Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2003 House Bill 4657
Public Act 116 of 2003
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Neal Nitz (R) on May 7, 2003, to eliminate an existing requirement that gasoline pumps at gas stations display a label that the fuel contains ethanol blended gasoline.
- Referred to the House Agriculture and Resource Management Committee on May 7, 2003.
- Reported in the House on May 20, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on May 21, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which incorporates technical changes that do not affect the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 21, 2003.
- Referred to the House Agriculture and Resource Management Committee on May 7, 2003.
- Passed 80 to 27 in the House on May 21, 2003.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on May 22, 2003.
- Referred to the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Tourism Committee on May 22, 2003.
- Reported in the Senate on June 10, 2003, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered in the Senate on June 24, 2003, to establish a new date on which the bill will go into effect if passed. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 24, 2003.
- Passed 28 to 9 in the Senate on June 25, 2003, to eliminate an existing requirement that gasoline pumps at gas stations display a label that the fuel contains ethanol blended gasoline.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on June 25, 2003.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Glenn Anderson (D) on July 1, 2003, to establish that the bill will go into effect immediately if Congress passes the "Safe, accountable, flexible, and efficient transportation equity act of 2003." If not, it goes into effect on January 1, 2004. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on July 1, 2003.
- Passed 88 to 19 in the House on July 1, 2003, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on July 2, 2003.
- Passed 27 to 10 in the Senate on July 3, 2003, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 29, 2003.
Most Recent Comments
1) Rep. Bieda's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on July 22, 2003Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on concurring with HB 4657 because I strongly believe that consumers have the right to know what additives are in their gasoline. Some motorists believe that ethanol affects the performance of their automobiles--they should be able to make an informed choice. In addition, I am concerned on how federal tax credits on ethanol fuel would result in a reduction in the amount that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund--according to testimony heard in committee, this could result in a loss of an estimated $50 million in federal highway funds."
Reply
Rep. Dennis, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on HB4657 because I believe that the consumer has the right to know about the make up of the fuel one is putting into one's automobile."
Reply
Rep. Minore, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I opposed passage of this bill--in spite of wanting to encourage the use of ethanol blending--because I believe consumers have a right to know what additives are in their petroleum products. This bill would seem to be anti-consumer, even if the issue is a relatively benign one."
Reply
View Full Conversation
