5:20 PM EDT
Suzanne Bonamici, D-OR 1st

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

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 162, lines 3 through 5, strike subsection (d).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.

5:20 PM EDT
Suzanne Bonamici, D-OR 1st

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address an issue of national security.

The Department of Defense is the world's largest institutional consumer of fuel. As a result, the volatility of oil prices directly affects military readiness. Every $10 increase on a barrel of oil costs the Department of Defense an additional $1.3 billion a year.

To reduce our military's and our Nation's dependence on a single source of fuel, the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have been working closely over the past 4 years with the private sector to scale up an advanced ``drop-in'' biofuel production capability.

One of those projects is in Lakeview, Oregon, where a forest biomass plant will produce fuel for the U.S. Navy and Marines. It is one of three companies selected by the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture to produce cost-competitive drop-in military biofuels. Once at scale, these biorefineries will have a combined capacity to produce 100 million gallons of fuel for military ships and planes while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent compared to conventional fuels.

Our military and Nation are faced with a growing global demand for energy. We need to have a greater emphasis on renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies. Yet, without any apparent logic, this bill would prohibit the Department of Energy--the lead agency with deep, technical expertise in this area--from partnering with the Department of Defense to develop biofuels.

The amendment that I am offering strikes this prohibition and would allow the Departments of Energy and Defense to continue their efforts to learn from each other's expertise.

Mr. Chairman, I will introduce into the Record a letter opposing the prohibition from the Truman National Security Project, where they note--these are retired military--that 4 years of partnership between the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have seen impressive progress in the development of advanced drop-in biofuels that will allow the military to turn away from an outdated fuel source. Members of the military from every rank and service have spoken out in favor of the

continued investment in biofuels for the reasons of cost and capability.

OPERATION FREE,

April 21, 2015.

Hon. LAMAR SMITH,

Hon. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON,

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SMITH AND RANKING MEMBER JOHNSON: The American military is the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. The United States Congress has the critical responsibility of empowering our military leaders by equipping that force with the tools they need to engage effectively in a world of ever-increasing security threats. Accordingly, we urge you to withdraw the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, which would bar the Department of Energy from continuing a four-year

collaboration with the Departments of Defense and Agriculture to develop cost-effective advanced biofuels.

Time and again throughout our history, the military has chosen to innovate towards new solutions. While the advances resulting from these efforts have often benefited our nation as a whole, they are undertaken not for the sake of novelty or adventure but to fill a key operational or tactical need. Advanced biofuels fills such a need: Reducing the dangerous dependence of the U.S. military on fossil fuels.

The Department of Defense is the world's largest institutional consumer of fuel. With approximately $15 billion per year budgeted simply to maintain freedom of movement, the U.S. military is dangerously sensitive to the volatility of oil prices; a $10 change in the price per barrel of crude oil leaves the Department of Defense with a $1.3 billion shortfall and sees increased profits to countries who oppose our interests around the world. And because oil is priced in a global market, no amount

of domestic production can insulate the military from these effects.

We have learned firsthand that oil truly is the Achilles' heel of our military. With most [Page: H3457]

of the world's oil traveling through two or three major chokepoints, the military must allocate significant manpower and resources to keeping those sea lanes open and secure. Moreover, as the military transitions from large-scale land engagements in the Middle East and towards a broader engagement in the Asia-Pacific, the costs and logistical challenges associated

with moving fuel over thousands of miles of ocean will only increase.

The threat of oil dependence along with the need for energy security isn't going away any time soon. And we shouldn't impede progress of alternatives that are moving forward now. Four years of partnership between the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have seen impressive progress in the development of advanced, ``drop in'' biofuels that will allow the military to turn away from an outdated fuel source. Top line military platforms as diverse as the super-sonic F/A-18 ``Green Hornet,''

the Air Force's F16 fighter jets, the MH-60S Seahawk helicopter, the AV-8B Harrier, the Fire Scout unmanned vehicle, the Riverine Command Boat (RCB-X) and the frigate USS Ford have all operated at full capacity and with no averse side effects using American-made biofuels.

Members of the military from every rank and service have spoken out in favor of the continued investment in biofuels for reasons of cost and capabilities alike. These voices, rather than political leanings or parochial interests, must steer national security policy. Accordingly, we urge you to withdraw the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 and to ensure that the U.S. military is free to pursue the fuel sources its leaders deign necessary for maximum operational and tactical success.

Respectfully,

Michael Breen,

Executive Director, Truman National Security Project Army Captain (Fmr.).

RADM Leendert ``Len'' Hering,

USN (Ret.).

Lt Gen Norman Seip,

USAF (Ret.).

5:20 PM EDT
Suzanne Bonamici, D-OR 1st

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address an issue of national security.

The Department of Defense is the world's largest institutional consumer of fuel. As a result, the volatility of oil prices directly affects military readiness. Every $10 increase on a barrel of oil costs the Department of Defense an additional $1.3 billion a year.

To reduce our military's and our Nation's dependence on a single source of fuel, the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have been working closely over the past 4 years with the private sector to scale up an advanced ``drop-in'' biofuel production capability.

One of those projects is in Lakeview, Oregon, where a forest biomass plant will produce fuel for the U.S. Navy and Marines. It is one of three companies selected by the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture to produce cost-competitive drop-in military biofuels. Once at scale, these biorefineries will have a combined capacity to produce 100 million gallons of fuel for military ships and planes while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent compared to conventional fuels.

Our military and Nation are faced with a growing global demand for energy. We need to have a greater emphasis on renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies. Yet, without any apparent logic, this bill would prohibit the Department of Energy--the lead agency with deep, technical expertise in this area--from partnering with the Department of Defense to develop biofuels.

The amendment that I am offering strikes this prohibition and would allow the Departments of Energy and Defense to continue their efforts to learn from each other's expertise.

Mr. Chairman, I will introduce into the Record a letter opposing the prohibition from the Truman National Security Project, where they note--these are retired military--that 4 years of partnership between the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have seen impressive progress in the development of advanced drop-in biofuels that will allow the military to turn away from an outdated fuel source. Members of the military from every rank and service have spoken out in favor of the

continued investment in biofuels for the reasons of cost and capability.

OPERATION FREE,

April 21, 2015.

Hon. LAMAR SMITH,

Hon. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON,

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SMITH AND RANKING MEMBER JOHNSON: The American military is the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. The United States Congress has the critical responsibility of empowering our military leaders by equipping that force with the tools they need to engage effectively in a world of ever-increasing security threats. Accordingly, we urge you to withdraw the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, which would bar the Department of Energy from continuing a four-year

collaboration with the Departments of Defense and Agriculture to develop cost-effective advanced biofuels.

Time and again throughout our history, the military has chosen to innovate towards new solutions. While the advances resulting from these efforts have often benefited our nation as a whole, they are undertaken not for the sake of novelty or adventure but to fill a key operational or tactical need. Advanced biofuels fills such a need: Reducing the dangerous dependence of the U.S. military on fossil fuels.

The Department of Defense is the world's largest institutional consumer of fuel. With approximately $15 billion per year budgeted simply to maintain freedom of movement, the U.S. military is dangerously sensitive to the volatility of oil prices; a $10 change in the price per barrel of crude oil leaves the Department of Defense with a $1.3 billion shortfall and sees increased profits to countries who oppose our interests around the world. And because oil is priced in a global market, no amount

of domestic production can insulate the military from these effects.

We have learned firsthand that oil truly is the Achilles' heel of our military. With most [Page: H3457]

of the world's oil traveling through two or three major chokepoints, the military must allocate significant manpower and resources to keeping those sea lanes open and secure. Moreover, as the military transitions from large-scale land engagements in the Middle East and towards a broader engagement in the Asia-Pacific, the costs and logistical challenges associated

with moving fuel over thousands of miles of ocean will only increase.

The threat of oil dependence along with the need for energy security isn't going away any time soon. And we shouldn't impede progress of alternatives that are moving forward now. Four years of partnership between the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have seen impressive progress in the development of advanced, ``drop in'' biofuels that will allow the military to turn away from an outdated fuel source. Top line military platforms as diverse as the super-sonic F/A-18 ``Green Hornet,''

the Air Force's F16 fighter jets, the MH-60S Seahawk helicopter, the AV-8B Harrier, the Fire Scout unmanned vehicle, the Riverine Command Boat (RCB-X) and the frigate USS Ford have all operated at full capacity and with no averse side effects using American-made biofuels.

Members of the military from every rank and service have spoken out in favor of the continued investment in biofuels for reasons of cost and capabilities alike. These voices, rather than political leanings or parochial interests, must steer national security policy. Accordingly, we urge you to withdraw the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 and to ensure that the U.S. military is free to pursue the fuel sources its leaders deign necessary for maximum operational and tactical success.

Respectfully,

Michael Breen,

Executive Director, Truman National Security Project Army Captain (Fmr.).

RADM Leendert ``Len'' Hering,

USN (Ret.).

Lt Gen Norman Seip,

USAF (Ret.).

5:20 PM EDT
Suzanne Bonamici, D-OR 1st

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address an issue of national security.

The Department of Defense is the world's largest institutional consumer of fuel. As a result, the volatility of oil prices directly affects military readiness. Every $10 increase on a barrel of oil costs the Department of Defense an additional $1.3 billion a year.

To reduce our military's and our Nation's dependence on a single source of fuel, the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have been working closely over the past 4 years with the private sector to scale up an advanced ``drop-in'' biofuel production capability.

One of those projects is in Lakeview, Oregon, where a forest biomass plant will produce fuel for the U.S. Navy and Marines. It is one of three companies selected by the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture to produce cost-competitive drop-in military biofuels. Once at scale, these biorefineries will have a combined capacity to produce 100 million gallons of fuel for military ships and planes while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent compared to conventional fuels.

Our military and Nation are faced with a growing global demand for energy. We need to have a greater emphasis on renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies. Yet, without any apparent logic, this bill would prohibit the Department of Energy--the lead agency with deep, technical expertise in this area--from partnering with the Department of Defense to develop biofuels.

The amendment that I am offering strikes this prohibition and would allow the Departments of Energy and Defense to continue their efforts to learn from each other's expertise.

Mr. Chairman, I will introduce into the Record a letter opposing the prohibition from the Truman National Security Project, where they note--these are retired military--that 4 years of partnership between the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have seen impressive progress in the development of advanced drop-in biofuels that will allow the military to turn away from an outdated fuel source. Members of the military from every rank and service have spoken out in favor of the

continued investment in biofuels for the reasons of cost and capability.

OPERATION FREE,

April 21, 2015.

Hon. LAMAR SMITH,

Hon. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON,

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SMITH AND RANKING MEMBER JOHNSON: The American military is the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. The United States Congress has the critical responsibility of empowering our military leaders by equipping that force with the tools they need to engage effectively in a world of ever-increasing security threats. Accordingly, we urge you to withdraw the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, which would bar the Department of Energy from continuing a four-year

collaboration with the Departments of Defense and Agriculture to develop cost-effective advanced biofuels.

Time and again throughout our history, the military has chosen to innovate towards new solutions. While the advances resulting from these efforts have often benefited our nation as a whole, they are undertaken not for the sake of novelty or adventure but to fill a key operational or tactical need. Advanced biofuels fills such a need: Reducing the dangerous dependence of the U.S. military on fossil fuels.

The Department of Defense is the world's largest institutional consumer of fuel. With approximately $15 billion per year budgeted simply to maintain freedom of movement, the U.S. military is dangerously sensitive to the volatility of oil prices; a $10 change in the price per barrel of crude oil leaves the Department of Defense with a $1.3 billion shortfall and sees increased profits to countries who oppose our interests around the world. And because oil is priced in a global market, no amount

of domestic production can insulate the military from these effects.

We have learned firsthand that oil truly is the Achilles' heel of our military. With most [Page: H3457]

of the world's oil traveling through two or three major chokepoints, the military must allocate significant manpower and resources to keeping those sea lanes open and secure. Moreover, as the military transitions from large-scale land engagements in the Middle East and towards a broader engagement in the Asia-Pacific, the costs and logistical challenges associated

with moving fuel over thousands of miles of ocean will only increase.

The threat of oil dependence along with the need for energy security isn't going away any time soon. And we shouldn't impede progress of alternatives that are moving forward now. Four years of partnership between the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have seen impressive progress in the development of advanced, ``drop in'' biofuels that will allow the military to turn away from an outdated fuel source. Top line military platforms as diverse as the super-sonic F/A-18 ``Green Hornet,''

the Air Force's F16 fighter jets, the MH-60S Seahawk helicopter, the AV-8B Harrier, the Fire Scout unmanned vehicle, the Riverine Command Boat (RCB-X) and the frigate USS Ford have all operated at full capacity and with no averse side effects using American-made biofuels.

Members of the military from every rank and service have spoken out in favor of the continued investment in biofuels for reasons of cost and capabilities alike. These voices, rather than political leanings or parochial interests, must steer national security policy. Accordingly, we urge you to withdraw the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 and to ensure that the U.S. military is free to pursue the fuel sources its leaders deign necessary for maximum operational and tactical success.

Respectfully,

Michael Breen,

Executive Director, Truman National Security Project Army Captain (Fmr.).

RADM Leendert ``Len'' Hering,

USN (Ret.).

Lt Gen Norman Seip,

USAF (Ret.).

5:23 PM EDT
Randy Weber, R-TX 14th

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment and in support of the underlying reforms included in H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015.

This amendment would remove a limitation included in the underlying bill that prevents the Department of Energy from using funding authorized for the EERE Biofuels program to conduct commercial production of biofuels for defense purposes.

The fact is that EERE already spends too much of their current budget on deployment and commercialization of renewable and energy efficient technologies instead of research and development.

The DOE's ongoing effort to fund commercial-scale biofuels production for military purposes in cooperation with the Department of Defense and USDA is just one example.

Redirecting funds from biofuels R&D is part of a broader problem. Department of Energy research and development programs should be focused on science, not creating a market for certain types of fuels. The DOE should focus on a new idea for the market, not a market for the new idea.

The Department of Defense spends billions annually on fuel costs, billions. When viable biofuels technology is able to compete with conventional fuels--trust me--the private sector can and will develop commercial-scale biofuels production to meet demand. It is just that simple, Mr. Chairman.

And despite significant Federal programs to support the use of biofuels, a recent GAO, Government Accountability Office, study concluded that the long-term viability of alternative fuels is dependent on market factors, not Federal funds or mandates. That same study reported that the Department of Defense paid $150 per gallon for 1,500 gallons of alternative jet fuel derived from algal oil. Taxpayers should be outraged.

The other side may be, in fact, promoting their global warming theory because when taxpayers find out about this kind of waste, there are going to be a lot of them hot under the collar.

The Department of Energy should focus on research and development, not commercial biofuels production. This limitation is consistent with the broader goals of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which prioritizes research and development in all R&D program areas while cutting spending on deployment and commercialization.

I am aghast, Mr. Chairman, that the other side somehow thinks Congress shouldn't be paying attention to the way taxpayer dollars are spent.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

5:23 PM EDT
Randy Weber, R-TX 14th

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment and in support of the underlying reforms included in H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015.

This amendment would remove a limitation included in the underlying bill that prevents the Department of Energy from using funding authorized for the EERE Biofuels program to conduct commercial production of biofuels for defense purposes.

The fact is that EERE already spends too much of their current budget on deployment and commercialization of renewable and energy efficient technologies instead of research and development.

The DOE's ongoing effort to fund commercial-scale biofuels production for military purposes in cooperation with the Department of Defense and USDA is just one example.

Redirecting funds from biofuels R&D is part of a broader problem. Department of Energy research and development programs should be focused on science, not creating a market for certain types of fuels. The DOE should focus on a new idea for the market, not a market for the new idea.

The Department of Defense spends billions annually on fuel costs, billions. When viable biofuels technology is able to compete with conventional fuels--trust me--the private sector can and will develop commercial-scale biofuels production to meet demand. It is just that simple, Mr. Chairman.

And despite significant Federal programs to support the use of biofuels, a recent GAO, Government Accountability Office, study concluded that the long-term viability of alternative fuels is dependent on market factors, not Federal funds or mandates. That same study reported that the Department of Defense paid $150 per gallon for 1,500 gallons of alternative jet fuel derived from algal oil. Taxpayers should be outraged.

The other side may be, in fact, promoting their global warming theory because when taxpayers find out about this kind of waste, there are going to be a lot of them hot under the collar.

The Department of Energy should focus on research and development, not commercial biofuels production. This limitation is consistent with the broader goals of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which prioritizes research and development in all R&D program areas while cutting spending on deployment and commercialization.

I am aghast, Mr. Chairman, that the other side somehow thinks Congress shouldn't be paying attention to the way taxpayer dollars are spent.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

5:27 PM EDT
Scott Peters, D-CA 52nd

Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment, and I am glad to be working with Congresswoman Bonamici and my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Ranking Member Adam Smith.

Our amendment simply allows the Department of Energy to continue its collaborative work with the Department of Defense to produce biofuels for the military.

The Department of Defense is the single largest institutional consumer of fuel in the world, and this is all about saving money because our military spends about $20 billion a year on energy, $16 billion of which goes to oil fuels.

As we have seen in recent years, global oil markets are volatile. And despite massive production increases in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration, last year, our net imports of petroleum were 5 million barrels per day, with our top five suppliers being Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Iraq. That reliance on a volatile, foreign-produced source of fuel puts our national security at risk, particularly when we face dynamic, new threats from nonstate actors

such as ISIS, al Qaeda, or individual terrorists who can disrupt oil production and supply lines in new and intimidating ways.

The constraints of depending so heavily on a single source of fuel also puts our readiness at risk, a problem that will only increase as we are forced to respond to international incidents across the globe at a moment's notice and as our military makes its strategic pivot toward the vast Pacific Ocean.

Instead of standing idly by and waiting for a fuel-supply crisis that would endanger our ability to confront those wanting to harm our country, the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have been working with private sector innovators to develop renewable biofuels that could be used by planes, tactical vehicles, and ships.

The Navy already has innovative partnerships with algae producers and their high-skilled workers in my district in San Diego.

Congress should be laying the groundwork for more strategic public-private partnerships to develop like those in San Diego, not mandating that they cannot exist.

The military is not pursuing this fuel supply diversity because they are tree-hugging environmentalists but because it is a national security imperative.

Foolishly, today's COMPETES Act would bar the Department of Defense from working with the Department of Energy on developing biofuels. Why would we undercut an effort that our military commanders are for and say will save lives?

[Time: 17:30]

5:27 PM EDT
Scott Peters, D-CA 52nd

Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment, and I am glad to be working with Congresswoman Bonamici and my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Ranking Member Adam Smith.

Our amendment simply allows the Department of Energy to continue its collaborative work with the Department of Defense to produce biofuels for the military.

The Department of Defense is the single largest institutional consumer of fuel in the world, and this is all about saving money because our military spends about $20 billion a year on energy, $16 billion of which goes to oil fuels.

As we have seen in recent years, global oil markets are volatile. And despite massive production increases in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration, last year, our net imports of petroleum were 5 million barrels per day, with our top five suppliers being Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Iraq. That reliance on a volatile, foreign-produced source of fuel puts our national security at risk, particularly when we face dynamic, new threats from nonstate actors

such as ISIS, al Qaeda, or individual terrorists who can disrupt oil production and supply lines in new and intimidating ways.

The constraints of depending so heavily on a single source of fuel also puts our readiness at risk, a problem that will only increase as we are forced to respond to international incidents across the globe at a moment's notice and as our military makes its strategic pivot toward the vast Pacific Ocean.

Instead of standing idly by and waiting for a fuel-supply crisis that would endanger our ability to confront those wanting to harm our country, the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Agriculture have been working with private sector innovators to develop renewable biofuels that could be used by planes, tactical vehicles, and ships.

The Navy already has innovative partnerships with algae producers and their high-skilled workers in my district in San Diego.

Congress should be laying the groundwork for more strategic public-private partnerships to develop like those in San Diego, not mandating that they cannot exist.

The military is not pursuing this fuel supply diversity because they are tree-hugging environmentalists but because it is a national security imperative.

Foolishly, today's COMPETES Act would bar the Department of Defense from working with the Department of Energy on developing biofuels. Why would we undercut an effort that our military commanders are for and say will save lives?

[Time: 17:30]

5:29 PM EDT
Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentlewoman's amendment would remove an important limitation from the underlying bill that prevents the Department of Energy from spending research dollars to fund commercial-scale biofuels development for defense purposes. DOE should focus on innovative research and development, not commercial production of any particular form of energy.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

5:30 PM EDT
Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentlewoman's amendment would remove an important limitation from the underlying bill that prevents the Department of Energy from spending research dollars to fund commercial-scale biofuels development for defense purposes. DOE should focus on innovative research and development, not commercial production of any particular form of energy.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

5:30 PM EDT
Lamar S. Smith, R-TX 21st

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentlewoman's amendment would remove an important limitation from the underlying bill that prevents the Department of Energy from spending research dollars to fund commercial-scale biofuels development for defense purposes. DOE should focus on innovative research and development, not commercial production of any particular form of energy.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.