Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

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