respect to good ideas in the Rules Committee. I happen to agree with 
him. I think that the proposal was a very good idea, and it is 
something that certainly I would think very strongly about supporting. 
However, I voted against it because I felt that there were questions of 
both germaneness and also I felt that by not going through the 
committee process, it would somehow make it less likely that that bill 
would pass, and that was the reason that I voted against it. It had 
absolutely nothing to do with a partisan issue, but more because I feel 
it is a good idea and it would stand a better chance of passage by 
working through the committee process. So I think it is important that 
we point out here that the Rules Committee is, in fact, a committee 
that recognizes good ideas and supports good ideas; and simply because 
we disagree about issues does not mean we do not support good ideas on 
our side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of an open rule on this 
bill, and

[[Page H1355]]

I am pleased that my colleagues on the Rules Committee, including those 
on the other side of the aisle, voted unanimously to approve this rule. 
That level of support speaks volumes about the importance of bringing 
the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure bill to the floor of this Chamber for 
consideration.
  During Science Committee Chairman Gordon's remarks before the Rules 
Committee yesterday, he pointed out an issue that requires our utmost 
attention if we as a Nation ever hope to truly address our Nation's 
addiction to oil. The issue is that cellulosic ethanol and other 
biofuels are highly corrosive and not compatible with the fuel 
distribution infrastructure currently in place to transport them in our 
country.
  Biofuels are the wave of the future. Continued domestic production 
and use of biofuels will reduce air emissions, diversify our energy 
supply, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. A classic trifecta, 
if you will.
  Unfortunately, this transportation barrier imposes increased cost 
burdens and could slow the transition we hope to make away from fossil 
fuels. The Advanced Fuels Infrastructure bill takes a giant first step 
in the right direction to address the biofuel infrastructure problem by 
tasking the Environmental Protection Agency to develop additives, 
blendstocks, technologies, and other methods to make biofuels less 
corrosive.
  Members of my staff joke that I am hooked on talking about cellulosic 
ethanol. I am more than hooked. I think I would say I am addicted. No 
pun intended. But the truth be known, I would rather be addicted to 
some type of energy that is produced domestically rather than a foreign 
or fossil fuel that is produced somewhere else other than in this 
country. And so are many of my colleagues in this Chamber. Like me, 
they understand the substantial benefits that biofuels like ethanol 
will provide for our Nation's growing energy demand.
  We in Congress and our counterparts at the State level also realize 
the role which government has to play in developing cost-effective 
methods of producing these fuels. Last December my home State of New 
York awarded $14.8 million to build and operate a cellulosic biomass-
to-ethanol demonstration plant in Rochester, New York. A professor at 
Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, was recently awarded a $10 
million grant to upgrade Cornell's industrial biotechnology 
laboratories and improve researchers' abilities to liberate sugars from 
woody biomass and convert them into biofuels. In addition, the 
Biorefinery in New York Project is about to embark upon a $20.6 million 
public-private partnership to demonstrate commercial-scale cellulosic 
ethanol production in Lyonsdale, New York. Half of that $20.6 million 
is private investment from a Texas-based energy company that will be 
pumped directly into the New York State economy. For too long New York 
State has been exporting money out of state to meet our energy needs. 
Now we are importing those dollars back.
  The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request includes many 
misdirected funding cuts; however, it does include a $292 million grant 
for research and development programs to promote biofuels, most notably 
the wide-scale production of cellulosic ethanol. This figure is more 
than double the fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $119 million. 
Cellulosic ethanol plants are starting to pop up all across Upstate New 
York and the rest of the Nation thanks to top-notch researchers.
  I stand here today very proud to support this open rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield such 
time as he may consume to the very distinguished ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And just to comment, this bill was originally introduced by the 109th 
Congress as H.R. 5658 and included in Congresswoman Biggert's 
comprehensive energy R&D bill, 6203, which was passed by the House 
under suspension of the rules. And I see no reason why this one 
couldn't have been handled that way. As a matter of fact, I am a 
cosponsor with the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee, Bob 
Inglis, and with the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Gordon, 
and Mr. Lampson. Actually, at leadership's suggestion and working 
together with our leadership over here, I sent a letter to Chairman 
Gordon requesting that he bring this up on the floor under unanimous 
consent agreement. It could have easily been done and bypassed the 
Rules Committee.
  It is easy to bring an open rule up when there is not any opposition 
to it. I hope they will follow this pattern for the rest of this 
session.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill and cellulosic ethanol 
is great from a global warming perspective because it simply 
recirculates carbon through the atmosphere. It doesn't add any 
additional carbon. It is simply that the plant takes it out of the 
atmosphere. They crush the plant, burn the fuel. It is a cycle. It 
doesn't add any net increase.
  But I want to make sure Members understand this bill is just a 
beginning of what we need to do. Brazil is totally energy independent 
today because they have gone to an E-85 system. They burn fuel that is 
85 percent ethanol. But I talked to the person in Brazil that made this 
happen, and he told me one clear lesson. If you don't do something to 
compel the oil and gas distribution system to put in E-85 pumps, they 
don't do it. Now, they in Brazil had to adopt some policies to compel 
the installation of these E-85 pumps because there is a competitive 
reason. The oil and gas industry doesn't want to put in these pumps to 
compete with their oil and gas. So this is a start to demonstrate why 
the use of cellulosic ethanol is very allowable in Brazil. They pump 
this stuff all over the country all the time. But we are going to need 
to take another step to get those E-85 pumps built to fuel our flex-
fuel cars. This is a first step. There is more to come.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am just going to close the debate on this 
spectacular open rule myself; so I reserve the balance of my time at 
this juncture.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Advanced 
Fuel Infrastructure Research and Development Act, and I also thank my 
colleague from Vermont for his leadership on this open rule.
  I have dedicated my entire career to developing new sources of 
energy, and I am pleased that we are making it easier to incorporate 
biofuels into our everyday lives. Current practices have taken us where 
we are today, but we need to expand our options to fight clean fuels 
and viable alternatives to conventional fuels. Diversification of our 
energy supply is the only way to rein in our country's increasing need 
to import oil from foreign countries.
  The bill we are voting on today is a good step toward making 
biofuels, such as E-85 ethanol and biodiesel, easier and less expensive 
to access and use. This is a very good first step toward energy 
diversification, but we are on a long haul to sustainability.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from 
California if he is ready to close. I am the only remaining speaker on 
my side and will reserve my time until the gentleman is finished.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that my new friend from 
Hartland is prepared to close debate, I will do the same on our side.
  I do so to simply say that I do rise in strong support of this open 
amendment process. I congratulate Mr. Gordon, I congratulate Mr. Hall, 
and the other Democrats and Republicans who have come together to do 
what we did in the last Congress, to pass this very important 
legislation which is designed to allow us to focus on the 
infrastructure challenges that we as a Nation will have to deal with as 
we pursue ethanol, biodiesel, all of the multifarious forms

[[Page H1356]]

that are alternative ways of our dealing with the energy needs of this 
country.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the Los Angeles 
Basin, part of it, along with other great colleagues of mine on both 
sides of the aisle. We have very serious environmental challenges 
there; air quality problems are very great, and doing what we can to 
encourage these alternative sources has been a priority for my 
Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and for Republicans and Democrats 
alike.
  One of the things that we like to argue is that Republicans and 
Democrats and Independents, everyone likes to breathe clean air. 
Everyone wants to have an opportunity to deal with the challenges that 
are out there, whether it is global warming or just the overall concern 
about environmental quality. It is very, very important for us to do 
that.
  I believe that this is legislation that is going to pass, probably 
unanimously. I can't imagine anyone voting against it. I know that 
there are some thoughtful amendments that will come forward on this.
  But I do want to also say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a new day. It a 
new day because we have seen a change, a change from what we have seen 
in the first several weeks of this Congress.
  Now, I know that a number of people talked about the fact that we 
have had a vigorous discussion and debate over the issues that my 
friend from Massachusetts mentioned, the issues of college loans, stem 
cell research, the minimum wage increase. But we know that those are 
issues that enjoy broad bipartisan support among the American people. I 
was proud to have supported the stem cell research legislation, 
identical to what I voted for in the last Congress. There would have 
been no reason for me to oppose it.
  But, frankly, I will say that as I looked at the other issues that 
were included in that 6 for '06 package, Mr. Speaker, I opposed them 
because they didn't allow for the kind of opportunity to improve the 
legislation that we are going to see today.
  Now, again, it is hardly necessary, because this could have been done 
under suspension of the rules; and my challenge to my very 
distinguished colleagues is, as Mr. Hall said so eloquently, we don't 
need to simply have an open rule for the sake of an open rule on an 
issue that everyone agrees over. There is complete agreement on this 
issue. What we need to have is an open and vigorous debate when we have 
disagreement and, again, a clash of ideas, as James Madison envisaged 
it when he talked about the establishment of this great institution.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I praise my colleagues for putting together this 
effort. I congratulate once again my colleague from New York, Ms. 
Slaughter, the distinguished new Chair, the first woman to chair the 
Rules Committee. I congratulate Mr. McGovern, who so ably is carrying 
on his responsibility in the new majority on the Rules Committee. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues as we pursue our goals of 
making sure that we do the best thing for the American people, and that 
is to come together to address the very crucial public policy questions 
that confront us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for his kind remarks about the Chair of the Rules Committee, 
Ms. Slaughter. I also thank him, as we all do, for his support on both 
the open rule and the merits of this legislation.
  The bottom line here is, we are all in it together. We know that we 
have major problems to solve. One of them is global warming and one is 
energy independence. This legislation is a practical step that was 
brought to us by the cooperation of both sides of the aisle on the 
Science and Technology Committee.
  The Rules Committee is presenting an open rule. There will be more to 
come. Its commitment is to fair debate, and it is going to have to 
balance the responsibility of making decisions about how best to allow 
this body to debate clearly and directly the major issues that come 
before this Congress.
  We can make progress by working together. It is our goal to continue 
to do so. That requires that the committees be given an opportunity to 
do their work. Amendments are going to be brought up in committees and 
recommended or rejected. That was done in this case. It is going to be 
the commitment of the Rules Committee to make the debate on all 
legislation that comes before this body as fair as it possibly can be.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important step. We have to give the American 
people some confidence that we can take concrete steps to move ahead, 
and that is legislation, day by day, week by week, month by month, year 
by year, where we are moving in the right direction.
  What we have done on energy in less than a month is move away from an 
excessive and damaging reliance on fossil fuels by passing two pieces 
of legislation, if this passes, that move us in a new direction. That 
is the right thing for this country; it is the right thing for 
Republicans and Democrats to work together to achieve.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 133 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 547.

                              {time}  1123


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 547) to facilitate the development of markets for alternative 
fuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel through research, development, 
and demonstration and data collection, with Mr. McNulty in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, energy is on everyone's mind these days. The price of 
fuel has been rising and awareness of the extent to which we are 
dependent upon foreign sources of oil has grown. At the same time, in 
an effort to reduce emissions of air pollution, we are also 
transitioning to cleaner fuels.
  The good news is that we have developed and are continuing to develop 
alternative fuels and cleaner-burning versions of our current 
petroleum-based fuels. But we must ensure the availability of 
infrastructure and equipment for transporting, distributing and 
utilizing these new fuels at a reasonable cost.
  For a number of reasons, biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are 
often incompatible with many components of the present-day 
infrastructure, forcing distributors and retailers to make heavy 
investments in new hardware if they want to carry these fuels. H.R. 547 
initiates a program to research ways to mitigate many of these problems 
and make bio-based fuels more compatible with the country's petroleum-
based infrastructure, thus avoiding the massive costs to the country of 
a whole new infrastructure.
  The bill also initiates a program to develop less-expensive, easier-
to-use testing methods and equipment for verifying the sulfur level of 
clean diesel fuels. Since infrastructure is used for various fuel 
products with sulfur content, ranging from 15 to 5,000 parts per 
million, there is a concern that distributors and retailers may sell 
fuel with sulfur beyond 15 parts per million limits of ULSD, ultra-low 
sulfur diesel. This simply gives retailers and distributors a way to 
ensure the quality and regulatory compliance of the fuels they sell.
  To ensure consistent specifications throughout the fuels market, H.R. 
547

[[Page H1357]]

instructs NIST to begin developing standards for biofuels as they would 
for conventional, petroleum-based fuels. There is also an authorization 
of $10 million to carry out all programs within this bill.
  Mr. Gordon secured numerous endorsements and support for this bill 
from groups as diverse as convenience store and truck-stop owners, 
petroleum marketers and retailers, the Renewable Fuels Association, API 
and the NRDC. Given the relatively small cost, the very specific 
concerns it addresses and the carefully negotiated language and 
endorsements, it would be a shame to make this bill something it is not 
by amending it with provisions that are outside the scope or purpose of 
this bill. I ask my colleagues to please consider this as they bring 
amendments forward.
  H.R. 547 is a good idea, turned into a good, bipartisan piece of 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill without making 
major substantive changes or additions.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, of course, in support 
of H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development 
Act. It is a good noncontroversial bill that was passed unanimously by 
the Republican-led Congress last session as part of a larger energy 
efficiency research and development bill. I am pleased that Chairman 
Gordon has indicated that we will be addressing other provisions of 
that bill in the coming weeks and months ahead.
  Subcommittee Chairman Lampson has already described what this bill 
does, so I don't really need to go into that again. But I feel it is 
important to point out that this bill not only addresses our energy 
independence issues, but it also addresses clean energy issues by 
working to mitigate potential problems that can rise from transporting 
clean fuels, such as ethanol and ultra-low sulfur diesel. By doing 
this, it ensures that clean burning and alternative fuels can be a 
viable part of our Nation's transportation fuel mix.
  Energy independence and clean coal are not just buzzwords that you 
hear thrown around these days. They are noble and necessary goals that 
we are one step closer to by the passing of this bill. This bill may be 
a small piece of the puzzle, but every piece is important and every 
piece is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time at 
this time, and I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I do have requests for time, if the gentleman 
pleases. I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Weller, the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friends 
from Texas for this opportunity to speak during general debate.
  I rise in support of the basic bill that is before us, H.R. 547. I 
voted for it last year when it passed the House unanimously, like all 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and of course I stand in 
support of this legislation today. However, I believe we do need to 
make some minor improvements to the bill.
  We have made a tremendous amount of progress. The energy bill of 2005 
has caused hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment in 
biofuels production. In Illinois, in the State that I represent, we are 
anticipating up to 50 new ethanol and biodiesel plants, thanks to the 
energy bill.
  When I talk to the local farmers that I represent in Illinois, they 
are pretty happy with $4 prices of corn. When the energy bill was 
passed into law, the price of corn was about $1.65 a bushel. So we are 
seeing the fact that rural America and small-town America, and rural 
Illinois and small-town Illinois were clearly the biggest winners in 
the energy bill.
  But if you also care about energy independence, if you care about 
addressing the issue of climate change, we need to promote greater use 
of biofuels.
  The basic bill makes progress when it comes to infrastructure, but we 
need to do more. You know, E-85, 85 percent blend ethanol fuels, offer 
part of that solution. As I drive or travel throughout the district I 
represent or my constituents travel throughout the district, many of 
them are looking to purchase E-85. They bought a flexible fuel vehicle; 
they want to contribute to our commitment for energy independence, they 
want to see investment in America rather than sending money overseas, 
so they want to buy E-85. And they question, why is it not available? 
Why do I have a hard time finding E-85 pumps at the gas stations that 
serve my community? And that is because there is a bureaucratic logjam 
in the certification process for the pumps, the infrastructure that is 
used for the installation of E-85.
  I have an amendment which is germane to this bill that I am going to 
be offering. I believe it deserves bipartisanship support that I will 
be offering to this bill, this legislation to, of course, not only draw 
attention to this issue, but to help remove the logjam to the 
certification process.
  We talk to some of the big distributors, some of the big operators, 
fuel stations across America; it is because of this issue that they 
have delayed or stalled installation of E-85. If you truly want to 
encourage the use of biofuels, if you believe that E-85 is part of that 
solution, if you believe that we need more installation of more 
infrastructure to distribute E-85 in America, then I ask that you 
support the amendment that I will be offering as we move through the 
processes of the bill.
  Again, I support the basic bill. It is bipartisan legislation. I 
believe the amendment, which I worked on with the former Speaker of the 
House, Speaker Hastert, as well as a bipartisan group of Members, is a 
good amendment that deserves bipartisan support.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers. I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. TERRY. Is it correct to state that the standing committees of the 
House are authorized under rule XX of the House rules?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's question should be addressed in the 
full House, not in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
  Mr. TERRY. Are we allowed to ask parliamentary inquiries in the 
Committee of the Whole?
  The CHAIRMAN. In the discretion of the Chair, as they relate to the 
proceedings of the Committee.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. TERRY. Is it correct that the organization of the standing 
committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted 
statutory laws?
  The CHAIRMAN. Once again, that may be a proper inquiry to the House, 
but not to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. TERRY. I understand. Then, Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. TERRY. Is it correct that the organization of the standing 
committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted 
statutory laws?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state that inquiry to the full House.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, since the House is sitting as the 
Committee of the Whole, are the Delegates and Resident Commissioner 
permitted to vote on all matters in the Committee of the Whole House?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under clause 3(a) of rule III, the Delegates and 
Resident Commissioner possess the same powers and privileges as Members 
in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So I am correct in understanding that there are 
only some instances, namely the case

[[Page H1358]]

of an adoption of an amendment, where a Member may request a revote in 
the full House. Is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole that the special order under which it is 
proceeding (H. Res. 133) provides that any Member may request a 
separate vote in the House on amendments adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the Science Committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence, because 
this is the first time for a number of questions, and I appreciate the 
opportunity. If there is any question or if the amendment is defeated, 
is there any opportunity for a duly elected Member to request a revote 
in the full House?
  The CHAIRMAN. Only on amendments that are adopted to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute or on that substitute.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It is my understanding that under the rules the 
House has adopted, that on any matter in which the votes of the 
Delegates are decisive in the vote taken in the Committee of the Whole, 
that those votes shall be retaken in the full House and that the 
Delegates and Resident Commissioner shall not be permitted to vote in 
the full House. Is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. On recorded votes, yes, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. How is the Chair going to determine if the 
votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are decisive?
  The CHAIRMAN. The test for determining whether the votes of the 
Delegates and Resident Commissioner are decisive under 6(h) of rule 
XVIII is a ``but for'' test, that is, would the outcome have been 
different had the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner not voted. 
The absence of some Members is irrelevant to this determination.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair. If the Chair determines that 
the votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are not 
decisive, but a Member believes that in fact they are, is it 
appropriate for a Member to lodge a point of order against the Chair's 
determination?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's decision on a question of order is not 
subject to an appeal if the decision is one that falls within the 
discretionary authority of the Chair. The Chair's count of the number 
rising to demand tellers, a recorded vote, or the yeas and nays is not 
subject to appeal, nor is the Chair's count of a quorum.
  Likewise, the Chair's count of the votes of the Delegates and 
Resident Commissioner is not subject to appeal.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the Chair determines that in fact the votes 
of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are not decisive, will 
the Chair include those numbers when reporting the tally of the vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Given that, then it is my understanding, is it 
correct that the number of individuals allowed to vote in the Committee 
of the Whole shall be 440, and the number in the full House shall be 
435?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner 
may not vote in the full House; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole that the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Do the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner 
count for the purposes of establishing and maintaining a quorum of the 
Committee of the Whole House?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. If the Delegates and Resident Commissioner are 
allowed to vote on everything in the Committee of the Whole and they 
vote on procedural issues that may in fact affect the substantive 
nature of a bill, and if a procedural vote is lost within a decisive 
margin, is there a mechanism to have a separate vote in the full House 
on that procedural vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under clause 6(h), an immediate vote in the House is 
contemplated under those circumstances, given a recorded vote.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. On that procedural vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair. Are the Delegates and 
Resident Commissioner permitted to vote on the question of the 
Committee rising?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend my new colleague from 
Texas, the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. 
Lampson for his great work on this bill, and also Chairman Gordon for 
his leadership on alternative fuels.
  We rely on fuel everyday. While the market is awakening to its 
ability to sell alternative fuels like E85 or biodiesel blends many of 
these new fuels have compatibility issues with the existing delivery 
systems in place in America. Fuel depots, fuel pipelines, fuel trucks 
and local gas stations are not truly ready to ship, store, or sell 
these fuels to consumers.
  These fuels can cause corrosion of tanks and pipelines, clog filters, 
and pose danger of thermal and oxidative instability. The cost of 
replacing or building new infrastructure is sometimes infeasible for 
fuel suppliers, frequently small business owners.
  H.R. 547, The Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development 
Act, meets the needs of fuel shippers and suppliers so they can I use 
alternative fuels in existing infrastructure. It directs the Department 
of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) to research and develop new technologies and methods such as 
fuel additives, blend stocks, and easier tank reconditioning methods 
that would allow fuel retailers, shippers, and storers to use 
alternative fuels in existing infrastructure, significantly reducing 
costs both for businesses and consumers.
  The bill also directs the DOE and NIST to develop affordable, 
portable, quick and accurate ways to test the sulfur content at pump 
stations to make sure it complies with EPA regulations of 15ppm, and 
directs NIST to develop a physical properties data base and a set of 
standard reference materials for alternative fuels, which is not unlike 
the ones that currently exist for standard fuels.
  If we are truly serious about bringing alternative fuels to 
consumers, we need to make sure that we can store, deliver, and retail 
these fuels with the same efficiency and safety as we deliver 
traditional fuels.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 547, and again want to 
recognize the leadership of Chairman Lampson and Gordon for bringing 
this important legislation through the Science and Technology 
Committee, and Speaker Pelosi for bringing this legislation to the 
floor as part of her efforts to stem global warming.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 547, the 
Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. I commend 
the Chairman of the Science Subcommittee for bringing this legislation 
forward.
  Last year under the Republican Majority, the House passed this same 
legislation as part of a more comprehensive bill offered by the 
gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. This legislation, called the 
``Alternative Energy Research and Development Act,'' died in the 
Senate. But it's never too late to take bipartisan action on good 
ideas.
  Reducing America's dependence upon foreign oil is an economic and 
national security

[[Page H1359]]

imperative. Achieving this goal requires us to exercise creativity and 
common sense. In particular, we must find ways to expand our use of 
biofuels in a safe and cost-efficient manner.
  H.R. 547 provides very specific mechanisms to address the challenge 
of integrating ethanol and biodiesel fuels into our petroleum-based 
transportation system. In particular, this bill directs the EPA and the 
NIST to mitigate the harmful effects caused by the physical and 
chemical incompatibility of these fuels within the current 
infrastructure. H.R. 547 also tackles the quality concerns associated 
with Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and biofuel production.
  As the Ranking member on the Energy and Mineral Resources 
Subcommittee I remain committed to working with my colleagues across 
the aisle to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. In contrast 
to H.R. 6, the regrettable measure the House passed a few weeks ago 
that increases our dependence on foreign oil, this bill constitutes a 
productive step forward--and I look forward to supporting other 
measures like it.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 547, the 
Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. I am 
pleased we taking steps to make biofuels, like E85 ethanol, easier to 
access and use.
  The President's State of the Union Address discussed the importance 
of diversifying America's energy supply, explaining that the way 
forward is through technological advancements. I support this approach 
and with Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall's Leadership, the 
Science and Technology Committee can have an important role in 
accelerating these efforts by promoting research and development funds 
for all alternative fuels in order to use more domestic sources of fuel 
and less imported oil.
  Given that coal is our most economical and abundant domestic 
resource, with a 250-year supply, I believe clean coal technology and 
coal-to-liquids transportation fuels must be part of any solution to 
achieve greater energy independence. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle on energy related issues so that 
we clearly understand the benefits of clean coal technology and I thank 
Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their commitment to examine 
all alternative fuels, including clean coal technology.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment, and each section is considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Those amendments will 
be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                                H.R. 547

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Advanced Fuels 
     Infrastructure Research and Development Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) in order to lessen United States dependence on foreign 
     sources of petroleum, and decrease demand for petroleum in 
     the transportation sector, the Nation must diversify its fuel 
     supply to include domestically produced biofuels;
       (2) while ethanol has been successful in the market place 
     as a fuel additive, newer biofuels may present unique 
     challenges that may render the fuels incompatible with the 
     current fuel transportation and delivery infrastructure, 
     placing the burden of costly refurbishment and construction 
     on fuel distributors and retailers;
       (3) chemical additives to the fuels may mitigate the 
     negative impacts of some biofuels on existing infrastructure 
     and preclude costly retrofitting or installation of new 
     biofuel compatible infrastructure and transportation systems;
       (4) in order to mitigate air pollution and comply with 
     Federal mandates, Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel was introduced 
     into the marketplace in 2006;
       (5) fuel labeled Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel may accumulate 
     more than the statutory limit of 15 parts per million of 
     sulfur when transported through multiple pipelines, tanks, 
     and trucks to the final point of sale; and
       (6) fuel distributors and retailers may inadvertently take 
     delivery of fuel labeled Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel with more 
     than 15 parts per million of sulfur without a practical means 
     of verifying sulfur content.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  The Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. BIOFUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND ADDITIVES RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       The Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and 
     Development of the Environmental Protection Agency (in this 
     Act referred to as the ``Assistant Administrator''), in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, shall carry out a 
     program of research and development of materials to be added 
     to biofuels to make them more compatible with existing 
     infrastructure used to store and deliver petroleum-based 
     fuels to the point of final sale. The program shall address--
       (1) materials to prevent or mitigate--
       (A) corrosion of metal, plastic, rubber, cork, fiberglass, 
     glues, or any other material used in pipes and storage tanks;
       (B) dissolving of storage tank sediments;
       (C) clogging of filters;
       (D) contamination from water or other adulterants or 
     pollutants;
       (E) poor flow properties related to low temperatures;
       (F) oxidative and thermal instability in long-term storage 
     and use;
       (G) microbial contamination; and
       (H) problems associated with electrical conductivity;
       (2) alternatives to conventional methods for refurbishment 
     and cleaning of gasoline and diesel tanks, including tank 
     lining applications; and
       (3) other problems as identified by the Assistant 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy 
     and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to section 
3.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Burgess:
       Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (4).
       Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) issues with respect to increased volatile emissions or 
     increased nitrogen oxide emissions; and

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment which was preprinted in the 
Congressional Record will ensure that the Environmental Protection 
Agency Biofuels Research and Development Program, which was authorized 
in the underlying bill, will be cognizant of the potential clean air 
issues arising from additives to biofuels. Specifically, those issues 
arising from volatile emissions which occur during the fueling process 
and nitrogen oxide emissions which occur during combustion.
  In my home State of Texas, and particularly within my district in 
north Texas, there has been some debate about the nitrous oxide 
emissions from biodiesel. It is my hope that the new data from the 
Environmental Protection Agency will put this debate to rest and allow 
biodiesel production to move forward unimpeded. But the debate raises 
an interesting question. As we look to increase the use of alternative 
fuels and the accompanying infrastructure, how do we make certain, how 
can we be sure that we do not hurt our efforts, that we do not roll 
back our efforts to clean our air?
  I understand that there are some additives that may already exist for 
alternative fuels. In fact, I know of one approved for use in Texas for 
the low emission diesel that has proven to be safe and effective at 
reducing the nitrous oxide emissions in ultra-low sulfur diesel. It has 
also been shown to cut the nitrous oxide emissions in biodiesel and to 
eliminate the NOx bump that some researchers have shown for 
biodiesel. But we must examine this issue as we move forward to other 
alternative fuels and additives.
  This amendment will ensure that we prevent any emissions problems 
associated with the new additives early, at the research and 
development stages, before any additives may get to market.
  I think the underlying bill is a good bill, and I thank my friend 
from Texas for introducing it. I look forward to supporting it again 
this year. But I think this amendment can improve the bill to ensure 
that we address any clean air problems, address them at the beginning 
before they start.
  Mr. Chairman, I was to be joined in this debate by the gentleman from 
New Jersey. Let me just state a couple of his points in the absence of 
his being here, and I will submit his statement for the Record.
  He is concerned that in his own State of New Jersey we undergo a 
constant struggle of clean air issues. This

[[Page H1360]]

amendment will go far to ensure that any new fuels that are added to 
our market to decrease our dependence on foreign oil do not have an 
adverse impact on the quality of air that our citizens are now 
breathing.


 Amendment Offered by Ms. Eshoo to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Eshoo to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Burgess:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted on page 4 
     after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) strategies to minimize emissions from infrastructure; 
     and

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, first, I strongly support the use of 
biofuels to diversify our fuel supply and to reduce our dependence on 
imported oil.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, do we 
have copies of the amendment?
  Ms. ESHOO. It is at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will distribute copies of the amendment.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Chairman.

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I think what is important to understand in 
this debate is that there are significant technical obstacles that have 
to be addressed before biofuels can be widely deployed.
  Many Members this morning during this important debate have spoken 
about the importance of biofuels. This amendment to the amendment 
actually kind of drills down, as it were, into the specifics and I 
think strengthens a very good bill.
  The bill before us recognizes the specific infrastructure challenges 
that we are already facing in implementing the Renewable Fuels 
Standards program which was enacted in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. It 
anticipates the challenge of the more widespread use of biofuels, which 
I think most of us are for, by authorizing the EPA to initiate a 
research and development project to make biofuels more compatible with 
the existing petroleum storage and distribution system. If there is not 
distribution in this system, it simply is not going to work.
  Now, the reason I am offering this perfecting amendment to Mr. 
Burgess' amendment, along with my colleague Mr. Cardoza, simply 
requires the EPA, as part of this R&D program, to consider strategies 
to minimize emissions. I want to repeat this, because these are the two 
operative words, to minimize emissions that may be released when 
biofuels are blended, stored, and transported.
  We all understand that pollutants contained in gasoline and other 
motor fuels are released into the atmosphere as a result of combustion, 
and I think Mr. Burgess speaks to this, but his amendment is more about 
combustion. This is about emissions also occurring as the result of 
evaporation while fuel is held in storage tanks or transferred on and 
off tanker trucks.
  In the case of gasoline containing ethanol, evaporative emissions of 
certain substances, specifically VOCs, can be greater than they would 
be from conventional gasoline. In certain regions trying to comply with 
the Clean Air Act, and I think Mr. Burgess, certainly Mr. Cardoza and 
others are driven by understanding that where they have ground-level 
ozone, these emissions could be problematic, in fact, increased.
  A September 2005 report by the Bureau of Air Management for the State 
of Wisconsin estimated that evaporative emissions of VOCs of gasoline 
containing 10 percent ethanol, E-10, held in the fuel distribution 
system will be 15 percent higher than conventional gas.
  In my view, it makes important sense for EPA to not only examine 
strategies that will reduce these emissions as part of this R&D 
program, but that it instructs them to do that.
  I want to thank Chairman Gordon for his support of this effort, and I 
would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza) who is also a part of this amendment.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
California, and while I support my colleague from Texas' effort to 
address emissions concerns, I cannot support his amendment.
  Mr. Burgess' amendment simply directs the EPA and the Department of 
Energy to study the effect of increased emissions from biofuels. We 
need to do more than study this problem; and, in fact, both the 
California Air Resources Board and the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources have studies which show increased rates of VOC emissions from 
ethanol-blended fuels and fuel tanks and pipelines.
  We must develop strategies to minimize these emissions from biofuels 
now so that we can accelerate the use of biofuels nationwide in the 
future.
  The Eshoo-Cardoza amendment does exactly what needs to be done in law 
to make that possible.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his reservation?
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, it appears the secondary amendment is 
germane, and I will withdraw the reservation; but I do oppose the 
amendment and ask for a vote on a clean amendment on my submission.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on the Eshoo 
amendment.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I will be supportive of the Eshoo 
amendment if it is offered as a stand-alone amendment, but I do oppose 
it being offered as a secondary amendment.
  I do ask for a consideration of my amendment as a clean amendment. It 
is stronger. It is more expansive because obviously it addresses the 
mobile sources, as well as the static sources, that may be a source of 
emissions.
  While Mr. Cardoza is correct in the issuance of a study, this is a 
research and development bill; and as such, it is appropriate to study 
the effects of the emissions of biodiesel and add that concept to the 
substance of the underlying bill.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I thank everyone for their interest in this particular matter 
regarding the subject of alternative fuels generally, but I have to 
support the Eshoo amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The problem of increased nitrogen oxide emissions with biofuels, and 
biodiesel in particular, relates to the combustion of the fuel in an 
engine and not to challenges retailers and distributors are 
encountering in transporting such fuels, and that needs to be the clear 
focus point here.
  For this reason, we actually removed reference to the NOX 
emissions in the manager's amendment in the committee markup. So Ms. 
Eshoo's amendment restricts research and development to evaporative 
emissions from infrastructure.
  Therefore, I would support and ask for support for Ms. Eshoo's 
amendment to that amendment.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and I thank our 
friends Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Lampson for their efforts, and I rise in 
support of this bill; but I think the bill can be better, and I rise in 
opposition to the second-degree amendment because I frankly think it 
would weaken the Burgess-Ferguson amendment that would really 
strengthen this legislation.
  The amendment that Mr. Burgess and I are offering would help take a 
significant step forward in advancing fuel technology and helping to 
secure our Nation's energy independence, but it also is key to stopping 
a potential environmental problem before it starts.
  I have been a champion for renewable energy technologies and new 
developments in alternative fuels, and I really believe that we have to 
ensure that these new technologies do not contribute to the ongoing 
environmental problems that we are facing today.
  While the gentlewoman from California has offered an original 
amendment and has offered a secondary-degree amendment to our 
amendment, they sound familiar, but they are very different amendments. 
I believe this second-degree amendment to our amendment would 
significantly weaken the improvements that our amendment would make to 
the bill.

[[Page H1361]]

  I commend her for her commitment to improving this legislation, but 
our amendment is more comprehensive and frankly just goes one step 
further. While her amendment would seek to minimize emissions from 
stationary sources at the end of the process, like at gas pumps, ours 
would seek to minimize emissions at both mobile and stationary sources. 
It is more comprehensive, it is a stronger amendment, and it would help 
to ensure that we are careful to recognize the possible environmental 
impacts that these fuels have as they move from production to the end 
product that ends up in your gas tank.
  So in my home State of New Jersey, we undergo a constant struggle 
with clean air issues. Our amendment would go so far as to ensure that 
any new fuels that are added to our market to decrease our dependence 
on foreign oil do not have an adverse impact on the quality of the air 
that our citizens are breathing.
  Let me be clear. This is a good bill. I intend to support the bill. I 
think it can be better. I think it can be better with the Burgess-
Ferguson amendment. I think it would be weakened with this Eshoo 
second-degree amendment.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as a representative of a farm State, one of the leading 
ethanol producers in the United States and proud to be part of this new 
movement of using renewable fuels to lessen our dependence on foreign 
oil, and I think it is important that we broaden our portfolio of fuels 
so that we can meet our ultimate goals of energy independence.
  Now, there has always been, particularly with two States, California 
and New York, a traditional, and I have to admit I do not understand 
the depth or the reason behind those States' bias toward biofuels, but 
I find it odd as we stand here today trying to promote biofuels to 
lessen our dependence that we now have a secondary amendment that puts 
some restrictions on the use of biofuels that will actually slow the 
promotion of biofuels. I think it is odd the contradictory nature of 
let us have a biofuels bill, but then let us put in amendments that 
will eventually slow it.
  Make no bones about this, this secondary amendment is an attempt to 
slow down the process of rolling out biofuels. It is a poison pill to a 
reasonable approach to the issue, the base bill from Burgess and 
Ferguson.
  If you represent a State that is a major player or a player in 
biofuels production, you will want to vote against this poison pill 
amendment.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word on the 
Burgess amendment.
  I would first, Mr. Chairman, like to yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will 
be brief.
  I appreciate what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
saying. I think it needs to be very, very clear to all the Members of 
the House who are going to cast a vote on this to understand what the 
underlying bill seeks to do.
  It is an infrastructure bill. It is not a combustion bill. It is an 
infrastructure bill, and that is why I have offered the amendment to 
the amendment. It deals with infrastructure. It directs the EPA to 
minimize. We all want VOCs minimized. It is the way biofuels are going 
to become effective in our country, and how they are stored and how 
they are handled is going to give rise to what we are all seeking.
  This is a bipartisan effort, and I do not think anyone should get 
confused about what we are voting on. I wish that as we did our 
outreach to Mr. Burgess that they would have been part of the same 
effort.
  So we are all for biofuels. We want to make them effective and, 
again, remember that this is an infrastructure bill. It is not a 
combustion-type bill. So I thank the gentleman for giving me time.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this bill was very 
narrowly drafted to address a particular issue facing the country's 
energy infrastructure. This amendment does not fall within that narrow 
focus of the bill. The program areas which are in this amendment would 
be better addressed by a stand-alone bill or in some other manner.
  The amendment specifically refers to nitrous oxide emissions. Nitrous 
oxide emissions do not occur from pipelines. This bill is attempting to 
address the issue of transporting additives or other fuels in a manner 
that makes it easier and less expensive for retailers to be able to 
accomplish that task.
  I think there are going to be many opportunities for us to discuss 
the engines and the burning of these fuels within those engines at 
other times during this year, and I would hope that we would have the 
support joining us in making it happen.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. I am going to assume that the gentleman is not speaking 
in favor of increased nitrous oxide emissions. But then do I 
understand, would the intent of the bill be that the truck that is 
transporting the ethanol to the retailer would not be allowed to burn 
biofuels?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I absolutely support biofuels and have a significant 
interest in wanting to do so because I believe that it is going to 
bring a great deal to our economy, our independence and our security. 
What we are trying to do here is to craft a piece of legislation. Not 
to not address the things that you are bringing up right now on how 
engines process this fuel, but on how we can transport it from one 
place to another so that someone can get access to put it in their 
engine.
  Mr. BURGESS. But under that scenario you would not be able to burn 
biofuels in that 18-wheeler that was caught carrying the ethanol to the 
retailer.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this was a research and 
development bill, and we keep hearing it referred to as an 
infrastructure bill. I appreciate that infrastructure will follow from 
that research and development, but as we are studying this problem, as 
we are studying it from the origination, whether it be the cornfield or 
the Fry Oil to Fuel program, we are studying it from its origination to 
its end point. In my estimation, that end point should be the emissions 
that are emitted at the fuel pipe.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I would just point out to the 
gentleman that, yes, this is research and development, but it is not 
research and development on engines and how engines burn fuel, but on 
pipelines and infrastructure to transport that fuel so they can 
ultimately be placed into engines. There are going to be many 
opportunities for us to discuss how emissions come from these fuels.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. So as I understand this secondary amendment on the 
infrastructure, would it also apply, then, to tanker trucks that would 
haul the biofuel to determine if there are any emissions from the 
evaporation? That is what I understand.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Reclaiming my time, only during the evaporative process 
of that. Not from the engine of that truck, if it is emitting something 
different from that.
  Mr. TERRY. My fear is that because now the secondary amendment will 
jeopardize the ability to transport ethanol and biofuels from the 
Midwest because it may evaporate along the way, taking it to a refinery 
to be blended. That is the danger here.
  Mr. LAMPSON. That is precisely what the amendment to the amendment is 
attempting to address. I think that this is an appropriate process 
right now. I support the Eshoo replacement and hope that all my 
colleagues will do the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

[[Page H1362]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Page 3, line 23, insert ``The Assistant Administrator is 
     encouraged to utilize Land Grant Institutions, Historically 
     Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
     Institutions, and other minority-serving institutions among 
     other resources to undertake research for this program.'' 
     after ``point of final sale.''.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development 
Act.
  This legislation is an important step in gathering the most current 
research to implement the vision of fuel independence and energy 
efficiency set forth by this Congress.
  I commend the hard work of my colleague from Tennessee, the chairman 
of the Science and Technology Committee, Mr. Gordon, who has brought 
forth this legislation, and the ranking member and I look forward to 
its passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this legislation today 
because I feel that as we move forward with energy reform, it is 
important to recognize the tremendous contributions to scientific 
research and academia made by land grant institutions, historically 
black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions and 
other minority-serving institutions.
  This amendment specifically recommends that the assistant 
administrator of the Office of Research and Development of the 
Environmental Protection Agency utilize the wealth of knowledge 
currently available at the research-oriented universities throughout 
our great Nation.
  As a graduate of Fisk University and Florida A&M University, I have 
seen firsthand the outstanding research generated by faculty and 
students alike. An example of these contributions at Florida A&M is the 
Environmental Sciences Institute. The institute has consistently 
partnered with Federal agencies to furnish informative environmental 
policy research. The research has included 40 publications during the 
2005-2006 academic year and the services of Dr. Larry Robinson on the 
National Research Council.
  Fisk University also embodies this important mission in its 
designations as a core research center for NASA and international 
recognition as a scientific research institution.
  And since we are dealing with energy, I would urge that the president 
of Fisk University is the former Secretary of the Department of Energy.
  The recent development of the Center for Physics and Chemistry of 
Materials has established an outstanding resource for chemistry studies 
with the support of the National Science Foundation and the Department 
of Defense. This center generates over 34 publications a year and holds 
several patents for application by the United States Air Force.
  Mr. Chairman, I am confident that this amendment will emphasize the 
importance and value of the research conducted by the phenomenal 
network of Land Grant Institutions and other universities represented 
by many of us in this great Congress. It is vital that we acknowledge 
the role of research institutions as community partners in the 
implementation of congressional mandates.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to 
foster these partnerships for a prosperous future of responsible energy 
use.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just wanted to indicate our support for the amendment proposed by 
Mr. Alcee Hastings. We will support it. We think it is a good 
amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just received a copy of this amendment, but I am 
somewhat bemused by the amendment. I guess that what the author means 
is that he is saying that he doesn't believe that the assistant 
administrator of the Office of Research and Development of the EPA 
would even consider these institutions.
  It would be my belief and understanding that this individual would 
consider all institutions where there is appropriate research being 
done that could be helpful. I am somewhat bemused by it. I am tempted 
to offer an amendment that would have the individual look at 
institutions in my fair State that are doing wonderful work. In fact, 
each one of us could offer amendments that would identify particular 
institutions in our jurisdiction.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The only thing that I am pointing out is the 
significance of land grant institutions. I think the gentleman makes a 
valid point, but this doesn't obviate the point that you are making.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's comment. I assume that the gentleman would then believe 
that all 435 and now 440 of us ought to offer amendments to have the 
individual at EPA look specifically at the institutions in our 
jurisdiction. And doesn't that really do a disservice to the process 
that we are in in having the EPA look at the appropriate institutions 
that may have the greatest amount of knowledge?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am amused by your bemusement. At the very 
same time, I certainly understand the dynamic you have put forward. If 
you choose to make such an amendment and if 434 other Members and the 
Delegates choose to do so, I would assume that is their responsibility. 
I am discharging mine.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I remain amused and bemused. We all acknowledge the 
contributions of land grant institutions and historically black 
colleges and universities. We have those in our good State of Georgia. 
They make wonderful contributions, absolutely wonderful contributions. 
I think this amendment, however, points out kind of the folly of what 
is going on here with this bill.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, this legislation came through last year 
under suspension, passed by, as I understand it, unanimous vote. I 
think that we will all support this because it is motherhood and apple 
pie. But it doesn't add to the appropriate discussion of the real issue 
here, which is trying to make certain that we have an energy-
independent policy for our Nation.
  I think that we are just kind of playing on the margins, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be 
postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Weller of Illinois

  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weller of Illinois:
       Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (4).
       Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) issues with respect to certification by a nationally 
     recognized testing laboratory of components for fuel 
     dispensing devises that specifically reference compatibility 
     with alcohol blended and other biofuels that contain greater 
     than 15 percent alcohol; and

  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me begin my commending my 
friends, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, as well as my friend, 
Mr. Lampson, who is managing the bill this morning.
  My amendment is pretty basic in what we are trying to achieve. I want 
to note that the former Speaker of the House, who, as you know, is 
recovering from surgery and is not able to be with us, is one I have 
worked with on this amendment. But this is an amendment that deals with 
infrastructure, as noted by those that are arguing for this bill which 
we all support. Our focus is infrastructure and research, affecting 
infrastructure of biofuels.

[[Page H1363]]

  If we look back to when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
through Congress, we included a renewable fuel standard of 7.5 billion 
gallons by the year 2010. Due to passage of this increase, which 
essentially doubled the amount of biofuels established under the 
renewable fuel standard, we have seen a tremendous amount of growth in 
investment in the biofuels industry in Illinois, my home State, as well 
as across America.
  Currently, there are 110 ethanol plants in production, with 70 more 
under construction, producing today 5.2 billion gallons of ethanol as 
well as biodiesel. Our farmers are seeing $4 a bushel of corn, as well 
as $7 soybeans because of the increased demand for biofuels.
  The President, as well, in seeing the need to reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil, announced in his State of the Union a call for a 
renewable and alternative fuel standard of 35 billion gallons by 2017, 
10 years from now. In order for the biofuels industry to move forward 
and achieve these aggressive goals, we need to make sure that an 
infrastructure exists that can deliver fuel to the consumers.
  I am often asked by my constituents, why are there so few E-85 pumps 
as they travel. Unfortunately, issues have arisen with the E-85 
certification by Underwriters Laboratories, which is an independent, 
not-for-profit, product safety certification organization that tests 
products and writes standards for safety. UL's worldwide family of 
companies and network for service providers include 66 laboratory 
testing and certification facilities serving customers in 104 
countries.
  UL began work to develop standards for E-85 fuel dispensers in early 
2006 at the request for certification for such a dispenser from its 
primary manufacturer. It was reported in August 2006 that the 
manufacturer was to get UL approval for their E-85 pump. UL has looked 
at the application for quite a long period of time. Signals were given 
that the approval was imminent to the point where the manufacturer 
issued a press release. Yet in October of 2006, UL has suspended 
existing authorization on components for E-85 pumps, which they had 
previously approved over the years, and began and are continuing a 
stakeholder process to develop new standards for all components in the 
finished pump.
  According to UL, there are no documented reports on any issues, field 
incidents, safety issues or documented reports related to E-85 
components that have been authorized, or the pumps themselves. This 
process could take at least another year, possibly more, depending on 
numerous factors.
  UL will not give a timeline for completion of the standards. It is 
possible once these standards are published, manufacturers of E-85 
pumps will have to retool their operations to comply.

                              {time}  1215

  The impacts of certification issue are already being felt in my 
district as well as across this country. Even though UL is continuing 
to engage State and local governments and fire marshals with their 
findings, suspension of the installation of E-85 tanks has started to 
occur.
  While States like Michigan and Minnesota are allowing continued use 
with special monitoring, States like Ohio have already prohibited all 
dispensing of E-85 blended fuels pending UL approval or listing. Big 
retailers, names we recognize, like Wal-Mart and Valero, which 
previously had announced their intention to install E-85 pumps 
nationwide, have suspended the installation of any new pumps pending 
this certification. This represents thousands of fueling stations 
across the country.
  The bill before us requires the Environmental Protection Agency and 
the Department of Energy's research and development offices to carry 
out an R&D program of materials to be added to biofuels to make them 
more compatible with existing infrastructure.
  The amendment I have offered today will require EPA and DOE and 
recognize the impact to research and recognize the impacts any further 
additives they recommend through the research program may have on 
issues with respect to certification by UL for fuel dispensers like E-
85 and other biofuel blends like biodiesel.
  In the United States there are 110 ethanol plants in production with 
70 more under construction producing approximately 5.2 billion gallons. 
There are over 1,123 E-85 fueling stations around the country today, 
including on Federal property.
  In my district alone, there are six ethanol and biodiesel plants, 
either announced or are moving forward or planned under construction, 
and 14 fueling stations offering E-85. Unfortunately, the process of 
bringing more has stalled.
  We in this Congress have made a bipartisan commitment to an energy 
policy which encourages the development and use of E-85 and other 
blended biofuels. Exporting America's domestic agricultural resources 
to achieve energy security, energy independence, providing jobs for 
America is of utmost importance.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask bipartisan support for this legislation. E-85 and 
other blended biofuels are a key part of our strategy. I look forward 
to working with my colleague in a bipartisan way. Again I ask for 
bipartisan support for this amendment.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we like the amendment that Mr. Weller has proposed and 
look forward to working with him on this and other things. Thank you 
very much for your interest. We will indeed support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Dent

  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
unanimous consent that it be considered at any point in the reading.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dent:
       Page 2, line 12, insert ``including hydrogen'' after 
     ``biofuels''.
       Page 3, line 8, strike ``and''.
       Page 3, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 3, after line 12, insert the following new paragraph:
       (7) fuel distributors and retailers may transform their 
     business by dispensing hydrogen, reformed on site from 
     various feedstocks, or delivered by pipeline or tube trucks, 
     resulting in new storage, handling, and equipment challenges.
         Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
         Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (4).
       Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) challenges for design, reforming, storage, handling, 
     and dispensing hydrogen fuel from various feedstocks, 
     including biomass, from neighborhood fueling stations, 
     including codes and standards development necessary beyond 
     that carried out under section 809 of the Energy Policy Act 
     of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16158); and
  Mr. DENT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure 
Research and Development Act, is an important bill that seeks to 
facilitate the development of markets for biofuels and ultra-low sulfur 
diesel fuel. I am pleased that it is being considered on the floor 
today.
  I supported this language last year when it passed as part of the 
Alternative Energy Research and Development Act. I am a strong 
supporter of diversifying our Nation's fuel supply. Our dependence on 
foreign sources of petroleum is a threat to our economy, threat to our 
national security, and a threat to our environment.
  Promoting the development and implementation of clean domestic 
sources of transportation fuels will advance our energy independence 
and reduce the detrimental environmental effects of harmful air 
emissions. Bio-based fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are an 
important component of a national energy strategy, which maximizes our 
domestic resources.

[[Page H1364]]

  I also believe that hydrogen must play a prominent role in an energy 
policy that relieves our dependence on foreign sources of oil and 
minimizes the environmental footprint by improving air quality and 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  This bill will direct the development of additives, blendstocks, 
technologies and methods which mitigate the negative effect of biofuels 
on infrastructure and make them more compatible with existing 
infrastructure used to store and deliver petroleum-based fuels to the 
point of final sale.
  My amendment seeks to acknowledge and address the infrastructure 
challenges that will be presented by the advancement of hydrogen fuel, 
which can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including biomass. 
Specifically, my amendment will, one, direct the Secretary of Energy, 
in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, NIST, to consider the challenges for design, reforming 
storage, handling and dispensing hydrogen fuel from various feedstocks, 
including biomass.
  I believe that key to our energy security is a strategy which 
incorporates the various technologies and alternative fuels that will 
coexist in the marketplace.
  As we address the important infrastructure challenges raised by the 
promotion of biofuels and ultra-low sulfur diesel, I also believe it is 
incumbent upon us to start paving the way for the hydrogen economy. 
These are consistent technologies that are complementary and that 
promote alternative development.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the attention the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania is giving to what is undoubtedly a crucial element of the 
possible transition to a hydrogen-based economy. But I oppose the 
amendment because it has no relation to H.R. 547.
  This amendment is simply outside the scope of what is a very 
carefully and narrowly drafted bill to address specific short-term 
research needs that would allow currently available biofuels such as 
ethanol and biodiesel and ultra-low sulfur diesel to be distributed in 
existing pipelines, and use other current liquid fuel distribution 
technologies. These are all fuels that can be used in a current 
generation of commercially available automobiles.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment, in contrast, deals with 
problems of containing hydrogen, a fuel now derived from natural gas 
rather than biomass, and distributing it if and when hydrogen vehicles 
become available.
  Hydrogen would require a new distribution infrastructure. So while 
the amendment uses similar words related to distribution, it is talking 
about an entirely new generation of distribution technology.
  Also, while it is possible that some hydrogen could actually be 
developed from biomass, it is not today. So the references to hydrogen 
derived from biomass in the bill are not really related to the research 
on hydrogen distribution that would be conducted if this amendment 
became law.
  It is also unclear what would be the funding source for the 
gentleman's amendment since it establishes a program at the Department 
of Energy while the funding in H.R. 547 all goes to the Environmental 
Protection Agency. For these reasons I would ask the gentleman to 
withdraw his amendment.
  This amendment does address an important concern. I ask the gentleman 
to consult with his colleagues in the Hydrogen Caucus about ways to 
work the intent of this language into hydrogen legislation that the 
Committee on Science and Technology is likely to consider as it moves 
on to other energy research legislation later in the Congress.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Dent, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I do have a great deal of respect for the 
chairman, but I do respectfully disagree with his contention that this 
amendment is outside the scope of this legislation.
  Clearly the Chair and the Parliamentarian have ruled this amendment 
germane. And it is germane for a number of reasons. Specifically, 
biomass is a feedstock, as we know. It can be used in the production of 
hydrogen. So I am trying to emphasize once again that these are very 
consistent technologies.
  There is $10 million authorized in this legislation. We just seek to 
take some of that funding for this amendment. We are not asking for 
additional funding. Again, as you develop an infrastructure for biomass 
and biodiesel, developing one for hydrogen is just as essential.
  I think that this is entirely consistent, well within the scope of 
the legislation before us and should be supported by all of the Members 
of this Chamber. I do have a great deal of respect for the gentleman 
from Tennessee. I know he is dedicated to alternative fuel development.
  But I think we cannot move forward on some aspects of alternative 
fuels while ignoring hydrogen in a hydrogen-based economy, which is 
where many of us would like to move at some point in the future.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the funding within the bill goes to the 
Environmental Protection Agency. And I believe in your amendment, the 
funding for the research on hydrogen goes to the Department of Energy.
  Would the gentleman explain how that is going to be funded?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to respond to the query of the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment says that the funding is 
through the EPA with consultation with the Secretary of Energy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be 
postponed.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Advanced 
Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. Energy policy 
vitally impacts our Nation's security, the strength of our economy, and 
the health of our planet.
  Today, high gas prices stretch family budgets. Our addiction to 
Mideast oil threatens our national security. Increased consumption of 
fossil fuels contributes to global warming. These issues will dominate 
the 21st century, our future, and America's role in the world. It 
requires a new energy initiative, and the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure 
Research and Development Act is a critical component of that effort.
  This bill is aimed at improving the Nation's transportation fuel 
infrastructure, to improve the storage and transportation of biofuels.

                              {time}  1230

  It will facilitate affordable delivery of alternative fuels to gas 
pumps throughout the country. It is just one piece of a large puzzle. 
But it is an important move towards a sustainable energy future. We 
need this legislation to address specific technical problems that 
hinder the storage and distribution of biofuels. Many of the country's 
gas stations are not equipped to handle large increases in alternative 
fuels. Ethanol and other biofuels have unique chemical properties that 
make them incompatible with much of the country's existing fuel 
infrastructure.
  Despite their enormous promise as a cleaner, homegrown fuel source, 
biofuels can be corrosive to pipelines and tanks, can clog filters and 
contaminate water and air with volatile emissions. In the past, these 
technical problems have created a significant barrier to market 
acceptance of these alternative fuels.
  The bottom line is that it would be enormously expensive to modify 
existing infrastructure to accept ethanol and other alternative fuels. 
We need a focused, scientific effort to address this problem. H.R. 547 
would allocate $10 million in R&D monies on new technologies and 
methods, including additives, blend stocks, and easier tank 
reconditioning methods that allow gas

[[Page H1365]]

station owners to retrofit their infrastructure, significantly reducing 
costs for businesses and consumers.
  It is clear that the United States must take meaningful steps to move 
away from our dependence on foreign oil. I think we all agree that this 
is merely a first step. But in order to make alternative fuels 
financially feasible for American drivers and gas station owners, we 
need to take some of the small steps like this one today.
  I am proud to support this bill. I congratulate my colleagues and 
urge swift passage.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with on the floor 
this morning now a second-order amendment. If, when we get to the point 
of voting, the recorded vote on the second-order amendment, if that 
vote passes, but it is not decisive, meaning that the Delegates and the 
Resident Commissioner don't make the difference, is there any way for a 
Member to get a revote on that second-order amendment once we go into 
the full House?
  The CHAIRMAN. Any Member may demand a separate vote on any amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his further parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That includes the specific second-order 
amendment that would have been offered; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. Any amendment.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from Michigan specify which 
amendment he is calling up?
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order against 
the amendment. I am told by the proponent that he has, actually, two.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must ascertain which amendment is before the 
House.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Just so I understand, Mr. Chairman, have you 
reserved your point of order?
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I will at this time reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has an amendment that is printed in the 
Record, and he has an amendment which is freestanding. We need to 
determine which amendment he is seeking to offer.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. The amendment that is printed in the Record, 
sir, is another section of the bill. This amendment is for section 3, 
which we are discussing now.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (4).
       Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) issues with respect to where in the fuel supply chain 
     additives optimally should be added to fuels; and
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I think this is going to be an 
improvement to the bill.
  This is a good bill. And what this, my amendment, does is deal with 
the issue of infrastructure. This bill talks about infrastructure. And 
we have asked the EPA, in this particular bill, to study what additives 
we add to make the process better when we are talking about moving 
alternative fuels through the infrastructure. But that sometimes infers 
that you are either at the point of origin, the refinery, or the point 
of sale.
  But there are lots of places that we may be able to apply additives 
in the process of making alternatives fuels viable, and what we are 
asking with this amendment is very simple and noncontroversial. We are 
saying, when you are studying what additives to put in, you should also 
include where is the best place to put those in in the long process.
  Our fear here is that we get isolated to only looking at a very small 
section of where those additives ought to go in this system. And one 
thing that we know, and we have talked about it here, the gentleman and 
my friend from Massachusetts made a great argument about the 
retrofitting gas stations and how important the infrastructure is.
  Well, if we don't know where these additives go in the system, we, in 
fact, may be shooting ourselves in the foot here. All it does is take 
what is existing in this bill and expand it by saying, don't only look 
at what, but where, those additives can go in the system to make an 
improvement in our alternative fuels as we march to the future.
  Very simple. I would argue it is certainly germane to the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, based on the statements of my friend, 
I will withdraw my reservation.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe this is an acceptable amendment and thank 
the gentleman for submitting it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be 
postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further amendment to section 3?
  The Clerk will designate section 4.
  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. SULFUR TESTING FOR DIESEL FUELS.

       (a) Program.--The Assistant Administrator, in consultation 
     with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
     shall carry out a research, development, and demonstration 
     program on portable, low-cost, and accurate methods and 
     technologies for testing of sulfur content in fuel, including 
     Ultra Law Sulfur Diesel and Low Sulfur Diesel.
       (b) Schedule of Demonstrations.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant 
     Administrator shall begin demonstrations of technologies 
     under subsection (a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
  The Clerk will designate section 5.
  The text of section 5 is as follows:

     SEC. 5. STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIALS AND DATA BASE 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall 
     develop a physical properties data base and standard 
     reference materials for biofuels. Such data base and standard 
     reference materials shall be maintained and updated as 
     appropriate as additional biofuels become available.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5?
  The Clerk will designate section 6.
  The text of section 6 is as follows:

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency $10,000,000 for carrying out 
     this Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Roskam

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Roskam:
       Page 5, lines 18 through 21, amend section 6 to read as 
     follows:

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO PAY AS YOU 
                   GO.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency $10,000,000 for carrying out 
     this Act, to be derived from amounts otherwise appropriated 
     to the Environmental Protection Agency for energy research, 
     development, and demonstration activities related to fuels or 
     environmental research and development activities related to 
     fuels.

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, like so many others who have come to the 
floor today, I rise in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 547. The 
underlying measure, without question, is one that is worthy of our 
support.

[[Page H1366]]

  All of us, many of us in the course of our journeys to come here, 
gained the confidence of the electorate by talking about alternative 
energies and alternative fuel sources. I come from Illinois, which 
ranks second in corn production and is one of the leading producers of 
ethanol. In my district, I have over 140,000 residents who are directly 
employed in manufacturing, and they would greatly benefit from having 
clean fuels, that is, moving products around.
  But as I was evaluating and meeting with my staff to talk about the 
underlying bill, there was a word that kept popping up in the analysis 
and that was a key word, new, N-E-W.
  I know that in the course of my journey to come here, one of the 
things that I heard consistently throughout the course of the 
campaigning was that my constituents, Mr. Chairman, wanted us to live 
within our means. And so the amendment that I have offered is very, 
very simple. It directs the EPA that $10 million authorized for these 
three new programs that don't currently exist, created under the bill, 
would have to come from funds that are already appropriated. It is the 
simple measure of pay-as-you-go. You see, we don't get it both ways. We 
don't get to act as if we are fiscally disciplined, and yet at the 
first opportunity, not act fiscally disciplined.
  My dad has a phrase that he communicated to me over and over and over 
when I was growing up and that was this. He said, ``Life is choices,'' 
and I think we have a choice today to make. This is our first 
opportunity, with this open rule, to amend a new program that we have 
seen created in the 110th Congress. We didn't have that opportunity in 
other bills that have come along. But this is our first opportunity.
  A $10 million appropriation, Mr. Chairman, or a $10 million 
authorization, is comparatively small, if you compare it to the overall 
EPA budget of $7.7 billion. It is less than one-tenth of 1 percent. But 
my argument is simple: that we need to show the American taxpayers that 
they can have confidence in us in these comparatively small programs, 
so that as we move in and continue through this Congress, as new 
programs are considered, that they are within the context of fiscal 
discipline.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to focus the House's 
attention on it and to bring the attention of the Nation to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve his time. He either uses 
his time or yields back.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield to the gentleman from Missouri 
if he stays on his feet.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
may move to strike the last word as I run through the time here, if I 
do.
  I am grateful to the gentleman for bringing this amendment. I think 
it is exactly the kind of fiscal responsibility that many of us on both 
sides of the aisle talked about during our campaigns. It is an 
important thing to have before the Congress.
  We have talked about PAYGO for taxes, but this is really PAYGO for 
spending. This is trying to reprioritize the spending of the Federal 
Government, to look at spending we are doing now as the first way to 
pay for spending we should be doing in the future.
  I haven't heard anything in the debate today that doesn't suggest 
that we need to move forward with the bill that the chairman has 
brought to the floor, that the committee has brought to the floor, that 
there is a lot of interest in amending this bill in ways that make it 
better. But there is no real discussion that the underlying bill 
doesn't do the kinds of things we need to be looking for as we move 
toward energy independence.
  Millions and billions of dollars, however, are authorized with no 
real requirement for fiscal discipline. In one of the votes we have 
taken this year in the early bills, the 6 for '06, the implementation 
of the 9/11 Commission, when we finally weeks after the vote got the 
cost estimate of the vote, the cost estimate was an estimate of $30-or-
so billion over 5 years. And so we need to be sure that we are doing 
things that make sense with the people's money.
  I think President Reagan, who would have been 96 this week had he 
lived, said that a government has never voluntarily reduced its size.
  One of the ways we can at least maintain the size of the government 
is, we look at new and worthy things to suggest that the size of the 
government would not grow just because the needs of the government are 
changing.

                              {time}  1245

  In this bill we ask for the authorization----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  This legislation authorizes $10 billion in spending to the EPA. And, 
frankly, the EPA spends a lot of money that could be spent in different 
ways. In the EPA budget last year $47,459,367 was spent in projects in 
foreign countries. I would suggest, in supporting the gentleman's 
amendment, that probably you could find $10 million there and, if you 
couldn't find it there, you could find it somewhere else.
  Currently, the EPA has paid for things that establish a coal bed 
methane clearinghouse in the People's Republic of China or developing 
or producing a television documentary in China, in Chinese, on mercury 
pollution or improving environmental monitoring quality and capacity in 
the Ukraine. They may all be good things, but none of them as important 
to American taxpayers as the proposal today. This proposal would allow 
this bill to move forward, but require the EPA to find the $10 million 
for this new program by evaluating the value to the American people and 
the American taxpayer of their old program.
  I think the money that is there to do this can be found elsewhere. I 
particularly am grateful to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) 
for bringing this to the floor as one of our first opportunities to 
talk about PAYGO for spending.
  If we are going to do things that meet the new priorities of the 
country, it is also an opportunity every time to look at the current 
spending and to reprioritize what the Federal Government has been 
doing.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his reservation of a point 
of order?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the two gentlemen who have spoken 
on this are making very good points.
  The EPA, however, has been an underfunded agency, and to take money 
from one area that has been appropriated is like robbing Peter to pay 
Paul. And I will give you a good example.
  The Energy Star program. The Energy Star program is an investment 
that we have made in the future to help consumers, and the money that 
we spend on the Energy Star program, for every dollar that we put into 
it, we get about $10 back, a tremendous investment. So it is an area 
where government can do something positive and save a great deal of 
money.
  What we are trying to do right now is to improve an infrastructure 
that will give us the ability to have access to cleaner burning fuels, 
that will give us an access to having a product or products that 
consumers are demanding, and we do it more safely, more conveniently, 
and hopefully with less expense.
  We believe that the bill as it stands is one that provides for the 
new dollars necessary to make this project one that could be very 
appropriate for the citizens of this country. And the bill could save 
consumers somewhere between $5 billion and $30 billion a year, a total 
of close to $30 billion on a $10 million investment. That is one heck 
of a return, and it is the opposite of what I believe the gentleman, 
Mr. Blunt, was talking about a few minutes ago that we want to control 
the size of government. Government doing good works indeed brings us 
significant returns. This is an area where there will be a significant 
return, and we think that new dollars need to go into this program.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H1367]]

  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It strikes me that everything the gentleman has said is actually 
consistent with the underlying amendment.
  The amendment that is before the House simply says that it needs to 
make priorities and make those priorities clear. I take the gentleman 
at face value that the underlying program and the underlying $10 
million is worthy of investment. But we don't get to have it both ways, 
it seems to me.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman's 
amendment says specifically ``to be derived from amounts otherwise 
appropriated to the EPA.'' To me that means we are going to take money 
from another project to make this one work. That does not work, in my 
mind. If we are going to have a new investment that we expect a huge 
return on, we need to put the money into it and make sure that it is a 
committed project and we believe it is one that will give us a great 
return.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from 
Texas. And I guess one of his comments that this bill would save $30 
billion on a $10 million investment means that he would support dynamic 
scoring through CBO, which is something that we have been begging for 
for a long time.
  So I know that you will endeavor to work with us as we move toward 
dynamic scoring for CBO.
  But I find it amusing, distressing actually, that the other side 
continues to break promise after promise. I read now from ``A New 
Direction for America,'' which is what the majority party put out prior 
to the last election, and they said: ``Our new direction is committed 
to pay-as-you-go budgeting, no more deficit spending. We are committed 
to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to 
tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to 
choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.''
  Well, fiscal discipline clearly is not the order of the day today nor 
is pay-as-you-go. The other side will tell you they have pay-as-you-go; 
but, in fact, it does not apply to this sort of bill. So it doesn't 
apply to authorization. So when rules are rules only when you want them 
to be rules, then they really aren't rules at all. So it really is not 
pay-as-you-go. It is go and spend, which is the program that the 
majority party has in place.
  This is a great bill. This is a great bill. And I think probably $10 
million is an appropriate amount of resources of the American people's 
hard-earned taxpayer money to spend on this kind of endeavor. However, 
we are charged with developing the priorities of the Federal 
Government, and, in fact, I believe this to be a priority. But the 
majority party is charged, when they bring a bill like this to the 
floor, to say, well, this is indeed a priority but something else has 
to go to the bottom of the list, in fact, fall off the list to the tune 
of $10 million. That is what PAYGO is. You say we are going to spend 
$10 million on this, but we are not going to spend it on this. Well, in 
fact, the majority party hasn't done that. What they have said is that 
we are just going to continue to spend and spend and spend and spend.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not responsible. That is not responsible 
spending. That is not responsible use of the hard-earned taxpayer 
money. So I would hope that the new majority would, in fact, embrace 
the policy that they talk about, which is making certain that PAYGO 
rules are in effect. In fact, the promise was to have PAYGO rules be in 
effect for everything, for everything that came to the floor. Well, we 
haven't seen that, and I look forward to that because I think it is the 
appropriate way for us to budget and for us to spend.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to yield to my good friend 
from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the 
gentleman from Texas if he is saying that the coal bed methane 
clearinghouse in the People's Republic of China is more important than 
this and maybe doesn't need to be looked at versus the $10 million for 
this, or developing and producing a television documentary in China on 
mercury pollution or improving environmental monitoring capacity in the 
Ukraine, as Mr. Blunt mentioned, that those are more important and 
might not be a way to redirect money.
  I heard him make the comment of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I thought 
that was the MO of the majority party, but I guess Peter has to be rich 
and Paul has to be poor.
  But this is something, and I applaud the gentleman for bringing this 
up, that if we are going to be good stewards of the money, we have got 
to prioritize our spending.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for those comments.
  And I too want to commend the gentleman from Illinois for bringing 
this issue forward. All of us, when we were out talking to our 
constituents running up to the last election, all of us heard that we 
needed to be responsible with the taxpayers' money. So I applaud him 
for bringing this bill forward so that we make certain, we make 
certain, that we prioritize in an appropriate way on something that is 
as important as this piece of legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  First I want to state that I appreciate this open rule and this open 
dialogue and debate that we have here on the floor of the United States 
Congress today. It is a healthy process that we are going through, and 
it is a process that, of course, is designed to perfect legislation or 
allow that perfect legislation to have an opportunity to be vetted and 
rise as a perfect piece.
  And as I look at this overall proposal to authorize $10 million to 
develop an additive so that we can put renewable fuels and particularly 
ethanol down through the pipeline, Mr. Chairman, I can't help but 
reflect back upon the beginnings of renewable fuels in the United 
States of America.
  As most people know, I represent the Fifth Congressional District of 
Iowa. And there, of all the 435 congressional districts, we are number 
two in ethanol production. By the end of this year, we will be number 
one in ethanol production. We are number one in biodiesel production of 
all 435 districts. And also with renewable energy, we are today tied 
for fourth and will this year be tied at least for second and perhaps 
first in the electrical generation by wind. That puts us, Mr. Chairman, 
within the grasp of winning the renewable energy triple crown: ethanol, 
biodiesel, and wind all tied up in one congressional district.
  Now, I raise this issue because I have the great privilege of having 
grown up and having developed my business and my life and my experience 
in the epicenter of renewable fuels. And that perspective is so utterly 
valuable, at least for me. And when I go back to Iowa and have the 
opportunity to visit the Iowa Senate where I formerly served, I am 
always proud to shake the hand of State Senator Thurman Gaskill of 
Corwith, Iowa, who pumped that first gallon of ethanol back in 1978. 
And from that first gallon, we are here today on the floor of the 
United States Congress talking about a problem of how to transport all 
of these billions of gallons of ethanol that we are producing. It is a 
fantastic transformation that we have taken from 1978 to today. It 
hasn't been without work, it hasn't been without risk, and it hasn't 
been without its failures along the way. But it is a glorious success.
  And I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois coming forward. And here 
we are, Iowa is the number one ethanol-producing State in the Union as 
well, and it produces 26 percent of the ethanol in the country. And it 
is important to know that the United States has surpassed Brazil in 
overall ethanol production.
  So we have an industry here that is growing. We have an 
infrastructure that is being established and founded, and we are to 
this point now where we have so much fuel that we are producing. Not 
nearly enough, I want to add that. We have to find a transportation way 
to resolve that issue.

[[Page H1368]]

  I want to point out also, Mr. Chairman, that of these difficulties 
that we have had in the past, we have put some tax credits in place, 
and the private sector has been magnificent in finding solutions. For 
example, the increase in the production of ethanol out of every gallon 
of corn has come from a lot of industry-driven solutions, and this 
transportation problem also can come from industry-driven solutions.
  So I want to watch this authorization as it moves through. The 
private sector has been very, very effective. And yet we will be 
producing more and more ethanol as the years go by and blending it in. 
And as we move to cellulosic, of course, this becomes more and more 
important.
  One of the difficulties with this bill also, though, is the component 
of ultra-low sulfur fuels and the burden that it puts on our jobbers, 
on our fuel distributors, that they will have one truck and they will 
have to haul a load of low-sulfur fuel and then turn around and load 
that up and haul a load of ultra-low sulfur fuel.

                              {time}  1300

  As that unfolds, they are going to find themselves in a situation 
where they will be vulnerable to regulations without any means to 
determine whether their load actually meets that very tight standard on 
ultra-low sulfur fuel.
  So as this process moves forward, I would remind this body and ask 
the Department of Energy and the EPA to pay very close attention to 
finding a way to develop an economic testing system that will allow 
these jobbers to be in compliance.
  So, overall, we have gone by leaps and bounds from that first gallon 
of ethanol that was pumped back in 1978, and here we are the number one 
ethanol-producing nation in the world. We have far eclipsed Brazil. Our 
technology is far ahead of theirs. And this is not just an ability to 
produce ethanol, but the intellectual property that grows from having 
done this.
  We have the science down and we have the research and development in 
place and that is growing and multiplying, and as that happens we build 
more and more expertise. That expertise grows from the epicenter of 
these renewable fuels out into the regions of the country.
  So I would say we will see ethanol flow out to the limits of the corn 
belt, biodiesel to the limits of the soybean area. We will see the 
cellulosics fill in the gaps. And we are going to see the markets drive 
this and tax structure be supportive of it.
  I am supportive conceptually of this legislation that is before us, 
and I thank the gentleman for bringing this legislation.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
       After section 6 insert the following:

     SEC. 7. ENERGY SECURITY FUND AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment of Fund.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury a 
     fund, to be known as the ``Energy Security Fund'' (referred 
     to in this section as the ``Fund''), consisting of--
       (A) amounts transferred to the Fund under paragraph (2); 
     and
       (B) amounts credited to the Fund under paragraph (3)(C).
       (2) Transfers to fund.--For fiscal year 2008 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     subject to the availability of appropriations, shall transfer 
     to the Fund an amount determined by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to be equal to 50 percent of the total amount 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury during the 
     preceding fiscal year from fines, penalties, and other funds 
     obtained through enforcement actions conducted pursuant to 
     section 32912 of title 49, United States Code (including 
     funds obtained under consent decrees).
       (3) Investment of amounts.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     in interest-bearing obligations of the United States such 
     portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current 
     withdrawals.
       (B) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (C) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds 
     from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the 
     Fund shall be credited to, and form a part of, the Fund in 
     accordance with section 9602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (4) Use of amounts in fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be 
     made available to the Secretary of Energy, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, to carry out the grant 
     program under subsection (b).
       (b) Alternative Fuels Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, acting 
     through the Clean Cities Program of the Department of Energy, 
     shall establish and carry out a program under which the 
     Secretary shall provide grants to expand the availability to 
     consumers of alternative fuels (as defined in section 
     32901(a) of title 49, United States Code).
       (2) ELIGIBILTY.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     any entity that is eligible to receive assistance under the 
     Clean Cities Program shall be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection.
       (B) Exceptions.--
       (i) Certain oil companies.--A large, vertically-integrated 
     oil company shall not be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subsection.
       (ii) Prohibition of dual benefits.--An entity that receives 
     any other Federal funds for the construction or expansion of 
     alternative refueling infrastructure shall not be eligible to 
     receive a grant under this subsection for the construction or 
     expansion of the same alternative refueling infrastructure.
       (C) Ensuring compliance.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     promulgate regulations to ensure that, before receiving a 
     grant under this subsection, an eligible entity meets 
     applicable standards relating to the installation, 
     construction, and expansion of infrastructure necessary to 
     increase the availability to consumers of alternative fuels 
     (as defined in section 32901(a) of title 49, United States 
     Code).
       (3) Maximum amount.--
       (A) Grants.--The amount of a grant provided under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $30,000.
       (B) Amount per station.--An eligible entity shall receive 
     not more than $90,000 under this subsection for any station 
     of the eligible entity during a fiscal year.
       (4) Use of funds.--
       (A) In general.--A grant provided under this subsection 
     shall be used for the construction or expansion of 
     alternative fueling infrastructure.
       (B) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 3 percent of 
     the amount of a grant provided under this subsection shall be 
     used for administrative expenses.

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping for an 11th hour 
reprieve on this issue. We had sent up the call and the white flag to 
try to get this worked out. Hopefully, maybe in the few minutes I will 
take to talk about this, you will be moved to tears and be ready to 
accept the amendment, my friend.
  One of the things that we have talked about today, and this is an 
important issue, is how we move forward on alternative fuels. This bill 
is important. It outlines some pretty important steps for us to move 
forward. But this amendment gives us the opportunity to have a concrete 
action that we can take that will immediately allow us to impact.
  You think about my generation: It was going to the moon. The 
generation after me was the E-economy. This generation is going to be 
alternative fuels and how they change the course of our consumption of 
fuel both in our homes and in our cars; how national security, by 
getting us away from foreign oil, is changed forever, and not soon 
enough; how it helps our economy, how it helps our environment. All of 
that is right now. It is not 10 years, it is not 15 years, it is right 
now.
  We have set up a pretty good system for research and development. We 
now have great amounts of resources going to get us to alternative 
fuels. We also have a look at the production of it. How do we produce 
biomass? How do we produce ethanol? What is the next level of 
cellulosic ethanol?
  Then the big problem is the distribution of it. That is the one thing 
that we are just having a difficult time getting over. It is the one 
hurdle for an exponential growth in our ability to move to alternative 
fuels. Be it hydrogen, be it ethanol, be it biomass, all of those 
things have infrastructure problems.
  The one thing that we know we can do is expand the number of ethanol

[[Page H1369]]

pumps. We have to do it. It must happen. But there is a problem. If you 
are a small, independent gas station owner, you have to take a huge 
risk, $30,000 to $60,000 to put in an ethanol pump on an economy of 
scale that isn't there yet. So we have to kick-start it. This is our 
opportunity to double the number of ethanol pumps available across the 
country.
  I know we are going to get into some wrangling about germaneness, and 
about this paragraph doesn't jive with that paragraph, and this 
committee hasn't had a chance to talk about it, but this committee has. 
This bill passed by voice vote last year.
  Voice vote, we all agreed in a bipartisan way. It went through 
committee. It had its hearing and moved on to the Senate. 
Unfortunately, that is where we didn't move it forward. But this is our 
opportunity to get it done and get it done soon.
  My friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, talked about the urgency, 
about how fast we should go forward on this and how important it was 
that we get away from dependency on foreign oil; and what that means to 
our national security, our economic security, our environmental 
security. There are only 34 States where you can even get ethanol at a 
gas station.
  Let us take this bold move now. If we are serious about moving 
forward, let's just swallow this one and say, this is the right thing 
to do. We have already had hearings. We have already voted on it in the 
House. Let's get this thing moving, so we can double the number of 
ethanol pumps and move forward for the safety and security of the next 
generation that will change the course of our economy here in the 
United States.
  I ask my friends to reconsider their reservation, and I would urge 
the support of this amendment. I look forward to working with you on 
this and other issues in the future.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, my friend is eloquent as usual, but he 
still has an amendment that is not germane, and I continue to pose my 
objection.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the amendment concerns matters that are 
not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the point of 
order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his amendment 
and his dedication to what I clearly believe is an important issue, 
deploying the necessary infrastructure to carry biofuels. However, I 
find it necessary to support the point of order that this amendment is 
nongermane because it is beyond the scope of this very narrow research 
bill and squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce because it uses the CAFE program as a funding source and 
essentially is an expansion of the Clean Cities program that was 
created under legislation coming from that committee.
  While it is complementary to what we are trying to accomplish today 
and a subject which is potentially worth exploring elsewhere in this 
Congress, this is not the proper forum for this amendment, and I would 
oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, this matter is clearly in the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and if the 
gentleman would be willing to withdraw his amendment, I would say to 
him on behalf of the committee, we will be glad to work with him in the 
future.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with you on the 
committee. I know you are a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. I think we can all agree this is an important direction and 
I look forward to working together.
  Mr. Chairman, I would move to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burgess:
       Page 5, after line 21, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL ISSUES.

       Research and development under this Act shall address 
     issues with respect to increased volatile emissions or 
     increased nitrogen oxide emissions.

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment under section 7 should be 
the increased per gallon rate for biodiesel credit.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman please submit a copy of the 
amendment to the desk?
  Mr. BURGESS. The amendment was submitted and should be at the desk, 
but we will bring a copy to the Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burgess:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SECTION 7. INCREASE IN PER GALLON RATE FOR BIODIESEL CREDIT.

       (a) Income Tax Credit.--Paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of 
     section 40A(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 
     biodiesel mixture credit and biodiesel credit) are both 
     amended by striking ``50 cents'' and inserting ``$1.00''.
       (b) Excise Tax Credit.--Paragraph (2) of section 6426(c) of 
     such Code (relating to biodiesel mixture credit) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(2) Applicable amount.--The applicable amount is 
     $1.00.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 40A(b) of such Code is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.
       (2) Section 40A(d)(3)(C)(ii) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``subsection (b)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (b)(4)(B)''.
       (3) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 40A(e) of such Code 
     are both amended by striking ``subsection (b)(5)(C)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)(4)(C)''.
       (4) Section 40A(f)(2) of such Code is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Exception.--Subsection(b)(4) shall not apply with 
     respect to renewable diesel.''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to 
     fuel sold or used in taxable years beginning after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Excise tax.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall 
     apply with respect to any sale, use, or removal after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. BURGESS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I won't spend a lot of time expanding on 
why we need to reduce our reliance on foreign energy. I think it has 
been well stated this morning. Most of us recognize, just looking at a 
picture of the leader of Venezuela, what the problem is.
  We recognize when we see what is happening in Nigeria and other 
areas, the Middle East, what the situation is. And our energy position 
is not sustainable within the United States. So homegrown fuels, such 
as biodiesel, can help move the United States toward greater energy 
independence.
  Mr. Chairman, as animal feed prices rise because of increased use of 
corn for ethanol, we need to examine ways to increase alternative fuels 
without reducing arable land use for farming.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a small company back home in my district in 
Texas, Biodiesel Industries, and they have discovered how to make 
biodiesel from a variety of feedstock. Yes, they use the usual soybean 
and sunflower oils, but they also manufacture it from recycled 
restaurant grease, and we have got an abundance of recyclable 
restaurant grease in the DFW area.
  Biodiesel Industries runs a Fry Oil to Fuel program which recycles 
used vegetable oils into biodiesel. Over 130 restaurants, schools, 
businesses and large kitchens in the metroplex have signed up to 
participate. Small restaurant owners typically have to pay for a grease 
collection or simply throw it away, but as part of the Fry Oil to Fuel 
program, both the recycling service

[[Page H1370]]

and the collection container are provided at no cost.
  Large companies, on the other hand, often have contracts with animal 
feedlots, which could increase the risk of illnesses such as Bovine 
Spongiform Encephalosis and other animal neurologic diseases. If the 
grease goes into landfills, it creates methane, which we know is a 
potent greenhouse gas, much more potent than carbon dioxide. That 
landfill methane can be captured and used to create electricity, which 
is what Bioindustries does, but most often this methane is just simply 
vented into the atmosphere. If the grease goes into feedlots, it 
creates what we could politely refer to as bovine methane, again, a 
potent source of greenhouse gasses.
  Putting that grease to work as part of our fuel supply helps to 
increase our energy supply here at home and could actually help to 
clean up our air.
  This is not just happening in my district in north Texas. There are 
other facilities around the country doing this very same type of 
biodiesel protection.
  The American Jobs Creation Act provided an agri-biodiesel tax credit 
of $1 per gallon for biodiesel from virgin agricultural production, and 
50 cents per gallon for biodiesel from recycled grease through 2006. 
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended these credits through 2008.
  My amendment would simply double the tax rate for making biodiesel 
from recycled restaurant grease from 50 cents to $1 a gallon, making it 
financially comparable to those from virgin agricultural sources. The 
text is identical to H.R. 6354, which I introduced at the close of the 
109th Congress.
  I believe this issue is of paramount importance. We must encourage 
our citizens and our entrepreneurs to think outside the box in reducing 
our reliance on foreign energy.
  I want to thank my friend and colleague from the State of Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for his support on this amendment, both in the Rules 
Committee yesterday as well as speaking so eloquently in support of the 
rule today.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on my reserved 
point of order.
  I would make the point that this amendment is not germane to the 
committee's substitute made in order under the rule. It would be more 
appropriate to have it in the Committee on Ways and Means, because 
there is a tax provision.
  Again, the amendment concerns matters not within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Science and Technology.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) makes a point of order that 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is not 
germane.
  The bill addresses research demonstration and development of certain 
fuels. Specifically, it addresses biofuel activities, sulfur content of 
diesel fuels and reference standards for biofuels. The bill was 
referred to and reported by the Committee on Science and Technology. 
The amendment seeks to increase a Federal income tax credit, a matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

                              {time}  1315

  One of the fundamental principles of germaneness is that the 
amendment must confine itself to matters within the jurisdiction of the 
committee with jurisdiction over the underlying bill. The bill is 
within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and 
Technology. The amendment contains matters within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Ways and Means. The amendment is not germane. The 
point of order is sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cantor

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cantor:
  At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL FINDING.

       The Congress also finds that in order to lessen United 
     States dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, and 
     decrease demand for petroleum in aircraft, such as passenger 
     planes with 42 business class seats capable of 
     transcontinental flights, the Nation must diversify its fuel 
     supply for aircraft to include domestically produced 
     alternative fuels.

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I reserve the right to object as well, Mr. Chairman. 
We have not seen a copy of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, today's debate on H.R. 547 ultimately is 
about finding ways for our Nation to reduce its dependence on petro 
fuels. I offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, one in response to an 
issue that has caught the attention of the American people and is being 
wildly reported in the press. The subject of this report in the 
amendment is the request by the office of the Speaker for the use of a 
luxury jetliner.
  Today, the New York Post cleverly questioned the ``Airogance,'' that 
is A-I-R, of a request to use a $22,000-an-hour taxpayer-funded luxury 
jetliner to fly the Speaker from coast to coast.
  While citing security concerns, a request was made by the Office of 
the Speaker for a plane that, according to the Air Force, has a game 
room, a stateroom, entertainment center, bedroom, shower, and seats 42 
to 50 people.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I hardly think these amenities help with security, 
and I personally would describe them at the very least as inappropriate 
and an unnecessary extravagance.
  Again, H.R. 547 is about finding ways to shift our Nation's patterns 
of fuel consumption. We hear a lot of talk about doing everything we 
can to achieve energy independence. And there is a lot of talk as well 
about stopping global warming. In this context, Mr. Chairman, these 
reports and the underlying request by the Office of the Speaker is an 
extravagance of power. It is something that, frankly, the taxpayers 
won't swallow. And I urge the passage of this amendment.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on my reserved 
point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane to the committee 
substitute made in order under the rules. The amendment contains a 
different subject matter than the intent of H.R. 547.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlemen continuing to reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. LAMPSON. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise today in support of the amendment from 
the gentleman from Virginia. We are discussing a very important issue 
that faces all Americans today, and that is making America energy 
independent.
  As part of that goal, as part of that goal we must have energy 
conservation. Everyday somebody comes to the floor and talks about 
energy conservation.
  There is another aspect to making America energy independent, and 
that is the aspect of fiscal responsibility. We have a program here 
today, it may be a very worthy program, but it costs money. How do we 
pay for it? You cannot be energy independent and support programs 
represented by the underlying bill unless you have the fiscal 
responsibility to pay for them. And that is why, Mr. Chairman, recent 
actions of our Speaker are most curious.
  According to CNN, the Speaker's office has now requested that the 
military provide her with a luxury jet that seats 42 business class 
seats according to CNN, a fully enclosed stateroom according to CNN, an 
entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications 
system, and a crew of 16.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to tell the American people that we are 
going to be energy independent, you have to lead by example. You have 
to have a culture that says, yes, we are going to do things to conserve 
energy.
  Now, somebody has brought up the aspect of security. That is a 
legitimate issue. But how come our previous Speaker, according to CNN, 
used a smaller jet, consuming far less fuel, that seated 12, not 42, 
and didn't have the requested fully enclosed stateroom, entertainment 
center, private bed, state-of-the-art communications center, and a crew 
of 16? Again, Mr. Chairman, you have to lead by example.
  I also noticed recently that our Speaker was critical of the 
President

[[Page H1371]]

when it came to the issue of global warming. She was quoted as saying 
in the Boston Globe: ``The signs of global warming and its impact is 
overwhelming and unequivocal.'' And in criticizing the President she 
said: ``It is not just about what he says; it is about what he does.''
  So now we have the Speaker telling us, number one, we are going to 
have a Congress that is fiscally responsible, and we have the Speaker 
telling us that we have to be concerned about global climate change and 
energy conservation. Let's look at the fiscal responsibility aspect of 
this.
  According to the D.C. Examiner, now a flight from the Nation's 
Capital to her hometown of San Francisco is going to cost $300,000. 
Now, any one of our constituents can go on line to Expedia.com and make 
the same trip for $300. Okay, well, again, maybe there is some 
legitimate security concerns, but do we need the 42 business class 
seats, a fully enclosed stateroom, an entertainment center, private 
bed, state-of-the-art communications system, and a crew of 16? How is 
that leading by example? How is that an example of this Democratic 
Congress's commitment to fiscal responsibility and energy conservation? 
I don't think it is.
  So why is the Speaker requesting this? Well, according to the 
Washington Times, it says that she is seeking regular military flights 
not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for 
other members of the California delegation. That is according to the 
Washington Times.
  According to CNN, just recently she asked the use of the military 
plane to attend a retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, that is a 2-hour 
drive from Washington, D.C.
  Now, this plane that she wants costs $15,000 an hour. How many 
gallons of fuel is that consuming? How do we come forth to the American 
people and say let's pass a bill for energy conservation, and then we 
have this waste? I don't understand it, Mr. Chairman.
  And now apparently there is a new wrinkle here. We understand from 
the San Francisco Chronicle that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) when asked about this said, and referring to the Pentagon: ``I 
don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do,'' 
in dealing with this request to the military for this luxury plane.
  Apparently he was further quoted in CNN, ABC, and the San Francisco 
Chronicle that ``the Pentagon made a mistake in leaking information,'' 
quote, ``since she decides on the allocations for the Department of 
Defense.''
  This is not conservation. It is not fiscal responsibility. Let's 
support the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Texas continuing to reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I do not.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the key principles of leadership is to lead by 
example, and the leader of this House, Speaker Pelosi, has moved us to 
restrict access to executive jets, as she should have. She has also 
moved to institute new spending controls for the Congress and for the 
government, as she should have. And she has moved to reduce our impact 
on the environment, especially man's effect on climate change, as she 
should.
  I agree with each of these priorities. But the Speaker's staff 
request to upgrade her military domestic taxi service from a small 
plane that was offered to Speaker Hastert for 12 passengers and a crew 
of five, to a major airliner with 45 passengers and a crew of 16 
appears to be extravagant, appears to expand the Congress's excess to 
executive jets, appears to remove any spending controls from our 
operations, and dramatically increases our impact on the environment, 
especially climate change.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a major airliner costing over 
$10,000 an hour to fly is an extravagance that is beyond the Speaker's 
status as third in line to succeed the President under our plan in the 
Constitution and in procedure for the continuity of government.
  In fact, the Department of Defense has ruled that since the Speaker 
has never become the President of the United States in the 220 years of 
our country's history, that the continuity of government plan does not 
include providing 24/7 military taxi service within the domestic United 
States, carrying family, other Members of Congress, staff, and 
supporters to both political and official events.
  Now, we know that jetliners emit a large amount of greenhouse gases, 
and we know that this aircraft costs millions of dollars, and we know 
that the Congress has dramatically restricted the access of executive 
jets to everyone else, but the Speaker.
  I might inject a point of common sense here that the Speaker's staff 
has said that, for security reasons, she must have unlimited access to 
an aircraft at the 89th Military Airlift Wing like this one.
  And I may point out that in my experience of watching public 
officials move through airports, a figure like Senator Obama or Senator 
McCain attracts a much larger crowd than one for the Speaker. I might 
think that if we have to offer a military taxi service to the Speaker, 
we would also have to offer one to the fourth in line for the 
Presidency, the President pro tempore of the Senate.
  How much will this cost? How much in greenhouse gases will it emit? 
And last and not least, what sort of example does it send as a leader 
who is advocating all of these other policies that, in the operation of 
her own staff and her own offices, she is not following those 
principles?
  For that reason, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, our Speaker loves to fly and it shows. Today, we are 
debating a key provision in this important bill before us, the first 
open rule of the 110th Congress. We are glad that the majority could 
get around to it in the second month we are here.
  But today it is important that we discuss a revolution in biofuels, 
an idea that we can look at ways to relieve the burden of global 
warming.

                              {time}  1330

  We know the Democratic majority is very focused on researching this 
idea of global warming, the idea that fossil fuels are warming the 
Earth and that the burning of fossil fuels are warming the Earth.
  It is ironic that the highest officer of this body seeks a large jet 
to fly across country that could seat 42 people, perhaps some of the 
Speaker's friends and allies and supporters, some here in this body, 
some, oh, perhaps downtown, large contributors, I am not sure, although 
that has been denied by the Speaker in the request for those people to 
fly along, this plane, that are contributors and campaign supporters.
  But let us talk today about a few important provisions. After the 
Speaker made a promise to the American people that they would be the 
most ethical Congress ever and after including the ban on the use of 
corporate jets in her lobbying reform bill, Speaker Pelosi asked for 
carte blanche access to one of the most extravagant and luxurious 
airliners in the military arsenal. It seats 42 people and has an 
office. It has a bedroom. Plenty of her cronies could fly along.
  But the Speaker decided she, her family, her friends, her staff, her 
Democratic friends from California deserved to fly in style. This is 
not a matter of security, Mr. Chairman. It is a matter of, well, 
whatever is convenient for the Speaker as an individual.
  But this is a bullet point to a larger value for this Democrat 
majority. It is about the Democrats' abuse of power since they have 
taken office just a short month ago, and it began when this Speaker 
denied minority rights to Republicans and continued with Tunagate which 
the Speaker, throwing a sop to her home constituents headquartered in 
her district, allowed American Samoa to be exempt from the minimum wage 
bill. Now they are seeking a matter of personal convenience and luxury.
  Well, I believe the Speaker deserves security, not luxury; security, 
not convenience. As the New York Post reported today, the conventional 
view is that emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are a major 
factor in global warming, and the jet Pelosi is demanding produces more 
than 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour, far more than the 
commuter plane the previous Speaker used.

[[Page H1372]]

  If the Speaker is so concerned about global warming, maybe the 
Speaker should consider the same mode of transportation her colleagues 
took to the retreat this past weekend. They took a train.
  It is very important that this House debate this important provision 
that the Speaker's request from the American military, and I think it 
is important that we discuss in terms of our research that we are 
trying to put forward on new fuels, new forms of transportation, new 
modes of powering our economy, and in terms of the global warming 
debate that is a large issue the American people are concerned about.
  Let us talk about this luxury airliner and let us see what my 
Democrat colleagues say about the Speaker using it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in support of the Cantor amendment, and I thank the gentleman 
from Virginia for bringing this amendment.
  As we look at the overall atmosphere that is here, and not just the 
atmosphere in this Congress, Mr. Chairman, but in the atmosphere up 
above and on this Earth, and we see the effort that is coming, this 
strong effort, to address global warming.
  Now, I am not one of those strong proponents of those kinds of 
efforts; I want to make that clear. I do not think the science is 
there, but I do look at how this Congress has started, how it was going 
to be the most open Congress in history, and it has now been opened up 
today, and I appreciate that.
  We understand the issue that had to do with minimum wage and the 
Tunagate issue, and now here we are a judgment issue, a judgment issue 
of the small plane that Speaker Hastert had was plenty big enough for a 
very big man and the entourage that he needed to provide his security, 
and yet now here we have a request for a plane that I see is 42 
business class seats, 16 staff people that consumes $300,000 for a 
round trip.
  The statistics that I have are $22,000 an hour, $22,000 an hour. Mr. 
Chairman, that is more money than many of my constituent families make 
in a year. Well, let us just say that $22,000 an hour is that amount. 
Then how many people, how many families does it take to earn enough to 
pay for a year of this plane flying back and forth from Washington to 
the west coast every single week? So I use 50 weeks, added the math up, 
its overall costs by those numbers is $15 million annually for this big 
plane to bounce back and forth and to be able to load all of the family 
and the supporters, the staff, perhaps other Members, constituents, who 
knows who might be on that plane, $15 million.
  Now, how hard is it to pay $15 million out of the Federal Treasury? 
Well, if we took all of the revenue of the income of those families 
that I reference, Mr. Chairman, those families at $22,000 a year, it 
would take 682 families to earn enough revenue just to pay to fly the 
Speaker back and forth so she could be with her family on the weekends 
in San Francisco.
  That lays out what is happening here in my mind, and I take us back 
to that place near enough to Hollywood that I can reference it. Many of 
the people in Hollywood that have been flying around on private jets 
and driving around in big SUVs have been called to task for their 
positions promoting an effort to stop global warming, but the hypocrisy 
of riding in those SUVs and flying in private jet planes. Now, the 
pressure has gotten great enough that I do not know that Hollywood has 
actually seen the conflict between their public position on policy and 
their actual practice when they climb in the SUV or get on their 
private jet.
  But the public does know that Prince Charles of Great Britain has 
recognized the conflict, and he has been flying in private jets for 
years; but this year, he is taking the step that he is flying 
commercial, not because he is not a very intense individual that is a 
high-risk target.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would invite the Speaker of the House down to this 
floor to answer these important questions. I think this would be 
something the body would appreciate. I think that would be a very 
helpful proposition, if the Speaker of this Chamber comes to the floor 
to answer these questions.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I thank the 
gentleman and my statement then would be, I also offer that same 
invitation.
  I would say if it is good enough for Prince Charles, it should be 
good enough for the imperial Pelosi regime.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of my colleague's amendment 
from Virginia on three points: conservation, fiscal responsibility, and 
example.
  Those of us on our side of the aisle from time to time are 
criticized, perhaps correctly or incorrectly, on our lack of 
appreciation of conserving fuels when it comes to driving cars, buses, 
trains, airplanes. I have had amendments in the past that would seek to 
try to educate Americans how they can drive their own personal 
automobiles smarter, in ways to use less gasoline. Not only would that 
help them in the pocketbook but also help the environment.
  This is a clear overreach from a standpoint of conservation because 
the jets available to the Speaker, she should make the most appropriate 
selection of that jet to accommodate not only her safety. Clearly, that 
is an important mission for this to be considered, but also take into 
consideration the operating characteristics of the airplanes that she 
wants to fly in.
  So the selection of a 757, however it is configured, we have already 
paid for that configuring and somebody in the Air Force decided that 
they needed that particular configuration, and I am not questioning 
that, but the 757 itself is clearly too large an airplane to carry one 
person, the Speaker, to and from her district.
  The fiscal responsibility stands on its face. It does not take a CPA 
to understand that an operating cost of $22,000 per hour versus the 
operating cost of a G-5, which is in the $5,000 range, that $17,000 an 
hour differential is being paid for by somebody.
  Well, in my mind, that somebody is a taxpayer in west Texas. That 
taxpayer is probably working morning tower on a Parker drilling rig or 
a Patterson UTI drilling rig, going to work at eleven o'clock at night 
working till seven o'clock the next morning, trying to pay his taxes, 
in addition to feeding his family and providing for them.
  That is who I think is going to pay the $17,000 when I look at the 
option of the $5,000 G-5 versus the $22,000 757.
  The last point I want to make is that of example. All of us are in 
leadership positions. All 435 Members of this House are leaders in one 
small way or another. We lead our own offices, and we set the example 
of the way we conduct ourselves. If I conduct myself one way, my staff, 
in all likelihood, is going to mimic that. They are going to do what I 
do and hopefully maybe learn from my example. I think the same thing 
will happen here.
  When the leader of this House, by her example, says money is no 
object, cost is no object, if for whatever we are trying to do, that is 
not a consideration to be considered when you look at decisions that 
have to be made.
  Now cost does not drive every single decision; but where I grew up, 
most of the folks in District 11, that is one of the questions that 
gets asked whenever we are trying to make a decision, how much is that 
going to cost, because in our own mind we make a quick cost-benefit 
analysis between the benefits that we seek versus those costs. If we 
can get those benefits for a lower cost, then I can assure you most 
folks in District 11 will opt for the lower cost to get those same 
benefits.
  So the benefits that we want is the Speaker being able to go to and 
from her district safely with the security folks that she needs to have 
on the plane. Beyond that I am not sure why we should be flying folks 
back and forth on this jet; but if there are empty seats in that 
smaller jet, I do not begrudge any of my Democrat colleagues from 
California wanting to ride back and forth. That is fine. As I make the 
stop in Dallas or Houston and wait for the next leg of my flight or I 
have missed that next leg of flight, I will not begrudge the fact that 
they are flying nonstop to San Francisco. That is fine.

[[Page H1373]]

  So safety of the Speaker, clear, that has got to be done, but we also 
ought to do it in a cost-effective manner. So if she is leading from 
the top, with her tone from the top being that money is no object, 
whatever it takes to have something done that she wants done, that 
needs to be done, we are not going to consider costs, then I think that 
will percolate throughout her staff and the Democrat side of this 
institution, and the fiscal responsibility that they laid claim to 
throughout the campaign last year and they are trying to lay claim to 
in this Congress I think is called into question.
  So I support my colleague's amendment and urge a vote ``yes'' in 
favor of it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cantor amendment. We all had 
campaigns this last November, and my opponent kept calling the 109th 
Congress the do-nothing Congress, and I want to officially name the 
110th Congress as the smoke-and-mirror Congress.
  We have consistently heard from the other side about the minimum wage 
and the average American. We have heard about global warming. In fact, 
I think the Speaker even testified today on global warming, and yet we 
see the abuse of power that is going on here in the fact that we have 
not been through regular order on a lot of the bills that have passed 
here, especially in the first 100-hour program.
  We were going to have a 5-day work week which I am not sure that we 
have had one yet. We are going to be productive in the fact that we are 
flying up here and all Members, all 435 Members in this body have to 
fly back up here on Mondays to vote on naming a post office or wishing 
somebody a happy birthday, rather than being at home with our 
constituents and our families.
  Now, I have learned something else today or over the last couple of 
days that evidently the 757 is the smallest aircraft we have that can 
haul one person. It seems to be that the military would have some sort 
of other plane that could haul one person to California that would be 
more fuel efficient, take less than a 16-person crew and cost less than 
$22,000 an hour.
  I am very fortunate in I live in Georgia and I live about 45 minutes 
from the world's busiest airport in Atlanta, and so I can actually 
leave Reagan and get home in about a 3-hour period of time. I am very 
fortunate.
  But I have flown home with many Members, my fellow Members in this 
House, some of them are going to Atlanta to fly on to Oklahoma or on to 
Texas, even had one colleague that was going on to California, having 
to stop in Atlanta. We are not all fortunate to have nonstop flights to 
our district.
  I fly many times with Mr. Miller from Florida or Mr. Ross from 
Arkansas or others that have to make stops and have to make transfers 
of planes, that have to sit in middle seats.

                              {time}  1345

  We don't get to eat chocolate. We can have our choice of some 
crackers or peanuts. We don't have a crew of 16 at our disposal.
  So as we sit in those middle seats because of the last-minute time 
that we have to catch a flight, many of us might think that, you know, 
we need someone to lead us by example. So I would call on the Speaker 
to lead by example, to put some meaning into the things that I have 
heard being said from the other side of the House.
  You know, I keep hearing the word ``bipartisan,'' I see people's lips 
moving. I hear these words coming out of their mouths. I just haven't 
seen any action on it.
  I keep hearing the word ``conservation.'' I hear the word, I see the 
lips moving, but I don't know if this is a good example of being a 
conservationist with our fuel and with our air quality.
  I keep hearing ``being compassionate,'' haven't seen it. So there are 
a lot of things that I think can be done by a leader by setting an 
example.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to ask that somebody step 
up to the plate and lead by example.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The gentleman from Georgia has been talking about examples. Well, let 
me give you an example, we just heard about whining, whining about 
chocolate and whining about tobacco. Here we are trying to give you an 
example about leading, about doing something about this country's very, 
very, very major problem with global warming and with alternative 
energy and energy dependency.
  Let me tell you what, I have just been through 3 hours of a hearing, 
3 hours, where representatives of the IPCC, which represents 113 
nations including the United States, came before us and said after 5 
years of study, 30,000 comments, 600 scientists; they made a 
recommendation, and that recommendation was that with 100 percent 
certainty, there is global warming, and with 90 percent certainty, 
human action is making it worse.
  Today, our example is trying to do something about that. Today, we 
have the first bill on this floor to deal with alternative energy, to 
deal with making our Nation energy independent. So this is an example 
of us trying to move forward.
  It is a bipartisan bill, and I might remind the gentleman that when, 
after 
9/11, when Speaker Hastert was the first to be given transportation for 
security reasons, I don't think anybody over there complained. I don't 
think anybody over here complained.
  When the President of the United States, George Bush, said that it is 
a matter of security, we didn't hear anybody complain; when the 
Department of Defense has also given a ruling on this, that again what 
is available will be available for the person who is the second-ranking 
person to be President of the United States.
  Now, if Speaker Pelosi is going to be attacked here on this floor for 
eating chocolate or anything else, you can imagine what more serious 
people might be doing. So, yes, this is an example today. We have an 
example of, if we want to, on a bipartisan basis do something about 
global warming.
  Let me tell you, we talk about 10 years from now, maybe. Or is it 20 
years? Sometimes you can say, well, to have a serious problem with 
global warming, it might be 30 years or 50 years. Well, that is not 
hypothetical. I have a 5-year-old daughter. Some of you probably have 
young children or young grandchildren. If any of them were born in this 
century, in all likelihood, they are going to live till the end of this 
century. They are going to inherit a much different world.
  So this is real. So I think now the time is to lead by example. Let 
us do something about this. We have a good bill on the floor. This is 
our example. You can have whatever example you want.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. I do 
rise on the point of conservation and pointing out some conservation. 
You know, it is amazing to me to hear all of this talk that we have 
about global warming. But you know what, the debate that we are having 
here just points out, Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between 
conservationists and environmentalists, and this is one of the debates 
that points this out. Conservationists walk the walk. Environmentalists 
talk about it, but they do not walk the walk.
  You know, I remember, I appreciate so much the gentleman from 
Tennessee's comments about global warming and the threat that is there. 
Well, you know what? I am old enough to remember having been in high 
school in the 1960s, and I remember in the early 1970s, going into 
college where we were all going to freeze to death.
  We were going to freeze to death. It was on the cover of every 
magazine out there. We had an Ice Age that was coming. I was scared to 
death. I thought, my goodness, I will never be able to have children, 
watch them grow up, because we are going to be living in igloos.
  Well, but you know what? It did not happen, and now we find out, 
guess what, 100 years ago, they thought they had a warming cycle; or 
they did, they documented it. Then we find out that the rises and falls 
in temperatures of this great Earth are cyclical. It is there, and, 
yes, it is rising a little bit right there. But in 1969 and 1970 and 
1971, the Ice Age was coming, and there was scientific proof.
  You know, at Energy and Commerce Committee last year, we had some 
great hearings. We talked about the

[[Page H1374]]

fallacy of the hockey stick theory. We discussed that. We heard 
testimony, and we can have all of our community of scientists who are 
trying to serve the purpose of validating one another's theories, but 
not wanting to go back and use the evidence from 100 years ago, and it 
just proves the point, as is often said on this floor, you are entitled 
to your opinion, but you are not entitled to a different set of facts, 
and that is the truth.
  You know, it is of tremendous concern, on a day when we are talking 
about the environment, that we do have an example being brought forth 
that would be spending, not only $22,000 an hour, but would be spending 
a lot in emissions, in gases. This is something that does deserve to be 
discussed, Mr. Chairman.
  I tell you what, we have named this, we have talked about this being 
the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress, and for every hour that our 
friends across the aisle are in charge, they are racking up, not 
thousands and millions, but moving to billions. Hold on to your wallet 
because of what they are choosing to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned 
money on.
  It is of great concern to me, when I read reports that are coming out 
of all sorts of papers and news organizations about how this is coming 
to be, people returning to smoke-filled rooms, picking up the phones, 
calling, saying, this is the way it ought to be done.
  Mr. Chairman, it is of great concern to me, I think for those of us 
who are conservationists, who want to be certain that we leave this 
Earth a better place than we found it. We are wise to stand and to 
question the bill and to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to identify a little bit with my colleague from 
Georgia who was here talking about this being the smoke-and-mirrors 
Congress. There are so many things being talked about that aren't true. 
Today, I was speaking with one of my constituents at home from Wilkes 
County, Angela Henley. The issue of airplanes came up, and she said to 
me, you know, I think the officials should adopt the principle to lead 
by example and not by extravagance. I said, you know, these are the 
kinds of things, this is the reason we ought to be going home more 
instead of spending all this time we are spending in Washington.
  The majority party wants people to believe that you have got to be in 
Washington, because that is where all the wisdom of the world is. But I 
think it is this Beltway mentality that gets us in trouble all the 
time, and gets people to thinking that we as Members of Congress are 
here to be served, not to serve.
  I said here this morning in opening remarks that I am very troubled 
by this whole affair. I came here to serve the people of the Fifth 
District of North Carolina. I don't think that we are supposed to be 
treated like kings and queens.
  We came here to do the work of the people. It is called the people's 
House, and I think it is very important that we do that.
  What is happening is, the mentality of the majority party is that all 
the wisdom of the world is in Washington, D.C., the only work that gets 
done is in Washington, D.C. We should be here 5 days a week, not be in 
our district with the average American citizen.
  Well, you lose track of what the average American citizen is dealing 
with. That is why I thought Angela Henley's comments were so brilliant 
today when I talked to her.
  Again, elected officials should adopt the principle to lead by 
example and not by extravagance. That is the message that needs to be 
sent. That is not the message that is being sent by the majority party 
and by the Speaker in her example.
  What we need to be doing is we need to make sure we are doing what is 
right by the American people and not putting additional burdens on them 
by adding costs.
  The other thing I want to mention is, there has been a lot made about 
the fact that the Department of Defense has approved this. This was a 
headline in yesterday's paper saying the appropriators are going to get 
out of the departments what they want by twisting the arms of the 
various departments and agencies. And we all know that there is a close 
relationship between some of the appropriators and the Speaker, and I 
have no doubt that the appropriators are going to get from the 
departments what it is they want from them, to justify anything at all 
that they want to justify whether it is extravagant or not.
  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and 
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Interesting, Mr. Chairman, the report of 
this amendment has reached the White House. I would like to report to 
you the official statement from the White House just given by Tony 
Snow.
  Quoting Mr. Snow, ``This is a silly story. I think it's been unfair 
to the Speaker. What happened in the wake of September 11 is the 
Department of Defense in order to protect the Speaker began offering 
aircraft to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, did it with 
Representative Hastert, doing so with Speaker Pelosi.
  ``We think it's important that the Speaker of the House enjoy the 
same kind of security that we arranged for Speaker Hastert in the wake 
of September 11. And like I said, I think that there's been a lot of 
overhyped reporting on this.''
  I certainly concur with Mr. Snow. This is a silly story. We have a 
chance to get on to serious business. To put this to rest, as the 
author of this bill, and as the chairman of the Science Committee from 
which it came, we want to accept this amendment and allow this country 
then to get on to the serious business of trying to do something about 
alternative fuels.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you so much, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  The question is, if we want to combat global warming, why should we, 
as an institution, allow one person to use a 737 for a $300,000 
transcontinental flight? That is the question I pose to the Science 
Committee, Mr. Chairman.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and give it to 
the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Thank you for that commentary, and I think 
the White House has given you the answer. If you would like for me to 
read it to you again. As I heard Barney Frank say here one time, I can 
read it to you, but I can't understand it for you. But I would be happy 
to read it to you again:
  ``This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the Speaker. 
What happened in the wake of September 11 is that the Department of 
Defense, in order to protect the Speaker, began offering aircraft to 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives; did it with Representative 
Hastert, doing so with Speaker Pelosi. We think it's important that the 
Speaker of the House enjoy the same kind of security that we arranged 
for Speaker Hastert in the wake of September 11. And, like I said, 
there has been a lot of overhype in reporting this story.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman mentioning me. 
I just want to explain, I hadn't really expected to be here, but as I 
was walking by, I thought I heard someone yelling, The plane, boss, the 
plane, and I wanted to come in and see what was happening.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is really one of my heroes on the 
floor, and I really appreciate and respect his sense of humor.
  With that, the silliness in this that I see is the silliness when 
about a year ago, during the height of the energy crunch, a member of 
the Kennedy clan, who was not a Member of Congress, flew to New York on 
his private jet to talk about conservation of energy and global 
warming. It reminds me of the silliness of those who ride in limousines 
to and from their dinner engagements while whining about mothers using 
SUVs to drive. That is the type of silliness that I see in this debate. 
It isn't just about having a plane for security, it is the opulence of 
the plane that is at discussion.

[[Page H1375]]

  But I have got to tell you, I see something deeper in this than the 
type of plane, and that is comments published in the San Francisco 
Chronicle, made by the subcommittee chairman of Appropriations on 
Defense such as: ``Don't need to put pressure on them, just tell them 
what they need to do.'' This gentleman is the one that has been bidding 
for our Speaker on what type of plane.
  Then when this became a story, mentioned also, I guess, with some 
sort of pride that was also quoted in many newspapers, CNN, San 
Francisco Chronicle, reminding the Defense Department that it is them 
that will make the decisions on appropriations, leaving the insinuation 
that if the correct plane is not given to the Speaker, that they will 
cut the Defense Department.
  Now, I see the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in our Chamber, and I 
would yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to explain which part of 
the defense budget he intends to cut or not appropriate if she does not 
get this specific plane that she wants.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his comments to the Chair.
  Mr. TERRY. I am sorry. I yielded to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 
My remarks are to the Chair. I am yielding to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to answer the colloquy that I put forward to him.
  I see the gentleman is not moving.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, isn't it customary that after 
a minority speaker speaks, then you go to the majority side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not see the gentleman.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Members, I have sat in my office and got caught up on a lot of work 
and I was listening to the debate, and I guess I am concerned about the 
tenor of the debate because I am serving in this Congress and I am in 
my eighth term, one term in the majority, the last 12 years in the 
minority, and I have never seen a display of what we are seeing on the 
floor today.
  Because I served with Speaker Hastert and many speakers, and it is 
frustrating to see this activity. My concern is what we are portraying 
to the American people. And I think the chairman of the Science 
Committee pointed out the White House statement on the use of the 
plane.
  I was here on the floor after 9/11, and I know that not one Member on 
the Democratic side questioned whether Speaker Hastert needed the 
security, needed a nonstop to his district. And I think that is far 
beyond anything we should be considering.
  I want to save energy, although I have to admit, I have a district 
where we produce a lot, and I am glad people use it. But I also know 
that we have more important things in this House to do than to pick at 
one person who happens to be the Speaker of the House. I could go back 
and find lots of things from former Speakers of the minority party and 
talk about it, but again, we didn't do that. I didn't, and I don't 
remember any of my colleagues doing it. But I also know that if we are 
going to seriously be legislators, then we need to pass this bill.
  I was concerned with some of the amendments that were brought up 
earlier literally by members of my Energy and Commerce Committee that 
were not germane because their amendments would have been germane if 
this had been an Energy and Commerce bill, but it is not. It is a 
Science bill. That is why I think if we are serious about dealing with 
global warming, more efficiency in fuel, there are lots of ways we can 
do it. I know the Science Committee is doing their job, and I know the 
Energy and Commerce Committee will; and if there are tax issues that 
need to be dealt with, I know the Ways and Means Committee will deal 
with it.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, I would hope we would realize that the 
actions today do not reflect good on the House itself.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) to H.R. 547. I also rise to 
support H.R. 547, Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and 
Development Act. It is a good bill. And I am on the Science Committee, 
and it did pass by unanimous consent.
  Mr. Chairman, I was also at the hearing this morning that lasted 3 
hours on the Science Committee with my chairman, the gentleman from 
Tennessee. And we were honored to have the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives testify before that committee. Well, this is a historic 
opportunity. She was received with a great deal of respect and 
certainly respect by me.
  She testified; I don't disagree with any of her testimony. She talked 
about global warming and the concern that she has for our young 
children and the environmental debt that has to be paid at some point 
in the future. Unfortunately, her schedule did not permit time to take 
questions, maybe a couple, from the Members of the Science Committee. 
Maybe one question that should have been asked if we had that 
opportunity is how about the economic debt that we would have to pay if 
we do something draconian when all these other countries, especially 
countries like China and India, are totally ignoring it, and they are 
going to continue to pollute the environment.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Virginia brings 
is about the concern with continuing to produce carbon dioxide, and 
yes, polluting the environment, and jet fuel is a big problem, a big 
contributor to that. I commend the chairman for accepting the 
amendment, and I think we should do that unanimously. Maybe the Speaker 
would like to come down on the floor and take as much time as she would 
like and talk about her support for this. But the Speaker has made a 
mistake in requesting a jet plane far beyond what the previous Speaker 
had.
  I don't disagree that she should have the same security as the 
previous Speaker; we are not arguing that point. Mistakes can be made 
like Tunagate; the Speaker may not have known about that. And she was 
smart enough to call a press conference and say we are going to correct 
that, she should be smart enough to hold a press conference and correct 
this.
  Mr. WEINER. I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this can't possibly be the best they have got. This 
can't be. I cannot imagine that a party that governed for the last 12-
some-odd years, who had a Congress that met less days than the do-
nothing Congress, who wasted billions of dollars in the Iraq war doing 
no oversight, drove up the deficit to record heights, wasted homeland 
security funds, it can't possibly be that the best that party has is to 
now devote an afternoon talking about the security arrangements for the 
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
  Well, let's talk a little bit about what we have. Putting aside for a 
moment, which apparently is what the other side wants, putting aside 
for a moment the bill we are here to debate, which is a way to improve 
energy programs with existing infrastructure, and I can guarantee my 
colleagues will be lining up to take advantage of that program, we 
have, in the first 100 hours of this Congress, raised the minimum wage; 
we have lowered the cost of people to send their children to college; 
we have implemented the 9/11 Commission Report. We have moved through 
an agenda with efficiency to get things done for the American people, 
and now my colleagues on the other side want to have an argument with 
the White House over the appropriate arrangements for the Speaker.
  Now, look, I am sure that my good friends on the other side are so 
detached from reality that they think this is what the American people 
want to work on. This is a party that squandered the leadership that 
they had. Now the Republic Party is in the minority for the foreseeable 
future. The Republic Party is so completely bankrupt of any ideas of 
their own, they have taken to bringing up 3 hours of discussion and a 
debate between the White House and themselves about what kind of 
security the Speaker should have.
  The Republic Party is the minority party not only for this reason, 
but this is one of them. And then to make it worse, the Members that 
the Republic Party sends over can't possibly be the

[[Page H1376]]

A team. This can't be the best. This can't be the most articulate, most 
informed voices of the Republic Party, can it? This is it.
  I was in my office and I heard a Member of the Republic Party, and 
you will correct me, Mr. Chairman, if I am wrong, complaining that he 
had to sit in a middle seat. No, not a middle seat. Complaining that he 
had to eat peanuts on his flight. I don't even know what this is about.
  Let me tell you what the American people are interested in. They are 
interested in the idea that, like Damocles' sword, global warming is 
now hanging over the head of all of us, all of us, Republican or 
Democratic, even the Republic Party must be concerned about that. We 
have had thousands of scientists that have reached a consensus----
  Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I will certainly be glad to yield.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank the Congressman from New York for yielding, but 
don't you think a jet that is a 757 and can seat 42 people, flying one 
person is contributing to global warming?
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, even those members of this panel, 
these scientists that took a look at global warming, global climate 
change, 90 percent of them, a record level of consensus, say that human 
causes are to blame.
  We are not going to leave it to the Republic Party to solve this 
problem. They are in the minority. They are probably in the permanent 
minority if they are going to spend their time obsessing about security 
arrangements for the Speaker and disagreeing with the President of the 
United States' spokesman. But we are. Nancy Pelosi, this party is going 
to do something about global warming; we are not going to wait for the 
Republic Party to join in. Just the same way we said we were going to 
increase the minimum wage, the same way we said we were going to 
increase safety by implementing the
9/11 Commission Report, the same way we said we were going to reduce 
college costs for the American middle class and those striving to make 
it, that is what we are going to do.
  You can have this debate all you want about the security arrangements 
for the Speaker, but we are going to go about doing the job of the 
American people. That is why the Democratic Party is in charge, not the 
Republic Party.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  It is always interesting hearing from my friend from New York.
  You know, we are about solutions, we try to be about solutions; that 
is what this body ought to be about. And I would humbly submit that if 
we were to set up windmills surrounding the Capitol, I believe there is 
enough hot air that comes out of this place that we could offset all 
the losses of energy from an extravagant plane that flies from here to 
California with lots of passengers and a gym or whatever all it has got 
on there; but I would actually like to talk about the bill that the 
amendment is addressing and come back to the amendment for a moment.

                              {time}  1415

  But I come from a district there in east Texas that is blessed with 
an abundance of natural resources. And not only do we have oil and gas, 
we have got coal, and we have some something that is so often 
overlooked called biomass. Some folks don't know what that is, but it 
can take all kinds of forms, and one of those forms is the pine tree. 
You cut down the pine tree, you take the center of it, use it for 
paper, pulp, plywood, all of these other things. And then there is all 
this waste that can generate energy.
  But the use of biomass is a source of energy, it is necessary for 
domestic industry purposes and actually is being used in our timber and 
paper industries to defray rapidly increasing overhead costs.
  Presently, the uncertainty of energy supplies and prices make it 
impossible for domestic industry to efficiently forecast operating 
costs or make credible plans for future capital expenditures. For 
example, the forest products industry is partially self-sufficient 
because they use some of the biomass to provide energy to produce what 
they do. The biomass fuels can include bark, scrap wood, wood 
residuals, wood extractives from the pulping process.
  So necessary to maintain a manufacturing base in this country that 
will sustain a driving economy is the energy produced by biomass, and I 
think that can play a vital role.
  It is not enough simply to have a source of energy. It is also 
necessary to have a means to deliver it. So we have also got to improve 
our ability to deliver a wide array of energy resources to consumers by 
addressing the infrastructures. This bill doesn't really address any of 
those. It is kind of a feel-good bill. Anything can help a little bit.
  But in conclusion, I just submit, look, if we all pitch in a little 
bit, districts like mine that have energy, if you allow us to use 
CO2, maybe pump it in the ground, get the last bit of oil 
up, use biomass, convert it into energy, if we keep doing those sorts 
of things using alternative energy, I think eventually we can pay for 
all the waste and extravagance that we are already seeing coming from 
the Speaker's request.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise to support this amendment. However, I will admit that it is 
rather more symbolic than substantive. And earlier this morning, 
Speaker Pelosi spoke before the Science Committee, as we have been 
reminded here during this debate. And during that testimony she 
declared her commitment to combat global warming. And that is a high 
priority.
  Well, it is not then irrelevant for Members of Congress to call into 
question the seriousness of such public proclamations when personal 
choices are so extravagantly contradictory to those proclamations.
  I am sorry. Speaker Pelosi, by commandeering a huge government plane 
for her personal transport to California, this is totally contradictory 
to the alarm bells that we heard her ringing in the Science Committee 
just a few hours ago.
  And just for one, let me note that I certainly appreciate that 
Speaker Pelosi came to speak to us. And I certainly respect Bart Gordon 
and the job that he did in putting together a very fine panel of 
witnesses for us. But I am personally a skeptic about global warming.
  And let me just note that what we have here, after listening to the 
witnesses today, is the clear evidence that global warming and cooling 
have taken place in cycles throughout the history of the world. Right 
now, we are being told that this particular cycle is caused by human 
beings and how dangerous that is.
  Well, let me note that even the witnesses today, the very witness 
that was showing how we can prove the Earth is warming on the chart, 
started his chart in 1850, which happened to be, by his own admission, 
the very end of a cooling period that had been going on for 500 years. 
So you start at the very low point and then you go to today and claim, 
oh, it is getting warmer. So what? You started at a low point.
  Now, there is consensus that there is some warming going on, 1 degree 
over the last 30 years, supposedly. In reality, it is 1 degree over 100 
years. And, yes, this is happening, but is it caused by human action? 
Even after hearing the witnesses today, I can't tell you that I don't 
believe, I still do not believe this is caused by human activity.
  Now, why is this so important that we discuss this? Why is it 
important that we reject this alarmism? Because we are all now 
committed to an energy-independent America, and we are going to have to 
focus our energies and resources on developing new alternative sources 
of energy and technology that will make us independent of foreign oil.
  And if we are alarmed by global warming and we are stampeded into 
focusing our efforts on something that is going to change a climate 
trend, instead of, for example, focusing on energy that will help clean 
the air at the same time, while making us independent, we are going to 
be making some bad decisions.
  And who will be impacted by those decisions if we are stampeded by 
all of this alarmism about global warming? The people who will be 
better off are the researchers who have been getting grants by the 
billions of dollars over these years in order to claim that there is 
global warming. And I might add, there is plenty of evidence that 
researchers who are opposed to the global

[[Page H1377]]

warming theory have been cut off from research grants.
  But who will be worse off? My children will be worse off. Your 
children and grandchildren will be worse off because we have not 
developed the technology aimed at cleaning the air and making us energy 
independent. Rather, we will have been stampeded into spending more 
money on useless research and money aimed at changing the climate trend 
of the planet, rather than on the health of the people of this planet. 
It makes no sense whatsoever.
  If we are committed to energy independence, let's be serious about 
it. Conservation is part of the answer. And if Speaker Pelosi is 
serious, she should be serving as an example and not be doing things 
like commandeering a huge aircraft, which is enormously wasteful, to 
take her all the way to California.
  And although this is symbolic, I think there is some substance here 
that does deserve to be commented on, so I am supporting this 
amendment.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last comment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned by what I am hearing on the 
opposite side. And I understand fully the frustration of the American 
people, having listened to the leadership of this party for so many 
years distracting Americans from the real issues confronting us. And to 
hear them attack Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House for using a 
private airplane to take her back and forth to California, and of that 
size, is just outrageous.
  The truth of the matter is that this is the party that completely 
blocked the 9/11 recommendations that were so critical to the security 
of this Nation. This is the party that refused to make sure that all 
the cargo inside the belly of airplanes is inspected. And now, when we 
have the Speaker of the House, who is rightly concerned about security, 
using a plane to protect her, and it is absolutely critical that we 
have this, now they are standing up to speak about this.
  I am also deeply concerned about the claim that we are not being 
effective on global warming, because the American people understand 
this. They have seen the data. They understand it. They want us to move 
forward in a bipartisan manner. And they want us to stop bickering.
  And so I plead to all of us to stop the bickering. Let's move on with 
the legislation.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from New 
Hampshire for yielding because she of all people understands, coming 
from New Hampshire, that these issues of global climate change are not 
something that we can simply choose to do, what the other side is 
saying, which is ignore them for generations more and just hope for the 
best.
  You were elected, and you came to this House saying that we are going 
to start getting things done. You said that we are going to reject the 
frivolous politics of the other side. We are not going to spend our 
time arguing over what the correct security protocols for the Speaker 
are going to be. We are going to focus on things that the American 
people really care about.
  And I just want to ask you, has anyone stopped you on the streets in 
New Hampshire and asked you, expressed concern about global climate 
change?
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. People in New Hampshire are deeply concerned; both 
parties, by the way, are deeply concerned about global warming. And 
they want us to get on with the job of taking care of this and not 
spending our time and the people's time. And we are on the payroll of 
the American people, arguing and quibbling about such minor issues as 
the airplane.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman further yield?
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. I thank the gentlelady.
  And I would also say that I am sure that we are all very concerned 
about the security arrangements for the Speaker; and I think we would 
all agree, we want to do whatever is necessary, the same way none of us 
had any concerns when Speaker Hastert got the protection.
  But frankly, there are people that are working on that right now, and 
I think, and maybe you do as well; I will ask you. Do you agree with 
the statement of the White House that this is a silly issue that people 
are making too much of and that we should get back to the job of the 
country?
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Reclaiming my time, yes. I absolutely agree that 
this is wasting our time. We are earning our paycheck from the American 
people, and we need to do the work of the American people.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman further yield?
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. I really do want to express my gratitude. The people of 
New Hampshire are very fortunate to have someone that came to Congress 
like you did. In your first 43 hours, you voted to raise the minimum 
wage, something that hadn't been done for years of neglect. You voted 
to make it less expensive for parents of New Hampshire to send their 
kids to school. You voted for a responsible continuing resolution that 
increased spending to put cops on the beat in New Hampshire.
  You have, frankly, in your first several weeks here in the House, 
done more than your predecessors did for years and years because they 
were focused on issues like this on the other side. And I want to thank 
you for your service.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank you and we intend to 
continue to deliver to the American people what they have asked us to 
do.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that 
they are here as guests of the House, and that any manifestation of 
approval or disapproval of the proceedings, or audible conversation, is 
in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I am not going to take much time. I am very concerned about the 
fiscal responsibility that we should have. And I know my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time defending the 
$300,000 per trip that the Speaker is going to be spending flying back 
and forth to California. But I don't think the American people are 
going to understand how $15 million a year is being spent for one 
person to fly back and forth to California.
  The Speaker is a very important person. She is third in line to the 
presidency, but there are other ways to get out there that cost less. I 
think the plane the former Speaker used would cost about one-fifth or 
one-fourth of that.
  And I don't think, no matter what the other side says, that the 
American people are going to buy $1.2 million a trip for her to go to 
California or $15 million a year for her to go back and forth to her 
district. It just won't wash, especially at a time like this when we 
are trying to get spending under control.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is one of those 
debates where you are sitting in your office and you are watching what 
has happened and you have no intention of coming down, and then you 
hear something said and you feel it is important to talk about that 
issue. That is how this strikes me, and I think it is important to set 
the record straight on some important points.
  I don't think anybody on this side of the aisle challenges the 
importance of protecting the Speaker of the House and ensuring that she 
is secure. Indeed, that is a very important point to all people in the 
Nation. But that is not what this discussion is about.
  I believe this discussion is about whether or not we are being asked 
to waste money, whether we are being asked, as has been articulated, to 
spend an extravagant amount of money, not to fly the Speaker and a few 
staff members, but to fly the Speaker and lots of staff members, plus 
family, plus other Members and who knows who. I think that is a 
legitimate issue to discuss here on the floor and an appropriate issue 
to discuss here on the floor.
  One of the things that troubles me in this debate is that people say, 
well, we shouldn't be discussing this. I would like to invite my 
colleagues to think about the context in which this debate occurs. I 
would suggest that it is important to understand that when the

[[Page H1378]]

majority takes office and brings the first six bills to the floor under 
what is called a marshall law or some provision that says no amendments 
will be offered, and that is what happened here, you brought this under 
a rule or a provision that said we could offer no amendments to the 
minimum wage bill. Can't discuss it. Can't propose an alternate idea.
  You then brought the 9/11 recommendations bill to the floor. No 
amendments. Not allowed. Can't discuss it. Can't offer your own ideas. 
At that point, in fact, you didn't even have a functioning Rules 
Committee.

                              {time}  1430

  You proceeded to bring many other important bills to the floor. The 
gentlewoman said that Republicans, in her view, didn't address the 
important issues, and yet your first six bills including minimum wage, 
stem cell, the 9/11 recommendations, student loans, energy, and 
Medicare prescription drugs, you bring to the floor, and you do not 
allow a single amendment by Republicans. And then you say, well, as 
soon as the 6 for '06 is over, we will allow amendments. We will go 
back to regular order.
  But, in fact, that didn't turn out to be true. The seventh bill was 
the page board. Then the Pension Act, a very important bill that I 
thought was important for the Nation to pass, no amendments. Then the 
delegate bill. Finally, we get to bill nine, and you allow one 
amendment on that bill.
  Then you come to the CR omnibus bill. On the CR omnibus bill that 
runs this government for the balance of the year and spends billions of 
dollars, how many amendments were the minority allowed? Absolutely 
none. And now you find it odd that we would want to engage in this 
debate right now.
  As long as the rights of the minority are repressed by the majority 
so that we cannot do our job and represent the people of our district 
then you can expect this kind of exchange to occur on the floor.
  And for my colleague from Texas who came to the floor and said he was 
disappointed in the level of debate, I would suggest that you look 
within yourself. If you repress debate, if you do not allow us to speak 
and address our issues, then we are going to use whatever tools we can.
  I want to address another point that has been raised on the other 
side, and that is that the White House has said that it doesn't view 
this issue as all that significant or views it as ``silly.'' Well, with 
all due respect to the White House, I respect Tony Snow and the White 
House's position on the issue; but, quite frankly, Tony Snow does not 
hold an election certificate and Tony Snow doesn't represent the 
taxpayers of Arizona. He does not have a duty, as I do, to come to this 
floor and to discuss the consequences for our taxpayers.
  It seems to me that next week we are going to debate an issue of 
great importance to this Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this debate has gone on for a 
long time and my colleague is very eloquent in what he says.
  Let me just say that I hope that Speaker Pelosi will take the time to 
come down and explain to the full House the reason why she thinks she 
should have $15 million a year to fly back and forth to California. I 
think she could be very eloquent in explaining why the taxpayers should 
spend that much money, and I would like to hear what she has to say.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is important to 
understand the context in which each of these debates occur.
  I agree with my colleagues on other side of the aisle who would say 
that this debate is not the central debate in America today, whether or 
not we spend an excessive amount of money to accommodate one Member of 
the Congress who ought to be protected. That is not exactly the most 
momentous moment or issue before the Nation right now.
  But next week we will debate the war in Iraq. Next week we will 
debate the confrontation of this Nation with global terrorism. Next 
week we will debate the jihadis and their desire to destroy America and 
the importance of that fight.
  Now, here is my concern: you on the other side of the aisle are 
concerned that we are making a big deal out of this issue. I would like 
to know if somebody on the other side of the aisle will promise me that 
next week you will have an open rule on the Iraq debate so that we can 
have a full discussion of all of the issues, because I welcome that 
debate. But what I fear, what I fear deeply is that we will not have an 
open rule next week. We will not have a reasonable opportunity to 
debate all of the alternatives.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. If you will answer the question of whether or not there 
will be an open rule next week, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman vote for an open rule?
  Mr. WEINER. Well, I have got to tell you something. I don't recall 
there being an open rule when we had the original vote on the war; do 
you, sir?
  Mr. SHADEGG. All I know is we have been here so far almost 1\1/2\ 
months and we have been allowed, in 1\1/2\ months, one amendment. And 
it seems to me that you are frustrated with this debate and you want us 
to be discussing more important issues. It seems to me we ought to be 
discussing issues like the importance of the war against global terror.
  Mr. WEINER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. WEINER. I recall we were given an up-or-down vote without any 
opportunity for alternatives on the original war in Iraq, and I think 
we are going to have eight votes, and we have accepted this amendment, 
eight votes on various amendments to this bill. I think the lady doth 
protest too much.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman answer the question I asked, though? 
Will there be an open rule in the debate on Iraq next week?
  Mr. WEINER. I don't have any control over that. I think the gentleman 
is in scant position to protest when he himself was part of the 
leadership that said we couldn't have an open rule when we originally 
voted on this thing.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in 
the Contract with America we offered to the minority 154 amendments. We 
had a functioning Rules Committee. Every bill in the Contract with 
America went through the standing committee process. Every bill went to 
the Rules Committee. The minority was entitled to bring amendments to, 
I think, all but two of those bills. This was our first effort. This 
was our first initiative to claim the attention of the American people.
  We allowed the minority at that time to offer 154 amendments. And in 
that period, 48 of the minority's amendments were accepted. Now we have 
been here almost 1\1/2\ months, and we are being allowed the ability to 
amend only those bills on which there is no controversy.
  I agree with the minority: the Speaker of the House should be 
protected. I agree with the minority that whether she is protected or 
not is an important issue for this Congress. But I do not agree that 
the minority isn't entitled to debate the expenditure of public funds, 
as we are doing here. I do not agree that this is an issue where, if 
the White House says it is a silly issue, we are not supposed to raise 
it. If that is the rule in this House, then I think there are a lot of 
things the White House is saying that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are challenging.
  And it seems to me that if you are unhappy with this debate, then you 
need to look at the context in which this debate occurs. And I would 
suggest to you that next week when we begin a debate on the war in Iraq 
and a debate on the war against the jihadis who threaten our lives in 
America, who threaten world security, I only hope, I dearly hope, that 
you will give us an open rule or a rule that allows each of the 
alternatives to be debated, because if you don't do that, if you 
continue to repress the rights of the minority, then you are going to 
have to expect this kind of debate by us whenever we can

[[Page H1379]]

raise it. It is our duty to our constituents. It is our obligation.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, some of us on this side of the aisle are not at all 
upset that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to 
debate this particular issue. We hope it goes on forever and that the 
American public is tuned in to watch just what motivates that side of 
the aisle.
  The fact of the matter is that the debate that they are having is 
between them and the White House. When people ask that the Speaker come 
down to present a case as to why there should be protection of the 
Speaker of the House, they miss the point that the people motivating 
that are the White House, who decided after 9/11 that the Speaker of 
the House, then a Republican, Mr. Hastert, should, in fact, have the 
kind of the security that Americans would expect for the person who is 
two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States and that 
the President in this instance is consistent in that, in believing that 
no matter what party is holding the Speaker of the House position ought 
to also have that protection.
  I don't think that they can propose a safer way to get the Speaker 
from Washington to California and back so that she can conduct the 
considerable responsibilities of her position and get back to do those 
in a timely fashion other than to fly back and forth.
  But because some of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
apparently still don't understand it and don't understand whom they are 
debating with, and I understand that sometimes it is difficult to 
understand what is coming out of the White House, but just one more 
time so that even they can get it, I would like to yield to my 
colleague from Tennessee and ask him to read once again the other side 
of the debate as presented by the President of the United States in his 
own words.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from 
Massachusetts for yielding.
  Once again from the White House: ``This is a silly story. I think 
it's been unfair to the Speaker.''
  And let me tell you what else is silly. It is silly for the party 
that inherited the biggest surplus in our Nation's or world's history 
and then turned it into a deficit, the biggest deficit in history, to 
come in here and try to be fiscally conservative.
  And let me tell you what is even more silly about that. What is even 
more silly about that is they have a silly amendment that has been 
accepted; yet they want to continue to talk about the silly amendment, 
pretending to be fiscally conservative, although it is costing the 
American taxpayer to keep this Record going even though this amendment, 
silly amendment, has been accepted. And that is what is silly about 
this.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not going to take 
too much longer except to say that I for one hope that they continue to 
debate this silly amendment that has already been accepted, that the 
American public tunes in so they understand exactly what is going on 
here and they reconfirm the reason why the majority has shifted to this 
party that is now in the majority of the House.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. I have only been here a few terms. We are operating under 
an open rule, is that correct?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, to the gentleman. We are operating under an open 
rule, which, I think, equals the number of times that the other 
majority of the last session had open rules during their entire 
session.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I 
think it is a reasonable expectation, when we have open rules in the 
future and we are all done debating security arrangements for the 
Speaker, I do not know what our colleagues are going to be talking 
about. I mean, they had months and months and months of leadership in 
the Republic Party to generate virtually nothing but standstill. Many 
of the people that are here on the floor from the Republic Party were 
shot down continually when they came to the floor trying to cut out 
wasteful spending. More wasteful spending happened under their 
leadership than, frankly, anytime in history.
  The Republic Party showed such an inability to govern this country 
that they were vanquished into the minority arguably for the 
foreseeable future. The Republic Party was repudiated, but this is how 
they want to use their debate time, on a measure that we have accepted, 
on what protection to provide the Speaker.
  I doubt very much, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, that 
the American people are tuning in with rapt attention to see how we are 
going to provide security to the Speaker. But if that is really what 
they think we should be having this debate about, I for one, Mr. 
Tierney, disagree. I think we should be figuring out how to do the 
people's business. We have already lowered their cost of college. We 
have increased the minimum wage. We have put an ethics plan into place. 
We have shown again and again we are doing the business of the American 
people; and the Republic Party seems, based on this debate, to be 
obsessed with how we provide security for the Speaker.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, based on that, I would say to my colleague 
from New York that that is exactly why I hope the conversation 
continues on this amendment that has been accepted so that we can drive 
home the point again that this is the choice.
  But in winding up, I would just say since we have accepted this 
amendment that perhaps if there is going to be more conversation, it 
ought to be focused on how Members suggest that they protect the 
Speaker of the House who has to get from Washington to California and 
back in some manner safely other than what the President proposes, and 
then they can put that information to the White House and continue the 
debate with the President.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I find it ironic. What we are trying to do over here is to save the 
taxpayers what could be up to $15 million, and we are accused of 
wasting the time and taxes of the American people by engaging in a 
debate to save $15 million.
  The purpose of the House of Representatives, the purpose of the 
people on this side, is to save money. This whole debate is about 
saving money. This could be easily resolved if the Speaker of the House 
would say: I am willing to take the smaller aircraft to land halfway in 
Kansas or Illinois or anywhere else, fuel up again, and head on to San 
Francisco. That would probably save the taxpayers $10 million. It would 
be a much smaller aircraft, and it would inconvenience her by about an 
hour to 1\1/2\ hours. This is what this is all about.
  But what really bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that those of 
us who are engaging in debate, this is the type of debate that the 
American people want because it is the type of debate that saves them 
money. It is all about saving the taxpayers' money. If this is not the 
debate that should take place, I really don't know what should take 
place.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I will yield, absolutely. But first I want to ask you a 
question because you didn't yield to me.
  Mr. WEINER. Sure.
  Mr. MANZULLO. You accused the Republicans of being a do-nothing 
Congress. The last 3 days Members of Congress have been here with all 
the lights burning. That costs more money. We got out yesterday at 2 
o'clock in the afternoon for six suspension votes, which if the 
Republicans were in control, we could have done in 3 hours. It took you 
3 days.
  And you know what, Mr. Chairman? I have heard complaints coming even 
from the Democratic side that they cannot understand what this calendar 
is all about because they can't see their children, they can't get back 
home to be with their constituents, and they wonder why they are here 
in the city of Washington debating for the last 3 days what could have 
taken place in 2 hours.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Of course I will yield.
  Mr. WEINER. First of all, let me just say your eloquent explanation 
of this amendment, perhaps you weren't here for all the discussion. We 
accept the amendment.

[[Page H1380]]

  Mr. MANZULLO. I understand.
  Mr. WIENER. It could have been law 3 hours ago.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, the American people have a right to 
know what is in the amendment.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. WEINER. If I could just further answer your question, because you 
asked a good question about the schedule; the gentleman asked a good 
question about the schedule. I just want, on behalf of all of us on 
this side of the aisle, to express our apologies for making you all 
work so hard. It wasn't our intention to inconvenience anybody. We are 
just trying to get the people's work done.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, getting out at 2 
o'clock in the afternoon--when the Republicans were in control, we were 
here at 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, midnight, 2 or 3 days a week, working 
away on all the issues. I just find it absolutely ironic that the new 
Congress, intent upon coming to Washington, trying to change all the 
rules, to change everything, says, come back and work 3 days on six 
bills that could take 1 hour.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the midst of what has been 
characterized as a silly debate, and I don't rise so much to disagree 
with that characterization, but maybe for different reasons.
  Let me say, as others have said, I was here on September 11, like 
many of my colleagues. I do not question the imperative of providing 
for the physical safety of the Speaker of the United States House of 
Representatives. I strongly supported the decision by the President to 
provide for private jet travel for the Speaker of the House then and 
support such transportation now. We must protect those who lead us and 
we must not play politics with that protection.
  But let me say on the subject of whether this is a silly debate 
around the gentleman from Virginia's amendment, I think it is silly to 
question the right of the minority to question public expenditures. The 
gentleman from New York, whom I deeply respect, comes to the floor to 
question the very act of Congress being Congress. We are asking 
questions, in the minority, of the majority about the public 
expenditure of public assets; and that is precisely what Congress and 
the minority in Congress exists to do. I think it is altogether silly 
to question the right to question in the Congress.
  Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a little bit silly, some 
of the public consternation about a Democrat Speaker's airplane needing 
to be much bigger than a Republican Speaker's airplane, because to the 
extent that the airplane itself is a metaphor for government, I believe 
that we can expect all of the government will continue to need to be 
much bigger under a Democrat majority in Congress.
  In a very short period of time, we have seen our colleagues bring 
wage and price controls and raise taxes. So to part of me, with great 
respect for my colleagues on this side of the aisle, it is not terribly 
surprising that the plane needs to be bigger too. When we think of the 
history of entitlements under Democrat control of Congress, we might 
well anticipate a fleet of planes in a fairly short period of time.
  But, of course, I jest. I think it is a bit of a silly debate to 
question the right to question in this Congress. I think my colleagues 
know this to be true. But I also think it is a little bit silly for the 
American people to ever expect government to get smaller under Democrat 
control.
  And it is also rather silly, and I close, to think that Republicans 
will ever fail to come to this floor to object when government grows 
needlessly under a Democrat majority. We will rise to that challenge. 
We will object to the expansion of government, even when it takes the 
shape of a 757.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. What is silly is pretending to be a fiscal 
conservative while you are continuing to waste the taxpayers' dollars 
talking about an amendment that has been accepted. That is what is 
silly.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's sensitivity. I think the lights were already going to be 
paid for today, and I didn't have anywhere better to be but down here 
making the case for the American people for less government, less 
taxes. This is the role of the minority, to question, to fight for 
smaller government.
  I commend the gentleman from Virginia for his principled stand today.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, almost every day I stand down here and I encourage 
Members to sign on to my bill that Congress should not be above the 
law. While this debate was going on, a constituent called and said, why 
don't you amend that bill to also say that Congress should not be above 
coach or first-class travel?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot said on this floor today in this 
debate. Frankly, questions have been raised about the expectations of 
the American people and what it is that they seek for their Members of 
Congress to do.
  There was one Member on the other side of the aisle who said we ought 
to get on with the serious business of the day. Well, Mr. Chairman, the 
ability to fly on a jumbo jetliner is a privilege never before granted 
to a Member of Congress. And I know one thing, Mr. Chairman; the 
American taxpayers do expect us to take seriously the decisions 
surrounding the expenditure of those dollars. They expect us to respect 
that those tax dollars do not belong to the Speaker, do not belong to 
any of us. They are just that, the taxpayers' dollars.
  They also expect us to lead by example, and I would want to pose to 
every speaker that spoke today and ask them, do they really in their 
heart of hearts support our Speaker having the access to a 42-seat 
jumbo jetliner?
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike what I really hope 
deep down and pray might be one of the last words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to be practical about this. You know, I sat 
this morning in the ranking position as a Republican with Bart as 
chairman over there, and we listened to the First Lady. She came before 
us, everybody was gracious to her, she made a good speech. One of our 
Members used his rights under the rules to ask her some questions. She 
graciously answered them. Then we came on over here. I came on over 
here hoping that this would be about an hour and a half or maybe 2 
hours.
  I served as ranking member under Bart today, and I was ranking as a 
Democrat under Boehlert and Sensenbrenner, and the only airplane I 
would like to be thinking about was the one I wanted to be on at 12:30 
today heading for Texas.
  But really and truly, I don't call anybody silly or anybody's speech 
that they want to make here, they need to be heard and express 
themselves. That is just what a lot of people call the music of 
democracy.
  But we started out, I thought, talking about a bill that would direct 
the EPA, the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of 
Standards and Technology to initiate an R&D program to make biofuels 
more compatible with present-day infrastructure and to direct agencies 
to do so and so, to provide low-cost, affordable and accurate 
measurements and do all that; and it is going to cost $10 million to 
carry this act out.
  This bill was introduced in the 109th Congress and was included in 
Congresswoman Biggert's comprehensive energy bill. It passed under 
suspension of the rules last year. We didn't have all this debate about 
it. Everybody was for that bill. It encompassed more than what this 
bill started out with.
  Somehow--and I like Bart Gordon, and I respect him. I have known very 
few people from Tennessee I didn't like. If it weren't for Tennessee, 
there probably wouldn't even be a Texas, and that may be better off for 
a lot of people. And I wrote Bart a letter, what is it, in the Merchant 
of Venice or Othello, where they said, ``O, that mine enemy might write 
me a letter.''

[[Page H1381]]

Maybe you should have read it, Bart. Maybe you should have answered it.
  I wrote him a letter to this effect, that I have conferred with my 
leadership, who agree that the best way to bring H.R. 547 to the floor 
is under a unanimous consent agreement. Given the uncontroversial 
nature of the bill, there is no need for us to go before the Rules 
Committee. And for some reason, we wound up with an open rule.
  Now, I can only guess why that is. I wondered why. An open rule for a 
bill that everybody is already for? Give me a break. That doesn't make 
any sense.
  So I can only think that perhaps maybe you, Bart, or somebody over 
you, made the suggestion that, well, it looks like we are fair with 
that bunch of poor people over there that are in the minority now to 
give them a shot and tell them, yes, we have given you an open rule, 
probably thinking they wouldn't use it.
  Well, I did not think it would be used either, but we have talked all 
day about everything in the world here. And there is a poem that says, 
``Maud Muller, on a summer's day, raked the meadow sweet with hay.'' 
The last verse lines are, ``For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the 
saddest are these, 'It might have been!'''
  It might have been that I would be on that airplane if we had taken 
that unanimous consent, sent this on over and gone about our business. 
All this other is just the music of democracy. It doesn't bother me 15 
cents. And it might be a little cheaper on my government for me to ride 
the bus from here to Dallas every week, you know. Maybe we could talk 
about that some afternoon: Why doesn't Ralph Hall ride the bus to Texas 
and back every year? That would save money for this country.
  But I have another feeling about the third person in command in this 
country. That is the leader, and I think she is entitled to protection 
and to a good way to go and to cut short the time that she has to spend 
in the air to get there and get home. Those things don't really bother 
me.
  But what really bothers me is for us to sit here throwing things at 
one another when there is better work to do. We need to get about our 
business and pass this bill and let me get strapped in that airplane 
and go back to my grandchildren, who need me.
  My son is a district judge, and I have got to go home and do a 
terrible thing. I have to go home and file suit against him in his own 
court. He threatened to spank one of my granddaughters last week. I 
don't have to stand for that type of thing.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Are you going to answer my letter? See, we can all 
laugh.
  I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. My friend, the gentleman from Texas, that is 
not a contradiction of terms. As usual, you do a good job of putting 
oil on the water and we thank you for that.
  I thank you also for cosponsoring this bill, this bipartisan bill, 
that went through the hearings, this bill that will be the first real 
effort to deal with alternative energy.
  This is part of the process, unfortunately, and we will go through 
it. But at the end of the day we are going to have a good bill. I thank 
you for being a part of that.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield to my fellow Texan.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
  Let me just add my voice of support for H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuel 
Infrastructure Research and Development Act. I know, Mr. Ranking 
Member, my good friend, we have had a colorful discussion on many, many 
issues. The American people are waiting to pass this bill. I add my 
support to H.R. 547.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 547, the Advanced 
Research and Development Act. H.R. 547 will make biofuels, like E85 
ethanol, easier to access and use by developing new technologies that 
would allow retailers to offer biofuels using existing infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, providing consumers with diverse fuel choices is 
crucial to the viability of a strong economy and a safe environment. 
First, creation of alternative fuels through research and development 
will not only create employment opportunities across the country, but 
it will also allow consumers to save money previously spent on high-
priced gasoline and oil. These savings will fuel the American economy 
by putting more money in the pockets of consumers which they will spend 
on other goods and services in their local communities and across the 
country. Moreover, businesses will be able to reinvest those savings 
from lower gas and oil prices to reinvest to expand its productivity 
and profits. Second, investing in clean renewable energy and providing 
consumers with diverse fuel choices will create a cleaner environment 
and reverse the terrible trends that have led to the Global warming 
throughout the world.
  H.R. 547 is a vehicle by which we can drive this country in the 
direction of energy independence. The high costs of oil and gas derive 
primarily from our overwhelming dependence on foreign oil. The Energy 
Information Administration estimates that the United States imports 
nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot even remotely begin to reduce the high price 
of oil and gas which has caused many of our citizens to change their 
standards of living, unless and until we find ways to create a more 
self-sufficient energy environment within the United States. Investing 
in clean, renewable energy is an important first step to achieving this 
goal. For example, replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives 
such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the 
$180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, but it 
can also end our addiction to foreign oil. According to the Department 
of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30 percent of our nation's 
petroleum consumption.

  Under H.R. 547, costs of fuels will also decrease due to the role 
that the EPA, the Department of Energy and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology will play in the area of research and 
development. The bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency EPA, 
in consultation with the Department of Energy DOE and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, to research and develop 
new technologies that would allow retailers to offer biofuels using 
existing infrastructure, rather than refurbishing or building new 
infrastructure--essentially, putting the fuel in consumers' tanks at a 
savings to both retailers and consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to forge a strong surge ahead to 
create alternative fuels because:
  Alternative fuels like E85 ethanol and some biodiesel blends have 
different physical and chemical properties that often make them 
incompatible with much of our existing infrastructure.
  These fuels can experience a variety of compatibility issues, such as 
corrosion of tank and pipeline materials, increased sediment buildup, 
clogging of filters, water and microbial contamination, varying flow 
properties, thermal and oxidative instability, and emissions 
volatility.
  The cost of replacing or building new infrastructure is simply not 
feasible for fuel retailers, most of whom are small businesses.
  Even when new infrastructure is installed, those costs may be passed 
along to consumers.
  In 2006, EPA began implementing the transition to Ultra Low Sulfur 
Diesel--a fuel significantly cleaner, at 15ppm sulfur, than traditional 
diesel, at 500ppm sulfur. Although this transition has been largely 
successful thus far, it is still possible that as ULSD moves from the 
refinery through pipelines, tanks, and trucks, it may absorb enough 
residual sulfur to exceed the new EPA limit.
  However, there is currently no affordable, real-time mechanism for 
testing the sulfur content of diesel fuel at the pump.
  H.R. 547 directs EPA and NIST to develop an affordable, portable, 
quick, and accurate way to test the sulfur content in diesel fuels.
  If our country wants to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, we 
must get serious about creating the infrastructure necessary to 
distribute and dispense alternative fuels. H.R. 547 will help achieve 
these goals using research and development for alternative fuels and 
new technologies.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 547 is a sound bill that has been endorsed by the 
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, National 
Association of Convenient Stores, Renewable Fuels Association, Natural 
Resources Defense Council, Petroleum Marketers Association of America, 
NATSO representing travel plaza and truckstop owners and operators, the 
Coalition of E85 Retailers, and the American Petroleum Institute.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 547.

                              {time}  1500

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H1382]]

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be 
postponed.


         Amendment Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 1 year after the establishment of the 
     program under this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     transmit a report to Congress containing suggestions for any 
     Federal incentives that could help such program be more 
     successful.

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, after the 
technologies are developed that are needed to transport safely ultra-
low sulfur diesel company products, we need to have a follow-up here. 
The implementation will be slow without some sort of incentive to do 
so.
  My amendment is very simple: It directs the Secretary of Energy to 
provide a report to Congress within 1 year, with recommendations for 
Federal incentives to implement the technologies developed through this 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that Congress is slow at improving 
programs that we create and helping the markets in which they would 
thrive. Hopefully, this amendment will make it a little bit faster, and 
I urge all Members to support the amendment.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman for her constructive amendment 
to this good bipartisan bill, and we will accept that amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Tierney). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Ms. Eshoo of California to the amendment by Mr. Burgess 
of Texas.
  Amendment by Mr. Burgess of Texas (as amended or not).
  Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Weller of Illinois.
  Amendment by Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment by Mr. Rogers of Michigan.
  Amendment by Mr. Cantor of Virginia.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


 Amendment Offered by Ms. Eshoo to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 185, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 81]

                               AYES--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barton (TX)
     Boucher
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Millender-McDonald
     Norwood
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)

                              {time}  1528

  Messrs. ROGERS of Michigan, McKEON, REICHERT, ROSKAM and LATHAM 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H1383]]

  Messrs. JOHNSON of Georgia, WALSH of New York, McHUGH, BARTLETT of 
Maryland, CASTLE and KIRK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to speak to Mr. 
Blunt, the Republican whip. I want to put Members on notice early 
enough so they will know before they run out of here. There are going 
to be votes, maybe two, at least, revotes when we come out of the 
Committee of the Whole and into the full House.
  There will be at least two votes. In conjunction with the Republican 
whip, we have agreed that they will be 2-minute votes. The reason I am 
giving that announcement now, I want all the Members to know they will 
be 2-minute votes so that we can try to get Members out of here on 
time.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess, as Amended

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424, 
noes 0, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               AYES--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Boucher
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Millender-McDonald
     Norwood
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Space
     Sullivan
     Velazquez


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1537

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Weller of Illinois

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424, 
noes 0, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 83]

                               AYES--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan

[[Page H1384]]


     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Boucher
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hunter
     LaTourette
     Millender-McDonald
     Mollohan
     Norwood
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1546

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Dent

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 201, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 84]

                               AYES--226

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--201

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott

[[Page H1385]]


     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (UT)
     Boucher
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Millender-McDonald
     Norwood
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1555

  Messrs. UDALL of Colorado, LYNCH and AL GREEN of Texas changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CUELLAR changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Rogers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 419, 
noes 6, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               AYES--419

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--6

     Blackburn
     Feeney
     Flake
     Paul
     Royce
     Sali

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boucher
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Millender-McDonald
     Norwood
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Solis
     Wasserman Schultz


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1601

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cantor

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Cantor) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 422, 
noes 3, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               AYES--422

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)

[[Page H1386]]


     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Flake
     LaHood
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boucher
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Jones (OH)
     Larson (CT)
     Millender-McDonald
     Norwood
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1608

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, on the vote just taken, the Chair announced 
the vote as 422-3. Should the Chair not have delineated the vote to 
properly reflect that the vote was 418-3 of those Representatives 
representing the several States as specified in the Constitution, and 
that the votes of those Delegates not representing States was 4-0?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No.
  Mr. BLUNT. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The 
further parliamentary inquiry is, am I accurate in believing that all 
of these votes can be revoted once we rise from the Committee of the 
Whole?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Those that are adopted may be revoted.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Only those amendments adopted in the first 
degree may be revoted. Second-degree amendments may not be isolated for 
separate votes.
  Mr. BLUNT. Those amendments that passed in the Committee of the Whole 
in the first degree would all be subject to be revoted?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry in that 
regard.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TERRY. A question was posed by a parliamentary inquiry during the 
Committee of the Whole earlier asking specifically if secondary 
amendments could also be revoted, and the answer from the Chair was all 
amendments. It appears that the ruling from the Chair or the answer to 
the whip's parliamentary inquiry is different from an answer previously 
given to a similar question.
  Could the Chair please clarify?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Those amendments 
adopted in the first degree are able to be voted upon and those in the 
second degree are not.
  Mr. TERRY. So the clarification from the earlier ruling is not all 
amendments, but all first-degree amendments, even though the question 
earlier was posed on second-degree amendments. I thank the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The speaker could address that question in the 
House, which would be preferable to its being addressed by the Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole.
  Are there any further amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burgess of Texas:
       Page 5, after line 21, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL ISSUES.

       Research and development under this Act shall address 
     issues with respect to increased volatile emissions or 
     increased nitrogen oxide emissions.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, earlier during this process, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) and I offered an amendment, but it did 
not receive a clean vote. I have redrafted the amendment to more 
comprehensively addressed emissions from the increased use of biofuels 
or additives covered in the research and development program in this 
bill.
  Republicans and Democrats should be thought of as being 
environmentally friendly, and I found myself in the position of arguing 
for a more stringent standard than some of my Democratic colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, MTBE was an additive. Additives can cause environmental 
harm. We need to look at this all the way through the fuel cycle, 
beginning at the R&D phase, through combustion, through emission.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, although this amendment is a 
bit oddly written, it appears to be repetitious to the previous Burgess 
amendment, which is repetitious to the previous Eshoo amendment.
  With that said, in the spirit of civility, we accept this amendment.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Ferguson as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                         Offered by Mr. Burgess

  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ferguson as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Burgess:

[[Page H1387]]

       Page 5, after line 21, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL ISSUES.

       Research and development under this Act shall address 
     issues with respect to increased volatile emissions or 
     increased nitrogen oxide emissions, and strategies to 
     minimize emissions from infrastructure.

  Mr. FERGUSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my 
amendment to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered as a 
substitute for the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Tierney, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 547) to 
facilitate the development of markets for alternative fuels and Ultra 
Low Sulfur Diesel fuel through research, development, and demonstration 
and data collection, pursuant to House Resolution 133, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.


            Permission to Reduce Time for Electronic Voting

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further 
proceedings today in the House, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that 
otherwise could be subjected to a 5-minute vote under clause 8 or 9 of 
rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 547.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TERRY. Is it correct to state that the standing committees of the 
House are authorized under rule X of the rules of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  And is it also correct that the organization of the standing 
committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted 
statutory laws?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. They were ordained by the adoption of the 
rules on the opening day of this Congress.
  Mr. TERRY. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I could not hear you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The adoption of the standing rules on 
January 4, 2007, put those committees in place.
  Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  Is it also correct that the Committee of the Whole House is provided 
for under rule XVIII of the standing rules of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. TERRY. And, Madam Speaker, is it true that the Committee of the 
Whole is not a standing committee of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  And is it correct that under rule XVIII, the Committee of the Whole 
House was not created by statute, but instead comes from previous rules 
of the House adopted in 1789, modified in 1794, and later adopted by 
the House in 1880?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Rule XVIII was adopted on opening day of 
this Congress, as well.
  Mr. TERRY. One last parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  So under the rule adopted by the House last week giving Delegates and 
Commissioners voting rights, the standing committees of the House and 
the Committee of the Whole House have the same legal standing under the 
rules of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is unable to affirm that. Rules X 
and XVIII have the same provenance.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole?
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I demand a re-vote on the following 
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole by those Members of 
this House duly recognized to vote by the Constitution:
  The amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  The amendment by Mr. Weller of Illinois.
  The amendment by Mr. Rogers of Michigan.
  The amendment by Mr. Cantor of Virginia.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, during the Committee of the 
Whole, I had a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair about a second-degree 
amendment, and the response from the Chair may not have been accurate.
  So in an effort to clarify for the House, in the Committee of the 
Whole, if a second-order amendment passes but it is not a decisive 
vote, meaning that the Delegates and the Resident Commissioners weren't 
decisive in that passing, can any Member call for a re-vote of a 
second-degree amendment in the full House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair appreciates the gentleman's 
inquiring in this forum because an earlier response he received about 
second-degree amendments in the Committee of the Whole, which should 
not have been given in that forum in the first place, was incorrect.
  Under the regular order, the Chair must put the question in the House 
on amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole. In the instant 
case, the Committee of the Whole has reported a single amendment in the 
nature of a substitute on which the Chair will put the question to the 
House in due course.
  In addition, House Resolution 133 included language to allow any 
Member to seek a separate vote on any amendment adopted to that 
original-text substitute in the Committee of the Whole. However, this 
opportunity for separate votes is not availing either in the case of an 
amendment rejected in Committee or in the case of an amendment to an 
amendment to the original-text substitute.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. So as I understand your answer, Madam Speaker, 
there is no opportunity for a Member of the House of Representatives to 
receive a vote in the full House on a second-order amendment from the 
Committee of the Whole that passed by a nondecisive margin; is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  The Chair will designate the amendments on which a separate vote has 
been demanded in the order they appear in the text.
  The Clerk will designate the first amendment on which a separate vote 
has been demanded.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H1388]]


       Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Page 3, line 23, insert ``The Assistant Administrator is 
     encouraged to utilize Land Grant Institutions, Historically 
     Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
     Institutions, and other minority-serving institutions among 
     other resources to undertake research for this program.'' 
     after ``point of final sale.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
subsequent votes will be reduced to 2 minutes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417, 
noes 0, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               AYES--417

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Boucher
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Emerson
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Matheson
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Norwood
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1639

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the second 
amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
       Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (4).
       Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) issues with respect to where in the fuel supply chain 
     additives optimally should be added to fuels; and

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 354, 
nays 58, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               YEAS--354

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette

[[Page H1389]]


     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--58

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baird
     Blackburn
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Castor
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Farr
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Harman
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jones (OH)
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Murphy (CT)
     Neal (MA)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Sutton
     Taylor
     Thompson (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Calvert
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinojosa
     Matheson
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 1 
minute remains in this vote.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. WESTMORELAND (during the vote). Madam Speaker, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the parliamentary inquiry related to this 
vote?
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. It is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, could you tell me the reason this 
vote is being held open and could you read the rule about holding votes 
open?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not holding the vote open; the 
Chair is waiting for the clerks to process changes in the well.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. I didn't realize there would be so much 
confusion about the way they voted.
  Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that 
the Speaker close the board and all Members would have an opportunity 
to re-vote this issue. It might save a considerable amount of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk is processing changes of votes in 
the well. The gentleman's request is not in order.
  The Clerk will proceed.

                              {time}  1654

  Mr. CROWLEY and Mr. SALI changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. JACKSON-
LEE of Texas, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN 
of California, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. WATERS and Ms. 
HOOLEY of Oregon and Messrs. SESTAK, HASTINGS of Florida, BOREN, 
McGOVERN, LANGEVIN, PERLMUTTER, COSTA, CARDOZA, SCOTT of Georgia, 
COURTNEY, PALLONE, COOPER, MEEKS of New York, WYNN, SKELTON, OLVER, 
ALLEN, LANTOS, BISHOP of New York, JOHNSON of Georgia, CUMMINGS, KAGEN, 
KIND, Mrs. LOWEY, Messrs. PATRICK MURPHY of Pennsylvania, PAYNE, TOWNS, 
Ms. WOOLSEY and Mr. YARMUTH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the third amendment 
on which a separate vote has been demanded.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weller of Illinois:
       Page 4, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 18, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (4).
       Page 4, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) issues with respect to certification by a nationally 
     recognized testing laboratory of components for fuel 
     dispensing devises that specifically reference compatibility 
     with alcohol blended and other biofuels that contain greater 
     than 15 percent alcohol; and

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 385, 
nays 24, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 89]

                               YEAS--385

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)

[[Page H1390]]


     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--24

     Baird
     Capps
     Castor
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Dingell
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Kilpatrick
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Matsui
     Sarbanes
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Sutton
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Calvert
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinojosa
     Matheson
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Simpson
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there is 1 minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the fourth 
amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cantor:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL FINDING.

       The Congress also finds that in order to lessen United 
     States dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, and 
     decrease demand for petroleum in aircraft, such as passenger 
     planes with 42 business class seats capable of 
     transcontinental flights, the Nation must diversify its fuel 
     supply for aircraft to include domestically produced 
     alternative fuels.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 385, 
nays 23, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 90]

                               YEAS--385

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--23

     Baird
     Capps
     Castor
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Matsui
     Sarbanes
     Slaughter
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Berman
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Calvert
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinojosa
     Matheson
     McDermott
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Norwood
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
is 1 minute remaining on this vote.

[[Page H1391]]

                              {time}  1707

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Shimkus

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. In its current form, yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Shimkus moves to recommit the bill H.R. 547 to the 
     Committee on Science and Technology with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       Strike ``biofuels'' each place it appears and insert 
     ``alternative fuels''.
       Strike ``biofuel'' each place it appears and insert 
     ``alternative fuel''.
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. DEFINITION.

       For purposes of this Act, the term ``alternative fuel'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 301 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992.
       Page 3, lines 4 and 9, redesignate paragraphs (5) and (6) 
     as paragraphs (6) and (7), respectively.
       Page 3, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph:
       (5) as the Nation's recoverable coal has the energy content 
     equivalent of one trillion barrels of oil, Ultra Low Sulfur 
     Diesel fuel derived from coal-to-liquid technologies will 
     help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum;
       Page 5, line 3, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
       Page 5, line 4, insert ``, and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel 
     derived from coal-to-liquids technologies'' after ``and Low 
     Sulfur Diesel''.

  Mr. SHIMKUS (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, last time I spoke on the floor was on 
H.R. 6, and I challenged my fossil fuel Democrats, my coal Democrats, 
to not abandon fossil fuels. I know that the majority of the Members of 
the Democratic Caucus are anti-coal, but I was assured the interests of 
coal would not be left out in the future.
  Well, here we go again. With this bill we do just that. My motion to 
recommit would expand the universe of this bill to do what was passed 
and accepted by a Democratic House in 1992 under EPACT, the Energy and 
Policy Act.
  This bill, as written, does not use the 15-year accepted word of 
``alternative.'' By leaving this out, the bill discriminates not only 
on coal-to-liquid technologies that produce low sulfur diesel and 
aviation fuel, but also natural gas and hydrogen.
  This motion to recommit improves this bill and does not limit 
science, research and development to not only biofuels but coal-to-
liquid, hydrogen and natural gas.
  It is my hope that one day the Speaker and all of us will be able to 
fly back to our districts using aviation fuel produced from coal from 
U.S. coal mines and U.S. refineries.
  And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield to Ranking Member Hall.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I will be brief.
  In our drive towards energy independence, we cannot exclude one of 
our greatest natural resources. I am a fossil fuels guy. I am from 
Texas, and I am for fossil fuels, but I also know the value of coal. 
Coal must continue to be part of our energy portfolio, along with 
alternative fuels and renewable fuels.
  The Republican motion to recommit recognizes this fact, and I thank 
you for it. It ensures that coal is going to continue to have a place 
at the table by clearly defining coal-to-liquids as an alternative fuel 
and including ultra low sulfur diesel derived from coal-to-liquids in 
the bill.
  The U.S. is in no danger of running out of coal. At current 
consumption rates, U.S. recoverable coal reserves are estimated to last 
for 250 years. The U.S. currently has over a quarter of the world's 
recoverable coal, more than Russia, over twice the amount of China. 
This compares to the U.S. oil reserves that are 2 percent of the 
world's total natural gas which are 3 percent of the world's total. We 
have plenty of coal. Actually, coal reserves are spread also over 38 of 
your States. Thirty-eight of you there have coal, and it is important 
to you.
  I would just say this. John McKetta, noted author and writer from the 
University of Texas, said 14 years ago, We have enough coal in the mid-
section of the United States to double the total output of the OPEC 
Nations all combined if we could but mine it.
  Let's don't send our kids overseas to take some energy away from 
someone when we got plenty right here at home.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I want to concur with my 
friend from Texas in terms of his concern about coal being a part of 
the overall package of dealing with energy independence. He is 
absolutely right, and I think everyone in this body recognizes that 
clean coal will be a part of our energy independence.
  Unfortunately, though, this amendment does not really deal with clean 
coal. This amendment is a continuing effort to try to undermine this 
good bill today dealing with alternative energy. This is a very narrow 
bill.
  This is a bill that was cosponsored by myself as chairman of the 
Science Committee, the ranking member of the Science Committee, and 
many others, and passed out of the committee unanimously because we are 
trying to deal with the problem today. We want to deal today with the 
infrastructure problems that stop our alternative fuels from being able 
to be used in existing infrastructure.
  Clean coal will be a part of a solution later, but clean coal is not 
available right now. And so why are we stopping dealing with something 
we can do today for something that there is no solution for today?
  Clean coal will be a part of what we do over in the Science and 
Technology Committee. We have been in discussions about this. I think 
everybody should know that. So that is off the table.
  The question today on this motion to recommit is, do you want to move 
forward and do something today about alternative energy? If you do, 
vote down this amendment. If you do not want to do anything about this 
today, if you want to talk and talk and talk and come back another day, 
then vote ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the earlier order of the House, 
the Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any electronic 
vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 207, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 91]

                               AYES--200

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito

[[Page H1392]]


     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--207

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Delahunt
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Berman
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Calvert
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinojosa
     Matheson
     McDermott
     McKeon
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1732

  Mr. WILSON of Ohio and Mr. HILL changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 400, 
noes 3, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 92]

                               AYES--400

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner

[[Page H1393]]


     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Flake
     Shadegg
     Shimkus

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Calvert
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Eshoo
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinojosa
     Matheson
     McDermott
     McKeon
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pryce (OH)
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Van Hollen
     Wilson (NM)

                              {time}  1739

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``To facilitate the 
development of markets for biofuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel 
through research and development and data collection.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________