Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the creation of a Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area. I have worked closely with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), to introduce H.R. 407 to study the feasibility of a national heritage area at the mouth of the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington.

Like the river itself, the journey to get to where we are has been lengthy. In 2001, I took the initial steps with Mr. Baird and with the help of the National Resources Committee and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), and we were able to expand Fort Clatsop National Historic Monument and extend it to the sea.

Next, Congressman Baird and I together created Oregon's and Washington's newest national park, the Lewis and Clark National and State Historical Parks. No one person could have accomplished the many steps to this point. I thank the hard work of the Natural Resources Committee, Congressmen Baird and Souder, Oregon State Senator Betsy Johnson and former park superintendent Chip Jenkins.

I would especially like to thank all of the local citizens, such as Astoria's Cindy Mudge who has put tremendous time and effort into the heritage area. The history that shaped this part of our Nation should be preserved and celebrated.

Here, where the Columbia, the great river of the West, meets the ocean, strong men and women have left their indelible imprint for millennia. Native cultures, such as the Clatsop Nehalem, Chinook and other Indian tribes, were joined by the Spanish, Russians and British. Lewis and Clark began an American tie to the river, and Americans of diverse descent, including Americans of Scandinavian, Chinese and other heritages, together built the history of the region.

This is the way that America was or should be, a close-knit community where everyone, from the Indians to Lewis and Clark to Scandinavians to Chinese, were and are welcome; where work, and not parentage, determines one's worth.

From forestry to fisheries, the land and waters have provided. Today, human hands provide for the future. We are trying to build a college to help create the education and research-based economy of the future. Here also are the helping hands of the Columbia River bar pilots who since 1846 have guided ships across the Columbia River bar, and the United States Coast Guard, who faithfully protect local and international commerce on the roughest, toughest water in the world.

The mouth of the Columbia River presents layers of history and culture like an ancient buried city, except that the river rolls on today. Unlike the Hudson or the Mississippi, we do not have a large city at the river's mouth to preserve its stories and heritage; an act of Congress shall do so.

I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 407 and note that the opposition which has been expressed comes from an organization which is not within the historic study area.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure that I join my fellow members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. This May marks the 29th time that America has recognized and celebrated the many contributions and achievements of Asian Pacific Americans.

America has reached greatness in part by the accumulation of ideas from those with varied heritage and backgrounds. In particular, Asian Pacific Americans have made profound contributions to the arts, education, science, technology, politics and athletics. Asian Pacific Americans have played an active and crucial role in the development of the United States, from linking the coasts of the nation with the transcontinental railroad to bringing the world closer through development of the latest Internet technology.

This year, Congress will be debating and voting to reauthorize No Child Left Behind and the Higher Education Act. As a member of the Education and Labor Committee as well as the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I am working hard to ensure that the Asian Pacific American community not only has a seat at the table of these debates, but also a strong voice to shape the national conversation.

The Asian Pacific American community remains and always will be an integral and vibrant part of American society. As we take part in the celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, I urge everyone to participate more deeply in the civic life of our nation. Asian Pacific American civic engagement will help to define our collective future and ensure that we move forward with determination and unity. Let us work together to build bridges and strengthen our great nation's diverse communities.

I encourage Congress and the American people to spend the month of May absorbing the legacy, culture and achievements of the Asian Pacific American community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1868, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. This bill authorizes programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, for fiscal years 2008 through 2010, and strengthens American innovation.

For most Americans, NIST is not a household word. But since its creation more than 100 years ago, NIST has made major contributions to public safety, industrial competitiveness and economic growth. Beginning in the 1900s, when it set standards for fire hydrants that have saved countless lives, to the 1950s, when it developed the world's fastest computer, helping usher in the information age, to its groundbreaking work on the technical aspects of the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11, NIST has served the public interest in ways that far exceed its public fame.

Today, NIST's mission focuses on promoting innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement, science, standards and technology. This mission has never been more urgent. The recent National Academy of Sciences report coauthored by Norm Augustine, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' warns that we face major challenges in the global marketplace and recommends that we ``ensure that the United States is the premier place in the world in which to innovate.''

H.R. 1868 helps implement that recommendation by putting the NIST budget on a 10-year path to doubling as an investment in the future of American innovation. The bill increases the NIST research budget, funds key areas such as biologics, health care IT and nanotechnology. It funds the construction of a high performance laboratory at the Boulder, Colorado, campus, and upgrades the Center for Neutron Research in Gaithersburg, Maryland. This enables world class engineers and their scientists to have world class facilities for their work.

H.R. 1868 also addresses problems in the American manufacturing center, which has lost almost 3 million jobs since 2001. It expands the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, a proven and highly successful public-private partnership that provides technical assistance to small and medium-size manufacturers to improve productivity and to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

It also establishes a competitive and collaborative grant system for

First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his hard work on this legislation. I would further like to thank the gentleman for responding to the factually erroneous statements in the statement of administrative position, and I deeply appreciate the correction for the record.

Madam Chair, I recognize my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for 3\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Chair, I also urge support for H.R. 1868. As I am frequently fond of saying, if you don't set standards for things, things don't match up. If you can't measure things, it is not real from a technologic or economic perspective.

The underlying legislation is crucial to America's competitiveness and our place in the world market.

Madam Chairman, I am aware of Representative Matheson's concerns about technology infusion to small manufacturers. There is study by the National Academy of Public Administration that established the critical need for small manufacturers to have better access to changing technology, production techniques, and business management practices. This study also recommended the improving technology transfer and infusion to small and medium-sized manufacturers. The Committee supports the rapid integration of new technologies and innovations into the manufacturing industry. This integration will help small-to-medium sized manufacturers stay competitive in the global economy while promoting American innovation and preserving American jobs. Language in the bill will facilitate these goals.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to be offering this amendment with Dr. Gingrey, the ranking member of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee. This amendment was developed as a result of recommendations of the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The amendment ensures that the Technology Innovation Program, TIP, will focus on high-reward technologies in areas of critical national need. In addition, it provides additional guidance that the program must coordinate with similar State organizations and programs. Many States have developed innovation agendas to stimulate job growth, and it makes sense that we should ensure that this program coordinates with these existing programs.

Finally, the amendment includes a definition of high-risk, high- reward research. Dr. Gingrey and I worked closely in developing this amendment, and I would urge its adoption.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I regret that Dr. Gingrey is not able to be with us today because of a funeral at home, and I would like to just reiterate my appreciation for his hard work on this amendment and my support for this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although it is not my intent to oppose the amendment.

The gentleman from Illinois' amendment will provide useful information to our manufacturing sector, and its inclusion will strengthen a bill already focused on competitiveness in manufacturing.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I want to assure the gentlelady from Kansas that we will be happy to work with her to address her concerns as this bill moves through the legislative process.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, on the Science and Technology Committee we are keenly aware of the importance of the biotechnology industry to our economy. We also know that the

growth in our biotech industry is largely due to early Federal investment and support in this field, and I am pleased to support the gentleman from Maryland's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard much talk about the Social Security trust fund and the solvency of Social Security. But in the time that I have been here, in 8 years, the solvency of Social Security has been increased by approximately 8 years, and that increase is because of American economic growth. It was projected at 34 years of solvency. It is currently projected at 42 years of solvency, and that

is based on conservative, conservative estimates. The reason why there has been that increase in the solvency period of Social Security is because of economic growth.

There is nothing more important to the American economy and our competitiveness than the legislation that we are considering today.

The motion to recommit which the gentleman offers would fundamentally gut this legislation and prevent us from investing in the most productive of technologies, a traditional role which the Federal Government has played to support research and early-stage development, not commercialization, but early-stage development. By prohibiting those activities with this cap, what in essence would happen is our rate of economic growth would be slackened, our ability to manufacture jobs would be decreased.

This is a motion to recommit which would gut the bill, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1867 and H.R. 1868, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for consideration of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. H.R. 1868 is a bill which will bolster innovation and our manufacturing base and enhance national economic competitiveness.

The bill was ordered reported by a unanimous vote of the Committee on Science and Technology on April 25, 2007. The bill puts the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, on a 10-year path to doubling as an investment in our innovation future.

H.R. 1868 is a comprehensive authorization bill for NIST's Scientific and Technical Research and Services, Industrial Technology Services and Construction Research Facilities accounts. NIST has not had a comprehensive authorization bill since 1992.

I want to highlight that H.R. 1868 is a bipartisan product of the Science and Technology Committee. I worked closely with Ranking Member Hall and with Dr. Gingrey. I want to thank Dr. Gingrey for coming to the floor and speaking on behalf of this bill and rule this morning. I worked closely with Dr. Ehlers in developing this legislation. They were original cosponsors of the bill.

We adopted several amendments at the subcommittee and full committee markup, and we have a stronger bill as a result of this bipartisan effort.

This bill has been endorsed by TechNet, the Alliance For Science & Technology Research in America, the American Small Manufacturers Coalition, the American Association of Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and dozens of other organizations, companies and individuals.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee has crafted an appropriate rule, and I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Head Start has proven its ability to improve the lives of disadvantaged children. Numerous studies have demonstrated that children who attend Head Start come to school more prepared than children who do not participate, and that these effects last over a period of years.

I have personal experience with the program--my wife, Michelle, was a Head Start teacher for 7 years in Oregon. In her classes, I saw the children of janitors and security guards.

Their parents worked in the sparkling towers of downtown Portland, but they themselves never got to visit downtown, except in their Head Start field trips.

The Improving Head Start Act makes several needed changes to current law. It ends the use of the National Reporting System--a flawed testing system that has tested over 500,000 4-year-olds, despite strong opposition by child development experts.

The bill also improves current law by making clear that Head Start agencies must establish and maintain a formal structure of shared governance with parent policy councils. This will codify in law that parents have the ability to shape and share a role in the success of their local Head Start program.

Finally, the bill authorizes $7.35 billion in funding for the program in FY08--an increase of over $400 million from this year's level.

Oregon's Department of Education reports that, as of January 2007, 43.2 percent of eligible children cannot participate in the program due to lack of funding. Head Start is a highly successful program, and it ultimately costs all of us when those eligible cannot participate.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York.

As cochair of the House Community College Caucus, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 334, a bill that recognizes the goals and ideals of National Community College Month; and I thank Congressman Brad Miller, the gentleman from North Carolina, for his leadership and for introducing this legislation.

Almost 50 percent of undergraduate students are enrolled in community colleges. It is the tradition of community colleges to serve nontraditional students. Many students work either part-time or full- time while they take classes. Others are seeking job training to allow them to better support their families. Some are returning to the workplace after a few years, and some are single parents. Increasingly, many are high school students who attend community college before a 4- year institution. This saves them, and frequently taxpayers, tuition, fees and financial aid dollars. In other words, we have no sector of education that serves a wider spectrum of our citizens every day.

As we look to what this new century holds for us, we know that employers seek people who not only are well versed in science and technology concepts but are also adept at learning through experimentation, inquiry, critical examination, and discovery. In other words, employers are seeking a highly trainable workforce, rather than just a highly trained workforce.

Community colleges are at the forefront of this effort. They are a cornerstone of our system of undergraduate education, particularly in mathematics and the sciences. As we all know, these areas of study are ever more critical for our Nation and our State to maintain an economic edge in the global economy.

I strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act.

I would like to thank Chairman Gordon, as well as Ranking Member Hall, on their hard work on this legislation, and the bipartisan manner in which the Science and Technology Committee operates to produce such substantial legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will come to the aid of America's need for more school teachers in our nation's classrooms. In their much referenced report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, the National Academies found that 68 percent of U.S. 8th grade students received instruction from a mathematics teacher who did not hold a degree or certification in mathematics; in 2000, more than 85 percent of students in grades 5-9 were taught physical science by a teacher lacking a major or certification in the physical sciences.

Also, U.S. 15-year-olds ranked 24th out of 40 countries that participated in a 2003 administration of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) examination, which assessed students' ability to apply mathematical concepts to real-world problems. These figures could spell disaster for America's competitiveness in the fields of science, technology and innovation.

By amending and expanding the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) which will go to universities that build model programs for recruiting students into teaching, H.R. 362 will move us down the road to improving the strength of our math and science teachers, while actively recruiting new teachers.

Our future lies in our students, and their ability to think critically, and ask thoughtful, insightful questions lie in the strength of their schooling. The un-bias nature of scientific inquiry and the natural beauty of math help students build their questioning and logic skills.

It is imperative that our students are taught by teachers whose strengths lie in conveying these concepts and inspiring young minds not only to go into the science and technology fields, but also to open their minds to be inquisitive in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 363, a piece of legislation that is desperately needed to enhance tomorrow's scientific research.

We all know what it's like to start out on our own--the uncertainty of your financial footing, but with great faith in yourself and your ideas. Imagine that feeling on an exponential scale and that might be how a young, talented researcher feels as they work on a cure for autism, or traumatic brain injury for our troops, or a new source of cleaner, renewable energy.

The field of research is high-risk and high-yield, and the federal government is right to invest in research that benefits us all. H.R. 363 will help ``sustain and strengthen the nation's traditional commitment to long-term basic research . . . to maintain the flow of new ideas that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life,'' as prescribed by the National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, that has been the focus of our work in the Science and Technology Committee, and mentioned many times today.

Young researchers are the key to innovation, as they are more likely than established researchers to shift paradigms, break with tradition, or bring new ideas to a discipline or to a combination of disciplines. The early-career awards outlined in this bill reward young researchers for engaging in high-risk/high-reward research that is likely to be transformative or highly innovative. The establishment of a presidential innovation award is designed to identify and recognize people who develop the unique scientific and engineering innovations in the national interest at the time they occur. This bill doesn't simply seek to fund all science; it focuses on fostering the most innovative elements of the scientific enterprise.

I would also like to thank Chairman Gordon, as well as Ranking Member Hall, on their hard work on this legislation, and the bipartisan manner in which the Science and Technology Committee is run to produce such substantial legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, for thousands of years, a village stood at Celilo Falls on the Columbia River, which today is the boundary between the States of Oregon and Washington.

Celilo Falls was known to Native Americans as a center for gathering and trade in the Pacific Northwest. It was so important that some have even called Celilo Falls the Wall Street of the West. Lewis and Clark described it as a great emporium where ``the neighboring nations assemble.''

Artifacts suggest that tribes as far away as Alaska, the Great Plains, and the Southwest of the United States came to trade at the falls for salmon and other goods. The trade was so extensive and the number of tribes who came to Celilo was so extensive that the number of languages spoken developed into a trade jargon known as Chinookan, and it was used among the people conducting business at Celilo.

Celilo Falls was also known as a great salmon fishery. Salmon were both sacred to and provided economic wealth for the tribes who fished in the area. Thousands gathered to fish and trade along the river.

Fifty years ago, Celilo Falls changed forever. In 1957, the Dalles Dam was completed a few miles downriver from Celilo. Once the dam was completed and the flood gates closed, Celilo Falls was inundated in just 6 hours.

The Dalles Dam was constructed to provide hydroelectricity, irrigation, and to enable navigation. The dams along the Columbia and other rivers created numerous benefits for the Pacific Northwest. The slack water created by the dams provided easy and safe river navigation upriver to deliver goods to the inland Northwest. Today, barges can travel as far as Lewiston, Idaho, because of the navigable waters created by the dams.

However, the benefits created by the dams changed a way of life for the tribal peoples who were the first inhabitants of the Columbia River Basin. While some may not remember Celilo Falls before the Dalles Dam was completed, its effects remain fresh in the minds of many of the tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Recently, the 50th anniversary of the flooding of the falls was acknowledged by these tribes. This event both mourned what was lost and celebrated what remains today, tribal stories and culture, a way of life. Attendees included tribal officials and tribal members throughout the Pacific Northwest, nontribal members, and various Federal, State, and local governmental officials. The attendees reflect the relationship of the various groups who now work together to manage the river for all those who live in and visit the region today.

This resolution seeks to acknowledge and commemorate the flooding of Celilo Falls. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

The gentleman is correct. The purpose of the resolution is commemorative, and limited to an expression of the sense of the House of Representatives.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support all those in the United States battling psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and that is why on February 9, 2007 I introduced H.R. 1188, The Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act.

Today as many as seven and a half million Americans are affected by psoriasis--a chronic, inflammatory, painful, disfiguring and disabling disease for which there are limited treatments and no cure. What's worse is that along with living with this disease is that many of these patients are still living with the painful stigma that has accompanied psoriasis for some many years.

The Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act seeks to create a fundamental understanding of where we are as a nation in fighting psoriasis and how we can align our resources and focus our efforts in combating the disease. The Act calls on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to convene a summit of researchers, public health professionals, representatives of patient advocacy organizations and policymakers to review current efforts in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis research, treatment, quality-of-life being conducted by federal agencies whose work involves psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis related co-morbidities.

The Act also commissions the Institute of Medicine to investigate and recommend changes to the current ways psoriasis is treated by the insurance industry and what treatments are available to patients and how effective available care is for patients.

Finally, the Act directs the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to begin to develop a patient registry to collect much- needed, and highly informative longitudinal data on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis so researchers can begin to understand the long- term impact of these conditions and evaluate the effects of various therapies.

I would I also like to recognize the work of the National Psoriasis Foundation, and their leadership to work with patients and their families, doctors and researchers to work toward a better understanding of the disease and their commitment to improve the quality of life for people living with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

This bill is an important move forward to realizing the promise of the current research in the field, as well as the creation of possibilities for the future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act.

Fanaticism, George Santyana famously said, is ``redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.''

Let us measure our efforts against our aims in Iraq. After great effort, Saddam is dead. After long effort, we have established there are no WMD. We have eliminated Iraq as a threat to its neighbors. We have achieved the President's Iraq war aims.

Why are we sending 21,000 more troops there, rather than redeploying all our troops out of Iraq? Because we have forgotten our aims. Now we referee a civil war between the peoples of Iraq. The President admitted as much in his State of the Union, saying ``This is not the war we entered but the war that we are in.''

The use of force resolution we passed in 2002 nowhere authorizes our participation in an Iraqi civil war. It has, therefore, expired. The President must come back to Congress for reauthorization if he wishes to war further in Iraq or to extend the war to Iran.

The fact that we are in a civil war is backed up by our own national intelligence estimate, as well as my conversations with soldiers who served, serve or who will serve in Iraq.

I share with you a typical comment: ``I joined the Army, and I will go as many times as they send me. But I will tell you what. These folks have been killing each other for 1,000 years. They are killing each other today and may kill each other for another thousand years. I just don't see what good we are doing there.''

This loyal soldier deserves our support and our protection.

John Murtha's efforts to craft an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to protect our troops is commendable. No soldier should be repeatedly deployed to Iraq without being rested, retrained and ready. To do so otherwise is an abuse of our citizen soldiers. It is a criminal dereliction of duty. It is an abuse of power.

The Constitution gives Congress the express power to regulate the military. We must exercise this responsibility and stop the abuse of our troops by building thoughtful guidelines into our defense appropriations bills.

Some want us to believe that we must either stand aside and let the President have his way or use the blunt axe of cutting off all funding for the Iraq war. Not true. Not only does the Constitution give to Congress, not the President, the power and responsibility to regulate the military, there is ample precedent to support Congress's authority in wartime.

In the 19th century, Congress went so far as to require President Andrew Johnson to obtain the signature of General Ulysses S. Grant to any of the President's military orders before it could become valid. The President obeyed.

President Truman was forced in the Youngstown Steel case to recognize that his powers as Commander in Chief were severely limited when they undermined congressional decisions. Even though a steel strike seriously affected our ability to fight the Korean war, the Commander in Chief could not act independently of Nation's laws.

President Bush needs to learn that we are a Nation of laws and that no one in America is above the law. He needs to listen to the American people. He should heed our professional military, rather than shop for a convenient opinion.

The American people understand the challenges in Iraq are political and that no amount of military force can retrieve the situation. Only the Iraqis can solve the problems of Iraq. Our staying merely delays their day of full responsibility, and that is why this Iraqi government asked us not to escalate until, like our own generals, they were browbeaten into submission by President Bush.

We must end this war with a minimum of domestic recrimination, a maximum of motive and opportunity for the many peoples of Iraq to solve their own problems without genocide, one last chance to win the war in Afghanistan, the last known mailing address of Osama bin Laden, and we must begin the long task of rebuilding America's foreign policy on its traditional bipartisan basis.

We must forsake fanaticism and never forget our national aims.

My colleagues, this President has never had the authorization from Congress to enter a civil war in Iraq. Our mission is done. Bring the troops home.

Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend my new colleague from Texas, the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Lampson for his great work on this bill, and also Chairman Gordon for his leadership on alternative fuels.

We rely on fuel everyday. While the market is awakening to its ability to sell alternative fuels like E85 or biodiesel blends many of these new fuels have compatibility issues with the existing delivery systems in place in America. Fuel depots, fuel pipelines, fuel trucks and local gas stations are not truly ready to ship, store, or sell these fuels to consumers.

These fuels can cause corrosion of tanks and pipelines, clog filters, and pose danger of thermal and oxidative instability. The cost of replacing or building new infrastructure is sometimes infeasible for fuel suppliers, frequently small business owners.

H.R. 547, The Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act, meets the needs of fuel shippers and suppliers so they can I use alternative fuels in existing infrastructure. It directs the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to research and develop new technologies and methods such as fuel additives, blend stocks, and easier tank reconditioning methods that would allow fuel retailers, shippers, and storers to use alternative fuels in existing infrastructure, significantly reducing costs both for businesses and consumers.

The bill also directs the DOE and NIST to develop affordable, portable, quick and accurate ways to test the sulfur content at pump stations to make sure it complies with EPA regulations of 15ppm, and directs NIST to develop a physical properties data base and a set of standard reference materials for alternative fuels, which is not unlike the ones that currently exist for standard fuels.

If we are truly serious about bringing alternative fuels to consumers, we need to make sure that we can store, deliver, and retail these fuels with the same efficiency and safety as we deliver traditional fuels.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 547, and again want to recognize the leadership of Chairman Lampson and Gordon for bringing this important legislation through the Science and Technology Committee, and Speaker Pelosi for bringing this legislation to the floor as part of her efforts to stem global warming.