PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 31, 2017
This bill requires the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to provide a comprehensive assessment of research on the implications of the use of mid-level ethanol blends, which compares mid-level ethanol blends to gasoline blends containing 10% or 0% ethanol. A mid-level ethanol blend is an ethanol-gasoline blend containing 10%- 20% of ethanol that is intended to be used in any conventional gasoline-powered motor vehicle or nonroad vehicle or engine.
The assessment must: (1) evaluate the environmental, safety, durability, and performance effects of the introduction of mid-level blends on onroad, nonroad, and marine engines, onroad and nonroad vehicles, and related equipment; and (2) identify areas of research, development, and testing necessary to ensure that existing motor fuel infrastructure is not adversely impacted by mid-level ethanol blends and to reduce the risk of misfueling by users at various points in the distribution and supply chain.
The office must report on the assessment's findings. Any waivers granted under the Clean Air Act to allow the sale of mid-level ethanol blends for use in motor vehicles are nullified. The office is also prohibited from granting new waivers until after the report is submitted.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 16, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.777 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.777 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.777 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.777 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.