PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Feb 8, 2007
Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act - Instructs the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a program of research and development of materials to be added to biofuels to make them more compatible with existing infrastructure used to store and deliver petroleum-based fuels to the point of final sale.
Cites problem areas to be addressed, including microbial contamination.
Directs the Assistant Administrator to: (1) implement a research, development, demonstration program on portable, low-cost, and accurate methods and technologies for testing sulfur content in fuel, including Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and Low Sulfur Diesel; and (2) begin demonstrations of such technologies within a year after enactment of this Act.
Directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop a physical properties database and standard reference materials for biofuels.
Authorizes appropriations to EPA to implement this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Gordon, Bart [D-TN-6] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 400 - 3 (Roll no. 92).
House roll call 92 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 400 - 3 (Roll no. 92).
House roll call 92 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 200 - 207 (Roll no. 91).
House roll call 91 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H1391-1392)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Shimkus motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with amendments which insert provisions allowing the inclusion of alternative fuels, specifically clean coal.
Mr. Shimkus moved to recommit with instructions to Science and Technology. (consideration: CR H1391; text: CR H1391)
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Hoyer asked unanimous consent that, during further proceedings in the House on H.R. 547, the Chair be authorized to reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to five-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX. Agreed to without objection.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H1387)
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 547.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Burgess amendment.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of amendments which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Brown-Waite amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Cantor amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Cantor demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Cantor amendment pending reservation of a point of order. Subsequently, the reservation was removed.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Burguss amendment pending reservation of a point of order.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Rogers (MI) amendment pending reservation of a point of order.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Roskam amendment pending reservation of a point of order. Subsequently, the reservation was removed.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Rogers(MI) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Rogers (MI) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Rogers (MI) amendment pending reservation of a point of order. Subsequently, the reservation was removed.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Dent amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Dent demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Dent amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Weller amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Weller demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Weller amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Hastings (FL) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Price (GA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Hastings (FL) amendment.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Eshoo amendment.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Burgess amendment.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 547.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Michael R. McNulty to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 133 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 547 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 or rule XXI. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science and Technology now printed in the bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 133. (consideration: CR H1356-1393; text as reported in House: CR H1359, H1365)
Rule H. Res. 133 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 133 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 547 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 or rule XXI. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science and Technology now printed in the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 2.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 110-7.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 110-7.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.547 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.547 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.547 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.547 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.