[House Report 113-667]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress } { Rept. 113-667
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { Part 1
======================================================================
MID-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS
_______
December 12, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 875]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 875) to provide for a comprehensive
assessment of the scientific and technical research on the
implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Amendment.......................................................2
II. Purpose and Summary.............................................3
III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................3
IV. Hearing Summary.................................................4
V. Committee Consideration.........................................4
VI. Committee Votes.................................................5
VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................8
VIII. Committee Views.................................................8
IX. Committee Oversight Findings....................................9
X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives...........9
XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditure9
XII. Advisory on Earmarks............................................9
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................10
XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................10
XV. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................11
XVI. Compliance with House Resolution 5.............................11
XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................11
XVIII.Applicability to Legislative Branch............................11
XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................11
XX. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................13
I. Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Mid-level ethanol blend.--The term ``mid-level ethanol
blend'' means an ethanol-gasoline blend containing greater than
10 and up to and including 20 percent ethanol by volume that is
intended to be used in any conventional gasoline-powered
onroad, nonroad, or marine engine, or onroad or nonroad
vehicle.
SEC. 2. EVALUATION.
(a) In General.--The Administrator, acting through the Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Research and Development at the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall--
(1) not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences to provide, within 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, a comprehensive assessment of the
scientific and technical research on the implications of the
use of mid-level ethanol blends, comparing mid-level ethanol
blends to gasoline blends containing 10 percent or zero percent
ethanol; and
(2) not later than 30 days after receiving the results of the
assessment under paragraph (1), submit a report to the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate on the findings of the assessment, together
with the agreement or disagreement of the Administrator with
each of its findings.
(b) Waivers.--Prior to the submission of the report under subsection
(a)(2), any waiver granted under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7545(f)(4)) before the date of enactment of this Act that
allows the introduction into commerce of mid-level ethanol blends for
use in motor vehicles shall have no force or effect. The Administrator
shall grant no new waivers under such section 211(f)(4) until after the
submission of the report described under subsection (a)(2).
(c) Contents.--The assessment performed under subsection (a)(1) shall
include the following:
(1) An evaluation of the short-term and long-term
environmental, safety, durability, and performance effects of
the introduction of mid-level ethanol blends on onroad,
nonroad, and marine engines, onroad and nonroad vehicles, and
related equipment. Such evaluation shall consider the impacts
of qualifying mid-level ethanol blends or blends with higher
ethanol concentrations as a certification fuel, and shall
consider the effect mid-level ethanol blends have on carbon
emissions, taking into account carbon emissions from their
life-cycle production, as compared to gasoline blends
containing 10 percent or zero percent ethanol. Such evaluation
shall include a review of all available scientific evidence,
including all relevant government and industry data and
testing, including that relied upon by the Administrator and
published at 75 Fed. Reg. 68094 et seq. (November 4, 2010), 76
Fed. Reg. 4662 et seq. (January 26, 2011), and 76 Fed. Reg.
44406 et seq. (July 25, 2011), and identify gaps in
understanding and research needs related to--
(A) tailpipe emissions;
(B) evaporative emissions;
(C) engine and fuel system durability;
(D) onboard diagnostics;
(E) emissions inventory and other modeling effects;
(F) materials compatibility;
(G) operability and drivability;
(H) fuel efficiency;
(I) fuel economy;
(J) consumer education and satisfaction;
(K) cost-effectiveness for the consumer;
(L) catalyst durability; and
(M) durability of storage tanks, piping, and
dispensers for retail.
(2) An identification of areas of research, development, and
testing necessary to--
(A) ensure that existing motor fuel infrastructure is
not adversely impacted by mid-level ethanol blends,
including an examination of potential impacts of mid-
level ethanol blends on metal, plastic, rubber, or any
other materials used in pipes or storage tanks; and
(B) reduce the risk of misfueling by users at various
points in the distribution and supply chain, including
at bulk storage, retail storage, and distribution
configurations by--
(i) assessing the best methods and practices
to prevent misfueling;
(ii) examining misfueling mitigation
strategies for blender pumps, including
volumetric purchase requirements and labeling
requirements;
(iii) assessing the adequacy of misfueling
mitigation plans approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency; and
(iv) examining the technical standards and
recommendations of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the American National
Standards Institute, and the International
Organization for Standardization regarding fuel
pump labeling.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
In order to carry out this Act, the Administrator shall utilize up to
$900,000 from the funds made available for science and technology,
including research and development activities, at the Environmental
Protection Agency.
II. Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 875, ``To provide for a comprehensive
assessment of the scientific and technical research on the
implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for
other purposes'', is to require the National Academies of
Sciences to conduct an assessment of the scientific and
technical research on E15 to reflect the diversity of concerns.
The legislation also invalidates the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) waiver decisions for E15 and prohibits the
Agency from granting further waivers until after the study is
completed and submitted to the Committee.
III. Background and Need for the Legislation
Since the 1970s, the Federal Government has supported
numerous policies to increase efficiency of fuel use and reduce
petroleum consumption. In 1978, EPA authorized the use of 10
percent ethanol blended gasoline (E10), which was not used on a
widespread basis until the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In
2005, Congress established the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in
the Energy Policy Act (EPAct).\1\ The RFS mandates that
transportation fuels contain renewable fuels, such as biodiesel
or corn-based ethanol, and required that 4 billion gallons of
renewable fuels be blended into in the national fuel mix by
2006 and 7.5 billion by 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P.L. 109-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress greatly expanded the RFS requirement in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), and mandated the
blending of 15.2 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012, and 36
billion gallons by 2022.\2\ The RFS expansion, referred to as
RFS II, also required the use of advanced biofuels and capped
the amount of corn-based ethanol that could be used to meet the
mandated volumes at 15 billion gallons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ P.L. 110-140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blending fuel at concentrations greater than E10 in order
to meet the increased production volumes required by the RFS
presents a challenge referred to as the ``blend wall.'' This
refers to the upper limit of the total amount of ethanol that
can be blended into the national gasoline supply using E10. In
an effort to avoid the ``blend wall'', on March 6, 2009, Growth
Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers petitioned EPA to grant a
waiver to allow E15, a mid-level or intermediate ethanol blend,
into commerce.
In order to grant such a waiver, EPA must determine that
E15 would not ``cause or contribute to a failure of an emission
control device or system.'' Additionally, Section 211 (f) of
the Clean Air Act prohibits the Administrator of the EPA from
granting a waiver for any fuel or fuel additive that is not
``substantially similar'' to the existing certification fuel
(i.e. regular unleaded gasoline without added ethanol).
EPA issued a partial waiver for E15 on October 13, 2010,
allowing the introduction of E15 into commerce for use in model
year 2007 and newer cars, light-duty trucks, and SUV's. On
January 21, 2011, EPA granted another partial waiver for use of
E15 in model year 2001 and newer vehicles. EPA did not grant a
waiver for model year 2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles,
heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, highway and off-
highway motorcycles, and other nonroad engines, vehicles, and
equipment.
The waiver decision and subsequent release of E15 fuel into
the marketplace has raised technical and practical concerns
regarding the impact of E15 on engines and fuel supply
infrastructure, focused broadly on two main issues: (1) The
potential for E15 to damage vehicle engines of all model years;
and (2) The potential for this bifurcated fueling system to
result in widespread misfueling.
IV. Hearing Summary
In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment held
a hearing on February 26, 2013, to examine the scientific,
technical, and consumer impacts of the EPA's decision to allow
the introduction of mid-level ethanol blends (E15) into the
marketplace. The hearing examined the impact of E15 on engines
and fuel supply infrastructure and identified research gaps and
areas in which policymakers and the public could benefit from
more information on the fuel. The subcommittee also received
testimony regarding draft legislation.
The Subcommittee heard from 3 witnesses:
Mr. Robert L. Darbelnet, President and CEO, American Automobile
Association (AAA)
The Honorable Wayne Allard, Vice President, Government
Relations, American Motorcyclist Association (AMA)
Mr. Mike Leister, Member, Board of Directors, Coordinating
Research Council (CRC)
V. Committee Consideration
On February 27, 2013, H.R. 875 was introduced by Rep. F.
James Sensenbrenner and referred to the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology.
On April 11, 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 875, as
amended, by roll call vote. Further, the Committee ordered H.R.
875 favorably reported to the House, as amended, by roll call
vote.
VI. Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. A
motion to order H.R. 875 favorably reported to the House, as
amended, was agreed to by a vote of 18-17.
During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 875, the
following amendments were considered:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR667P1.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR667P1.002
VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill
H.R. 875 directs the EPA Administrator, acting through the
Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and
Development, to enter into an agreement with the National
Academy of Sciences to provide a comprehensive assessment of
the scientific and technical research on the implications of
the use of mid-level ethanol blends. The bill repeals EPA's
waiver decision allowing E15 into the marketplace until the
Agency submits a report to relevant Committees on the
assessment and suspends the authority of the Agency to grant
further waiver decisions during this period.
VIII. Committee Views
H.R. 875 will provide vital information to improve
understanding of the environmental, safety, durability, and
performance effects of mid-level ethanol blends on engines,
vehicles, and related equipment. The bill seeks to provide an
objective look at the state of the science regarding mid-level
ethanol blends. It is the intent of the Committee to ensure
that the decision of the EPA is informed by a thorough and
complete evaluation of this technical and scientific research
on the use of mid-level ethanol blends before such blends are
allowed in the marketplace. Thus, this bill provides that any
previously granted waiver decisions shall have no force or
effect and prohibits the Administrator from granting further
waivers until this evaluation is completed.
It is the Committee's view that the limited scientific
review that accompanied the partial waiver decisions for mid-
level ethanol blends in 2010 and 2011 was insufficient to
appropriately inform the Agency's decisions and ensure engines,
vehicles, and related equipment are not harmed by the
introduction of E15 into the motor fuel supply. H.R. 875
intends to resolve this concern by requiring the evaluation the
Committee believes is necessary for the Administrator to
properly make such a determination. Therefore, H.R. 875
provides that any waivers granted before such evaluation is
completed shall have no force or effect, and prohibits the
Administrator from granting any further waivers under Section
211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act until this report is completed.
The Administrator is required to enter into an agreement with
the National Academies of Sciences to provide this thorough
assessment. Upon completion of this report, the Administrator
must transmit the findings to the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, indicating the Administrator's agreement or
disagreement with each finding. The list of items to be
included as part of this assessment was derived from the
Committee's hearing record, previous and ongoing areas of
examination by governmental and nongovernmental organizations,
and factors identified by the EPA when issuing the partial
waivers.
The Committee recommends that this assessment incorporate
all available scientific evidence that could inform and improve
the understanding of the effect of mid-level ethanol blends.
This should include an analysis of all relevant governmental
and non-governmental data and testing, including of both newer
and developing information, as well as literature available to
the Administrator in making partial waiver and misfueling
decisions as published in the Federal Register on November 4,
2010, January 26, 2011, and July 25, 2011.
H.R. 875 defines mid-level ethanol as an ethanol gasoline
blend containing greater than 10 and up to and including 20
percent ethanol by volume that is intended to be used in any
conventional gasoline-powered motor vehicle. If resources
permit, the Committee also encourages the assessment to provide
insight into whether similar or related issues may be expected
to accompany the introduction of higher blends of biodiesel or
other biofuels.
While H.R. 875 states that the assessment should include an
evaluation of the effects of mid-level ethanol blends on
onroad, nonroad, and marine engines, onroad and nonroad
vehicles, and related equipment, the bill does not define the
specific vehicle types, engine types, or specify the related
equipment to be incorporated into this assessment. Thus, the
Committee encourages the assessment to employ relevant
definitions in Section 216 of the Clean Air Act and interpret
them broadly. Furthermore, the Committee recommends the
assessment of the state of the science (including gaps in
understanding and research needs) include a wide variety of
vehicles, engines, and equipment that would better inform
understanding of the overall implications of mid-level ethanol
blends. By identifying areas of research, development, testing,
and technical standards relating to misfueling and labeling,
this assessment can help improve understanding of the problems
associated with a bifurcated fuel system.
IX. Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight
hearing and made findings that are reflected in the descriptive
portions of this report.
X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and
objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive
portions of this report, including the goal to require the
National Academies of Sciences to conduct an assessment of the
scientific and technical research on E15 and prohibit the EPA
from allowing waivers until after the study is completed.
XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
XII. Advisory on Earmarks
In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI,
the Committee finds that H.R. 875, ``To provide for a
comprehensive assessment of the scientific and technical
research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol
blends, and for other purposes'', contains no earmarks.
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 19, 2013.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 875, a bill to
provide for a comprehensive assessment of the scientific and
technical research on the implications of the use of mid-level
ethanol blends, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
Mehlman.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 875--A bill to provide for a comprehensive assessment of the
scientific and technical research on the implications of the
use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes
H.R. 875 would require the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to coordinate with the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS), to provide an assessment of the scientific and technical
research associated with using mid-level ethanol blends (i.e.,
ethanol-gasoline blends containing 10 percent to 20 percent
ethanol by volume) in gasoline. No later than 30 days after the
assessment is completed, EPA would be required to submit a
report to the Congress, indicating whether the agency agrees
with the study's findings. The NAS and EPA would have 18 months
from the time of enactment to complete the study. Mid-level
ethanol blends could not be sold until after EPA issues its
assessment report.
Section 3 of this legislation would require EPA to use
$900,000 ``from funds made available for science and
technology'' to cover the costs of the study. Whether the funds
for this study were made available from amounts appropriated in
2013 or in future years, CBO estimates that implementing this
legislation would cost about $1 million.
Enacting H.R. 875 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.R. 875 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect
the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
H.R. 875 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined
in UMRA, on businesses that sell or plan to sell mid-level
ethanol blends by suspending sales of those blends. The cost of
the mandate would be the net income forgone as a result of the
suspension. Because sales of mid-level ethanol blends are
relatively small, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate
would fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($150
million in 2013, adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S.
Mehlman (for federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the private-
sector impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
XV. Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
XVI. Compliance With H. Res. 5
A. Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
B. Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
XVIII. Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Definitions
Section 1 provides definitions, including:
``Administrator'' and ``Mid-Level Ethanol Blend.''
Section 2. Evaluation
Section 2(a) requires the Administrator, acting through the
Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and
Development at the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1)
enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences
to provide a comprehensive assessment of the scientific and
technical research on the implication of the use of mid-level
ethanol blends, including a comparison of mid-level ethanol
blends to gasoline containing ten percent or zero percent
ethanol; and (2) transmit the report to the Committee on
Science, Space and Technology and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works within thirty days of receiving the results,
along with the disagreement or agreement of the Administrator
with the findings.
Section 2(b) invalidates any waiver granted by the Agency
prior to enactment under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act
that allows the introduction into commerce of mid-level ethanol
blends. The Administrator is prohibited from granting new
waivers under section 211(f)(4) until after the submission of
the report described in section (2)(a)(2).
Section 2(c) requires the assessment performed under
section (2)(a) include: (1) an evaluation of the short and
long-term environmental, safety, durability, and performance
effects of the introduction of mid-level ethanol blends on
onroad, nonroad, and marine engines, vehicles, and related
equipment; (2) consideration of the impacts of qualifying mid-
level ethanol blends or blends with higher ethanol
concentration as a certification fuel; (3) a review of all
available scientific evidence, including all relevant
government and industry data and testing, including that which
was relied upon by the Administrator and published in the
Federal Register; (4) identification of the gaps in
understanding and research needs related to (A) tailpipe
emissions; (B) evaporative systems; (C) engine and fuel system
durability; (D) onboard diagnostics; (E) emissions inventory
and other modeling effects; (F) materials compatibility; (G)
operability and drivability; (H) fuel efficiency; (J) consumer
education and satisfaction; (K) cost-effectiveness for the
consumer; (L) catalyst durability; and (M) durability of
storage tanks, piping, and dispensers for retail; and (5) an
identification of areas of research, development, and testing
necessary to (A) ensure that existing motor fuel infrastructure
is not adversely impacted by mid-level ethanol blends; and (B)
reduce the risk of misfueling by users at various points in the
distribution and supply chain by: (i) assessing the best
methods and practices to prevent misfueling, (ii) examining
misfueling mitigation strategies for blender pumps, (iii)
assessing the adequacy and ability of misfueling mitigations
plans approved by EPA, and (iv) examining the technical
standards and recommendation of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the American National Standards
Institute and the International Organization for
Standardization regarding fuel pump labeling.
Section 3. Authorization of Appropriations
Section 3 requires the Administrator utilize up to $900,000
from the funds made available for science and technology,
including research and development activities, at the
Environmental Protection Agency to carry out this Act.
XX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP ON H.R. 875,
TO PROVIDE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE
ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL RESEARCH ON THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF
MID-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 2(f) and House Rule XI 2(h)(4), the
Chair announces that he may postpone roll call votes on matters
in which the yeas and nays are ordered until the end of the
markup.
Today, we consider two pieces of legislation: H.R. 875,
introduced by Representative Sensenbrenner, providing for a
comprehensive assessment of the science and technical research
on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and
H.R. 1422, introduced by Representative Stewart, the
Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board Reform
Act of 2013. I will recognize myself for an opening statement.
While different in their focus, the two bills we consider
today share a common goal: to improve the science behind
regulatory decision-making at the EPA, and I thank Mr.
Sensenbrenner and Mr. Stewart for their work on these bills. It
is my hope that sound science might become a common and
potentially even bipartisan guiding principle for the
Committee's work on EPA issues.
The Committee examined both bills we consider today in
hearings last month, and both bills enjoy wide and diverse
support. Mr. Sensenbrenner's E15 bill is backed by both the
American Petroleum Institute and the Environmental Working
Group, two organizations that do not agree often. It is also
supported by the American Automobile Association as well as
groups representing everyone from snowmobilers to boaters to
motorcyclists. In fact, 37 different organizations have
endorsed this bill, and without objection, those organizations'
names will be made a part of the record.
Similarly, Mr. Stewart's Science Advisory Board reform
legislation has garnered support from the American Farm Bureau
and the American Chemistry Council. Both of these bills improve
the science that goes into EPA regulations. That is why they
have received such broad support among diverse stakeholders.
Twenty-nine various organizations have endorsed Mr. Stewart's
bill, and without objection, the names of those organizations
will be made a part of the record.
And I again thank Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Stewart for
their initiative on these issues, and I hope that they receive
similarly broad support from Members of the Committee today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith
While different in their focus, the two bills we consider today
share a common goal: to improve the science behind regulatory decision-
making at the EPA.
I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Stewart for their work on these
bills.
It is my hope that sound science might become a common--and
potentially even bipartisan--guiding principle for the Committee's work
on EPA issues.
The Committee examined both bills we consider today in hearings
last month. And both bills enjoy wide and diverse support.
Mr. Sensenbrenner's E15 bill is backed by both the American
Petroleum Institute and the Environmental Working Group, two
organizations that do not agree often. It is also supported by the
American Automobile Association (AAA), as well as groups representing
everyone from snowmobilers to boaters to motorcyclists.
Similarly, Mr. Stewart's Science Advisory Board Reform legislation
has garnered support from the American Farm Bureau and the American
Chemistry Council.
Both of these bills improve the science that goes into EPA's
regulations. This is why they have received such broad support among
diverse stakeholders.
Chairman Smith. I will now recognize the Ranking Member,
the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, for her opening
statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Today we are marking up two pieces of legislation: H.R.
875, to provide for a comprehensive assessment of the
scientific and technical research on the implications of the
use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes, and
H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.
Let me say at the outset that I am disappointed the
Committee is not following regular order on these bills. This
Committee has had a good tradition of following regular order
in the movement of legislation, and that tradition has served
both sides of the aisle well over the years. Regular order is
not an arbitrary concept. It is a time-tested means to perfect
legislation.
Moreover, I think it fosters bipartisanship. The last time
Democrats controlled this Committee, we held 25 subcommittee
markups in four years, and took 45 bills through these markups.
And as former Chairman Bart Gordon liked to brag, every one of
those bills had at least one or some Republican support. I do
not believe this is a coincidence. I hope we can get back to
that tradition sooner rather than later.
Unfortunately I cannot support the two bills we are marking
up today in their current form. I am glad to see the Democratic
Members have so many amendments to improve these bills, because
they need much improvement.
H.R. 875 is a retread of an almost identical bill this
Committee marked up last Congress. Last year, after a
contentious markup--the bill didn't even bother--the Committee
didn't even bother reporting the bill to the House. I think it
is curious that the Committee is spending time today marking up
a bill that had so many flaws that we couldn't even bother to
file a report on it in the last Congress. One reason the
majority may have squashed the bill last Congress is that it
represents everything the Republican Party platform says is bad
about the government.
I will explain in layman's terms what the bill does. The
bill forces the EPA to regulate a product out of existence
rather than let free-market forces dictate the success of E15.
The stated justification for this is that consumers are too
stupid to use this product correctly. The majority apparently
has lost all faith in both consumers and the free-market system
to deal with E15. So today I will support the free market
system, and oppose this bill and the majority's attempt to
expand the name ``Nanny State.'' These are strange days indeed.
Next, the Committee will consider H.R. 1422, which alters
the EPA's Science Advisory Board process for the worse. This
bill is a naked attempt to reduce legitimate scientific input
at the Board, and replace it with industry-funded input. If
that was not bad enough, the bill contains several provisions
which appear designed to bury the board in a mountain of work
simply to keep it from getting anything accomplished.
For these reasons, it should not be surprising that groups
like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Clean Water
Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Earthjustice, and
the League of Conservation Voters oppose the bill. I have two
letters from these organizations stating their opposition, and
I ask that they be included in the record.
Democratic Members have submitted a number of good
amendments to correct the deficiencies in the bill, and I look
forward to supporting them, and I look forward to a good
markup, but a markup that should first have occurred at the
subcommittee level. When we bypass that process, it makes for a
more contentious full Committee markup because the Members
first of all on those Subcommittees have not been able to
function. I respect the Chairs and Subcommittee Ranking Members
of the Committees, and I really hope that at some point we can
get back to our Subcommittees functioning appropriately in this
Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you Chairman Smith.
Today, we are marking up two pieces of legislation:
H.R. 875, To provide for a comprehensive assessment of the
scientific and technical research on the implications of the use of
mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes, and, H.R. 1422, the
EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.
Let me say at the outset that I am disappointed the Committee is
not following regular order on these bills. This Committee has a good
tradition of following regular order in the movement of legislation,
and that tradition has served both sides of the aisle well over the
years. Regular order is not an arbitrary concept. It is a time tested
means to perfect legislation.
Moreover, I think it fosters bipartisanship. The last time
Democrats controlled this Committee we held 25 subcommittee markups in
four years, and took 45 bills through those markups. And as former
Chairman Bart Gordon liked to brag, every one of those bills had at
least some Republican support. I do not think that is a coincidence. I
hope we can get back to that tradition sooner rather than later.
Unfortunately I cannot support the two bills we are marking up
today in their current form. I'm glad to see the Democratic Members
have so many amendments to improve these bills, because they need much
improvement.
H.R. 875 is a retread of an almost identical bill this Committee
marked up last Congress. Last year, after a contentious markup, the
Committee didn't even bother reporting the bill to the House. I think
it's curious that the Committee is spending time today marking up a
bill that had so many flaws that we couldn't even bother to file a
report on it in the last Congress.
One reason the Majority may have squashed the bill last Congress is
that it represents everything the Republican Party platform says is bad
about the government. I will explain in layman's terms what the bill
does.
The bill forces the EPA to regulate a product out of existence
rather than let free market forces dictate the success of E15. The
stated justification for this is that consumers are too stupid to use
this product correctly. The Majority apparently has lost all faith in
both consumers and the free market system to deal with E15.
So today I will support the free market system, and oppose this
bill and the Majority's attempt to expand the nanny-state. These are
strange days indeed.
Next the Committee will consider H.R. 1422, which alters the EPA's
Science Advisory Board process for the worse. This bill is a naked
attempt to reduce legitimate scientific input at the Board, and replace
it with industry funded input. If that weren't bad enough, the bill
contains several provisions which appear designed to bury the Board in
a mountain of work simply to keep it from getting anything
accomplished.
For these reasons, it should not be surprising that groups like the
Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Environmental Defense Fund, Clean Water Action, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Earthjustice, and the League of Conservation Voters
oppose the bill.
I have two letters from these organizations stating their
opposition, and I ask that they be included in the record.
Democratic Members have submitted a number of good amendments to
correct the deficiencies in the bill, and I look forward to supporting
them, and I look forward to a good markup, but a markup that should
first have occurred at the Subcommittee level.
Chairman Smith. Thanks, Ms. Johnson, and I will respond
briefly to a couple of your points.
First of all, when you see the number of Democratic
amendments that I and others expect to support, I hope you will
reconsider your views of these two pieces of legislation. At
this point we expect to support three Democratic amendments on
the first bill and I think six Democratic amendments on the
second bill, so that might well change your consideration of
those bills.
In regard to your other point, I certainly do expect the
Subcommittees to be involved with pieces of legislation, say,
on the level of the NASA reauthorization or an energy research
and development bill or COMPETES bill and so forth. We have
gone back as you have and checked the precedent, and there is
precedent by both Republican and Democratic former chairs that
about half the bills do not get marked up in Subcommittee, and
bills on the level of the ones we consider today, a study and a
commission, fall into that category. So I don't think we are
doing anything unusual but I certainly appreciate your point,
and we will make an effort on different kinds of bills to have
them go through the entire process.
In the case of these bills, they did get Subcommittee
hearings last month, and that was certainly involving the
Subcommittees, but again, I appreciate your point.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say that
if the Subcommittees had been allowed time to function, we
would not be considering these amendments right now; we would
be looking at the overall bills, and I think that it is an
insult to the Members of these Subcommittees not to allow them
to function.
Chairman Smith. Well, I will be more specific then in my
response. In the case of the chairmen in the last couple of
Congresses, 57 percent of the bills did not get consideration
by the Subcommittees, and in the case of the chairman before
that, a Democrat, 40 percent of the bills did not get processed
in Subcommittee. So as I say, I think we are following
bipartisan protocol.
Ms. Johnson. I do question your statistics on that.
However, that is not the real baseline of it. Whatever happened
in the last Congress and the Congress before that and the
Congress before that and the Congress before that, we would not
have Subcommittees if they didn't have a role to play, and I
would like to see them play that role.
Chairman Smith. Well, again, we involved the Subcommittees.
They did have hearings so they were not left out of the
process, but I take your point and I thank you for that.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 875,
introduced by Representative Sensenbrenner, providing for a
comprehensive assessment of the scientific and technical
research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol
blends, and the clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 875, a bill to provide for a comprehensive
assessment of the scientific and technical research on the
implications----
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read.
[H.R. 875 appears in Appendix I]
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, former chairman of this Committee, is recognized
for an opening statement on his bill.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start out by making the point that there is no free
market in ethanol when the government mandates its use. Now,
after examining the basis for the EPA to grant its waiver
decisions in 2010 and 2011 to allow the introduction of fuel
blends containing 15 percent ethanol, or E15, it is clear to me
that this decision was wrong, rushed and based upon incomplete
science. H.R. 875 repeals these waivers until we can have an
independent third party, the National Academy of Science,
examine the science surrounding this fuel blend.
This Committee has worked extensively on this issue over
the last two years. In 2011, I sent letters to 14 automakers
asking for input on E15. After all, I trust the companies that
actually build these engines to know how they will operate on
different fuel blends. All 14 of those automakers responded
that E15 will decrease fuel efficiency, damage engines, and
void customer warranties. Chrysler succinctly warned: ``The
warranty information provided to our customers specifically
notes that the use of the blends beyond E10 will void the
warranty.'' The Committee has also had several hearings on E15.
The record is clear: those without a financial stake in ethanol
production are concerned about the effects of this fuel blend
in their products. Autos, motorcycles, boats, chainsaws, they
all have the same concern: E15 will damage our products, and it
is the consumer that will be left liable for fixing the damage.
This week, I received a letter from 34 organizations citing
their concerns with E15. This diverse coalition ranging from
the Environmental Working Group, the American Petroleum
Institute, and the Milk Producers Council voiced their support
for this bill and further study of mid-level ethanol blends.
The AAA, a national organization that represents nearly 53
million motorists, announced in November of last year that the
introduction of E15 should be suspended to protect motorists
from voided warranties and engine damage. Robert Darbelnet, the
organization's president, testified before the Environment
Subcommittee earlier this year about the dangers E15 poses to
American motorists. AAA has submitted a letter in support of
this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be
made a part of the record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Sensenbrenner. H.R. 875 accomplishes the reasonable
goal of knowing what our Nation's fuel supply will do to our
Nation's engines. The bill requires the Administrator of the
EPA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences to provide a comprehensive assessment of the
scientific and technical research on the implications of fuel
with more than ten percent ethanol. The NAS is asked to examine
the short- and long-term effects of mid-level ethanol blends on
a variety of engines including those used in automotive, marine
and non-road vehicles.
Additionally, the NAS must identify the testing required to
ensure that the existing motor fuel infrastructure is not
adversely affected by the mid-level ethanol blends and that
concerns about misfueling in non-approved engines are
addressed.
Importantly, this legislation also repeals the two waiver
decisions that allowed the E15 to come on the market in the
first place. It also repeals the Administrator's authority to
grant such waivers until the NAS has completed its study and
submitted it to Congress for our review. Without this
stipulation, we will allow the EPA to continue its support of
this faulty fuel blend while ignoring the scientific evidence.
I thank the chairman for scheduling this markup. We cannot
responsibly allow the EPA to approve mid-level ethanol blends
despite serious concerns about safety, fuel efficiency and
engine damage. I thank the Chair, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Is there any further discussion on the bill before we go to
amendments? The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is
recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
simply say a few words about this legislation. It is an issue I
have talked with constituents and others about who represent
many different interests.
As the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee of jurisdiction,
I was pleased to participate--we had one hearing on this bill--
because alternative fuels and renewable energy more generally
are important innovations that can help us reach the goal of
energy independence.
Now, many of my constituents as well as perhaps yours have
concerns with using ethanol as an alternative fuel. In fact,
when I was in the state legislature in Oregon, we passed
legislation to grant waivers to small-engine users who were
concerned about potential impacts from ethanol blends.
That being said, this legislation is not the best way to
address the concerns we are hearing from our constituents. It
is unfortunate that we didn't have the opportunity to consider
this bill more deliberately and mark it up in the Environment
Subcommittee. We could have addressed some of these concerns
while making sure not to stand in the way of the development of
new and innovative fuel technologies. Because I am concerned
that this legislation will further delay our pursuit for energy
independence, I will be opposed to the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
Are there any amendments? And the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Grayson, is recognized to offer the first one.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The first amendment that I have offered, which is amendment
designated number 61, simply clarifies that marine engines are
included in the list of engines affected by the definition of
midlevel ethanol blend. On one part of the bill, there is a
clarity with that regard on page 3.
Chairman Smith. Will the gentleman suspend, and will the
clerk report the amendment?
Mr. Grayson. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 875 offered by Mr. Grayson of
Florida.
[The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read, and the gentleman from Florida is
recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The bill makes clear the effect of the action of the bill
on marine engines with regard to page 3 but not with regard to
page 2. This is a technical amendment that simply conforms page
2 to page 3.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Florida yield?
Mr. Grayson. Yes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I think this is a good amendment, and I
am pleased to accept it.
Mr. Grayson. I yield the remainder of my time.
Chairman Smith. Is there any further discussion on this
amendment?
If not, all in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The gentleman continues to be recognized.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment H.R. 875 offered by Mr. Grayson of
Florida. Page 3, lines 4 through 12, strike----
[The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment moves to strike section 2(b)
from the bill. Section 2(b) is a section that, among other
things, purports to have the authority to reverse decisions
already duly made by the Administration regarding waivers and
forbid waivers in the future until the outcome of a scientific
study that has not yet been begun. I think that this is legally
infirm for several reasons.
The first is that I think that this might be considered to
be an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional under
Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution. A decision
has been made by the Administration. There is legal recourse
with regard to that decision. Under the Administrative
Procedures Act, anyone including the individuals who have tried
to influence this legislation by means of the correspondence
that Congressman Sensenbrenner has described, they have
recourse in court. That is their constitutional legal recourse;
this is not. For us to reverse this at this time, to reverse
these at this time, is unconstitutional action on our part, I
submit, and thoroughly inappropriate.
Beyond that, I think that to do so in the future, to forbid
waivers like this in the future, is again legally incorrect. It
is basically a stalling tactic. The Administration can easily
wait for additional information in the future without being
required to do so. To say that the Administration is barred
from issuing such waivers is for us to interfere in the actions
of the Administration and the legal authority that the
Administration has under the Clean Air Act. For that reason, I
will tell you that I unfortunately will find myself compelled
to vote against this bill unless these concerns are addressed.
But with regard to this particular amendment, I submit, Mr.
Chairman, that it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee.
I am concerned about the idea that we would try to dictate
through legislation on the Science and Technology Committee
whether the Clean Air Act can be implemented by the
Administration when it is clear that the jurisdiction for such
action is not within our Committee but rather within the Energy
and Commerce Committee. Under the rules that are promulgated by
the Republican majority here in Congress, the Clean Air Act and
air emissions and all laws, programs and government activities
affecting such matters are not within the Science and
Technology Committee jurisdiction, they are within the
jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Therefore, I
have submitted this amendment in order to strike this part of
the bill as beyond our jurisdiction.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, and I am happy to
be recognized, but does the gentleman from Wisconsin want to be
recognized in response?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, this is a legitimate
exercise of the oversight power of Congress. We believe that
there was not proper scientific input into the decision that
the EPA has made. The bill simply proposes a timeout to get the
input from the National Academy of Sciences, which I think has
a reputation of being impartial and nonpartisan. And with all
the evidence that has been put on the table about the problems
with E15, it is time for us to exercise legislative
responsibility just as, in my opinion, the EPA's rules in
issuing this waiver have the same effect as legislation.
I will be happy to yield to the chairman for his comments.
Chairman Smith. Thank you for yielding.
I just want to say to the gentleman from Florida that I
appreciate his work on this issue. The legislation as
introduced was referred, as he suggested, to this Committee as
well as the Energy and Commerce Committee, and while the
Science Committee has broad oversight responsibility, as Mr.
Sensenbrenner just pointed out, for scientific and technical
issues at EPA, we hope and expect to work with the Energy and
Commerce Committee on this provision dealing with the granting
of regulatory waivers.
And I will yield back to the gentleman. Are there any other
Members who wish to be heard on this amendment?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
respond to the chairman's statement.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I remain concerned about both the constitutionality and the
jurisdiction of this provision. I think that it is unwise in
any case to try to dictate to the Administration what is in
effect the Administration's responsibilities under the Clean
Air Act. However, in light of the fact that the chairman has
recognized legitimate concerns about the jurisdictional issue,
with that in mind, I very graciously withdraw my amendment.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman does indeed graciously
withdraw his amendment without objection, and I thank him for
doing so, and he is recognized for his next amendment.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the clerk will read the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 875 offered by Mr. Grayson of
Florida. Page 3, line 22, insert----
[The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Grayson, is recognized to explain the amendment.
Mr. Grayson. Yes. With regard--thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With regard to this amendment, what we are doing here is
simple. The bill as currently written prescribes a scientific
study. The scientific study is broken down by the bill in
several respects. In my opinion, the bill omits one of the
legitimate bases for scientific dispute, which is whether
ethanol actually saves or increases carbon emissions over the
lifecycle of the product. There is a great deal of literature
that exists on this already. I think that that is a legitimate
desideratum if we are going to have any scientific study at all
here, and it is something that we can legitimately expect that
a scientific authority might be able to opine on.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Grayson. Yes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. This, I believe, is a very constructive
amendment, and I am happy to accept it.
Mr. Grayson. Well, thank you very much. With that in mind,
I yield the remainder of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Grayson.
All those in favor of the amendment, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The amendment is agreed to.
The gentleman is recognized for his fourth and last
amendment.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 875 offered by Mr. Grayson of
Florida. Page 5, lines----
[The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read, and the gentleman from Florida is
recognized to explain the amendment.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is simply a technical amendment striking the phrase
``ability for'' as unnecessary to the assessment of the
adequacy of misfueling mitigation plans. With that, I yield the
remainder of my time.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am happy to accept this amendment, and
I will tell Mr. Grayson, I appreciate his staff and my staff
working together, and three out of four ain't bad, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman yields back the balance of
his time, and I want to say, since Mr. Grayson actually
withdrew one of those, he is three for three. I appreciate, as
the gentleman from Wisconsin said, the constructive working
relationship between our staffs.
Let us see. Are there any other amendments to the bill? Oh,
I am sorry. We did not vote on that amendment.
All in favor of Mr. Grayson's amendment, say aye.
All opposed, nay.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Are there any other amendments? If there are no further
amendments, then the next item of business is reporting the
bill H.R. 875. Because roll call votes on amendments to the
bill are not pending. If there are no further amendments and a
reporting quorum being present, the question is on the bill
H.R. 875 as amended.
Those in favor, say aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it, and the bill as amended is ordered
reported favorably.
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll call vote.
Chairman Smith. A roll call vote has been requested, and
pursuant to Committee Rule 2(f) and House Rule XI 2(h)(4),
proceedings on this vote will be postponed, and we will go to
H.R. 1422.
***
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to the Chairman's previous order,
we will now proceed to the postponed roll call votes. The
Committee will vote on postponed matters in the order in which
the roll call votes were requested.
First item of unfinished business of the Committee is the
postponed roll call on the bill H.R. 875, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
Mr. Sensenbrenner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
Mr. Neugebauer?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. McCaul?
Mr. McCaul. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Mr. Broun?
Mr. Broun. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
Mr. Palazzo?
Mr. Palazzo. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes aye.
Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
Mr. Bucshon?
Mr. Bucshon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes aye.
Mr. Stockman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes aye.
Mrs. Lummis?
Mrs. Lummis. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Lummis votes aye.
Mr. Schweikert?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes aye.
Mr. Cramer?
Mr. Cramer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes no.
Mr. Bridenstine?
Mr. Bridenstine. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine votes aye.
Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes aye.
Mr. Stewart?
Mr. Stewart. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Stewart votes aye.
Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
Ms. Lofgren?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. Lipinski. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
Ms. Edwards?
Ms. Edwards. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes no.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes no.
Mr. Swalwell?
Mr. Swalwell. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Swalwell votes no.
Mr. Maffei?
Mr. Maffei. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Maffei votes no.
Mr. Grayson?
Mr. Grayson. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes no.
The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy?
Mr. Kennedy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy votes no.
Mr. Peters?
Mr. Peters. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes no.
Mr. Kilmer?
Mr. Kilmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes no.
Ms. Esty?
Ms. Esty. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes no.
Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes no.
Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Brownley votes no.
Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Smith. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Texas
is recognized.
The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
Chairman Smith. Are there any other Members who wish to
vote or to change their vote?
Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Broun. Mr. Sensenbrenner----
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the vote.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 18 Members voted aye, 16 Members
voted nay.
Chairman Smith. The ayes have it and the bill is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table and I move that the bill H.R. 875 as amended be
favorably reported to the House and the staff be authorized to
make any necessary technical and conforming changes.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. And without objection, so ordered.
The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Would you review that vote total for
Democratic side?
Chairman Smith. I believe the vote total is 18 to 16, but
we will review it.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 18 Members voted aye, 17 Members
voted nay.
Ms. Johnson. Okay.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.033
Appendix I:
----------
H.R. 875 TO PROVIDE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF MID-LEVEL
ETHANOL BLENDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendments,
Amendment Roster
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.006
Section-by-Section Analysis of
H.R. 875 TO PROVIDE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF MID-LEVEL
ETHANOL BLENDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Purpose: To provide for a comprehensive assessment of the scientific
and technical research on the implications of the use of mid-level
ethanol blends, and for other purposes.
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
Section 1 provides definitions, including: ``Administrator'' and
``Mid-Level Ethanol Blend.''
SECTION 2. EVALUATION
Section 2 (a) requires the Administrator, acting through the
Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development at
the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1) enter into an agreement
with the National Academies of Sciences to provide a comprehensive
assessment of the scientific and technical research on the implication
of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, including a comparison of mid-
level ethanol blends to gasoline containing ten percent or zero percent
ethanol; and (2) transmit the report to the Committee on Science, Space
and Technology and the Committee on Environment and Public Works within
thirty days of receiving the results, along with the disagreement or
agreement of the Administrator with the findings.
Section 2 (b) invalidates any waiver granted by the Agency prior to
enactment under section 211 (f) (4) of the Clean Air Act that allows
the introduction into commerce of mid-level ethanol blends. The
Administrator is prohibited from granting new waivers under section 211
(f) (4) until after the submission of the report described in
subsection (a) (2).
Section 2 (c) requires the assessment performed under subsection
(a) include: (1) an evaluation of the short and long-term
environmental, safety, durability, and performance effects of the
introduction of mid-level ethanol blends on onroad, nonroad, and marine
engines, vehicles, and related equipment. The evaluation shall also
include consideration of the impacts of qualifying mid-level ethanol
blends or blends with higher ethanol concentration as a certification
fuel, and a review of all available scientific evidence, including all
relevant government and industry data and testing, including that which
was relied upon by the Administrator and published in the federal
register. Additionally, the study shall identify gaps in understanding
and research needs related to (A) tailpipe emissions; (B) evaporative
systems; (C) engine and fuel system durability; (D) onboard
diagnostics; (E) emissions inventory and other modeling effects; (F)
materials compatibility; (G) operability and drivability; (H) fuel
efficiency; (J) consumer education and satisfaction; (K) cost-
effectiveness for the consumer; (L) catalyst durability; and (M)
durability of storage tanks, piping, and dispensers for retail.
The study shall also include: (2) An identification of areas of
research, development, and testing necessary to (A) ensure that
existing motor fuel infrastructure is not adversely impacted by mid-
level ethanol blends; and (B) reduce the risk of misfueling by users at
various points in the distribution and supply chain by: (i) assessing
the best methods and practices to prevent misfueling; (ii) examining
misfueling mitigation strategies for blender pumps; (iii) assessing the
adequacy and ability of misfueling mitigations plans approved by EPA;
and (iv) examining the technical standards and recommendation of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American National
Standards Institute, and the International Organization for
Standardization regarding fuel pump labeling.
SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Section 3 allows the Administrator to utilize up to $900,000 from
the funds made available for science and technology, including research
and development activities, at the Environmental Protection Agency to
carry out this Act.
Amendments
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.032
Amendment Roster
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.015
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Union of Concerned Scientists' letter submitted by
Congressman James Sensenbrenner
Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund,
Clean Water Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Earthjustice,
League of Conservation Voters' letter submitted by
Congressman James Sensenbrenner