Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 o'clock for legislative business.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

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

In addition, we will consider H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009, and H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, of course, as you know, the House has passed all 12 of our appropriation bills, so we're ready to go to conference on all 12 of those bills. The Senate has passed four of their bills and is working on the balance. We hope to conference and have on the floor a number of those bills before the end of September, before the beginning of the fiscal year. There obviously will be, given the Senate's schedule, a requirement for a continuing resolution for some period of time, perhaps in a 30-day period time frame. So we will be considering those bills, those conference reports.

In addition, as you heard, the student loan reform bill will be on the floor next week, we believe. Defense authorization is in conference, and we expect that conference report. Health care reform, obviously we expect to do that this fall. Regulatory reform is expected to be an item on our agenda in the House this fall. Additionally, we will be waiting on the Senate on a number of items that we have sent to them, including climate change and food safety, which, as you know, the House passed. So those will be some of the items. That is not an exhaustive list, but is, I think, a good list of what we expect to be considering during the coming weeks.

I think the honest answer to that is yes. Obviously, that was a target date, not knowing exactly how quickly we would proceed.

Clearly, health care, among other issues, is taking, as we understand it needed to, a longer time. And so consideration of that and the appropriation bills and other authorization bills that are going between the two Houses will, I think, clearly take us beyond October 30.

Let me say that I believe that every week scheduled in October we will be meeting. However, in November, as the gentleman probably knows, Veterans Day falls exactly in the middle of the week on a Wednesday. We are now talking about what that means in terms of schedule because obviously all the Members want to be home with their various organizations, municipalities, counties and communities to honor our veterans on that day and honor the service of those who have kept this country free.

As a result, we are trying to figure out whether or not it makes any sense to either schedule a Monday and Tuesday or a Thursday and Friday and have Members come back and forth for that. We have not made that decision, but it is, in terms of the weeks that we are looking at over the next 10 weeks, a week that may not be one in which we will meet. We will try to make that determination very soon, within the next couple of weeks, part of which will be dictated by the schedule, what is moving, how much time we need available.

In addition to that, we will not be meeting Thanksgiving week. I say that pretty definitively. Obviously, if we could finish the Monday or Tuesday of Thanksgiving work, finish in terms of adjournment sine die for this session, then I think that might change that. But other than that, my expectation is we would not be meeting Thanksgiving week if we need to meet longer than Thanksgiving week.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My expectation is that it is quite possible that we would take off either a Monday that is now scheduled--or two, or three--or a Friday, one or the other. Given the flow of work, we did a lot of work, worked very hard, and we passed a lot of legislation, but obviously to complete that we need it to come back from the Senate, need to complete conference reports. So to some degree, the flow of work will dictate that schedule; but on the other hand, we want to give all the Members on both sides appropriate notice so they can utilize the time at home to be discussing with their constituents pending legislation, and particularly the health care bill.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?

We have not. What I indicated is that I hope to be working on that, and I hope next week to have at least made a preliminary decision on some of the Mondays and/or Fridays. It may not be all of the ones that we will be able to have Members have an opportunity to work at home. And again, it's a little difficult to do that because it's a little difficult to predict the workflow schedule.

But I want to reiterate, we do expect next week to at least take a number in the relatively near term--and that means September--so that Members will have prior notice.

You heard the President's comments last night. I agree strongly with the President and with the Speaker, and I think, frankly, there is no difference in the three of us. We all believe that a public option is an important option, A, to save money and, B, to give consumers options that they might not otherwise have and bring prices down for consumers as well as for government. So there is no difference there on the importance of the public option.

I am for a public option, as you probably heard me. I don't know whether you watched my town meeting, but that question was asked and I responded I am for the public option.

What I have said is essentially what the President said last night, that there is much in this bill that I think advantages consumers, businesses, individuals and families, and I think the public option is important, but there are other things in the bill which are important. But I expect that we are going to bring a bill to the floor. I am certainly hopeful that it has a public option in it. We think that is the best alternative. The President has indicated he thinks that is the best alternative.

He did, however, say, and I share his view, if there are other ways people think we can do it, provide that competitive model to bring prices down and to make sure consumers get the best product available, if there are other ways to do that, then we are certainly open to hearing them.

I think health care will come to the floor in the House when it is ready to come, and what I mean by that is when we have a consensus on exactly how the bill ought to be fashioned. We believe on this side that the committees are some 85 percent in agreement, as you know, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Education and Labor Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee. As you also know, there are differences between those bills, and we are working on that at this point in time to see how we can make those compatible. The President's comments last night will obviously also be taken into consideration.

So we will bring to the floor a bill that we believe reflects the President's view, our view, and hopefully we would hope the views in part at least of some of the Members on your side of the aisle.

I thank the gentleman.

First of all, let me say I don't know where he gets 2 weeks. The Ways and Means Committee was in discussion. You may mean formal hearings on the bill. But we have had 80 hearings in the committees over the last 24 months on health care reform, so it was an extensive part of the debate of every candidate for President over the course of 2008, and, frankly, prior to 2008.

This bill and many of its facets have been considered extensively, many of which were in plans presented by Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican. And clearly the President of the United States talked extensively about his ideas and where he wanted to go on health reform, and much of what he said and proposed was included in the bills that have been acted upon and I think reflect his views as well as the views of many people not only in this body but throughout the country.

So, from that standpoint, we believe this has gotten very extensive consideration. I think it is unprecedented. We had over 1,000 town meetings on our side. I know you had a number of town meetings on your side. I am not sure of the number. But literally I think thousands and thousands of Americans had an opportunity to participate and are continuing to participate in the discussion of the specifics of this bill.

So we think it has gotten very widespread and very thorough consideration. Given that consideration, there are still differences that we are working on.

Will the gentleman yield, because I want to clarify that.

H.R. 3200 was a base bill that was put together by the committee Chairs, the committee staff, with input from others, as a mark. My expectation is that there will be a compendium that will be put together and we will probably have a new number on it. So I don't think H.R. 3200, which was a base mark, but you understand this was a bill, and, as you well know, in three committees, so there may well be a bill fashioned from the product of the three committees.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There has been unprecedented, I reiterate, I don't think you can remember, and I have been here 29 years and I can't remember a bill that has been more widely vetted than this bill in terms of the American public. Maybe the Social Security proposal the President some years ago had, that was pretty widely vetted, but I don't think as widely vetted as this proposal.

So I say to the gentleman, you go and you vet the bill, you discuss alternatives, you then come back after having listened to those alternatives and fashion a bill. You don't have new committee hearings, whether it is a health care bill or any other bill. You amend it and you perfect it pursuant to hearings, and then you bring it to the floor. I don't expect we will treat this bill any differently.

Well, if the gentleman will yield, I want to say clearly, as you know, the base bill, the mark bill from which the three committees worked, as you know, was put online before the August break, so that it has been online for a very long period of time. Now, there will be changes. There will be amendments. There have already been amendments in the three committees and those have been online.

So, I think the gentleman's concern is correct. We share it. We want to make sure the public has the opportunity to know what is being done, that we transparently have the specifics for the American public to know what we are doing and for the Members to have that knowledge, and we intend to do that.

Now, whether or not we are going to have a timeframe in which somebody can have a townhall meeting, which may take a month to notice and get together, I think you would be shocked if I responded to you that, oh, sure, we will just wait around until you have your town meetings. So I am not going to say that. But I do appreciate the gentleman's point, which is we want to make sure the public does in fact have notice.

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

H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009, is authored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters) and co-sponsored by our colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). This legislation provides a comprehensive authorization for long-term, sustained funding of public- private vehicle research, development, demonstration and commercial application activities in the Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program.

From passenger cars to heavy duty long-haul trucks, we are all aware of the economic, environmental, and strategic importance of diversifying our Nation's vehicle sector through innovation in cleaner and more efficient technologies.

However, the current economic situation has made it all the more difficult for companies to invest in the research and technology development to get us there. Department of Energy programs play an invaluable role in filling this critical gap.

This bill provides a critical foundation of support to ensure U.S. leadership in developing and producing the next generation of advanced vehicle technologies. The bill instructs the Secretary to continue support for longer-term higher-risk technologies such as hydrogen, while recognizing the importance of research in areas that can deliver significant improvements in the near term, such as vehicle electrification.

It also makes important investments in areas such as vehicle manufacturing and medium- to heavy-duty vehicles research. It accomplishes this goal through continued partnership with industry and strengthened DOE coordination with other Federal research agencies.

This is a bipartisan bill reported from the Science and Technology Committee which incorporated a number of our Republican colleagues' suggestions. It follows on recommendations of the National Academies of Science and a diverse group of stakeholders and is endorsed by the likes of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, GM, Ford, Chrysler, the UAW, Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among many others.

After a very productive and bipartisan process in the committee, I am looking forward to a constructive floor debate and passage of this very important bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the author of this excellent piece of legislation, Mr. Gary Peters from Michigan, and concur with Mr. Hall in saying that he did a terrific job in reaching out to all parties to make this a bipartisan bill that has great support both here in Congress, as well as throughout industry.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the dean of the United States House of Representatives, and my mentor, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Thank you, Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the champion for Cash for Clunkers, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Having no additional speakers, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

The amendment I have offered has three parts. First, it makes a small technical change at the request of the Department of Justice to clarify that the Secretary shall report to Congress on the medium- to heavy- duty vehicle program; second, it incorporates an amendment from my colleague from Maine (Ms. Pingree) to require a report on commercialized technologies from the overall vehicle technology program; and third, it incorporates the amendment offered by Mr. Hare of Illinois to ensure that a range of nonroad mobile equipment is eligible for the pilot program in section 204.

This is a simple amendment which incorporates a few small changes suggested by my colleagues to make the bill even better. I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to Mr. Hall, I understand his concern about the additional accountability with Mr. Broun, and he has an amendment that we will be supporting later. So hopefully those will be complementary, and we will have additional accountability and transparency.

If the gentleman from Texas has nothing more to say, I don't either.

Well, if you would like to compliment me for a couple of minutes, I would be happy to accept that while we wait.

Well, I would say to Mr. Hall, certainly I think Mr. Broun is a constructive force, certainly in our committee as well as here. I think he has two amendments today. I would suggest this potentially to my friend; if whomever you have coming to speak, we could allow them to speak during another amendment if that would be consistent.

If that's the case, then I think we can complete this amendment now.

Well, we don't really need a UC. Mr. Hall and I know that we can trust each other, and so if he has someone that wants to speak later, we will certainly make that available at any time they come in on whatever amendment it might be.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

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

Mr. Chairman, while my colleague from Georgia has another amendment which we will gladly support, I am afraid I must reluctantly oppose this amendment on the grounds that it freezes funding for the bill at the 2010 levels and cuts the final year of funding.

I appreciate the gentleman's effort to keep costs down. He has been a champion, both in our committee and on this floor, for trying to make the government live in a more frugal way. However, in this situation, I need to point out that the funds that are authorized in this particular program do not duplicate any funds that are in the energy bill or the Recovery Act for this particular purpose.

I also want to point out that the amounts authorized in this bill fall upon recommendations from the National Academies of Science review of the program, as well as testimony in the committee and historic trends in the programs. The annual increases provided for in this bill are very modest and necessary for it to fulfill its goals, and I think for that reason we

have an unusual situation where this amendment is opposed by both the National Association of Manufacturers and the UAW.

Again, Mr. Broun is doing nothing but trying to make us justify, I think, our spending, as he should. He has been a champion for that. In this situation, I think that we have made that case, and his amendment should be opposed and our good bill should move forward.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Dr. Broun for bringing this constructive amendment to our attention. I think the additional transparency and accountability will make this good bill an even better bill, and for that reason I urge adoption of Dr. Broun's amendment.

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

Thank you, Ms. Kosmas.

I appreciate your hard work on this amendment as well as Mr. Posey's. You've brought us an amendment that is consistent with the overall goals of the bill but which requires some fine-tuning as we move through the conference process. With that understanding, we would still like to work with the gentleman and gentlewoman on perfecting the language as we move forward, and I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for Mr. Kennedy, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kennedy's amendment seeks to recognize that the Nation's vehicle fleet encompasses more than just 4-wheel passenger cars and large commercial trucks and that the ultra- efficient 2-wheel and 3-wheel vehicles should also be considered eligible for Federal research activities. I support my colleague's amendment and urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will yield to Mr. Kennedy.

First let me thank Mrs. Biggert for the work she has done in bringing this bill to us, as well as the work for those legitimate questions that I think need to be answered, and I think Mr. Kennedy did answer.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for Mr. Holt, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Holt's amendment would further clarify the pilot program for nonroad equipment. It is meant to include large mobile equipment as found in sectors such as agriculture and construction. The technologies used in these sectors are analogous to those found in on-road medium to heavy-duty trucks, and greater transfer of technology between sectors would benefit all.

This is a good amendment, and I urge the adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

More importantly, I want to thank you for this very excellent, constructive amendment. It seeks to recognize the unique challenges faced by rural communities as we move toward greater electrification of the transportation sector.

I too share the concern for my constituents in Middleton, Tennessee. This is an excellent amendment, an improvement to a good bill, and I urge its adoption.

I thank Mr. Cohen for yielding.

I also thank him for presenting this good amendment to us. It seeks to recognize the full range of energy storage devices that can be incorporated into vehicles, including beyond batteries. We have worked with Mr. Cohen in perfecting the language. It's a good amendment, and I urge adoption.

I thank Mr. Donnelly for yielding.

In this bipartisan amendment, my colleagues seek to recognize the unique requirements of the types of vehicles commonly known as recreational vehicles. They highlight an important industry within the medium to heavy duty truck sector, and I would point out that these are heavy users of fuel. If we can make them more fuel efficient, we certainly are going to make our country less dependent on foreign oil. I think that this is an excellent use of these research dollars, and I support the amendment.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. It has the stated objective to develop technologies that improve efficiency and emissions of vehicles, reduces reliance on petroleum, and supports vehicle manufacturing in the United States. Among other things, it develops cost-effective vehicle technologies for wide-scale utilization, enhanced commercial and passenger vehicle performance, allows for greater consumer choice, shortens technology penetration times, ensures balance and diversity in Federal R&D investment, strengthens public-private R&D partnerships, and probably many other things.

I would like to thank Congressman Peters for the good job he did working with us and working with the Science

Committee on this bill, and for incorporating our suggestions and the suggestions of our chairman into his manager's amendment for ways to improve the bill during the full committee markup, including a provision in Title I that requires the Secretary to ensure that activities do not duplicate those of other programs within the Department of Energy or other relevant research agencies. In our country's tough financial situation, we want to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and responsibly and not being wasted or mismanaged as well.

The manager's amendment, agreed to in the full committee, included bipartisan language supportive of applied and basic research and development of hydrogen and natural gas vehicle technologies.

Congressman Teague offered an amendment that seemed to reiterate the spirit of comity, but it was unfortunately not made in order by a party-line vote at the Rules Committee hearing yesterday.

As I said during the full committee markup, the cost of the bill gives me some pause; but I understand the costs associated with the level, degree, and scope of the bill that deals with research, development, and commercial application activities on materials, technologies, and processes of not only passenger vehicles, but also medium- to heavy-duty commercial and transit vehicles, including long- haul class 8 truck and trailer platforms.

With that said, I plan to vote for an amendment that will be offered by Representative Broun of Georgia to reduce the authorization amount in the bill by $650 million.

The transportation sector uses 67.9 percent of the petroleum that is used in our country. If we want to reduce or wean our dependence on foreign sources of oil, we are going to need technological advances in the vehicles that Americans drive to help us reach that goal. The bill before us today will certainly help to achieve these advances.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to yield 3 more minutes to the gentleman, knowing of his interest in the RV industry, and his support.

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

May I ask how much time I have? I continue to reserve, and I want to see if I might let the chairman have some of my time, if he needs it. He apparently has half a dozen or so other speakers over there.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

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

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time on the Gordon amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I support the Gordon amendment with a caveat. I support the title II reporting requirement classification that the Secretary shall submit the annual report to Congress. In regards to the report requirement for title I, I would prefer the reporting language that is in Representative Broun's amendment as it's more comprehensive and mirrors the report language requirement in title II. Perhaps in conference, the two authors of the reporting amendments could agree to merge that language so that all bases are covered.

The third part of Mr. Gordon's amendment deals with striking ``heavy duty'' from the Nonroad Systems Pilot Program in section 204 in the bill and adding the word ``mobile'' so that we are now referring to nonroad mobile equipment. I understand that there is some concern that the term heavy duty has a different meaning in the nonroad world than it does in the on-road world. So I appreciate the addition of ``mobile'' in the section as well as Mr. Holt's upcoming amendment that would further clarify that the pilot program is intended to include agricultural and construction nonroad equipment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have a speaker on the way. I don't believe he's here yet.

I would like to reserve my time. If you could take another 2 or 3 minutes to do whatever you want to do or say.

Well, first I appreciate your trip to Texas Monday, up and back. And I appreciate Mr. Broun's position on this. You know, we had amendments, and Mr. Broun's amendment, I believe, was voted down by a party vote when we had the hearing. I may be wrong on that. But he's here to support the position that he's taken. I'd like to have some time for him to at least talk about how the two could fit together when we head to conference or any of the conference committees.

I would ask unanimous consent that that be granted.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for the amendment by the gentleman of Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun, for his amendment.

(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I rise in support of the Broun amendment to reduce the authorization level in H.R. 3246. As I mentioned during the full committee markup, I have concerns over the amount of money being authorized in this bill; $2.43 billion over the 2010-2014 period, and $423 million after 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Broun amendment would reduce the multiyear authorization by $650 million. Where the bill authorizes an increase of $10 million over the previous fiscal year for sections 5(a) and 5(b), the Broun amendment keeps each fiscal year's authorization constant and removes the authorization for fiscal year 2014 in sections 5(a), (b) and (c).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield Dr. Broun an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Broun amendment. This amendment would require the Secretary to report to Congress on a yearly basis on the activities undertaken in the previous year under title I, such as active industry participants, efforts to recruit new participants, progress of the program in meeting goals and timelines, and a strategic plan for the funding of activities across agencies. This amendment allows the Congress and the public to monitor the success of activities in title I and to ensure that the money that is ultimately appropriated is being well spent.

Now, while I realize the Gordon amendment added a title I report, as I stated earlier, I would prefer the reporting language that is in Representative Broun's amendment, as it is more comprehensive and mirrors the report language requirement in title II.

I would again express my hope that, in conference, the two authors of the reporting amendments could agree to merge their language so that all bases are covered.

Mr. Chairman, though not opposed, I rise to claim the time on the Polis amendment.

I support the Polis amendment. The amendment would enable our constituents to continue driving the vehicles they currently own while taking advantage of

technology that would enable them to reduce their petroleum use perhaps faster than if they were to wait for a new vehicle to make its way from concept to showroom.

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

Mr. Posey's goal is to direct the Department of Energy to give the same consideration to demonstrating vehicles using fossil fuels that can achieve 70 miles per gallon or more as they are to alternatively fueled vehicles and hybrids. I support that.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 745 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 745 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009. This rule makes in order all three of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration as part of this bipartisan bill.

The Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009 is an important part of this Congress' commitment to clean energy, job creation, and reducing our country's dependence on foreign oil. It recognizes what many of us know to be true: We need a significant boost in research and development of innovative vehicle technologies in order to become energy independent, to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our planet, and to ensure that the American automobile industry remains viable. To that end, H.R. 3246 authorizes $2.85 billion over the next 5 years to strengthen and support advanced vehicle technology research at the Department of Energy.

While through other measures we have laid a foundation to increase the accessibility of public transportation--another critical component of reducing our emissions of global warming gases--and even in this bill we will invest in increasing the energy efficiency and reducing the costs of producing and operating these public transportation vehicles, in many parts of this country it is still necessary that the primary mode of transit is the automobile.

The expanse of rural America and suburban and exurban America simply require personal vehicles for work and for pleasure. The good news is that in this bill we will be able to capitalize on a movement that already exists. One need only look to the biodiesel co-ops of Iowa, where folks can buy clean, domestically produced fuel at costs frequently lower than the petroleum option, or companies such as Rocky Mountain Sustainable Enterprises founded and based in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. This company recycles waste vegetable oil, oil that would otherwise find its way to a landfill but instead has been used to power agricultural equipment and vehicles.

I am proud to say that this company will be opening a new facility in Fort Morgan, Colorado, in the district of my colleague and good friend, Representative Betsy Markey. This facility will enable this firm to produce enough fuel to continue providing to their agricultural clients while expanding to mass transit and passenger vehicle biodiesel.

All across the country, the biofuels industry is gearing up to provide the clean domestic fuel of America's future while providing good-paying jobs today. We need to help these companies grow, and we can do this by ensuring that vehicles made right here in America are prepared to use our domestically produced fuel.

America has had a long love affair with the automobile, and vehicles are continually becoming more efficient, more comfortable, easier to own and easier to maintain. This, by right, should continue. Through this legislation, we will make the investments required to ensure that the great tradition of the family summer road trip is available to future generations.

Madam Speaker, our domestic auto industry has had its difficulties these last few years. And I speak not only of the Big Three Detroit automakers, so iconic of the industry that grabbed many of the headlines, but also of the many companies, such as Delphi and many others, that create components for vehicles and employ hundreds of thousands of Americans. It is these smaller companies that have produced significant innovation. However, due to the economic crisis, rising operational costs, including health care for their employees, many of these companies have had to slow or shutter their research and development operations in order to afford to stay in business and keep their assembly lines running.

In order to navigate out of this recession back to manufacturing leadership, we need to have a compass of innovation. This bill before us today ensures that the best technologies, from electric drivetrains to clean diesel, are made available, and that vehicles driven in the United States are the cleanest and most efficient in the world.

We can further the technologies that are sponsored through this competitive process that will ensure that our dependence on foreign oil will be decreased and will increase demand for domestically produced renewable energy, creating jobs.

This bill is as good for the air and urban America as it is for the economy of rural America.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, this rule that we are proposing allows all three Republican amendments that were proposed to be made in order. I certainly appreciate the concern from the gentleman from Florida with regard to our Democratic amendments and the fact that we should have had more in the bill. We do have several that have been allowed as well.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Madam Speaker, the question is how do we create and perfect the nonpetroleum technologies that the market wants, and the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act is part of the answer.

By jump-starting vehicle technology research, this bill puts American ingenuity to work in cleaning up our transportation sector and in protecting the planet. Electrifying vehicle systems, increasing engine durability, and developing waste-heat recovery systems are just a few of the many innovative technologies that this bill will support. At the same time, we know we need to take action today to fight global warming, to lessen our petroleum dependence, and to create jobs here in America. For that reason, this legislation before us emphasizes public- private partnerships that will help create jobs in private industry, not just in government offices.

There is a reason why this bill is supported by Ford Motor Company, Delphi, Caterpillar, GM, EcoMotors, the United Auto Workers, and the National Association of Manufacturers. H.R. 3246 means good jobs today developing and building the vehicle technologies of tomorrow.

When we can create jobs and cut our petroleum dependence at the same time, it's clear that we are making good policy, Madam Speaker. By this measure, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act is the clearest and most straightforward kind of good policy. With this in mind, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair rule and the underlying legislation.

I would like to thank Representative Peters, Representative Biggert and Chairman Gordon, as well as my colleagues on the Rules Committee and the committee staff of the Science and Technology Committee, for crafting this legislation that will increase the efficiency of our Nation's vehicle fleet while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Texas.

I strongly support this bill, but I do so with some reservations. I would like to discuss some of the pressures that the government has put on a region like mine. My district is number one in manufacturing jobs and number one in percent in manufacturing, and actually gained slightly over number two last year because we lost fewer jobs than other areas of the country in manufacturing.

Without core value-added industries, our country is in deep trouble. I grew up in retailing. Retailing and service industry and so on circulate the money among themselves. To add value to our country, it can be in software, it can be in manufacturing or agriculture, but it has to be something that has a value-added addition to the economy.

Now, the challenge we have in our country, for a variety of reasons, to improve our environment, to improve the safety of our workers, to make sure we have pensions and health care, our costs have soared compared to our international competition because government has put additional pressures because we as a society felt they should be there.

But that means as the companies in my district go to make a product, they

start with costs that are higher than other countries start in their costs. We then watch China cheat on the currency, anywhere from 20 to 80 percent, and we expect our manufacturers who are already disadvantaged in price competition to compete with countries that don't even play fair in international currency that further artificially lower their prices.

Now the challenge we have is that when we make a car or a pickup, we start with a huge disadvantage in price, and then compound that with currency changes, and then we wind up trying to sell more value-added units. In other words, just like a house gets most of the profits from adding a bigger kitchen, a bigger bedroom, we get value from making bigger cars, making bigger trucks, making SUVs and vans, in order to pay pensions and health care.

Then, all of a sudden, the world shifts. We start to mandate that you're going to have to get higher mileage. And where are we to get R&D dollars to do that? How are we to reduce the cost to be able to compete; that as we look at the cap-and-tax bill in my area, the number one manufacturing area, we're 85 percent coal and 15 percent nuclear. We don't have a lot of wind and solar that's going to be able to employ many of these people who had a middle class lifestyle, the American Dream, because they worked at these different factories, they worked to upgrade them. They're doing every lean management technique they can possibly do in these companies. How are they supposed to keep their jobs if we raise the energy costs in the manufacturing area of the United States?

It's not an accident that the four districts hardest hit are my district, Congressman Donnelly's in the South Bend area, Congressman Latta, just over to the other side of Ohio, and Congressman Jordan's, because of the energy use we have, combined with the heavy manufacturing.

Then we look at additional health care costs on these companies. The question becomes how to survive. They have no dollars for the R&D to meet these new demands. A bill like this, then, becomes essential. We don't really have money right now to spend. In case anybody hasn't figured out, we have incredible deficits.

I don't believe that this is really the role predominantly for the Federal Government to do. But I'm now left representing a district that, unless the Federal Government does this, and having piled on the mandates and having allowed China to cheat in international trade, unless we do this, I don't know how we survive. I don't know how the people in my district survive.

This program authorizes $2.85 billion to conduct vehicle research and development. It has $1.75 billion to create a new demonstration program to find commercial applications to reduce or eliminate petroleum use and emissions in passenger and commercial vehicles. There's $1.1 billion to implement a similar program that applies to medium- and heavy-duty commercial vehicles.

I first want to thank my neighbor, friend, and colleague--it shows that you can do things in a bipartisan way--Congressman Joe Donnelly, along with Congressman DeFazio, for making sure that RVs were included in this. Between us, we have 58 percent--between Joe and I, and then Congressman DeFazio has another chunk--of the RV industry in America.

This is a huge challenge. Guess what? Not only do you have these motor homes, of which 12 percent, I believe, of American people own either a towable or a mobile home, but you have to have a big vehicle to tow them. You can't tow them with a little, tiny car. We've got to figure out how we're going to deal with the mileage in that.

I also have the largest pickup plant in the United States, a Silverado and Sierra pickup plant that's actually getting a plus-up that is heavily robotics. But they need the technology, even though they're some of the most efficient pickups sold by any company. If they're going to compete with the mileage standards and GM is going to survive, they need to find new breakthroughs.

Navistar has just contracted to build electric delivery trucks in an abandoned RV plant in Elkhart County in Wakarusa, in my district. Alcoa, in Auburn, in my district, is working with aluminum to try to reduce the weight of the vehicles.

As we heard in steel, in my area I have two massive SDI, Steel Dynamics plants, as well as a whole bunch of supplementary facilities from OmniSource and others who provide recycled steel to them.

I have five Nucor facilities in my district, that if our steel is going to compete and get the weight down and get different methods, we're going to have to have more innovation and research.

Navistar also at this point has around 1,350 to 1,500 jobs in my area doing engineering and designing big trucks, military vehicles. We have a challenge in this in the military area, too, because the Humvee is done in Congressman Donnelly's district, but the engine blocks and the hood and a lot of those parts that we're constantly struggling with on weight, are in my district as well.

I rise in support of this bill, even though I'm reluctant to have the government take over big parts of the R&D industry. We're in fact seeing other countries do this around the world. I don't know how we're going to achieve our goals to become greener, to get more efficient vehicles to help save our industrial base in the United States, if we don't do this.

So I rise in support of this. It's why the manufacturing groups support it, why the Chamber supports it, it's why the unions support it, because without some assistance it is not clear how in the world we're going to save the manufacturing jobs in America that are so critical to the industrial base.

And one last point. The industrial base that does the trucks, that does the RVs, that does the pickups, also does our military. And if we don't have the basic core manufacturing, it is not clear how we stay an independent Nation.