Providing 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.

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.

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

very grateful to see it beginning at this point.

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

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. 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. 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. 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. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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. 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

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. Chairman, I have no further requests for time at this time, and I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Parliamentary Inquiries

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. 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).

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we believe this is an acceptable amendment and thank the gentleman for submitting it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Yes.

I do not.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 133 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 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.

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

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. 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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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?

As a point of clarification on the inquiry, so any question may be put to a separate vote once the Committee rises?

Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Under what circumstances will a separate vote not be allowed?

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?

On any question put?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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?

Further inquiry.

So I am correct in understanding that there are only some instances, namely the case

of an adoption of an amendment, where a Member may request a revote in the full House. Is that correct?

Further inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

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?

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?

How is the Chair going to determine if the votes of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are decisive?

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?

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?

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?

So the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may not vote in the full House; is that correct?

Do the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner count for the purposes of establishing and maintaining a quorum of the Committee of the Whole House?

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?

On that procedural vote?

I thank the Chair. Are the Delegates and Resident Commissioner permitted to vote on the question of the Committee rising?

I thank the Chair for his indulgence.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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?

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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?

Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

That includes the specific second-order amendment that would have been offered; is that correct?

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.

I would be happy to yield to my good friend from 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.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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.

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.