Under the current requirements of the Clean Air Act, the EPA can certify a new fuel for the marketplace as long as it does not increase emissions. As a result, when the ethanol lobby requested the EPA allow a higher concentration of ethanol in gasoline, based on a narrow test by the Department of Energy, the agency determined E15 could be used in vehicles made after 2001.

I sought input from 14 major US Automakers on how E15 would affect their vehicles. They unanimously reported the higher blend would void warranties, reduce fuel efficiency, and cause premature engine damage. Recent testing by the Coordinating Research Council on engine durability also showed that E15 could cause engine failure.

EPA did not perform any tests on engine durability, but pointed to DOE tests as adequate. Their answers only confirmed that the testing was inadequate, and at times, the agencies contradicted each other. For instance, in responding to a question on engine durability, EPA claims the testing “provided a robust means of determining E15’s impact on the durability of all vehicle components.”

But DOE’s response to a similar question states that they did not “conduct testing specifically designed to accelerate engine wear and stress as is sometimes done to test engine durability.” If EPA is going to stand by the DOE test, they should at least ensure that DOE believed it to be thorough.

To attempt to reconcile these views, I asked the EPA and Department of Energy to answer several questions I had regarding the scientific evidence of their decision. But regardless of questions raised by their own testing, because of the current, limited requirements under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can move forward with registering fuels without considering the effects on vehicle engines.

I introduced H.R. 3431 to amend the Clean Air Act. The legislation requires the EPA to also certify that a new fuel will not cost American drivers by causing premature engine failure or forcing them to fill up more often at the pump. Adding these new certification requirements will help provide Americans with a better overall product.

Not surprisingly, the ethanol lobby is not happy, asserting that the bill “missed the point” of attempts to reduce America’s dependence on foreign fuel.

Reducing dependence on foreign oil is an important goal. However, the EPA should not allow new fuels without assurances that it won’t mean shorter engine life and more trips to the pump.

As Americans are trying to do more with less, Congress should ensure that the EPA considers the needs of American drivers who rely on their cars every day, not certain special interest lobbies.

As reports are coming out that Pennsylvania is receiving $160 million from the Department of Health and Human Services to set up a new high-risk insurance pool program that will fund abortions, we are seeing, yet again, that the Obama Administration will say and do anything to pass their liberal agenda – ignoring public opinion along the way…

LIES: “You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion – not true. These are all fabrications.” - President Obama on August 19, 2009

D*MN LIES: “The executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.” — White House Statement on March 21, 2010

STATISTICS: 67 percent of Americans oppose funding abortions with public funds under the health care bill. — Quinnipiac University Poll, January 14, 2010

As pundits have commented in recent weeks, and many of us have realized, you need to watch what the President really does, not listen to what he says, as the two are often in vast contrast of one another. As you can read above, nowhere is this truer than on the issue of abortion.

Back in March, when the offer to sign an Executive Order was made, many pro-lifers questioned why the order was needed after President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Sebelius had been saying for months that no federal dollars would be used to fund abortions. On the day of the vote, I personally spoke on the House floor about how an Executive Order has no effect of law and cannot override the clear intent of a statute, as well as on how an Executive Order is only a piece of paper. Now that we know how little the President values his word and that he is comfortable violating an Executive Order, we are only left to wonder what other secrets are lurking for us in the dark.

Obamacare is a horrible law. The fact that hardworking taxpayers are now funding abortions – when many would rather use that money to provide for their families in an economy President Obama has only worsened – is an absolute outrage. The abortion funding being given to the state of Pennsylvania should be added to the already long list of why Obamacare must be repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court, whichever is quickest – and that’s no lie!