I won't belabor my disappointment with the process by which we've considered this bill -- I think that was well covered during the Subcommittee hearing last week.

The bright spot, for which I'd like to commend the Chairman, is that we are not facing a manager's amendment today that would rewrite the bill from under us.

My continued problem with the bill isn't with what's in the bill, although I look forward to offering a few improving amendments. It's what's not in the bill.

We've had the text for over a week now and, Mr. Chairman, I'm still looking for the energy in this energy bill.

As I mentioned during Subcommittee markup, the bill doesn't contain incentives for cellulostic ethanol or biodiesel or seek to reform the CAFE program.

I am strongly supportive of reforming the CAFE program, and was extremely disappointed to learn that my provision, which would incentivize the use of biodiesel by adding B20 biodiesel blend to the alternative fuels definition under CAFE, and had been in the original committee print, has been taken out of the bill.

If we want to be serious about improving energy security, we need to be serious about alternative transportation fuels.

As we move forward with this bill -- I would urge my colleagues to first, do no harm. As we discussed in subcommittee, and I expect will be discussed here today, I am greatly concerned about the inadvertent risk to public health that we may be creating by increasing the use of lighting that contains mercury.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the markup this morning and know that my Republican colleagues and I look forward to offering amendments to improve the bill.