    [House Report 113-667]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    113th Congress   }                                    {   Rept. 113-667
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
     2d Session      }                                    {          Part 1

    ======================================================================

                            MID-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS

                                    _______

     December 12, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
                the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                    _______

         Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and
                      Technology, submitted the following

                                  R E P O R T

                            [To accompany H.R. 875]

          [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

        The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom
    was referred the bill (H.R. 875) to provide for a comprehensive
    assessment of the scientific and technical research on the
    implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for
    other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
    thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
    amended do pass.

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page
       I. Amendment.......................................................2
      II. Purpose and Summary.............................................3
     III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................3
      IV. Hearing Summary.................................................4
       V. Committee Consideration.........................................4
      VI. Committee Votes.................................................5
     VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................8
    VIII. Committee Views.................................................8
      IX. Committee Oversight Findings....................................9
       X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives...........9
      XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditure9
     XII. Advisory on Earmarks............................................9
    XIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................10
     XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................10
      XV. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................11
     XVI. Compliance with House Resolution 5.............................11
    XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................11
    XVIII.Applicability to Legislative Branch............................11

     XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................11
      XX. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................13

                                  I. Amendment

        The amendment is as follows:
      Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
    following:

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

      In this Act:
              (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
            Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
              (2) Mid-level ethanol blend.--The term ``mid-level ethanol
            blend'' means an ethanol-gasoline blend containing greater than
            10 and up to and including 20 percent ethanol by volume that is
            intended to be used in any conventional gasoline-powered
            onroad, nonroad, or marine engine, or onroad or nonroad
            vehicle.

    SEC. 2. EVALUATION.

      (a) In General.--The Administrator, acting through the Assistant
    Administrator of the Office of Research and Development at the
    Environmental Protection Agency, shall--
              (1) not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of
            this Act, enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
            Sciences to provide, within 18 months after the date of
            enactment of this Act, a comprehensive assessment of the
            scientific and technical research on the implications of the
            use of mid-level ethanol blends, comparing mid-level ethanol
            blends to gasoline blends containing 10 percent or zero percent
            ethanol; and
              (2) not later than 30 days after receiving the results of the
            assessment under paragraph (1), submit a report to the
            Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
            Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
            Works of the Senate on the findings of the assessment, together
            with the agreement or disagreement of the Administrator with
            each of its findings.
      (b) Waivers.--Prior to the submission of the report under subsection
    (a)(2), any waiver granted under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act
    (42 U.S.C. 7545(f)(4)) before the date of enactment of this Act that
    allows the introduction into commerce of mid-level ethanol blends for
    use in motor vehicles shall have no force or effect. The Administrator
    shall grant no new waivers under such section 211(f)(4) until after the
    submission of the report described under subsection (a)(2).
      (c) Contents.--The assessment performed under subsection (a)(1) shall
    include the following:
              (1) An evaluation of the short-term and long-term
            environmental, safety, durability, and performance effects of
            the introduction of mid-level ethanol blends on onroad,
            nonroad, and marine engines, onroad and nonroad vehicles, and
            related equipment. Such evaluation shall consider the impacts
            of qualifying mid-level ethanol blends or blends with higher
            ethanol concentrations as a certification fuel, and shall
            consider the effect mid-level ethanol blends have on carbon
            emissions, taking into account carbon emissions from their
            life-cycle production, as compared to gasoline blends
            containing 10 percent or zero percent ethanol. Such evaluation
            shall include a review of all available scientific evidence,
            including all relevant government and industry data and
            testing, including that relied upon by the Administrator and
            published at 75 Fed. Reg. 68094 et seq. (November 4, 2010), 76
            Fed. Reg. 4662 et seq. (January 26, 2011), and 76 Fed. Reg.
            44406 et seq. (July 25, 2011), and identify gaps in
            understanding and research needs related to--
                      (A) tailpipe emissions;
                      (B) evaporative emissions;
                      (C) engine and fuel system durability;
                      (D) onboard diagnostics;
                      (E) emissions inventory and other modeling effects;
                      (F) materials compatibility;
                      (G) operability and drivability;
                      (H) fuel efficiency;
                      (I) fuel economy;
                      (J) consumer education and satisfaction;
                      (K) cost-effectiveness for the consumer;
                      (L) catalyst durability; and
                      (M) durability of storage tanks, piping, and
                    dispensers for retail.
              (2) An identification of areas of research, development, and
            testing necessary to--
                      (A) ensure that existing motor fuel infrastructure is
                    not adversely impacted by mid-level ethanol blends,
                    including an examination of potential impacts of mid-
                    level ethanol blends on metal, plastic, rubber, or any
                    other materials used in pipes or storage tanks; and
                      (B) reduce the risk of misfueling by users at various
                    points in the distribution and supply chain, including
                    at bulk storage, retail storage, and distribution
                    configurations by--
                              (i) assessing the best methods and practices
                            to prevent misfueling;
                              (ii) examining misfueling mitigation
                            strategies for blender pumps, including
                            volumetric purchase requirements and labeling
                            requirements;
                              (iii) assessing the adequacy of misfueling
                            mitigation plans approved by the Environmental
                            Protection Agency; and
                              (iv) examining the technical standards and
                            recommendations of the National Institute of
                            Standards and Technology, the American National
                            Standards Institute, and the International
                            Organization for Standardization regarding fuel
                            pump labeling.

    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

      In order to carry out this Act, the Administrator shall utilize up to
    $900,000 from the funds made available for science and technology,
    including research and development activities, at the Environmental
    Protection Agency.

                            II. Purpose and Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 875, ``To provide for a comprehensive
    assessment of the scientific and technical research on the
    implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for
    other purposes'', is to require the National Academies of
    Sciences to conduct an assessment of the scientific and
    technical research on E15 to reflect the diversity of concerns.
    The legislation also invalidates the Environmental Protection
    Agency's (EPA) waiver decisions for E15 and prohibits the
    Agency from granting further waivers until after the study is
    completed and submitted to the Committee.

                  III. Background and Need for the Legislation

        Since the 1970s, the Federal Government has supported
    numerous policies to increase efficiency of fuel use and reduce
    petroleum consumption. In 1978, EPA authorized the use of 10
    percent ethanol blended gasoline (E10), which was not used on a
    widespread basis until the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In
    2005, Congress established the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in
    the Energy Policy Act (EPAct).\1\ The RFS mandates that
    transportation fuels contain renewable fuels, such as biodiesel
    or corn-based ethanol, and required that 4 billion gallons of
    renewable fuels be blended into in the national fuel mix by
    2006 and 7.5 billion by 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ P.L. 109-58.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress greatly expanded the RFS requirement in the Energy
    Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), and mandated the
    blending of 15.2 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012, and 36
    billion gallons by 2022.\2\ The RFS expansion, referred to as
    RFS II, also required the use of advanced biofuels and capped
    the amount of corn-based ethanol that could be used to meet the
    mandated volumes at 15 billion gallons.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ P.L. 110-140.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Blending fuel at concentrations greater than E10 in order
    to meet the increased production volumes required by the RFS
    presents a challenge referred to as the ``blend wall.'' This
    refers to the upper limit of the total amount of ethanol that
    can be blended into the national gasoline supply using E10. In
    an effort to avoid the ``blend wall'', on March 6, 2009, Growth
    Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers petitioned EPA to grant a
    waiver to allow E15, a mid-level or intermediate ethanol blend,
    into commerce.
        In order to grant such a waiver, EPA must determine that
    E15 would not ``cause or contribute to a failure of an emission
    control device or system.'' Additionally, Section 211 (f) of
    the Clean Air Act prohibits the Administrator of the EPA from
    granting a waiver for any fuel or fuel additive that is not
    ``substantially similar'' to the existing certification fuel
    (i.e. regular unleaded gasoline without added ethanol).
        EPA issued a partial waiver for E15 on October 13, 2010,
    allowing the introduction of E15 into commerce for use in model
    year 2007 and newer cars, light-duty trucks, and SUV's. On
    January 21, 2011, EPA granted another partial waiver for use of
    E15 in model year 2001 and newer vehicles. EPA did not grant a
    waiver for model year 2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles,
    heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles, highway and off-
    highway motorcycles, and other nonroad engines, vehicles, and
    equipment.
        The waiver decision and subsequent release of E15 fuel into
    the marketplace has raised technical and practical concerns
    regarding the impact of E15 on engines and fuel supply
    infrastructure, focused broadly on two main issues: (1) The
    potential for E15 to damage vehicle engines of all model years;
    and (2) The potential for this bifurcated fueling system to
    result in widespread misfueling.

                              IV. Hearing Summary

        In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment held
    a hearing on February 26, 2013, to examine the scientific,
    technical, and consumer impacts of the EPA's decision to allow
    the introduction of mid-level ethanol blends (E15) into the
    marketplace. The hearing examined the impact of E15 on engines
    and fuel supply infrastructure and identified research gaps and
    areas in which policymakers and the public could benefit from
    more information on the fuel. The subcommittee also received
    testimony regarding draft legislation.
        The Subcommittee heard from 3 witnesses:

    Mr. Robert L. Darbelnet, President and CEO, American Automobile
            Association (AAA)
    The Honorable Wayne Allard, Vice President, Government
            Relations, American Motorcyclist Association (AMA)
    Mr. Mike Leister, Member, Board of Directors, Coordinating
            Research Council (CRC)

                           V. Committee Consideration

        On February 27, 2013, H.R. 875 was introduced by Rep. F.
    James Sensenbrenner and referred to the Committee on Science,
    Space, and Technology.
        On April 11, 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 875, as
    amended, by roll call vote. Further, the Committee ordered H.R.
    875 favorably reported to the House, as amended, by roll call
    vote.

                              VI. Committee Votes

        Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
    Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
    on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. A
    motion to order H.R. 875 favorably reported to the House, as
    amended, was agreed to by a vote of 18-17.
        During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 875, the
    following amendments were considered:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR667P1.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR667P1.002

                  VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

        H.R. 875 directs the EPA Administrator, acting through the
    Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and
    Development, to enter into an agreement with the National
    Academy of Sciences to provide a comprehensive assessment of
    the scientific and technical research on the implications of
    the use of mid-level ethanol blends. The bill repeals EPA's
    waiver decision allowing E15 into the marketplace until the
    Agency submits a report to relevant Committees on the
    assessment and suspends the authority of the Agency to grant
    further waiver decisions during this period.

                             VIII. Committee Views

        H.R. 875 will provide vital information to improve
    understanding of the environmental, safety, durability, and
    performance effects of mid-level ethanol blends on engines,
    vehicles, and related equipment. The bill seeks to provide an
    objective look at the state of the science regarding mid-level
    ethanol blends. It is the intent of the Committee to ensure
    that the decision of the EPA is informed by a thorough and
    complete evaluation of this technical and scientific research
    on the use of mid-level ethanol blends before such blends are
    allowed in the marketplace. Thus, this bill provides that any
    previously granted waiver decisions shall have no force or
    effect and prohibits the Administrator from granting further
    waivers until this evaluation is completed.
        It is the Committee's view that the limited scientific
    review that accompanied the partial waiver decisions for mid-
    level ethanol blends in 2010 and 2011 was insufficient to
    appropriately inform the Agency's decisions and ensure engines,
    vehicles, and related equipment are not harmed by the
    introduction of E15 into the motor fuel supply. H.R. 875
    intends to resolve this concern by requiring the evaluation the
    Committee believes is necessary for the Administrator to
    properly make such a determination. Therefore, H.R. 875
    provides that any waivers granted before such evaluation is
    completed shall have no force or effect, and prohibits the
    Administrator from granting any further waivers under Section
    211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act until this report is completed.
    The Administrator is required to enter into an agreement with
    the National Academies of Sciences to provide this thorough
    assessment. Upon completion of this report, the Administrator
    must transmit the findings to the Committee on Science, Space,
    and Technology, indicating the Administrator's agreement or
    disagreement with each finding. The list of items to be
    included as part of this assessment was derived from the
    Committee's hearing record, previous and ongoing areas of
    examination by governmental and nongovernmental organizations,
    and factors identified by the EPA when issuing the partial
    waivers.
        The Committee recommends that this assessment incorporate
    all available scientific evidence that could inform and improve
    the understanding of the effect of mid-level ethanol blends.
    This should include an analysis of all relevant governmental
    and non-governmental data and testing, including of both newer
    and developing information, as well as literature available to
    the Administrator in making partial waiver and misfueling
    decisions as published in the Federal Register on November 4,
    2010, January 26, 2011, and July 25, 2011.
        H.R. 875 defines mid-level ethanol as an ethanol gasoline
    blend containing greater than 10 and up to and including 20
    percent ethanol by volume that is intended to be used in any
    conventional gasoline-powered motor vehicle. If resources
    permit, the Committee also encourages the assessment to provide
    insight into whether similar or related issues may be expected
    to accompany the introduction of higher blends of biodiesel or
    other biofuels.
        While H.R. 875 states that the assessment should include an
    evaluation of the effects of mid-level ethanol blends on
    onroad, nonroad, and marine engines, onroad and nonroad
    vehicles, and related equipment, the bill does not define the
    specific vehicle types, engine types, or specify the related
    equipment to be incorporated into this assessment. Thus, the
    Committee encourages the assessment to employ relevant
    definitions in Section 216 of the Clean Air Act and interpret
    them broadly. Furthermore, the Committee recommends the
    assessment of the state of the science (including gaps in
    understanding and research needs) include a wide variety of
    vehicles, engines, and equipment that would better inform
    understanding of the overall implications of mid-level ethanol
    blends. By identifying areas of research, development, testing,
    and technical standards relating to misfueling and labeling,
    this assessment can help improve understanding of the problems
    associated with a bifurcated fuel system.

                        IX. Committee Oversight Findings

        Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
    House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight
    hearing and made findings that are reflected in the descriptive
    portions of this report.

            X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

        In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
    of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and
    objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive
    portions of this report, including the goal to require the
    National Academies of Sciences to conduct an assessment of the
    scientific and technical research on E15 and prohibit the EPA
    from allowing waivers until after the study is completed.

     XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

        In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
    of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its
    own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement
    authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the
    cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
    Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
    Budget Act of 1974.

                           XII. Advisory on Earmarks

        In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI,
    the Committee finds that H.R. 875, ``To provide for a
    comprehensive assessment of the scientific and technical
    research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol
    blends, and for other purposes'', contains no earmarks.

                         XIII. Committee Cost Estimate

        The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
    by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
    section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                 XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

        Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
    House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
    provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
    402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                         U.S. Congress,
                                   Congressional Budget Office,
                                        Washington, DC, April 19, 2013.
    Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
    House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
    prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 875, a bill to
    provide for a comprehensive assessment of the scientific and
    technical research on the implications of the use of mid-level
    ethanol blends, and for other purposes.
        If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
    pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
    Mehlman.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Douglas W. Elmendorf.
        Enclosure.

    H.R. 875--A bill to provide for a comprehensive assessment of the
            scientific and technical research on the implications of the
            use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes

        H.R. 875 would require the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) to coordinate with the National Academy of Sciences
    (NAS), to provide an assessment of the scientific and technical
    research associated with using mid-level ethanol blends (i.e.,
    ethanol-gasoline blends containing 10 percent to 20 percent
    ethanol by volume) in gasoline. No later than 30 days after the
    assessment is completed, EPA would be required to submit a
    report to the Congress, indicating whether the agency agrees
    with the study's findings. The NAS and EPA would have 18 months
    from the time of enactment to complete the study. Mid-level
    ethanol blends could not be sold until after EPA issues its
    assessment report.
        Section 3 of this legislation would require EPA to use
    $900,000 ``from funds made available for science and
    technology'' to cover the costs of the study. Whether the funds
    for this study were made available from amounts appropriated in
    2013 or in future years, CBO estimates that implementing this
    legislation would cost about $1 million.
        Enacting H.R. 875 would not affect direct spending or
    revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
        H.R. 875 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
    in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect
    the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
        H.R. 875 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined
    in UMRA, on businesses that sell or plan to sell mid-level
    ethanol blends by suspending sales of those blends. The cost of
    the mandate would be the net income forgone as a result of the
    suspension. Because sales of mid-level ethanol blends are
    relatively small, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate
    would fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($150
    million in 2013, adjusted annually for inflation).
        The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S.
    Mehlman (for federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the private-
    sector impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo,
    Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                         XV. Federal Mandates Statement

        The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
    mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
    Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
    Act.

                         XVI. Compliance With H. Res. 5

        A. Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
    this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
    specific rule-making proceedings.
        B. Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
    establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
    known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
    not included in any report from the Government Accountability
    Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
    or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
    Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
    Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
    98-169) as relating to other programs.

                   XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

        No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
    of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
    legislation.

                   XVIII. Applicability to Legislative Branch

        The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
    the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
    services or accommodations within the meaning of section
    102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                        XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1. Definitions

        Section 1 provides definitions, including:
    ``Administrator'' and ``Mid-Level Ethanol Blend.''

    Section 2. Evaluation

        Section 2(a) requires the Administrator, acting through the
    Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and
    Development at the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1)
    enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences
    to provide a comprehensive assessment of the scientific and
    technical research on the implication of the use of mid-level
    ethanol blends, including a comparison of mid-level ethanol
    blends to gasoline containing ten percent or zero percent
    ethanol; and (2) transmit the report to the Committee on
    Science, Space and Technology and the Committee on Environment
    and Public Works within thirty days of receiving the results,
    along with the disagreement or agreement of the Administrator
    with the findings.
        Section 2(b) invalidates any waiver granted by the Agency
    prior to enactment under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act
    that allows the introduction into commerce of mid-level ethanol
    blends. The Administrator is prohibited from granting new
    waivers under section 211(f)(4) until after the submission of
    the report described in section (2)(a)(2).
        Section 2(c) requires the assessment performed under
    section (2)(a) include: (1) an evaluation of the short and
    long-term environmental, safety, durability, and performance
    effects of the introduction of mid-level ethanol blends on
    onroad, nonroad, and marine engines, vehicles, and related
    equipment; (2) consideration of the impacts of qualifying mid-
    level ethanol blends or blends with higher ethanol
    concentration as a certification fuel; (3) a review of all
    available scientific evidence, including all relevant
    government and industry data and testing, including that which
    was relied upon by the Administrator and published in the
    Federal Register; (4) identification of the gaps in
    understanding and research needs related to (A) tailpipe
    emissions; (B) evaporative systems; (C) engine and fuel system
    durability; (D) onboard diagnostics; (E) emissions inventory
    and other modeling effects; (F) materials compatibility; (G)
    operability and drivability; (H) fuel efficiency; (J) consumer
    education and satisfaction; (K) cost-effectiveness for the
    consumer; (L) catalyst durability; and (M) durability of
    storage tanks, piping, and dispensers for retail; and (5) an
    identification of areas of research, development, and testing
    necessary to (A) ensure that existing motor fuel infrastructure
    is not adversely impacted by mid-level ethanol blends; and (B)
    reduce the risk of misfueling by users at various points in the
    distribution and supply chain by: (i) assessing the best
    methods and practices to prevent misfueling, (ii) examining
    misfueling mitigation strategies for blender pumps, (iii)
    assessing the adequacy and ability of misfueling mitigations
    plans approved by EPA, and (iv) examining the technical
    standards and recommendation of the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology, the American National Standards
    Institute and the International Organization for
    Standardization regarding fuel pump labeling.

    Section 3. Authorization of Appropriations

        Section 3 requires the Administrator utilize up to $900,000
    from the funds made available for science and technology,
    including research and development activities, at the
    Environmental Protection Agency to carry out this Act.

                     XX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

                              MARKUP ON H.R. 875,

                         TO PROVIDE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE

                        ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND

                           TECHNICAL RESEARCH ON THE

                           IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF

                           MID-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS,

                             AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
    authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 2(f) and House Rule XI 2(h)(4), the
    Chair announces that he may postpone roll call votes on matters
    in which the yeas and nays are ordered until the end of the
    markup.
        Today, we consider two pieces of legislation: H.R. 875,
    introduced by Representative Sensenbrenner, providing for a
    comprehensive assessment of the science and technical research
    on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, and
    H.R. 1422, introduced by Representative Stewart, the
    Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board Reform
    Act of 2013. I will recognize myself for an opening statement.
        While different in their focus, the two bills we consider
    today share a common goal: to improve the science behind
    regulatory decision-making at the EPA, and I thank Mr.
    Sensenbrenner and Mr. Stewart for their work on these bills. It
    is my hope that sound science might become a common and
    potentially even bipartisan guiding principle for the
    Committee's work on EPA issues.
        The Committee examined both bills we consider today in
    hearings last month, and both bills enjoy wide and diverse
    support. Mr. Sensenbrenner's E15 bill is backed by both the
    American Petroleum Institute and the Environmental Working
    Group, two organizations that do not agree often. It is also
    supported by the American Automobile Association as well as
    groups representing everyone from snowmobilers to boaters to
    motorcyclists. In fact, 37 different organizations have
    endorsed this bill, and without objection, those organizations'
    names will be made a part of the record.
        Similarly, Mr. Stewart's Science Advisory Board reform
    legislation has garnered support from the American Farm Bureau
    and the American Chemistry Council. Both of these bills improve
    the science that goes into EPA regulations. That is why they
    have received such broad support among diverse stakeholders.
    Twenty-nine various organizations have endorsed Mr. Stewart's
    bill, and without objection, the names of those organizations
    will be made a part of the record.
        And I again thank Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Stewart for
    their initiative on these issues, and I hope that they receive
    similarly broad support from Members of the Committee today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith

        While different in their focus, the two bills we consider today
    share a common goal: to improve the science behind regulatory decision-
    making at the EPA.
        I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Stewart for their work on these
    bills.
        It is my hope that sound science might become a common--and
    potentially even bipartisan--guiding principle for the Committee's work
    on EPA issues.
        The Committee examined both bills we consider today in hearings
    last month. And both bills enjoy wide and diverse support.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner's E15 bill is backed by both the American
    Petroleum Institute and the Environmental Working Group, two
    organizations that do not agree often. It is also supported by the
    American Automobile Association (AAA), as well as groups representing
    everyone from snowmobilers to boaters to motorcyclists.
        Similarly, Mr. Stewart's Science Advisory Board Reform legislation
    has garnered support from the American Farm Bureau and the American
    Chemistry Council.
        Both of these bills improve the science that goes into EPA's
    regulations. This is why they have received such broad support among
    diverse stakeholders.

        Chairman Smith. I will now recognize the Ranking Member,
    the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, for her opening
    statement.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairman.
        Today we are marking up two pieces of legislation: H.R.
    875, to provide for a comprehensive assessment of the
    scientific and technical research on the implications of the
    use of mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes, and
    H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.
        Let me say at the outset that I am disappointed the
    Committee is not following regular order on these bills. This
    Committee has had a good tradition of following regular order
    in the movement of legislation, and that tradition has served
    both sides of the aisle well over the years. Regular order is
    not an arbitrary concept. It is a time-tested means to perfect
    legislation.
        Moreover, I think it fosters bipartisanship. The last time
    Democrats controlled this Committee, we held 25 subcommittee
    markups in four years, and took 45 bills through these markups.
    And as former Chairman Bart Gordon liked to brag, every one of
    those bills had at least one or some Republican support. I do
    not believe this is a coincidence. I hope we can get back to
    that tradition sooner rather than later.
        Unfortunately I cannot support the two bills we are marking
    up today in their current form. I am glad to see the Democratic
    Members have so many amendments to improve these bills, because
    they need much improvement.
        H.R. 875 is a retread of an almost identical bill this
    Committee marked up last Congress. Last year, after a
    contentious markup--the bill didn't even bother--the Committee
    didn't even bother reporting the bill to the House. I think it
    is curious that the Committee is spending time today marking up
    a bill that had so many flaws that we couldn't even bother to
    file a report on it in the last Congress. One reason the
    majority may have squashed the bill last Congress is that it
    represents everything the Republican Party platform says is bad
    about the government.
        I will explain in layman's terms what the bill does. The
    bill forces the EPA to regulate a product out of existence
    rather than let free-market forces dictate the success of E15.
    The stated justification for this is that consumers are too
    stupid to use this product correctly. The majority apparently
    has lost all faith in both consumers and the free-market system
    to deal with E15. So today I will support the free market
    system, and oppose this bill and the majority's attempt to
    expand the name ``Nanny State.'' These are strange days indeed.
        Next, the Committee will consider H.R. 1422, which alters
    the EPA's Science Advisory Board process for the worse. This
    bill is a naked attempt to reduce legitimate scientific input
    at the Board, and replace it with industry-funded input. If
    that was not bad enough, the bill contains several provisions
    which appear designed to bury the board in a mountain of work
    simply to keep it from getting anything accomplished.
        For these reasons, it should not be surprising that groups
    like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources
    Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Clean Water
    Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Earthjustice, and
    the League of Conservation Voters oppose the bill. I have two
    letters from these organizations stating their opposition, and
    I ask that they be included in the record.
        Democratic Members have submitted a number of good
    amendments to correct the deficiencies in the bill, and I look
    forward to supporting them, and I look forward to a good
    markup, but a markup that should first have occurred at the
    subcommittee level. When we bypass that process, it makes for a
    more contentious full Committee markup because the Members
    first of all on those Subcommittees have not been able to
    function. I respect the Chairs and Subcommittee Ranking Members
    of the Committees, and I really hope that at some point we can
    get back to our Subcommittees functioning appropriately in this
    Committee.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

        Thank you Chairman Smith.
        Today, we are marking up two pieces of legislation:
        H.R. 875, To provide for a comprehensive assessment of the
    scientific and technical research on the implications of the use of
    mid-level ethanol blends, and for other purposes, and, H.R. 1422, the
    EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013.
        Let me say at the outset that I am disappointed the Committee is
    not following regular order on these bills. This Committee has a good
    tradition of following regular order in the movement of legislation,
    and that tradition has served both sides of the aisle well over the
    years. Regular order is not an arbitrary concept. It is a time tested
    means to perfect legislation.
        Moreover, I think it fosters bipartisanship. The last time
    Democrats controlled this Committee we held 25 subcommittee markups in
    four years, and took 45 bills through those markups. And as former
    Chairman Bart Gordon liked to brag, every one of those bills had at
    least some Republican support. I do not think that is a coincidence. I
    hope we can get back to that tradition sooner rather than later.
        Unfortunately I cannot support the two bills we are marking up
    today in their current form. I'm glad to see the Democratic Members
    have so many amendments to improve these bills, because they need much
    improvement.
        H.R. 875 is a retread of an almost identical bill this Committee
    marked up last Congress. Last year, after a contentious markup, the
    Committee didn't even bother reporting the bill to the House. I think
    it's curious that the Committee is spending time today marking up a
    bill that had so many flaws that we couldn't even bother to file a
    report on it in the last Congress.
        One reason the Majority may have squashed the bill last Congress is
    that it represents everything the Republican Party platform says is bad
    about the government. I will explain in layman's terms what the bill
    does.
        The bill forces the EPA to regulate a product out of existence
    rather than let free market forces dictate the success of E15. The
    stated justification for this is that consumers are too stupid to use
    this product correctly. The Majority apparently has lost all faith in
    both consumers and the free market system to deal with E15.
        So today I will support the free market system, and oppose this
    bill and the Majority's attempt to expand the nanny-state. These are
    strange days indeed.
        Next the Committee will consider H.R. 1422, which alters the EPA's
    Science Advisory Board process for the worse. This bill is a naked
    attempt to reduce legitimate scientific input at the Board, and replace
    it with industry funded input. If that weren't bad enough, the bill
    contains several provisions which appear designed to bury the Board in
    a mountain of work simply to keep it from getting anything
    accomplished.
        For these reasons, it should not be surprising that groups like the
    Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council,
    Environmental Defense Fund, Clean Water Action, Physicians for Social
    Responsibility, Earthjustice, and the League of Conservation Voters
    oppose the bill.
        I have two letters from these organizations stating their
    opposition, and I ask that they be included in the record.
        Democratic Members have submitted a number of good amendments to
    correct the deficiencies in the bill, and I look forward to supporting
    them, and I look forward to a good markup, but a markup that should
    first have occurred at the Subcommittee level.

        Chairman Smith. Thanks, Ms. Johnson, and I will respond
    briefly to a couple of your points.
        First of all, when you see the number of Democratic
    amendments that I and others expect to support, I hope you will
    reconsider your views of these two pieces of legislation. At
    this point we expect to support three Democratic amendments on
    the first bill and I think six Democratic amendments on the
    second bill, so that might well change your consideration of
    those bills.
        In regard to your other point, I certainly do expect the
    Subcommittees to be involved with pieces of legislation, say,
    on the level of the NASA reauthorization or an energy research
    and development bill or COMPETES bill and so forth. We have
    gone back as you have and checked the precedent, and there is
    precedent by both Republican and Democratic former chairs that
    about half the bills do not get marked up in Subcommittee, and
    bills on the level of the ones we consider today, a study and a
    commission, fall into that category. So I don't think we are
    doing anything unusual but I certainly appreciate your point,
    and we will make an effort on different kinds of bills to have
    them go through the entire process.
        In the case of these bills, they did get Subcommittee
    hearings last month, and that was certainly involving the
    Subcommittees, but again, I appreciate your point.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say that
    if the Subcommittees had been allowed time to function, we
    would not be considering these amendments right now; we would
    be looking at the overall bills, and I think that it is an
    insult to the Members of these Subcommittees not to allow them
    to function.
        Chairman Smith. Well, I will be more specific then in my
    response. In the case of the chairmen in the last couple of
    Congresses, 57 percent of the bills did not get consideration
    by the Subcommittees, and in the case of the chairman before
    that, a Democrat, 40 percent of the bills did not get processed
    in Subcommittee. So as I say, I think we are following
    bipartisan protocol.
        Ms. Johnson. I do question your statistics on that.
    However, that is not the real baseline of it. Whatever happened
    in the last Congress and the Congress before that and the
    Congress before that and the Congress before that, we would not
    have Subcommittees if they didn't have a role to play, and I
    would like to see them play that role.
        Chairman Smith. Well, again, we involved the Subcommittees.
    They did have hearings so they were not left out of the
    process, but I take your point and I thank you for that.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 875,
    introduced by Representative Sensenbrenner, providing for a
    comprehensive assessment of the scientific and technical
    research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol
    blends, and the clerk will report the bill.
        The Clerk. H.R. 875, a bill to provide for a comprehensive
    assessment of the scientific and technical research on the
    implications----
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill will be
    considered as read.
        [H.R. 875 appears in Appendix I]
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Sensenbrenner, former chairman of this Committee, is recognized
    for an opening statement on his bill.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start out by making the point that there is no free
    market in ethanol when the government mandates its use. Now,
    after examining the basis for the EPA to grant its waiver
    decisions in 2010 and 2011 to allow the introduction of fuel
    blends containing 15 percent ethanol, or E15, it is clear to me
    that this decision was wrong, rushed and based upon incomplete
    science. H.R. 875 repeals these waivers until we can have an
    independent third party, the National Academy of Science,
    examine the science surrounding this fuel blend.
        This Committee has worked extensively on this issue over
    the last two years. In 2011, I sent letters to 14 automakers
    asking for input on E15. After all, I trust the companies that
    actually build these engines to know how they will operate on
    different fuel blends. All 14 of those automakers responded
    that E15 will decrease fuel efficiency, damage engines, and
    void customer warranties. Chrysler succinctly warned: ``The
    warranty information provided to our customers specifically
    notes that the use of the blends beyond E10 will void the
    warranty.'' The Committee has also had several hearings on E15.
    The record is clear: those without a financial stake in ethanol
    production are concerned about the effects of this fuel blend
    in their products. Autos, motorcycles, boats, chainsaws, they
    all have the same concern: E15 will damage our products, and it
    is the consumer that will be left liable for fixing the damage.
        This week, I received a letter from 34 organizations citing
    their concerns with E15. This diverse coalition ranging from
    the Environmental Working Group, the American Petroleum
    Institute, and the Milk Producers Council voiced their support
    for this bill and further study of mid-level ethanol blends.
    The AAA, a national organization that represents nearly 53
    million motorists, announced in November of last year that the
    introduction of E15 should be suspended to protect motorists
    from voided warranties and engine damage. Robert Darbelnet, the
    organization's president, testified before the Environment
    Subcommittee earlier this year about the dangers E15 poses to
    American motorists. AAA has submitted a letter in support of
    this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be
    made a part of the record.
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. H.R. 875 accomplishes the reasonable
    goal of knowing what our Nation's fuel supply will do to our
    Nation's engines. The bill requires the Administrator of the
    EPA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
    Sciences to provide a comprehensive assessment of the
    scientific and technical research on the implications of fuel
    with more than ten percent ethanol. The NAS is asked to examine
    the short- and long-term effects of mid-level ethanol blends on
    a variety of engines including those used in automotive, marine
    and non-road vehicles.
        Additionally, the NAS must identify the testing required to
    ensure that the existing motor fuel infrastructure is not
    adversely affected by the mid-level ethanol blends and that
    concerns about misfueling in non-approved engines are
    addressed.
        Importantly, this legislation also repeals the two waiver
    decisions that allowed the E15 to come on the market in the
    first place. It also repeals the Administrator's authority to
    grant such waivers until the NAS has completed its study and
    submitted it to Congress for our review. Without this
    stipulation, we will allow the EPA to continue its support of
    this faulty fuel blend while ignoring the scientific evidence.
        I thank the chairman for scheduling this markup. We cannot
    responsibly allow the EPA to approve mid-level ethanol blends
    despite serious concerns about safety, fuel efficiency and
    engine damage. I thank the Chair, and I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
        Is there any further discussion on the bill before we go to
    amendments? The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is
    recognized.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    simply say a few words about this legislation. It is an issue I
    have talked with constituents and others about who represent
    many different interests.
        As the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee of jurisdiction,
    I was pleased to participate--we had one hearing on this bill--
    because alternative fuels and renewable energy more generally
    are important innovations that can help us reach the goal of
    energy independence.
        Now, many of my constituents as well as perhaps yours have
    concerns with using ethanol as an alternative fuel. In fact,
    when I was in the state legislature in Oregon, we passed
    legislation to grant waivers to small-engine users who were
    concerned about potential impacts from ethanol blends.
        That being said, this legislation is not the best way to
    address the concerns we are hearing from our constituents. It
    is unfortunate that we didn't have the opportunity to consider
    this bill more deliberately and mark it up in the Environment
    Subcommittee. We could have addressed some of these concerns
    while making sure not to stand in the way of the development of
    new and innovative fuel technologies. Because I am concerned
    that this legislation will further delay our pursuit for energy
    independence, I will be opposed to the bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
        Are there any amendments? And the gentleman from Florida,
    Mr. Grayson, is recognized to offer the first one.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The first amendment that I have offered, which is amendment
    designated number 61, simply clarifies that marine engines are
    included in the list of engines affected by the definition of
    midlevel ethanol blend. On one part of the bill, there is a
    clarity with that regard on page 3.
        Chairman Smith. Will the gentleman suspend, and will the
    clerk report the amendment?
        Mr. Grayson. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 875 offered by Mr. Grayson of
    Florida.
        [The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
    considered as read, and the gentleman from Florida is
    recognized to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The bill makes clear the effect of the action of the bill
    on marine engines with regard to page 3 but not with regard to
    page 2. This is a technical amendment that simply conforms page
    2 to page 3.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Florida yield?
        Mr. Grayson. Yes.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I think this is a good amendment, and I
    am pleased to accept it.
        Mr. Grayson. I yield the remainder of my time.
        Chairman Smith. Is there any further discussion on this
    amendment?
        If not, all in favor, say aye.
        Opposed, nay.
        The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
        The gentleman continues to be recognized.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment H.R. 875 offered by Mr. Grayson of
    Florida. Page 3, lines 4 through 12, strike----
        [The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
    considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized to explain
    his amendment.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment moves to strike section 2(b)
    from the bill. Section 2(b) is a section that, among other
    things, purports to have the authority to reverse decisions
    already duly made by the Administration regarding waivers and
    forbid waivers in the future until the outcome of a scientific
    study that has not yet been begun. I think that this is legally
    infirm for several reasons.
        The first is that I think that this might be considered to
    be an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional under
    Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution. A decision
    has been made by the Administration. There is legal recourse
    with regard to that decision. Under the Administrative
    Procedures Act, anyone including the individuals who have tried
    to influence this legislation by means of the correspondence
    that Congressman Sensenbrenner has described, they have
    recourse in court. That is their constitutional legal recourse;
    this is not. For us to reverse this at this time, to reverse
    these at this time, is unconstitutional action on our part, I
    submit, and thoroughly inappropriate.
        Beyond that, I think that to do so in the future, to forbid
    waivers like this in the future, is again legally incorrect. It
    is basically a stalling tactic. The Administration can easily
    wait for additional information in the future without being
    required to do so. To say that the Administration is barred
    from issuing such waivers is for us to interfere in the actions
    of the Administration and the legal authority that the
    Administration has under the Clean Air Act. For that reason, I
    will tell you that I unfortunately will find myself compelled
    to vote against this bill unless these concerns are addressed.
        But with regard to this particular amendment, I submit, Mr.
    Chairman, that it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee.
    I am concerned about the idea that we would try to dictate
    through legislation on the Science and Technology Committee
    whether the Clean Air Act can be implemented by the
    Administration when it is clear that the jurisdiction for such
    action is not within our Committee but rather within the Energy
    and Commerce Committee. Under the rules that are promulgated by
    the Republican majority here in Congress, the Clean Air Act and
    air emissions and all laws, programs and government activities
    affecting such matters are not within the Science and
    Technology Committee jurisdiction, they are within the
    jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Therefore, I
    have submitted this amendment in order to strike this part of
    the bill as beyond our jurisdiction.
        I yield the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, and I am happy to
    be recognized, but does the gentleman from Wisconsin want to be
    recognized in response?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, this is a legitimate
    exercise of the oversight power of Congress. We believe that
    there was not proper scientific input into the decision that
    the EPA has made. The bill simply proposes a timeout to get the
    input from the National Academy of Sciences, which I think has
    a reputation of being impartial and nonpartisan. And with all
    the evidence that has been put on the table about the problems
    with E15, it is time for us to exercise legislative
    responsibility just as, in my opinion, the EPA's rules in
    issuing this waiver have the same effect as legislation.
        I will be happy to yield to the chairman for his comments.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you for yielding.
        I just want to say to the gentleman from Florida that I
    appreciate his work on this issue. The legislation as
    introduced was referred, as he suggested, to this Committee as
    well as the Energy and Commerce Committee, and while the
    Science Committee has broad oversight responsibility, as Mr.
    Sensenbrenner just pointed out, for scientific and technical
    issues at EPA, we hope and expect to work with the Energy and
    Commerce Committee on this provision dealing with the granting
    of regulatory waivers.
        And I will yield back to the gentleman. Are there any other
    Members who wish to be heard on this amendment?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
    respond to the chairman's statement.
        Chairman Smith. Without objection.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I remain concerned about both the constitutionality and the
    jurisdiction of this provision. I think that it is unwise in
    any case to try to dictate to the Administration what is in
    effect the Administration's responsibilities under the Clean
    Air Act. However, in light of the fact that the chairman has
    recognized legitimate concerns about the jurisdictional issue,
    with that in mind, I very graciously withdraw my amendment.
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman does indeed graciously
    withdraw his amendment without objection, and I thank him for
    doing so, and he is recognized for his next amendment.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
    at the desk.
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, the clerk will read the
    amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 875 offered by Mr. Grayson of
    Florida. Page 3, line 22, insert----
        [The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
    considered as read, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Grayson, is recognized to explain the amendment.
        Mr. Grayson. Yes. With regard--thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        With regard to this amendment, what we are doing here is
    simple. The bill as currently written prescribes a scientific
    study. The scientific study is broken down by the bill in
    several respects. In my opinion, the bill omits one of the
    legitimate bases for scientific dispute, which is whether
    ethanol actually saves or increases carbon emissions over the
    lifecycle of the product. There is a great deal of literature
    that exists on this already. I think that that is a legitimate
    desideratum if we are going to have any scientific study at all
    here, and it is something that we can legitimately expect that
    a scientific authority might be able to opine on.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Grayson. Yes.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. This, I believe, is a very constructive
    amendment, and I am happy to accept it.
        Mr. Grayson. Well, thank you very much. With that in mind,
    I yield the remainder of my time.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Grayson.
        All those in favor of the amendment, say aye.
        Opposed, nay.
        The amendment is agreed to.
        The gentleman is recognized for his fourth and last
    amendment.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
    at the desk.
        Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 875 offered by Mr. Grayson of
    Florida. Page 5, lines----
        [The amendment of Mr. Grayson appears in Appendix I]
        Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
    considered as read, and the gentleman from Florida is
    recognized to explain the amendment.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        This is simply a technical amendment striking the phrase
    ``ability for'' as unnecessary to the assessment of the
    adequacy of misfueling mitigation plans. With that, I yield the
    remainder of my time.
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
    word.
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am happy to accept this amendment, and
    I will tell Mr. Grayson, I appreciate his staff and my staff
    working together, and three out of four ain't bad, and I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman yields back the balance of
    his time, and I want to say, since Mr. Grayson actually
    withdrew one of those, he is three for three. I appreciate, as
    the gentleman from Wisconsin said, the constructive working
    relationship between our staffs.
        Let us see. Are there any other amendments to the bill? Oh,
    I am sorry. We did not vote on that amendment.
        All in favor of Mr. Grayson's amendment, say aye.
        All opposed, nay.
        The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
        Are there any other amendments? If there are no further
    amendments, then the next item of business is reporting the
    bill H.R. 875. Because roll call votes on amendments to the
    bill are not pending. If there are no further amendments and a
    reporting quorum being present, the question is on the bill
    H.R. 875 as amended.
        Those in favor, say aye.
        Opposed?
        The ayes have it, and the bill as amended is ordered
    reported favorably.
        Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll call vote.
        Chairman Smith. A roll call vote has been requested, and
    pursuant to Committee Rule 2(f) and House Rule XI 2(h)(4),
    proceedings on this vote will be postponed, and we will go to
    H.R. 1422.

                                      ***

        Chairman Smith. Pursuant to the Chairman's previous order,
    we will now proceed to the postponed roll call votes. The
    Committee will vote on postponed matters in the order in which
    the roll call votes were requested.
        First item of unfinished business of the Committee is the
    postponed roll call on the bill H.R. 875, and the clerk will
    call the roll.
        The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
        Chairman Smith. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
        Mr. Hall?
        Mr. Hall. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
        Mr. Lucas. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
        Mr. Neugebauer?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. McCaul?
        Mr. McCaul. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
        Mr. Broun?
        Mr. Broun. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
        Mr. Palazzo?
        Mr. Palazzo. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes aye.
        Mr. Brooks?
        Mr. Brooks. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
        Mr. Hultgren?
        Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
        Mr. Bucshon?
        Mr. Bucshon. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes aye.
        Mr. Stockman?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Posey?
        Mr. Posey. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Posey votes aye.
        Mrs. Lummis?
        Mrs. Lummis. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Lummis votes aye.
        Mr. Schweikert?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Massie?
        Mr. Massie. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Massie votes aye.
        Mr. Cramer?
        Mr. Cramer. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes no.
        Mr. Bridenstine?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Bridenstine votes aye.
        Mr. Weber?
        Mr. Weber. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Weber votes aye.
        Mr. Stewart?
        Mr. Stewart. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Stewart votes aye.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
        Ms. Lofgren?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
        Mr. Lipinski. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
        Ms. Edwards?
        Ms. Edwards. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
        Ms. Wilson?
        Ms. Wilson. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes no.
        Ms. Bonamici?
        Ms. Bonamici. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici votes no.
        Mr. Swalwell?
        Mr. Swalwell. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Swalwell votes no.
        Mr. Maffei?
        Mr. Maffei. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Maffei votes no.
        Mr. Grayson?
        Mr. Grayson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes no.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy?
        Mr. Kennedy. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kennedy votes no.
        Mr. Peters?
        Mr. Peters. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes no.
        Mr. Kilmer?
        Mr. Kilmer. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kilmer votes no.
        Mr. Bera?
        Mr. Bera. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Bera votes no.
        Ms. Esty?
        Ms. Esty. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Esty votes no.
        Mr. Veasey?
        Mr. Veasey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Veasey votes no.
        Ms. Brownley?
        Ms. Brownley. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Brownley votes no.
        Mr. Takano?
        Mr. Takano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Takano votes no.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chair?
        Chairman Smith. Who seeks recognition? Gentleman from Texas
    is recognized.
        The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
        Chairman Smith. Are there any other Members who wish to
    vote or to change their vote?
        Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
        Mr. Broun. Mr. Sensenbrenner----
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
        Chairman Smith. The clerk will report the vote.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 18 Members voted aye, 16 Members
    voted nay.
        Chairman Smith. The ayes have it and the bill is agreed to.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
    the table and I move that the bill H.R. 875 as amended be
    favorably reported to the House and the staff be authorized to
    make any necessary technical and conforming changes.
        Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Smith. And without objection, so ordered.
        The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized.
        Ms. Johnson. Would you review that vote total for
    Democratic side?
        Chairman Smith. I believe the vote total is 18 to 16, but
    we will review it.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 18 Members voted aye, 17 Members
    voted nay.
        Ms. Johnson. Okay.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.033

                                  Appendix I:

                                  ----------

     H.R. 875 TO PROVIDE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC
      AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF MID-LEVEL
                    ETHANOL BLENDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,

                    Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendments,

                                Amendment Roster

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.006

                         Section-by-Section Analysis of

     H.R. 875 TO PROVIDE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC
      AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE USE OF MID-LEVEL
                     ETHANOL BLENDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
    Purpose: To provide for a comprehensive assessment of the scientific
    and technical research on the implications of the use of mid-level
    ethanol blends, and for other purposes.

    SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS

        Section 1 provides definitions, including: ``Administrator'' and
    ``Mid-Level Ethanol Blend.''

    SECTION 2. EVALUATION

        Section 2 (a) requires the Administrator, acting through the
    Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development at
    the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1) enter into an agreement
    with the National Academies of Sciences to provide a comprehensive
    assessment of the scientific and technical research on the implication
    of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, including a comparison of mid-
    level ethanol blends to gasoline containing ten percent or zero percent
    ethanol; and (2) transmit the report to the Committee on Science, Space
    and Technology and the Committee on Environment and Public Works within
    thirty days of receiving the results, along with the disagreement or
    agreement of the Administrator with the findings.
        Section 2 (b) invalidates any waiver granted by the Agency prior to
    enactment under section 211 (f) (4) of the Clean Air Act that allows
    the introduction into commerce of mid-level ethanol blends. The
    Administrator is prohibited from granting new waivers under section 211
    (f) (4) until after the submission of the report described in
    subsection (a) (2).
        Section 2 (c) requires the assessment performed under subsection
    (a) include: (1) an evaluation of the short and long-term
    environmental, safety, durability, and performance effects of the
    introduction of mid-level ethanol blends on onroad, nonroad, and marine
    engines, vehicles, and related equipment. The evaluation shall also
    include consideration of the impacts of qualifying mid-level ethanol
    blends or blends with higher ethanol concentration as a certification
    fuel, and a review of all available scientific evidence, including all
    relevant government and industry data and testing, including that which
    was relied upon by the Administrator and published in the federal
    register. Additionally, the study shall identify gaps in understanding
    and research needs related to (A) tailpipe emissions; (B) evaporative
    systems; (C) engine and fuel system durability; (D) onboard
    diagnostics; (E) emissions inventory and other modeling effects; (F)
    materials compatibility; (G) operability and drivability; (H) fuel
    efficiency; (J) consumer education and satisfaction; (K) cost-
    effectiveness for the consumer; (L) catalyst durability; and (M)
    durability of storage tanks, piping, and dispensers for retail.
        The study shall also include: (2) An identification of areas of
    research, development, and testing necessary to (A) ensure that
    existing motor fuel infrastructure is not adversely impacted by mid-
    level ethanol blends; and (B) reduce the risk of misfueling by users at
    various points in the distribution and supply chain by: (i) assessing
    the best methods and practices to prevent misfueling; (ii) examining
    misfueling mitigation strategies for blender pumps; (iii) assessing the
    adequacy and ability of misfueling mitigations plans approved by EPA;
    and (iv) examining the technical standards and recommendation of the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American National
    Standards Institute, and the International Organization for
    Standardization regarding fuel pump labeling.

    SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

        Section 3 allows the Administrator to utilize up to $900,000 from
    the funds made available for science and technology, including research
    and development activities, at the Environmental Protection Agency to
    carry out this Act.
                                   Amendments
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.032

                                Amendment Roster
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0556.015

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

               Union of Concerned Scientists' letter submitted by
                        Congressman James Sensenbrenner

         Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund,
    Clean Water Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Earthjustice,
               League of Conservation Voters' letter submitted by
                        Congressman James Sensenbrenner