[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1272-H1282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MTBE, A PROBLEM FOR THE WHOLE NATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Ganske) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 60 Minutes broadcast into the 
homes of millions of Americans an important story about water quality. 
A chemical additive is used to improve a car's performance and clean 
the air. It has seeps into groundwater supplies throughout the Nation. 
It makes water stink. It causes water to smell and taste like 
turpentine, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency thinks it may 
cause cancer.
  This chemical is methyl tert-butyl ether, MTBE.
  Mr. Speaker, here is a sample of MTBE in this vial. If I smell this, 
oo-wee, this stuff smells bad. I will say something else. It takes only 
one teaspoon of this stuff to make an Olympic-sized swimming pool smell 
and taste like this sample, like turpentine.
  This little vial here contains several teaspoons of MTBE. 60 Minutes 
reported that MTBE-contaminated water is being found all across the 
country, in places like Santa Monica, Albuquerque, Denver, Dallas, 
among other places.
  Water wells in Long Island and New Jersey are contaminated with this 
stuff. One could say, okay, I can see how it got into the water there. 
A lot of MTBE is used in those markets.
  Well, I want to say something. It is not only a problem in those 
high-use areas. Last month, Iowa's Department of Natural Resources 
issued a report that showed that 32 percent of groundwater samples had 
MTBE levels of at least 15 micrograms per liter.
  What is worse is that 29 percent of the groundwater samples had MTBE 
concentrations above the level at which EPA issues a drinking water 
advisory. Think about this. There is no MTBE sold or used in Iowa 
today. Yet 29 percent of groundwater samples in Iowa qualify for a 
Federal drinking water advisory due to contamination of this product.
  So how can that be? Well, probably some of it is residual from years 
before when an MTBE might have been used in my State.

                              {time}  2245

  But much of MTBE comes from cars just driving through Iowa or maybe 
from two cylinder engines spewing MTBE blended gasoline.
  These few teaspoons of MTBE will contaminate several Olympic-sized 
swimming pools. Let us assume that this vial contains 2 ounces of MTBE. 
It probably contains less. But for the sake of argument, let us say it 
is 2 ounces. To comply with the oxygenate requirement of the Clean Air 
Act, MTBE must be added at a volume of 11 percent.
  In a large sport utility vehicle with a gasoline tank capacity of 25 
gallons, this means that approximately 128 of these vials are being 
carried around in sport utility vehicle gas tanks. If that sport 
utility vehicle gas tank were to empty into a lake, that amount of MTBE 
would contaminate about 375 Olympic-sized pools.
  To further demonstrate the potency of this chemical, those 128 vials 
of MTBE would render 71.5 million gallons of water undrinkable. And 
MTBE moves through water very quickly. It is incredibly difficult and 
expensive to remove.
  Mr. Speaker, we must address this issue now. What is the problem? Why 
do we not just ban MTBE? Well, this is where the issue of clean air 
arises. When I mentioned that MTBE makes fuel burn cleaner, this is 
because it adds oxygen to the gasoline.
  The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 established what is called the 
Reformulated Gasoline Program to address poor air quality in the 
Nation's most polluted cities. To achieve cleaner air, Congress 
required refiners in reformulated gasoline areas to blend 2 percent by 
weight of an oxygenate into their gasoline.
  Now, this practice has produced significant air quality improvements 
throughout the Nation by dramatically reducing harmful automobile 
emissions; therefore, we simply cannot remove MTBE without replacing it 
with another oxygenate.
  Some have recommended eliminating the oxygen requirement altogether, 
arguing that will solve the MTBE problem, that would trade air quality 
for water quality, and that is not an acceptable solution, nor is it 
necessary.
  Nonetheless, on Monday, the administration released a set of 
legislative principles regarding the problems associated with MTBE. 
They recommended that Congress do the following: First, phase out or 
eliminate MTBE. I think that is a good idea. I am glad the 
administration has finally decided to take an official position on this 
issue.
  Their second point, ensure air quality gains are not diminished, and 
I say right on. The reformulated gasoline program of the Clean Air Act 
has produced terrific reductions in automobile emissions. I am glad 
that the administration decided to take an official position on 
environmental positions.
  Third, the administration said replace the 2 percent by weight oxygen 
requirement with a 1.2 percent by volume renewable fuels standard. Now, 
this is where I have some concerns.
  The administration identified MTBE as the problem and also committed 
to ensuring air quality, but then it abandons the program which has 
produced air quality benefits for millions of Americans, the oxygen 
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
  I want to read to you a quote from testimony submitted to the 
Committee on Commerce on May 6 by Bob Perciasepe, assistant 
administrator of air and radiation at the EPA who said, quote, ozone 
has been linked to a number of health effect concerns, ozone. Repeated 
exposures to ozone can make people more susceptible to respiratory 
infection, result in lung inflammation and aggravate preexisting 
respiratory diseases, such as asthma. Other health effects attributed 
to ozone exposures include significant decreases in lung function and 
increased respiratory symptoms, such as pain, chest pain and coughing.

  Mr. Perciasepe continues, quote, reformulated gasoline is a cost 
effective way to reduce ozone precursors, such

[[Page H1273]]

as volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides when compared to other 
air quality measures.
  The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 required that reformulated 
gasoline contain 2 percent minimum oxygen content by weight. The first 
phase of the reformulated gasoline program from 1995 through 1999 
requires average reductions of ozone forming volatile organic compounds 
and toxics of 17 percent each and of nitrous oxides by 1.5 percent.
  His testimony continues, quote, in the year 2000, the second phase of 
the reformulated gasoline program will achieve even greater average 
benefits, a 27 percent reduction in volatile organic compounds, 22 
percent reduction in toxics, and a 7 percent reduction in oxides of 
nitrogen emissions that also contribute to the formation of urban smog. 
This is equivalent to taking more than 16 million vehicles off the 
road.
  Mr. Perciasepe finishes by saying ``reformulated gasoline provides 
these reductions at a cost of less than 5 cents per gallon.'' The 
reductions, Mr. Perciasepe outlined, were required in the Clean Air Act 
amendments of 1990; however, he continued to discuss the real world 
benefits of the reformulated gasoline program.
  He said ``since 1995, reformulated gasoline on average has exceeded 
expectations for volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxides and toxic 
reductions. Most notably, overall, toxic reductions are about twice 
that required, with about a 30 percent reduction versus a 17 percent 
requirement. It is estimated that about two-thirds of the additional 
air toxic reduction is a result of the use of oxygenates.''
  That is a significant reduction in emissions beyond what is required. 
In addition, when developing EPA's complex model for evaluating 
emissions, the Auto Oil Research Program found that oxygenates in 
gasoline reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide by 15 to 20 
percent.
  Why on earth, I ask you, would we want to abandon such a successful 
program? Why has the administration turned its back on sound scientific 
evidence that its own EPA administrators present to Congress? Well, I 
will tell you why. It is because the product of this vial, this stuff 
contaminates water.
  Despite the administration's call for Congress to protect air quality 
advances in advocating an elimination of the oxygen standard, the 
administration is saying we must choose between clean air and clean 
water.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not have to choose between clean air and clean 
water. We do not have to abandon the successful reformulated gasoline 
program because MTBE contaminates the water, just replace the MTBE with 
another oxygenate, a safe one, ethanol. Some of my colleagues and, 
evidently, the administration believe that MTBE and oxygen are 
synonymous.
  Even 60 Minutes said ``how did MTBE end up in gasoline? Well, 10 
years ago Congress told the oil companies to put it there, either MTBE 
or some other oxygenate that would make the gasoline burn cleaner.''
  I want my colleagues in Congress, members of the administration and 
the media to understand a very important point, nowhere in the EPA 
regulations or in the Clean Air Act does it say that refineries must 
blend MTBE in their gasoline to comply with the requirements of 
the reformulated gasoline program.

  It just so happens that refiners chose MTBE in large quantities to 
ensure compliance. Now, why did they do this? Well, because this 
product, MTBE, is an oil product. The refiners can make MTBE right in 
their existing facilities or they can purchase it from oil suppliers. 
The availability of this stuff compelled many to turn to it 
exclusively.
  Now, I understand the economic motivation, but neither Congress, nor 
EPA required them to use MTBE. Refiners made that decision on their 
own, and it turns out it was a very bad decision.
  Now, if you want to solve the MTBE problem, ban MTBE. The 
administration is on the right track in that regard. But when you 
remove MTBE and lift the oxygen requirement, you introduce a whole new 
set of environmental problems.
  We have to fix real problems, like MTBE water contamination, we 
should not abandon real solutions, like oxygenated fuels.
  Last month Dr. Michael Graboski, director of the Colorado Institute 
of Fuels and Higher Altitude Engineer Research, testified before the 
Committee on Commerce about the characteristics of oxygenated fuels. He 
told us that oxygenates in gasoline replace aromatics to increase the 
fuel's octane. That is a good trade-off, because aromatic compounds are 
highly toxic, and some, like benzene, are known human carcinogens. They 
cause cancer.
  Dr. Graboski told us that if the oxygenate requirement is lifted, 
refiners will replace oxygenates with aromatics resulting in more 
potent toxic emissions. The level of potency measures the degree or 
strength to which certain compounds pose a risk to human health.
  Dr. Graboski said ``the toxic potency of aromatics and their 
combustion by-products are, in many cases, orders of magnitude greater 
than the potency of oxygenates or their combustion by-products.'' To 
explain this he said ``all toxics are not created equal, but the mass 
standard of the Clean Air Act treats them as equal.
  Let me be clear, the oxygen requirement in reformulated gasoline has 
a real and substantial benefit because clean burning oxygenates are 
substitutes for highly toxic aromatics.''
  Well, to test Dr. Graboski's assertion that aromatics would be used 
to replace oxygen if MTBE were banned, I asked Mr. Bob Campbell, CEO of 
Sunoco, I asked Mr. Campbell if the oxygen requirement was waived and 
MTBE was phased out, what would you use in your gasoline to ensure 
emissions reductions do not rise? He responded, ``I would expect that 
the first hydrocarbon that would go in would be potentially some 
toluene.''
  Mr. Speaker, toluene is one of those toxic aromatics that Dr. 
Graboski warned about. In summary, if we remove oxygenates from 
gasoline, refiners will replace them with aromatics. The emissions from 
many of these aromatics are cancer-causing. Furthermore, the toxics 
that are emitted from aromatics are more dangerous to human health than 
the toxics emitted from oxygenated fuels. So we should not regress to a 
market of gasolines with high aromatic content.
  What does this all mean? It means if you want to solve the problem of 
water contaminated with MTBE, ban MTBE. If you want to maintain clean 
air, use oxygenated fuels. Fortunately, these are not mutually 
exclusive goals. We do not have to choose between clean air and clean 
water. The administration's legislative proposal makes a false choice. 
It does not solve the problem, but it potentially creates new problems.

                              {time}  2300

  So I have introduced legislation, along with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) that solves this problem and, unlike the 
administration's proposal, does not create new ones. My bill, H.R. 
4011, the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000, addresses the 
problems of MTBE in gasoline and in water, preserves the air quality 
benefits of the Clean Air Act, and promotes renewable ethanol.
  Specifically, my bill will first, phase out MTBE in 3 years and urge 
refiners to replace it with ethanol. Ethanol is a much more 
environmentally friendly oxygenate than MTBE. Based on EPA's 1998 
complex model comparing an 11 percent volume blend of MTBE with a 10 
percent volume blend of ethanol, as used in the oxy-fuels program, we 
find that both products produce equivalent emissions reduction of 
aromatics, olefiants, volatile organic compounds and nitrous oxides. 
The toxic emissions of ethanol-blended gasoline are less potent than 
those emitted from MTBE-blended fuels. Using 1.00 as the potency for 
toxic emissions from nonoxygenated fuels, i.e. regular gasoline without 
any oxygenated compounds, the potency of MTBE computes to 0.94, while 
the potency of ethanol is 0.875. Ethanol is less toxic than MTBE in 
emissions.
  Furthermore, when MTBE is spilled into water, it causes considerably 
more trouble. As I mentioned before, this vial, the small vial with an 
ounce or so can contaminate several Olympic-sized swimming pools. On 
another scale, one could take 1 gallon of this chemical,

[[Page H1274]]

 just 1 gallon of MTBE and it will contaminate 26 million gallons of 
water. The high solubility of this compound, MTBE in ground water, 
causes its high mobility. It is also resistant to bio breakdown. This 
allows it to spread very quickly and it allows it to stay in the water 
for a long, long time.
  On the other hand, ethanol does not have a negative effect on water 
quality. Its movement and persistence in ground water is controlled 
primarily through biodegradation and it rapidly breaks down in 
virtually any environment. Ethanol is a naturally occurring product; it 
is produced during the fermentation of organic matter; it has been 
found to occur naturally in lake sediments, the tissue of living and 
decaying plants, in sewage sludge and many other environments. Also, 
plants are known to metabolize ethanol and incorporate the carbon from 
ethanol into plant tissues. As a bio-based, naturally occurring 
product, ethanol represents an environmentally friendly alternative to 
this stuff, MTBE.
  As we say in Iowa, Mr. Speaker, with ethanol, we can drink the best 
and we can drive the rest.
  In order to replace MTBE in the Nation's fuel supply, the ethanol 
industry must produce about 3.1 billion gallons each year. That is the 
estimate. Last year, the industry estimated its production capacity at 
1.8 billion gallons, but since then, several new plants have come on 
board, increasing capacity by several hundred thousand gallons and 
pushing the new capacity to above 2 billion gallons per year. It will 
not be difficult for many of the existing ethanol plants to increase 
their production. Ethanol processing units are modular and they can be 
expanded at relatively low cost.
  With this ability to increase production, the ethanol industry would 
be able to satisfy the demands of the reformulated gasoline program by 
the time the bad stuff is phased out. Adequate transition time is 
necessary.
  Besides replacing MTBE with ethanol, my bill would also address 
existing water contamination, as I mentioned earlier. Areas of this 
country are struggling to find clean water. Santa Monica must import 
all of its water because its own groundwater is contaminated. South 
Lake Tahoe is in the same dire straits. Long Island is surrounded by 
contaminated water. We cannot address the MTBE problem by only removing 
MTBE from gasoline. The MTBE contamination I mentioned in Iowa is 
relatively minimal compared to these other communities, but my own 
constituents are concerned also. My bill would direct the Federal 
Government to own up to its share of its responsibility and do what it 
can to help these communities figure out how to clean up the existing 
contamination.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of a memorandum from the U.S. EPA from 
1987. At this time, EPA reported that ``Known cases of drinking water 
contamination have been reported in 4 States. These cases affect 
individual families as well as towns of up to 20,000 people. It is 
possible that this problem could rapidly mushroom due to leaking 
underground storage tanks at service stations. The tendency of MTBE to 
separate from the gasoline mixture into groundwater could lead to 
widespread drinking water contamination.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is in this EPA memo from 1987. I submit this 
document for the Record.


                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                                   Washington, DC.

                               Memorandum

     Subject: Division Director Briefing for Methyl tert-Butyl 
         Ether (MTBE)
     From: Beth Anderson, Project Manager, Test Rules Development 
         Branch (TS-778)
     To: Addressees
       Attached are the briefing materials for the course setting 
     meeting on MTBE. The meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 
     13, 1987 in Room 103 of NE Mall at 11 am to noon. Please 
     bring the attached information with you at that time.
       Attachment.


   methyl tert-butyl ether (1634-04-4) Course-Setting Recommendations

     (1) ITC recommendations: (Recommended with intent-to-
         designate November 1, 1986)
       A. Health Effects:
       (1) Chronic inhalation toxicity including neurotoxic, 
     hematologic, and oncogenetic effects.
       B. Chemical Fate:
       (1) Monitoring studies to determine typical concentrations 
     of MTBE in the breathing zone of workers and consumers at 
     sites where MTBE-containing gasoline is being transferred, 
     including gasoline terminals and service stations.
       Rationale: The basis for these concerns was: the dramatic 
     increase in T-MTBE production and use in the past few years. 
     As lead is phased out, MTBE has filled the role of octane 
     enhancer which is added to many gasoline blends. Workers and 
     consumers are exposed to vapor emissions via skin contact and 
     inhalation when transferring MTBE or MTBE-containing 
     gasoline.
     (2) TRDB Recommendations
       A. Finding 4(a)(1)(B)
       There was a production capacity of approximately 4 billion 
     pounds for MTBE in 1986. At least two major companies are 
     building new plants to produce MTBE. NIOSH estimates worker 
     exposure at 2,571 workers, but it is unclear during what 
     processes these workers are exposed. There are 189,200 
     ``private'' service stations and approximately 300,000 
     service station attendants, so exposure to MTBE vapor is 
     greater than the NIOSH estimate.
       Concern about MTBE in drinking water surfaced after the ITC 
     report was published. Known cases of drinking water 
     contamination have been reported in 4 states. These cases 
     affect individual families as well as towns of up to 20,000 
     people. It is possible that this problem could rapidly 
     mushroom due to leaking underground storage tanks at service 
     stations. The tendency for MTBE to separate from the gasoline 
     mixture into ground water could lead to wide spread drinking 
     water contamination.
     (3) Background information
       A. Chemical Description
       Methyl tert-butyl ether (or 2-methoxy-2-methyl propane) is 
     a clear liquid with a vapor pressure of 245 mm Hg. The water 
     solubility of MTBE has been estimated at 40,000 to 51,260 mg/
     L. The high value of the Henry's law constant, 5.8 
     10-4, indicates that MTBE will volatilize from 
     water. The estimated halflife of MTBE is 2.5 hours in a 
     stream and 137 days in a 50 m deep lake. The halflife of 
     MTBE in the air is estimated between 3 to 6 days based on 
     the reaction of MTBE with hydroxyl radicals in polluted 
     and normal atmospheres respectively.
       B. Manufacturing Process and Use
       MTBE is made from isobutylene and methanol in the presence 
     of an acidic ion-exchange resin catalyst in the liquid phase 
     at temperatures between 30-100 deg.C and 7-14 atm. MTBE can 
     be manufactured in either a 1 or 2 stage reactor. Chemical 
     Marketing Reporting estimated that MTBE production will grow 
     19% per year between 1985 and 1990. MTBE is used almost 
     exclusively as an octane enhancer in unleaded gasoline. 
     Typical MTBE content ranges from 2-8% by volume, although use 
     of up to 11% by volume has been approved by EPA.
       Minute quantities of MTBE have been used in an experimental 
     procedure to dissolve gallstones using injection of MTBE 
     through a catheter. MTBE is also used as a solvent in some 
     liquid chromatography procedures.
     Issues
       (1) Mode of exposure for health effects testing.
       ECAD recommends that the potential hazards due to dermal, 
     oral and inhalation exposure be evaluated. Two 90-day 
     subchronic tests, one by oral route, one by inhalation should 
     be conducted. A pharmacokinetics study relating dermal, oral, 
     and inhalation exposure should also be done. EPA will use the 
     results of this testing to determine the route of exposure 
     for the bioassay and remaining tests.
       (2) ITC request for monitoring study to determine MTBE 
     vapor concentrations at sites of MTBE-containing gasoline 
     transfer.
       ECAD does not recommend a monitoring study for MTBE vapor. 
     ECAD believes that studies of gasoline vapor release can be 
     combined with information on MTBE vapor concentration above 
     MTBE-containing gasoline to estimate consumer exposure to 
     MTBE vapor. Contacts with regional offices have been made to 
     determine if there is regional interest in monitoring 
     information.
       (3) ECAD recommends adherance to the previous OTS policy of 
     requiring the end points obtained in a two generation 
     reproduction and fertility study. A single generation 
     reproduction/fertility study by inhalation was submitted 
     under TSCA 8(d).

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     8(d) Submissions
                                                 -----------------------
            Tests              Maxi-B    Full-B                   Not
                                                   Adequate    adequate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub chronic.................  ........        X   ..........          X
Oncogenicity................        X     \1\ X   ..........  ..........
Developmental Toxicity......        X         X           ?   ..........
Reproduction and fertility..        X         X   ..........          X
Gene Mutation...............        X         X           ?   ..........
Chromosomal Aberrations.....        X         X   ..........  ..........
Neurotoxicity...............        X         X   ..........  ..........
Pharmacokinetics............        X   ........  ..........          X
Dermal Sensitization........        X         X   ..........  ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trigger.

  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, because the EPA knew the potential for 
widespread MTBE water contamination back in 1987, I think it shares 
some responsibility in helping States remedy contaminated water 
supplies. Therefore, my bill raises the importance of MTBE within the 
Safe Drinking Water Act and directs EPA to provide technical assistance 
to States for the removal of MTBE from water. It is essential that 
these communities receive some support in their efforts to reclaim 
their drinking water supplies.

[[Page H1275]]

  My bill would also address concerns about the volatility of ethanol 
during warm weather months by allowing oxygen-averaging. Some opponents 
of ethanol have claimed that its higher volatility during warm months 
makes it inappropriate for use in some markets. The Clean Air Act 
amendments of 1990 required that refiners blend 2 percent oxygen by 
weight into all gasoline sold in the reformulated gasoline program. 
However, when enacting the law, the EPA inserted into the regulations a 
minimum per-gallon oxygen content requirement. Refiners have said this 
per-gallon requirement is too restrictive.
  My bill, H.R. 4011, strikes that regulation in order to allow 
refiners flexibility in complying with the Clean Air Act. By providing 
refiners with that flexibility, they can decide how best to blend 
oxygen into their gasoline. They would be able to increase the gasoline 
content in high octane fuels and reduce it in lower octane fuels, as 
best fits their business plan. They would also be able to increase 
oxygen content during winter months and reduce it during summer months. 
As long as they averaged 2 percent content-by-weight through the year, 
they would be in compliance. This would help them address the 
volatility of ethanol during warm weather and maximize the blending 
formulations of their gasoline. However, when providing that 
flexibility, we must not allow emissions levels to increase. Therefore, 
my bill includes stringent anti-backsliding environmental protections.
  Bob Perciasepe of the EPA testified that oxygenated fuels of the 
reformulated gasoline program have greatly exceeded the expectations 
for emissions reductions. Therefore, when we consider any legislation 
that amends this portion of the Clean Air Act, it is essential that we 
take these real-world achievements into consideration and ensure that 
emissions do not exceed those levels. The Clean Air and Water 
Preservation Act of 2000 raises the bar of the Clean Air Act emissions 
requirements to real-world, more environmentally sound levels being 
experienced in the reformulated gasoline program today.

                              {time}  2310

  At no time in reformulated gasoline areas will the emissions levels 
be allowed to exceed those currently achievable by fully oxygenated 
fuels. Therefore, while the bill gives refiners a flexibility to market 
a variety of fuel blends, it ensures that the air quality in the 
reformulated gasoline areas is not negatively impacted. That is sound 
environmental legislation.
  Yet, controlling emissions is not sufficient. As I mentioned earlier, 
if we reduce the use of oxygenates in gasoline, refiners may add more 
aromatics. That is not acceptable. Therefore, H.R. 4011 prohibits 
refiners from increasing the aromatic content of gasoline above current 
levels.
  Finally, H.R. 4011 directs the EPA and the Department of Energy to 
work on developing alternative oxygenates. Ethanol is a ready, viable 
alternative. But we can seek many different sources of oxygen.
  I believe H.R. 4011 effectively solves the MTBE problem in both 
gasoline and water. It protects the environment. It promotes the 
expanded use of the renewable fuel ethanol. We do not have to choose 
between clean air and clean water. With ethanol, we can have both.
  I think it is very important that we promote renewable fuels. By 
replacing MTBE with ethanol, as my bill does, we will greatly increase 
the use of renewable fuels in this country. Under this bill, the use of 
renewable ethanol would increase from 1.5 billion gallons last year to 
more than 3.1 billion gallons in the year 2004. That increased usage 
would be spread throughout the Nation benefiting air and water quality 
and reducing the use of fossil fuels.
  The administration's proposal does not promote an expanded use of 
renewable fuels. It holds its use at the status quo. For example, if 
the administration's 1.2 percent average renewable content provision 
would be enacted into law, it would not increase the use of renewable 
fuels in America. Rather, it would set a floor for the use of renewable 
fuels below which the refining industry could not drop. Well, that 
floor is equivalent to the current level of renewable fuel used 
throughout the Nation. That is the status quo.
  The administration's proposed 1.2 percent would be the average volume 
content of all gasoline sold throughout America, not just in 
reformulated gasoline areas. So the likely outcome would be a 
concentration in the use of ethanol and biodiesel in the Midwest with 
no discernible increase in the use of renewable fuels in other parts of 
the country. That would not greatly advance our energy security, nor 
expand the potential for a renewable market.
  If the administration is truly sincere about promoting the use of 
renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, it should simply encourage 
Congress and refiners to replace MTBE with ethanol. That would more 
than double the use of renewable fuels throughout the Nation rather 
than stagnating their use at our current levels. It would reduce our 
dependence on fossil fuels.
  Those concerned with the human impacts on climate change and 
emissions of greenhouse gases should pay close attention to this. While 
the use of ethanol and gasoline has not been shown to significantly 
reduce emissions in greenhouse gases from automobiles, it does 
significantly replace the use of fossil fuel components in gasoline. 
That helps reduce the fossil fuel contribution to greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  My bill would greatly enhance the market potential for renewable 
fuels. Expanding the role of ethanol is a vital component of renewable 
energy. This bill is the best way to accomplish this.
  In addition to the environmental benefits of renewable fuels like 
ethanol, the Department of Agriculture has clearly demonstrated a 
positive impact on ethanol on America's agricultural community.
  A report by the USDA details the benefits America's farmers will 
experience if we replace MTBE with ethanol. It would increase demand 
for corn by more than 500 million bushels per year. It would increase 
the average price of corn by 14 cents per bushel each year through the 
year 2010. It would create 13,000 new jobs by the year 2010. It would 
increase the average total farm cash receipts by an average of $1 
billion each year.
  It would significantly reduce the need for emergency agricultural 
assistance payments, something that my colleagues spoke about tonight 
when they were talking about the budget, or at least they should have. 
It would increase U.S. agricultural net export value by more than $200 
million each year.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the USDA report for the Record, as follows:

 Economic Analysis of Replacing MTBE With Ethanol in the United States

       This paper analyzes the effects of replacing MTBE with 
     ethanol. The analysis assumes that the current Federal oxygen 
     content requirement for reformulated gasoline (RFG) is 
     continued. The following issues are examined: The effects on 
     farm prices and net farm income; the effects on U.S. trade; 
     the effects on employment in the United States; the effects 
     on Department of Agriculture (USDA) farm program spending 
     from increased demand for corn attributable to greater 
     ethanol production; and the logistical issues associated with 
     supplying substantial quantities of ethanol to new markets, 
     including an assessment of the capacity for transporting and 
     storing ethanol to meet the demands of these markets.


                 assumptions and analytical procedures

       Although California has decided to phase-out MTBE by 2002, 
     most other states have not taken any actions regarding the 
     use of MTBE. This analysis assumes all MTBE in the United 
     States is phased-out and replaced with ethanol. In order to 
     allow for production capacity and other infrastructure 
     adjustments, the phase-out is assumed to begin in 2000 and 
     end in 2004 when all oxygen demand for the RFG and carbon 
     monoxide (CO) markets is met with ethanol. In addition, the 
     analysis assumes Congress maintains the oxygen standards 
     adopted by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; the current 
     gasoline oxygen requirement in California for Federal RFG is 
     maintained; all new ethanol capacity brought on comes from 
     large dry mills; 90 percent of U.S. ethanol is produced from 
     corn, with the remaining 10 percent produced from sorghum, 
     barley, wheat, and waste products. The rate at which ethanol 
     replaces MTBE is assumed to start out gradually and 
     accelerate over time as the ethanol industry expands capacity 
     to meet the increase in demand.
       An economic model of the U.S. agricultural sector was used 
     to estimate the effects of replacing MTBE with ethanol on the 
     U.S. agricultural economy over the period 2000-2010. The 
     econometric model, the Economic Research Service's Food and 
     Agricultural Policy Simulator (FAPSIM), estimates production, 
     use and prices of major crops and livestock products; retail 
     food prices; and

[[Page H1276]]

     net farm income. The method of analysis compares projections 
     of market variables under a baseline that assumes continued 
     use of MTBE with projections of those variables under the 
     assumed 4-year phase-out of MTBE.
       The baseline for the analysis is the President's FY 2000 
     Budget projections. The baseline assumes provisions of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 
     Farm Bill) continue through 2010. The baseline includes 
     projections of farm prices, production, domestic use 
     (including corn use for ethanol), exports, net farm income 
     and food prices for the period 1999-2010.
       The President's FY 2000 Budget projections are based on 
     specific assumptions formulated at the end of last year 
     regarding the macro economy, weather, and international 
     developments. As a result, the baseline does not reflect the 
     current very weak price situation for most major crops, 
     including corn. However, over the next few years, crop prices 
     are likely to improve as the world economy improves and as 
     world grain and oilseed production declines in response to 
     low prices and less favorable weather.
       A 1992 input-output (I-O) multiplier model was used to 
     estimate the effects of replacing MTBE with ethanol on U.S. 
     employment. Data from the 1993 County Business Patterns (U.S. 
     Department of Commerce) were used to estimate employment 
     effects for the Corn Belt region.


                        mtbe phase-out scenario

       In 1998, about 1.5 billion gallons of denatured ethanol 
     were consumed in the United States--about 384 million gallons 
     were used in RFG and 1.1 billion gallons went to other 
     markets such as the CO and octane markets (table 1). Before 
     denaturing, corn-ethanol consumption equaled 1.3 billion 
     gallons in 1998 and approaches 1.5 billion gallons in 2004 in 
     the USDA baseline projections (table 2). In order to meet the 
     oxygen needs met by MTBE, ethanol production under the MTBE 
     phase-out would have to rise to 3.0 billion gallons in 2004. 
     Some ethanol is assumed to be bid away from lower-value 
     octane markets and move to RFG markets.
       The volume of ethanol required in a gallon of RFG is less 
     than MTBE volume because 5.7 percent ethanol replaces 11 
     percent MTBE, at 2 percent oxygen. The reduced volume of 
     ethanol raises an issue of how the market will compensate for 
     the volume reduction. This analysis concludes that refineries 
     will replace volume and octane with increased alkylate 
     production. Refiners with the processing capability will 
     convert the isobutylene currently used for MTBE to alkylate. 
     Alkylate has a high octane rating and can be used to produce 
     premium gasoline. In addition, merchant producers looking for 
     alternatives to MTBE production will purchase isobutylene 
     from refineries and switch their MTBE production to alkylate. 
     Thus, the feedstocks that were used to produce MTBE will 
     remain in the gasoline pool in the form of alkylate. It is 
     assumed that the current supply of isobutylene used in MTBE 
     production is sufficient to produce enough alkylate to offset 
     the volume shortage created by ethanol. Consequently, the 
     analysis assumes the quantity of gasoline consumed in the 
     United States is the same under the baseline and the MTBE 
     phase-out scenario.


                              farm effects

       The MTBE phase-out is projected to increase the amount of 
     ethanol produced from corn by 72 million gallons in 2000 and 
     by 1.4 billion gallons per year in 2010 (table 2). The 
     increase in ethanol production would increase the demand for 
     corn above baseline by 28 million bushels in 2000 to over 500 
     million bushels per year beginning in 2004. The analysis 
     assumes all of the increase in corn-ethanol production occurs 
     in new dry mills, which produce 2.6 gallons of ethanol per 
     bushel of corn, and 17 pounds of distillers dried grains 
     (DDG) with 27-percent protein. DDG are assumed to substitute 
     for soybean meal on an equivalent protein basis (table 2).
       The increase in ethanol demand resulting from MTBE's phase-
     out is projected to increase the average price of corn by 
     about $0.16 per bushel in 2010 and about $0.14 bushel 
     annually over the study period, 2000-2010 (table 3). Higher 
     corn prices cause feed use of other crops to increase, 
     leading to price increases of other grains, including 
     sorghum, barley, oats, and wheat. Soybean prices are 
     projected to decline by less than 1 percent. Higher corn 
     prices reduce soybean production, but the decline in 
     production is about offset by lower demand for soybean meal 
     resulting from the increase in DDG production. Soybean oil 
     prices increase in response to lower soybean production, but 
     soybean meal prices fall in the face of increased competition 
     in the protein feed market.
       For cattle, hog and dairy producers, feed costs increase as 
     higher corn prices more than offset the drop in soybean meal 
     prices (table 3). In contrast, poultry, turkey, and egg 
     producers feed a higher portion of protein in their rations, 
     and for these producers, feed costs decline. Generally, the 
     effects on feed costs are very modest and there is little 
     change in livestock production and prices. Milk, steer and 
     hog prices are 1 to 2 percent higher, whereas poultry prices 
     are 1 to 2 percent lower on average over the 2000-2010 
     period.
       Total farm cash receipts are projected to average $1.0 
     billion higher during 2000-2010 compared with the baseline 
     (table 4). Corn cash receipts rise due to higher prices and 
     more production (table 5). Over the period 2000-2010, cash 
     receipts for corn average $1.2 billion higher and increase by 
     over $1.6 billion, or about 9 percent, during 2010 (table 5). 
     Cash receipts for other feed grains and wheat also increase. 
     In contrast, slightly lower production (less than 2 percent) 
     and lower prices reduce soybean cash receipts by an average 
     of $315 million per year. Total livestock cash receipts 
     increase by less than 0.1 percent (table 6). Annual net farm 
     income is projected to average over $1.0 billion higher 
     during 2000-2010. Cumulatively over the 2000-2010 period, net 
     farm income increases by about $12 billion (table 4).


                            effects on trade

       The MTBE phase-out is projected to increase prices for corn 
     and other agricultural commodities causing the average U.S. 
     agricultural net export value to increase by about $200 
     million per year (table 7). The export value for grains and 
     feeds increase by about $225 million per year, while the 
     export value of oilseeds and oilseed products decline 
     slightly. The export value of livestock and animal products 
     remains nearly unchanged.
       The MTBE phase-out is expected to eliminate MTBE imports, 
     since one third of the MTBE currently consumed in the United 
     States is imported. Based on Energy Information 
     Administration (EIA) gasoline consumption projections, MTBE 
     consumption is expected to increase about 2 percent per year 
     without an MTBE phase-out. Assuming that the current price of 
     MTBE (about $0.72 per gallon) will increase by almost 1 
     percent annually, the import value of MTBE would average 
     about $1.1 billion per year. Thus replacing MTBE with ethanol 
     would reduce import value by $1.1 billion per year and almost 
     $12 billion from 2000-2010 (table 7). The net increase in 
     agricultural exports combined with the decrease in MTBE 
     imports is projected to result in an average annual positive 
     increase in the U.S. balance of trade of $1.3 billion per 
     year.


                           employment effects

       Input-output analysis indicates that employment from 
     increasing ethanol production to 3.4 billion gallons 
     (denatured) in 2010 would create 13,000 additional jobs 
     across the entire economy. Over a third of the new jobs, or 
     4,300, would be in the ethanol sector itself. Another 6,400 
     jobs would be in the trade and transportation and service 
     sectors. Farm sector jobs increase by 575. Jobs in other 
     industry, food processing, and energy sectors also increase 
     by another 1,600 in 2010.
       The Corn Belt region produces almost 80 percent of U.S. 
     ethanol production. Thus, 80 percent of the new jobs in 
     ethanol production, or about 3,600 jobs, are expected to 
     occur in this region. In addition, the MTBE phase-out would 
     create about 700 jobs in trade and transportation, 500 jobs 
     in other services, and 400 jobs in energy, food processing 
     and other industries in this region. The potential loss of 
     U.S. jobs from reducing MTBE imports were not estimated.


                           farm program costs

       The increase in ethanol production with a MTBE phase-out 
     would be eligible for the Federal excise tax exemption on 
     gasoline, or equivalent tax credit, which would reduce 
     federal tax revenues. The exemption is currently $0.54 per 
     gallon and it is scheduled to drop to $0.53 on January 1, 
     2001, $0.52 on January 1, 2003 and $0.51 on January 1, 2005. 
     Under the current law, the tax exemption expires on December 
     31, 2006.
       Under the FY 2000 President's Budget baseline, farm crop 
     prices are expected to strengthen from current levels, which 
     results in increased ethanol use having little to no impact 
     on the cost of farm price and income support programs during 
     the projection period. While loan deficiency payments and 
     marketing loan gains are currently forecast to reach $5.5 
     billion for the 1999 crops, these payments are projected to 
     drop rapidly under the baseline after the current year under 
     the projected price increases. And, since 1996 Farm Bill 
     production flexibility contract payments are not tied to the 
     level of market prices, these farm program costs do not fall 
     as market prices for corn and other grains increase, compared 
     with the baseline. However, farm prices are extremely 
     volatile and farm prices and incomes could fall enough in the 
     future to trigger loan deficiency payments and marketing loan 
     gains and, possibly, emergency aid to offset declines in farm 
     income. Higher corn and other grain prices under the MTBE 
     phase-out would lessen the need for emergency relief and 
     reduce loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains 
     should prices soften considerably from baseline levels. Where 
     loan deficiency payments are being made, each $0.10 increase 
     in corn prices could lower farm program outlays by about $1 
     billion per year.


                         transportation effects

       Initially, ethanol is expected to be shipped by barge to 
     the Gulf and distributed to fuel blenders through customary 
     shipping channels. However, it is likely rail transport would 
     play an increasing role as the demand for ethanol increases, 
     and more rail connections between ethanol plants and refiners 
     are developed. In the long term, several transportation 
     options, including barge, rail, ocean vessels, and trucks 
     would be available for moving ethanol. Given a period of 3-5 
     years, there appears to be no transportation impediment to 
     the use of ethanol as a replacement for MTBE.

[[Page H1277]]



                 TABLE 1.--GASOLINE AND ETHANOL CONSUMPTION PROJECTIONS WITH MTBE PHASE-OUT \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               By million gallons--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                            By billion gallons--     Projected     Projected \3\      Ethanol
                   Year                        projected \2\      ethanol use in  ethanol use in    production
                                            gasoline consumption        RFG        other markets  from all crops
                                                                    (denatured)     (denatured)     (denatured)
------------------------------------------------------------------------\4\-------------\4\-------------\4\-----
1997.....................................               126                 372           1,041           1,413
1998.....................................               125                 384           1,142           1,526
1999.....................................               127                 457           1,103           1,560
2000.....................................               132                 514           1,170           1,684
2001.....................................               135                 774           1,119           1,893
2002.....................................               137               1,403             918           2,321
2003.....................................               139               1,802             899           2,701
2004.....................................               141               2,347             784           3,131
2005.....................................               144               2,384             894           3,278
2006.....................................               146               2,419             858           3,277
2007.....................................               148               2,452             824           3,276
2008.....................................               149               2,510             791           3,304
2009.....................................               152               2,570             780           3,330
2010.....................................               153               2,627             729          3,356
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On an oxygen equivalent basis, 0.52 volume of ethanol replaces 1 volume of MTBE.
\2\ Source: Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy. Total gasoline consumption is assumed to be
  the same under the baseline and under the MTBE phase-out.
\3\ Ethanol use in other markets include CO market, State mandated markets and octane market.
\4\ Ethanol is denatured with 5-percent gasoline.

  Mr. Speaker, Congress paid approximately $22.7 billion in farm 
support programs last year. More than $15 billion of this was in 
emergency payments. We should pursue policies which will allow farmers 
to make a living off their land, not rely on government handouts.
  A proposal which would hold the renewable fuels market to the status 
quo does not help farmers, as that report shows. Replacing MTBE with 
ethanol is a sensible agricultural policy we should enact, as well as a 
sensible environmental policy.
  Now, several groups have reviewed the provisions of H.R. 4011 and 
have sent me letters expressing their reviews. I would like to share 
some of their comments with my colleagues.
  The Renewable Fuels Association, the trade group that represents the 
domestic ethanol industry, writes: We are ``writing on behalf of the 
members of the Renewable Fuels Association to express the enthusiastic 
support of the domestic ethanol industry for Clean Air and Water 
Preservation Act of 2000. Your bill forthrightly addresses the growing 
national crisis of MTBE water contamination while preserving the air 
quality benefits of the RFG program and stimulating rural economies by 
increasing the demand for clean-burning fuel ethanol.''
  ``Clearly, the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000 meets'' 
these requirements. ``By phasing down MTBE use over three years, the 
bill protects water supplies of every citizen''. ``The bill's anti-
backsliding provisions, particularly the cap on aromatics, assures'' 
air quality standards. ``The legislation also provides refiners with 
significant flexibility and encourages the development of alternative 
oxygenates so that the transition from MTBE can be made without 
disruptions in gasoline supplies or increases in prices.''
  The National Corn Growers Association says: ``With oil prices at 
their highest levels in many years, it is clear that ethanol not only 
should be used because it benefits public health, but also because it 
reduces our dependence on foreign oil.''
  We are writing ``on behalf of the 31,000 members of the National Corn 
Growers Association in support of your bill entitled the Clean Air and 
Water Preservation Act of 2000.''
  The American Farm Bureau Federation sent the following bulletin to 
its State offices yesterday. They wrote that the ``Farm Bureau supports 
H.R. 4011, the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act, sponsored by 
Representative Greg Ganske and Representative John Shimkus.'' The bill 
phases out the use of MTBE in 3 years, provides assistance to States to 
clean MTBE pollution, provides refiners flexibility with the oxygen 
requirement, preserves air quality improvements under the Clean Air 
Act, and urges refiners to switch to ethanol as soon as possible. 
``Similar legislation is contemplated in the Senate.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include the letters and the Bulletin for the Record, 
as follows:


                                  Renewable Fuels Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 2000.
     Hon. Greg Ganske,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Ganske: I am writing on behalf of the 
     members of the Renewable Fuels Association to express the 
     enthusiastic support of the domestic ethanol industry for the 
     Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000. Your bill 
     forthrightly addresses the growing national crisis of MTBE 
     water contamination while preserving the air quality benefits 
     of the RFG program and stimulating rural economies by 
     increasing the demand for clean-burning fuel ethanol.
       As you know, I testified earlier this month before the 
     House Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment 
     regarding the reformulated gasoline program and the need to 
     address MTBE water contamination. I noted that the ethanol 
     industry wants to be part of the solution, and outlined four 
     principles that should guide congressional action: Develop a 
     national solution; address the cause of the problem--MTBE; 
     protect the environment, i.e., no backsliding; and, provide 
     the necessary time and ``flexibility'' to allow refiners to 
     make a rational transition to increased ethanol utilization.
       Clearly, the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000 
     meets each of these objectives. By phasing down MTBE use over 
     three years, the bill protects the water supplies of every 
     citizen, not just those in certain states. The bill's anti-
     backsliding provisions, particularly the cap on aromatics, 
     assures the current air quality benefits of the RFG program 
     will be preserved. The legislation also provides refiners 
     with significant flexibility and encourages the development 
     of alternative oxygenates so that the transition from MTBE 
     can be made without disruptions in gasoline supplies or 
     increases in price.
       Oil prices are rising to record levels. The farm economy 
     continues to suffer. And water supplies from coast to coast 
     are being jeopardized by the uncontrolled use of MTBE. Never 
     has the need for ethanol been greater. We need to protect 
     both air quality and precious water resources. With ethanol, 
     and your legislation, we can. I look forward to working with 
     you to see the Clean Air and Water Preservation Act of 2000 
     become law.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Eric Vaughn,
     President.
                                  ____



                            National Corn Growers Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2000.
     Hon. Greg Ganske,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Ganske: I am writing this letter on 
     behalf of the 31,000 members of the National Corn Growers 
     Association in support of your bill entitled the Clean Air 
     and Water Preservation Act of 2000. Your bill embraces many 
     of the principles NCGA believes are important if Congress is 
     going to successfully address the problems surrounding MTBE 
     water contamination across the country.
       In addition, NCGA supports the principles in your bill that 
     call for a national solution to the MTBE problem, protection 
     of the environment and public health, and flexibility that 
     allows markets to adjust as the demand for ethanol increases. 
     We enthusiastically support this approach because it 
     recognizes that ethanol is not part of the problem, it is 
     part of the solution. We especially appreciate the support 
     your bill gives to ethanol as a clean oxygenate in the 
     reformulated gasoline program.
       With oil prices at their highest levels in many years, it 
     is clear that ethanol not only should be used because it 
     benefits public health, but also because it reduces our 
     dependence on foreign oil.
       We appreciate your efforts and look forward to working with 
     you on passage of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lynn Jensen,
     President.
                                  ____


           Governmental Relations Bulletin--Action Requested

                                                   March 21, 2000.
     Re Clinton administration takes action on fuel requirements.

     To: Presidents, Secretaries and/or administrators, 
       coordinators of national affairs, directors of information, 
       directors of commodity activities, coordinators of natural 
       and environmental resources, area field service directors, 
       park ridge and Washington office distribution.
     From: Dick Newpher, Executive Director, Washington Office.

       Yesterday, EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Agriculture 
     Secretary Dan Glickman announced proposals that will reduce 
     and ultimately eliminate the use of methyl tertiary butyl 
     ether (MTBE) in reformulated fuels. MTBEs have been blamed in 
     numerous cases of water pollution. The petroleum-based 
     product currently has more than 80 percent of the market for 
     oxygenate additives used in gasoline to comply with the Clean 
     Air Act. Ethanol provides the remainder of the oxygenate 
     additives used in the U.S.
       The proposal outlines both a regulatory and legislative 
     strategy. The EPA will proceed with a proposed notice of 
     rulemaking and the Clinton Administration will push for 
     statutory changes in the Clean Air Act to implement the 
     announced changes.
       The proposal outlined the following steps:
       Amend the Clean Air Act to provide authority to reduce or 
     eliminate the use of MTBE;
       Assure that the goals of the Clean Air Act are not 
     diminished; and,
       The administration recommends that Congress replace the 2 
     percent oxygenate requirement in the Clean Air Act with a 
     renewable fuel annual average content for all gasoline at a 
     level that maintains the current use level of renewable fuel 
     (1.2 percent of the gasoline supply).
       The standard of 1.2 percent renewable fuels content would 
     be a national average content

[[Page H1278]]

     requirement and would NOT significantly increase the use of 
     ethanol. A better scenario for the ethanol industry would be 
     to retain the two percent oxygenate requirement under the 
     current Clean Air Act because ethanol is the only viable 
     alternative to MTBE. Additionally, there will be substantial 
     political opposition in the Congress to any measure calling 
     for a mandate on renewable fuel content.
       AFBF will analyze the proposed rule when it is released 
     sometime in the next few months. However, the main effort 
     will be to work with members of Congress to move legislation 
     that will eliminate MTBE and replace it with ethanol. Farm 
     Bureau supports H.R. 4011, the Clean Air and Water 
     Preservation Act, sponsored by Rep. Greg Ganske (R-IA) and 
     Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL). The bill: (1) phases out the use of 
     MTBE within three years; (2) provides assistance to states to 
     clean MTBE pollution; (3) provides refiners some flexibility 
     with the oxygen requirement; (4) preserves air quality 
     improvements make under the Clean Air Act; and, (5) urges 
     refiners to switch to ethanol as soon as possible. Similar 
     legislation is contemplated in the Senate.
       Action requested: State Farm Bureaus are requested to 
     contact their members of the House to cosposnor H.R. 4011.
       (Contact: Jon Doggett, [email protected]) F:/grb/ethanol00.321

  Mr. Speaker, I have also received letters from the Iowa Farm Bureau 
Federation and the Illinois Corn Growers Association expressing support 
for H.R. 4011. I include those letters for the Record, as follows:
                                                         Iowa Farm


                                             Bureau Federation

                              West Des Moines, IA, March 16, 2000.
     Hon. Greg Ganske,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Ganske: The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation 
     supports your efforts to ban the use of MTBE and to preserve 
     the oxygenate requirement under the Clean Air Act. The issue 
     of MTBE's negative impact on water quality has elevated this 
     issue in the public's eye. It is imperative that Congress 
     take action to address these concerns.
       We believe that a federal ban on MTBE use can be coupled 
     with an expansion of ethanol use. Several states are pushing 
     to waive their participation in the reformulated gasoline 
     program under the Clean Air Act. Farm Bureau strongly opposes 
     such efforts. We believe that ethanol is a good alternative 
     to MTBE and that these states should be encouraged to replace 
     their MTBE use with ethanol.
       Your legislation ensures that Iowa farmers will continue to 
     have a role in providing clean air by creating a stronger 
     role for ethanol. We applaud your efforts and look forward to 
     working with you to implement this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ed Wiederstein,
     President.
                                  ____



                            Illinois Corn Growers Association,

                                  Bloomington, IL, March 22, 2000.
     Hon.  --  --  
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman  --  --  --: We would appreciate your 
     consideration of co-sponsoring H.R. 4011. This bill addresses 
     concerns which have surfaced concerning MTBE contamination of 
     groundwater and continues to maintain a role for ethanol in 
     the Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) of the Clean Air Act.
       H.R. 4011 was introduced by Congressman Shimkus (IL) and 
     Congressman Ganske (IA) and has bi-partisan support from 
     downstate Illinois Congressmen co-sponsoring the Bill for the 
     following reasons:
       1. This bill addresses the problems with MTBE by banning 
     MTBE within three years and requiring labeling of MTBE on 
     gasoline dispensers in the interim. The Chicago City Council, 
     led by the efforts of Alderman Bernard Hansen, has 
     unanimously passed a resolution asking for a ban on MTBE use 
     in our largest city because of the environmental 
     implications.
       2. This bill gives refiners flexibility in blending oxygen 
     and meeting the oxygenate requirement of RFG without 
     eliminating the requirement and hurting the ethanol market. 
     Ethanol is critical to the success of the state's 
     agricultural economy. Ethanol uses 160 million bushels of 
     corn to supply the Chicago metro market alone. This market 
     results in an additional 10 cents per bushel for all the corn 
     sold in Illinois, according to the Illinois Resource 
     Allocation Model. This sophisticated computer model is 
     operated by the U of I Agricultural Economics Department.
       3. Lastly, H.R. 4011 prohibits environmental backsliding by 
     raising the standards on emissions reductions and prohibiting 
     an increase in the use of gasoline aromatics (which can lead 
     to cancer-causing particular emissions).
       For these reasons, farmers in Illinois need your help. 
     Please consider co-sponsoring H.R. 4011.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Leon Corzine,
                                                        President.

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. Speaker, this is good agricultural policy. This is good 
environmental policy. Now, despite the benefits of ethanol for the 
Nation's air quality, water quality, and agriculture, some groups have 
decided to question ethanol. Those detractors include some well-known 
environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, two groups that also consistently extol the virtues of 
renewable fuels. Well, let us go into this in some detail.
  In yesterday's Washington Post a spokesperson from the NRDC said, 
``Ethanol, when combusted forms formaldehyde and other by-products 
which pose potential public health threats.'' According to the article, 
some ``scientists'' claim that very few studies have been done on the 
health effects associated with inhalation of ethanol vapors. I would 
like to address these allegations.
  First of all, ethanol does not produce formaldehyde. MTBE produces 
formaldehyde. NRDC sites as their reference a study submitted to the 
California legislature entitled ``An Evaluation of the Scientific Peer 
Review Research and Literature on the Human Health Effect of MTBE, its 
Metabolites, Combustion Products and Substitute Compounds.'' However, 
in another report, ``Air Quality Impacts on the Use of Ethanol in 
California Reformulated Gasoline,'' the California Environmental 
Protection Agency's Air Resources Board states, ``The major products of 
concern for ethanol are acetaldehyde and peroxyacetyl nitrate, an eye 
irritant. These compounds are offset by reductions in formaldehyde.''
  Let me repeat that. The California Environmental Protection Agency 
directly contradicts a statement by the NRDC by saying that some 
products from the burning of ethanol produce acetaldehyde and certain 
nitrates, but that those compounds are offset by reductions in 
formaldehyde due to the elimination of MTBE. So it appears that NRDC 
was mistaken.
  There have also been allegations that ethanol produces what is called 
ETBE, ethyl tertiary butyl, ether when run through a combustion engine. 
Once again, that is not true. Ethanol can be used to produce ETBE, but 
that would require additional components and a catalyst for a chemical 
reaction, and that does not occur in the internal combustion engine.
  Associated with that statement is speculation that ethanol's 
increased volatility will increase hydrocarbon emissions, thereby 
posing an increased inhalation hazard. Well, Mr. Speaker, research 
evaluating ethanol blended fuel and nonethanol fuel has shown that 
while the evaporation rate for ethanol blended gasoline was increased, 
less hydrocarbon was volatilized relative to nonethanol fuel. It was 
determined the increased evaporation of ethanol blended fuel was due to 
the evaporation of the ethanol itself.
  Another statement contained in yesterday's Post concerned health 
implications associated with the inhalation of ethanol. Well, Mr. 
Speaker, I am a physician. I have looked at this in some detail. Now, 
those ``some scientists'' may be right that there has not been a great 
amount of research done on the project, but ethanol is a naturally 
occurring compound which is found in very low levels in the blood and 
the breath of humans, even those who do not drink alcohol. The 
available scientific literature shows that there is a low risk of harm 
from ethanol inhalation. That can be attributed to the rapid metabolism 
of ethanol and the difficulty of significantly raising blood ethanol 
concentrations through breathing.
  I have here a report by Cambridge Environmental Incorporated entitled 
``Ethanol: A Brief Report on Its Use in Gasoline.'' Mr. Speaker, I 
would like to submit this for the Record at this point as well.

              Ethanol--Brief Report on Its Use in Gasoline

                  (By Sarah R. Armstrong, M.S., M.S.)


                              introduction

       The purpose of this short paper is to summarize information 
     about ethanol's health and environmental effects, given 
     ethanol's use as a fuel oxygenate. The conclusions are: (1) 
     ethanol is readily degraded in the environment; (2) 
     anticipated human exposures to ethanol are very low; and (3) 
     voluminous information on metabolism of ethanol by humans, 
     and on the health effects of ingested ethanol, strongly 
     suggests that environmental exposures to ethanol will have no 
     adverse health impact.


                         environmental behavior

       Recent reviews of the environmental behavior of gasoline 
     oxygenates generally note

[[Page H1279]]

     that ethanol is not likely to accumulate or persist for long 
     in the environment. For example, the Interagency Assessment 
     of Oxygenated Fuels (NSTC, 1997) observes that ethanol is 
     expected to be rapidly degraded in groundwater and is not 
     expected to persist beyond source areas. Ethanol in surface 
     water is also expected to undergo rapid biodegradation, as 
     long as it is not present in concentrations directly toxic to 
     microorganisms (NSTC, 1997; Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1998). The 
     half-life of ethanol in surface water is reported to range 
     from 6.5 to 26 hours (Howard et al., 1991). Atmospheric 
     degradation is also predicted to be rapid (Malcolm Pirnie, 
     Inc., 1998).
       In part, expectations of ethanol's degradability rely on 
     experiments that use microcosms of groundwater and soil 
     mixtures to demonstrate that ethanol is rapidly degraded both 
     aerobically (100 mg/l in 7 days, Corseuil et al., 1998); and 
     anaerobically (100 mg/l in 3 to 25 days, depending on 
     conditions, Corseuil et al., 1998; 96 mg/l within 30 days, 
     Suflita and Mormile, 1993; 100 mg/l within 14 days, Yeh and 
     Novak, 1994). In these experiments, ethanol generally delays 
     degradation of BTX, but not always, and some investigators 
     (Corseuil et al., 1998) caution against generalizations about 
     ethanol's effect.


                             health effects

       Ethanol, the active ingredient of alcoholic beverages, has 
     been part of the human diet--and the human environment--for 
     thousands of years. It is produced by fermentation by fungi 
     and other microorganisms, and is found at low levels in the 
     blood and breath of persons who do not drink alcohol. 
     Biological exposures and responses to ethanol are typically 
     evaluated in terms of the blood concentrations, where the 
     units of concentration are milligrams of ethanol per 
     deciliter of blood, or mg/dl. Some blood ethanol 
     concentrations (BEC) and associated effects are shown in 
     Table 1. Endogenous blood levels of ethanol range from non-
     detectable to 0.02 mg/dl to 0.15  mg/dl (Jones, 1985; Lester, 
     1962). A typical alcoholic beverage contains 12 g of 
     alcohol, corresponds to a dose of about 170 mg/kg for a 
     70-kg adult, and produces a peak blood ethanol 
     concentration on the order of 25 mg/dl. Legal limits on 
     blood alcohol for drivers of vehicles are typically 80-100 
     mg/dl.
       Ethanol is widely ingested in alcoholic beverages, usually 
     with only mild effects. However, at sufficiently high doses, 
     ethanol can cause toxic effects in humans, both short-term 
     (such as inebriation) and long-term (such as cirrhosis of the 
     liver). If ethanol becomes a common fuel additive, there may 
     be opportunities for exposure by inhalation: ethanol vapors 
     might be inhaled at gasoline stations or in automobiles, for 
     example. Thus, concern has been raised about the possible 
     health consequences of using ethanol for this purpose.
       The scientific literature contains virtually no reports of 
     injury to humans from inhaled ethanol. The apparent lack of 
     harm may be attributable to rapid metabolism of ethanol and 
     the difficulty in significantly raising blood ethanol 
     concentrations by inhalation exposure, which keep internal 
     doses extremely low except in unusual situations, such as 
     heavy exercise in the presence of concentrated vapors. The 
     occupational standard for ethanol in air is 1000 ppm (1900 
     mg/m3) on an eight-hour basis. The occupational 
     experience with ethanol in air appears to be favorable: no 
     symptoms at levels below 1000 ppm are reported: at this or 
     higher concentrations, ethanol vapor causes eye and upper 
     respiratory tract irritation, fatigue, headache, and 
     sleepiness (ACGIH, 1991; Clayton and Clayton, 1994). No 
     reports regarding chronic exposure of humans to ethanol 
     vapors have been located.
       Laboratory animals, chiefly rats, have been subjected to 
     inhalation exposure in a variety of experiments, most 
     investigating aspects of central nervous system or 
     developmental toxicity. The majority of exposures have been 
     short-term, of less than two weeks, but many of these were 
     continuous. The study of longest duration, 90 days, also used 
     the lowest concentration of ethanol, 86 mg/m3 (45 
     ppm); otherwise, experimental designs typically produced 
     atmospheres of thousands of mg/m3 (or ppm), 
     frequently in order to develop ethanol dependence. Blood 
     ethanol concentrations were often, but no always, determined. 
     The great majority of BEC measurements were above 100 mg/dl.
       The paucity of direct evidence regarding the possible 
     effects of inhaled ethanol does not mean, however, that the 
     possible consequences are unpredictable. In fact, the data 
     strongly suggest that exposure of the general public to 
     ethanol vapors coming from oxygenated gasoline is very 
     unlikely to have any adverse consequences. While there is 
     little, if any data, on the toxicity of ingested ethanol 
     itself in humans, it is generally accepted that the vast 
     literature on the effects of alcoholic beverages is highly 
     relevant. Alcohol abuse is a significant medical and social 
     problem, and is the impetus for most research into ethanol 
     toxicology, both in humans and Experimental animals. A 
     consequence of this is that little experimental data 
     address the levels of internal exposure that can be 
     reasonably anticipated to result from using ethanol as an 
     oxygenate. A second motivation for experimental work in 
     ethanol is fetal alcohol syndrome (or fetal alcohol 
     effects) which, in theory at least, could be caused by 
     relatively brief maternal exposures to ethanol during 
     pregnancy.
       Since ethanol's important toxic effects require that the 
     material first enter the bloodstream, one can evaluate 
     inhalation exposures in terms of the blood alcohol 
     concentrations they would produce. Prediction of BEC 
     following exposure to ethanol vapors must consider several 
     factors; (a) the concentration of ethanol in air, (b) the 
     duration of exposure, (c) breathing rate, (d) absorption of 
     ethanol across the lungs, and (e) the body's elimination rate 
     of ethanol. Two of these factors are more or less constant in 
     every situation. Experiments in humans have shown that from 
     55% to 60% of inhaled vapors are absorbed into the 
     bloodstream (Kruhoffer, 1983; Lester and Greenberg, 1951). 
     The rate of clearance of ethanol from the blood 
     (Vmax) is about 15 mg/dl/hr (Pohorecky and Brick, 
     1987) but may be as high as 23 mg/dl/hr (Holford, 1987); 
     these rates correspond to elimination of 83 mg/kg/hr to 127 
     mg/kg/hr, or about 6 to 9 g of ethanol per hour for an adult. 
     For comparison's sake, it should be noted that a single 
     alcoholic drink contains about 12 g of ethanol (IARC, 1988).
       As long as a person's intake of ethanol does not exceed 
     Vmax, blood alcohol levels will stay low. In table 
     2 are shown the intake rates for ethanol inhaled under a 
     variety of conditions, assuming absorption across the lungs 
     of 55 % and a standard body weight of 70 kg. In bold type are 
     intakes above 83 mg/kg/hr, the lower estimate of alcohol 
     clearance: exposure under these conditions could lead to an 
     accumulation of ethanol in the blood and a rising BEC. Under 
     the other conditions given, the body's ability to eliminate 
     ethanol is not exceeded, and BEC levels would remain below 
     toxic levels.
       The calculations suggest that exposure to ethanol vapors 
     that are irritating to the eyes and mucous membranes, while 
     uncomfortable, would not cause a significant rise in BEC in 
     persons at rest. As actively increases, ethanol increases, 
     but vapor concentrations would need to exceed the 
     occupational limit by a substantial margin in order to cause 
     a rise in BEC. Some experimental work demonstrates that 
     significant uptake of ethanol through the air is unusual, or 
     difficult, as shown in Table 3. Moderate activity in the 
     presence of irritation vapors is required.


    Possible inhalation exposures to ethanol due to use in gasoline

       Opportunities for inhalation exposure of the general public 
     to ethanol used as gasoline oxygenated include vapors inhaled 
     while fueling vehicles and ambient air. The first sort 
     of exposure would be relatively brief, no more than five 
     minutes, perhaps, while the second could last for many 
     hours. These scenarios are considered in more detail 
     below.
       Very limited investigations of personal exposures during 
     refueling have so far failed to detect ethanol, where 
     detection limits were 50 ppm or less (HEI, 1996). If 
     refueling involved five-minute exposures at the occupational 
     limit of 1,000 ppm, an adult might receive an ethanol dose of 
     0.13 g (about 2 mg/kg). Such an exposure might increase BEC 
     by about 0.3 mg/dl, at most. Exposure to such a high level of 
     ethanol is unlikely. The Health Effects Institute evaluated 
     hypothetical exposures of 1 ppm for three minutes and 10 ppm 
     for 15 minutes, and determined that incremental changes in 
     BEC would be insignificant (HEI, 1996).
       Data on ambient air concentrations of ethanol are few. The 
     average ambient level in air in the city of Porto Alegre, 
     Brazil, where 17% of vehicles run entirely on ethanol, is 12 
     ppb (0.023 mg/m\3\) (Grosjean et al., 1998). The lowest 
     concentration of ethanol tested for toxicity in animals was 
     almost 4,000-times greater than this (86 mg/m\3\, 45 ppm). A 
     person might receive half a milligram of ethanol per day from 
     ambient air containing 12 ppb of ethanol, a negligible dose.


                      other health effects issues

       Some of ethanol's known or suspected toxic effects have not 
     been, or can not be, quantified in terms of BEC. Fetal 
     alcohol syndrome (FAS), for example, is constellation of 
     physical and mental deficiencies in children linked to 
     maternal alcohol ingestion. Risk of FAS is a function of 
     alcohol intake during pregnancy: the frequency of this 
     syndrome is twice as great for children of heavy drinkers as 
     for children of moderate or non-drinkers (Schardein, 1993). 
     While it may be prudent to abstain from alcohol during 
     pregnancy, a risk from daily consumption of less than 30 g of 
     alcohol has not been proved (Schardein, 1993). Cancer of 
     certain organs has been observed to occur at elevated rates 
     in some groups of drinkers--the World Health Organization, 
     for example, has linked alcohol consumption to cancer of the 
     oral cavity, pharynx, esophagus, larynx, and liver (IARC, 
     1988). In almost all of the studies, risks were observed 
     among alcoholics or were seen to increase with consumption.
       Finally, if we look to human experience with alcohol 
     consumption for information regarding toxic effects of 
     ethanol, it is fair also to look at the evidence for possible 
     health benefits. Numerous epidemiologic studies have observed 
     that light-to-moderate drinkers of alcohol have lower 
     mortality rates than either alcohol abstainers or heavy 
     drinkers. Reduced mortality is due to decrease rates of fatal 
     coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease. To be 
     sure, the picture is complicated, varying by sex, age, and 
     disease risk factors, and competing causes of death. We are 
     not suggesting that low-level exposures to ethanol due to its 
     use as an oxygenate is desirable. At the least, however, the 
     apparent beneficial effects of alcohol (or ethanol) for 
     some cohorts should be recognized.


                               conclusion

       It is highly unlikely that exposure to airborne ethanol 
     associated with gasoline use

[[Page H1280]]

     could produce toxic effects. The reasons for this are (a) the 
     tiny doses that might be received, which might not be 
     observable in light of endogenous levels of ethanol in blood, 
     (b) the body's rapid elimination of ethanol, and (c) the 
     relatively large doses of ethanol and high blood levels of 
     ethanol associated with toxic effects in people. No data in 
     the scientific literature support the hypothesis that chronic 
     exposure to non-irritating levels of ethanol in air could 
     cause significant elevation of BEC (unless exposed 
     individuals are exercising at the time), or that a risk of 
     cancer or birth defects would be created. A recent survey of 
     the literature regarding the inhalation toxicity of ethanol 
     by the Swedish Institute for Environmental Medicine reached 
     similar conclusions, namely that ``a high blood concentration 
     of ethanol is needed for the development of adverse effects'' 
     and ``ethanol at low air concentrations should not constitute 
     a risk for the general population (Andersson and Victorin, 
     1996).

                  TABLE 1.--ETHANOL DOSE-RESPONSE DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          BEC (mg/dl)                 Observation           Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.02-0.15.....................  Endogenous (i.e.        Jones, 1985;
                                 natural) level.         Lester, 1962.
50............................  Central nervous system  Pohorecky and
                                 stimulant;              Brick, 1987.
                                 talkativeness;
                                 relaxation.
100...........................  Legal limit for         ................
                                 automobile drivers in
                                 many states.
>100..........................  Central nervous system  Pohorecky and
                                 depressant; decreased   Brick, 1987.
                                 sensory and motor
                                 function; decreased
                                 mental and cognitive
                                 ability.
110...........................  No effect on heart      Pohorecky and
                                 function.               Brick, 1987.
140...........................  No effect on cerebral   Pohorecky and
                                 blood flow; effects     Brick, 1987.
                                 occur above this
                                 level.
300...........................  Stupefaction..........  Pohorecky and
                                                         Brick, 1987.
400...........................  Possible lethal level.  Pohorecky and
                                                         Brick, 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       TABLE 2.--INTAKE RATE OF ETHANOL UNDER VARIOUS EXPOSURE CONDITIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Intake rate of ethanol (mg/kg/hr) when the concentration in air is (mg/l)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    10 (causes
                                                                   coughing and
    Ventilation rate (l/min)            1.9                             eye                         30  (causes
                                   (occupational         5          irritation;         20          continuous
                                     standard)                      adaptation                     lacrimation)
                                                                      occurs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 (rest)........................               5              14              28              57              85
25 (moderate activity)..........              22              59             118             236             354
40 (heavy activity).............              36              94             189             377             566
50 (very heavy activity)........              45             118             236             471             707
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                TABLE 3.--EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF VAPOR UPTAKE BY HUMANS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Concentration of ethanol    Duration of
       Ventilation rate (l/min)              in air (mg/l)       exposure (hrs)       BEC (mg/dl)              Symptoms                 Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rest (approx. 6).....................  1.9.....................               3                  <0.2  None reported...........  Campbell and Wilson
                                                                                                                                  (1986).
15...................................  15......................                         Steady at 7-8  Vapors irritating but     Lester and Greenberg
                                                                                                        adaptation occurred; no   (1951).
                                                                                                        intoxication.
22...................................  16......................               6         47 and rising  Vapors irritating but     Lester and Greenberg
                                                                                                        adaptation occurred; no   (1951).
                                                                                                        intoxication.
Rest (approx. 6).....................  Maximum of 17 average                2.5                    <5  Vapors irritating but     Mason and Blackmore
                                        approx. 9.                                                      adaptation occurred; no   (1972).
                                                                                                        intoxication.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               References

       Andersson, P. and Victorin, K. (1996). Inhalation of 
     Ethanol: Literature Survey and Risk Assessment. IMM-rapport 
     3/96. Institutet for Miljomedicin (Institute of Environmental 
     Medicine), Karolinska Institute: Stockholm, Sweden.
       American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
     (ACGIH) (1991). Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values 
     and Biological Exposure Indices, sixth edition. Cincinnati, 
     OH.
       Campbell, L. and Wilson, H. (1986). J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 
     26:129.
       Clayton, G. and Clayton, F. (1994). Patty's Industrial 
     Hygiene and Toxicology, fourth edition. New York: John Wiley 
     & Sons.
       Corseuil, H.X., Hunt, C.S., Ferreira, R.C., et al. (1998). 
     Wat. Res. 32(7):2065.
       Grosjean, E., Grosjean, D., Gunawardena, R., and Rasmussen 
     R.A. (1998). Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:736.
       Health Effects Institute (HEI) (1996). The Potential Health 
     Effects of Oxygenates Added to Gasoline: A Review of the 
     Current Literature. HEI: Cambridge, MA.
       Holford, N. (1987). Clin. Pharmacokin. 13:273.
       Hooper, G., Steed, K.P., Gittins, D.P., et al. (1995). 
     Resp. Med. 89:457.
       Howard, P.H. Boethling, R.S., Jarvis, W.F. et al. (1991). 
     Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates. Lewis 
     Publishers: Chelsea, MI.
       HSDB (1994). Hazardous Substances DataBank record for 
     ethanol.
       IARC (1988). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of 
     Carcinogenic Risks to Humans vol. 44. World Health 
     Organization: Lyon, France.
       Jones, A.W. (1985). J. Anal. Toxicol. 9:246.
       Kruhoffer, P. (1983). Forensic Sci. Int. 21:1.
       Lester, D. (1962). Quart. J. Stud. Alcohol 23:17.
       Lester, D. and Greenberg, L. (1951). Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 
     12:167.
       Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (1998). Evaluation of the Fate and 
     Transport of Ethanol in the Environment. Prepared for the 
     American Methanol Institute.
       Mason, J. and Blackmore, D. (1972). Medicine Sci. Law 
     12(3):205.
       Myou, S., Fujimura, M., Nishi, K., et al. (1996). Allergy 
     51:52.
       National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) (1997). 
     Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels. Executive Office 
     of the President.
       Pohorecky, L. and Brick, J. (1988). Pharmac. Ther. 36:335.
       Schardein, J. (1993). Chemically Induced Birth Defects, 
     second ed. Marcel Dekker: New York, New York.
       Suflita, J.M. and Mormile, M.R. (1993). Environ. Sci. 
     Technol. 27:976.
       Wallace, L. (1989). Environ. Health Persp. 82:165.
       Yeh, C.K. and Novak, J.T. (1994). Water Environ. Res. 
     66:744.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, that report succinctly addresses the health 
risks associated with ethanol inhalation, and I would like to read a 
couple of excerpts from the report.

       The occupational standards for ethanol in air is 1,000 
     parts per million on an 8-hour basis. No symptoms at levels 
     below 1,000 parts per million are reported. At this or higher 
     concentrations, ethanol vapor may cause eye and upper 
     respiratory tract irritation, fatigue, headache or 
     sleepiness.
  But then it goes on to say,
       Data strongly suggests that exposure to the general public 
     to ethanol vapors coming from oxygenated gasoline is very 
     unlikely to have any adverse consequences.
  Ethanol vapors only affect the health of an individual if the blood 
ethanol content reaches a level associated with intoxication. Most 
definitions of legal intoxication are about 80 milligrams per 
decaliter. In order for that to occur, the inhalation rate of ethanol 
vapors would have to exceed the rate at which the body eliminates 
ethanol from the blood stream. Conservative estimates place that 
elimination rate at 83 milligrams per kilogram per hour.
  Tests show that within the occupational standard ethanol 
concentration level of 1.9 milligrams per liter, a person could engage 
in heavy activity with a ventilation rate of 50 liters per minute and 
still only intake vapors at a rate of 45 milligrams per kilogram per 
hour, far below the rate of blood metabolism. Only when the 
concentration of ethanol in the air begins to significantly increase 
does the intake rate begin to supercede the elimination rate.
  According to these studies, even concentrations that would irritate 
the eyes would not cause a significant rise in blood ethanol 
concentrations. Only under highly elevated concentration levels, 
combined with at least moderate activities would the blood ethanol 
concentration exceed the elimination rate. The real world experience 
shows that that is just not going to happen.
  A study done in Brazil, which uses ethanol in almost all of its 
gasoline, indicates that the ambient air concentrations of ethanol are 
far below the occupational standard of 1,000 parts per million. In 
fact, in Porto Alegre, where 17 percent of vehicles run on 100 percent 
ethanol, the ambient air concentration

[[Page H1281]]

is only 12 parts per billion. The lowest concentration of ethanol 
tested for toxicity in animals was 4,000 times greater than this 
concentration.
  We can rest assured that ethanol inhalation will not be a health 
problem, Mr. Speaker.
  There are several other allegations circulating about the negative 
attributes of ethanol, and I would like to address a couple of these 
today. Some have said that ethanol is not energy efficient. I beg to 
differ.
  I have a report issued by the Department of Agriculture's Office of 
Energy in July 1995 that says ethanol produces 25 percent more energy 
than is required to make it. This estimate incorporates the energy 
required to till the fields, plant the corn, run the combine to harvest 
the product, mill the corn and produce the ethanol. A 25 percent net 
energy gain.
  Another study, this one by the Institute for Local Self-reliance, 
says the net energy gain is higher than that. If you take into 
consideration all energy inputs required to grow corn, like fertilizer, 
pesticide, irrigation, transport, and process it into one gallon of 
ethanol, total energy inputs are about 81,000 Btus. In return, one 
gallon of ethanol provides about 84,000 Btus of energy.
  But if you also consider the energy associated with other by-products 
of ethanol production, such as high protein feed grain, total energy 
output potential is about 111,000 Btus, or a 38 percent net energy 
gain.

                              {time}  2330

  That is based on industry averages. Furthermore, that study reported 
that if farmers are using state-of-the-art agriculture practices, they 
can significantly reduce their own energy inputs and they can raise the 
net energy gain to 151 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, ethanol is a very energy efficient product. Now, some 
have argued that ethanol makes no sense outside of the Midwest because 
it is difficult and expensive to transport. Now, it is true that 
transporting ethanol by pipeline may not be an option.
  But the Department of Agriculture's report, which I mentioned earlier 
and is now a part of the RECORD, details the likely distribution of 
ethanol. ``Given a period of 3 to 5 years, there appears to be no 
transportation impediment to the use of ethanol as a replacement for 
MTBE.''
  The most likely distribution scenario is that corn ethanol from the 
Midwest would travel by freighter or by rail. But I have to remind any 
colleagues that corn is not the only product being converted into 
ethanol, and the Midwest is not the only potential source for ethanol 
production. Ethanol is being produced from 27 different raw materials 
throughout the Nation. It can be produced by cellulose, bio-mass, 
municipal waste.
  In California there is a product to convert rice straw into ethanol, 
thereby providing an alternative to sending that by-product to 
landfill. The potential, Mr. Speaker, is enormous.
  But even while those other sources are being developed and perfected, 
we have evidence that ethanol can be transported successfully 
throughout the Nation. Getty Petroleum proves that.
  Last year, Getty switched its 1,200 stations located throughout 12 
northeast States from MTBE to ethanol in a transition which the company 
described as ``seamless.''
  Getty wrote to California Governor Gray Davis in September 1999. They 
said,

       Virtually every one of our terminals is capable of 
     receiving gasoline products, including ethanol, by either 
     rail or barge. Receiving products in this way as opposed to 
     pipeline shipment is not problematic. I can tell you, for 
     example, that receiving water-borne tank-loads of ethanol is 
     no different from receiving water-borne shipments of 
     gasoline. It is done all the time and represents no 
     additional burden to gasoline marketers. Blending equipment 
     for gasoline additives exists at every fuel terminal in the 
     country. Merely augmenting those systems to allow for ethanol 
     blending is neither complex nor time consuming. I see no 
     reason why my experience in the northeast is unique and could 
     not be duplicated in California.

  Well, Mr. Speaker, Getty's experience tells us ethanol can be 
supplied throughout the Nation. In addition, I have learned of 
experiments in which petroleum companies are trying to pipe ethanol. To 
do that and to prevent water absorption, they send a slug of gasoline 
followed by a slug of ethanol followed by another slug of gasoline. The 
components are then blended near the point of final dispersion.
  This may be a new method for transporting ethanol. But we have to 
remember, the petroleum industry is very innovative, they will find a 
way. But I would like to ask my colleagues to consider one thing. What 
happens if we continue to ship MTBE by pipeline, and let us say that 
pipeline breaks somewhere and we have thousands, maybe tens of 
thousands, of gallons of MTBE soaking into the ground and contaminating 
the water? That would be an environmental disaster.
  Finally, let me say a third of MTBE use in America comes from the 
Middle East. I find it hard to believe that transporting MTBE from 
Saudi Arabia is more cost effective and less difficult than 
transporting ethanol from Iowa. And with ethanol, we do not need to 
station a carrier, battle group on the Mississippi River to protect our 
supplies.

  Some have also claimed that ethanol will ruin modern vehicle engine 
components. That is just baloney. Studies have shown the use of ethanol 
in motor fuels does not produce mechanical problems. In fact, currently 
all vehicle manufacturers approve the use of up to 10 percent ethanol 
blended fuels. Modern fuel system components are designed to ensure 
that they are compatible with a wide range of fuel formulations.
  In fact, the oil company Mobil says that ethanol keeps fuel injection 
systems clean so they perform better.
  Mr. Speaker, this brochure issued by Mobil discusses many of the 
benefits associated with ethanol blended fuels. Some of the key points 
conclude ethanol is safe to use in any type of engine. Ethanol will 
help vehicles run in the winter. Ethanol produces significant 
reductions in both carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions. 
Using ethanol blended fuel is one of the easiest ways you can help 
reduce air pollution and our dependence on foreign oil.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a brochure put out by Mobil. It says, ``why is 
ethanol good for your car?'' Well, the oil industry has spoken and it 
is clear that it believes that ethanol is a good fuel additive.
  I would like to note, since ethanol was introduced in the late 1970s, 
Americans have driven more than 2 trillion miles with ethanol renewable 
fuel.
  Mr. Speaker, the MTBE clean water/clean air quandary requires a 
comprehensive and sensible approach. It is not just one issue. It is 
several issues. My bill addresses them all. It phases out MTBE in 3 
years and replaces it with ethanol. H.R. 4011 helps States clean up 
existing MTBE water contamination. It protects air quality by raising 
the standards for emissions and aromatic content. It spurs the 
development of additional oxygenates to ensure continued water and air 
quality. It contributes to our energy security by promoting the 
expansion of domestically produced renewable energy. It is the solution 
that this Congress has been looking for for many years.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this Mobil brochure:

                   Why Is Ethanol Good for Your Car?

       Did you know . . .
       Last year over 10% of all gasoline in the United States 
     contained ethanol.
       Fuel with 10% ethanol has been certified by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to reduce carbon monoxide 
     emissions by up to 30%.
       Since 1981, over 152 billion gallons of ethanol blends have 
     been used in the United States. With an average mileage of 20 
     mpg, that is over 3 trillion miles of proven experience with 
     ethanol blends.
       Mobil goes to great lengths to ensure that we deliver to 
     you the best quality gasoline available--with or without 
     ethanol. All of our gasoline meets or exceeds the 
     specifications of the federal government and the American 
     Society for Testing and Materials. In many cases we will use 
     ethanol to oxygenate our gasoline in order to help meet clean 
     air goals and reduce emissions. Like our customers, we 
     believe in doing our part to protect our planet's natural 
     resources and our environment.
       Ethanol . . . Engine friendly, Clean burning, American made 
     . . . Power.
       Q. How will ethanol affect my engine?
       A. Ethanol is safe to use in any type of engine. Ethanol is 
     covered under warranty by every automaker that sells cars in 
     the United States. It's safe to use in your car, truck, 
     motorcycle or any other engine. In fact, many automakers 
     actually recommend reformulated gasolines like those that 
     contain ethanol.

[[Page H1282]]

       Tests have concluded that ethanol does not increase 
     corrosion, nor will it harm any seals or valves.
       Q. Will ethanol plug my fuel filter?
       A Generally no. You can feel safe using ethanol. Ethanol is 
     a very clean burning fuel that has some detergent properties.
       These detergents work to reduce build-up and keep your 
     engine running smooth. In fact, using ethanol may even 
     improve the performance of your vehicle.
       Q. How will ethanol affect my fuel injection system?
       A. Ethanol helps keep fuel injection systems clean so they 
     perform better. Problems with fuel injection plugging are the 
     result of dirty fuel--not ethanol. Some gasolines today do 
     not, by themselves, contain enough detergent additive. 
     Therefore, ethanol is also valuable as a cleaning agent that 
     helps prevent problems.
       Q. Will using ethanol help me during the winter?
       A. Yes. The ethanol recommended for use in motor fuels is 
     an anhydrous, or water-free additive. It absorbs moisture and 
     helps prevent gas-line freeze-up in cold weather. It works 
     much like gasline antifreeze that some motorists add to their 
     gas tanks in the winter.
       Using ethanol-blended fuel in the winter means you won't 
     need to add expensive and possibly harmful additives to your 
     fuel. Ethanol in your gasoline will protect your vehicle from 
     gas-line freeze-up.
       Q. Does ethanol help reduce air pollution?
       A. Yes. There is a significant reduction in both carbon 
     monoxide and hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions when ethanol is 
     used. Many cities and states across the nation take advantage 
     of the environmental benefits of ethanol provides. These 
     cities include Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
       Ethanol is used in virtually every state in the nation, 
     from Alaska to Florida and from California to New York. For 
     the United States, ethanol-blended fuels offer the promise of 
     cleaner air. Ethanol is an abundant new source of energy for 
     the future that also helps conserve natural petroleum 
     resources.
       Q. What is ethanol?
       A. Ethanol is a clean burning, renewable, domestically 
     produced product made from fermented agricultural products 
     such as corn.
       Ethanol contains oxygen, which helps gasoline burn cleaner 
     and more efficiently. When used in vehicles, ethanol reduces 
     all types of emissions including carbon dioxide--a major 
     contributor to global warming.
       Although burning ethanol releases carbon dioxide during its 
     production and combustion, the crops that ethanol is produced 
     from absorb that carbon dioxide. So, during ethanol 
     production, greenhouse gases do not build up in the 
     envirnoment--they are naturally recycled.
       Q. What does research say about ethanol-blended fuels?
       A. The American Institute of Chemical Engineers compared 
     ethanol fuel to straight gasoline. In a published report, the 
     institute said ethanol was ``very similar in driving 
     characteristics to straight gasoline, except that pre-
     ignition and dieseling (run-on) are noticeably reduced and 
     acceleration can be improved'' with ethanol.
       The report continued, ``Ethanol should be looked at as an 
     octane enhancer. Mixing it with gasoline in a 9 to 1 ratio 
     improves the octane rating about three octane numbers.'' 
     There have been many other tests of ethanol during the past 
     20 years. Those tests found ethanol completely safe to use in 
     all types of engines.


                          the clean air choice

       Using ethanol-blended fuel is one of the easiest ways you 
     can help reduce air pollution and our dependence on imported 
     oil. While many solutions for improving our nation's air 
     quality are being debated, ethanol is here today. Using 
     ethanol-blended fuels in your car, outboard motor, lawnmower, 
     chainsaw, snowmobile and other small engines can make a 
     difference now.

  Mr. Speaker, Congress should pass this bill. We would be making good 
sound policy decisions. We would be benefiting America's environment. 
We would be helping America's farmers, and we would be addressing our 
Nation's energy needs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a comprehensive 
solution that does not force us to choose between clean air and clean 
water. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 4011. I will be happy to 
share any additional information with them.

                          ____________________