What: All Issues : Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful : Consumer Protection : S. 14. Energy Policy/ Vote to Allow Governors to Exempt Their States From the Mandated Use of Environmentally- Neutral Ethanol As a Gasoline Additive.
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

S. 14. Energy Policy/ Vote to Allow Governors to Exempt Their States From the Mandated Use of Environmentally- Neutral Ethanol As a Gasoline Additive.
senate Roll Call 204     Jun 03, 2003
Y = Conservative
N = Progressive
Winning Side:
Conservative

Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) proposed an amendment to energy legislation which would require gasoline refineries to use five billion gallons of ethanol each year after 2012. In a second attempt to prevent states from economic or environmental harm caused by the federal ethanol mandate, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) proposed changes to the Frist amendment which would have allowed state governors to exempt their states from the ethanol requirements. In the view of Progressives, the ethanol mandate was essentially a corporate subsidy to the agricultural-giant Archer Daniels Midland; that company produces forty-six percent of the nation's ethanol. Progressives also pointed out that ethanol-which is more expensive than other gasoline additives-would increase the price of gasoline because gasoline producers would transfer the additional costs of ethanol to consumers. More importantly, Progressives argued, the use of ethanol would have a negligible positive impact on the environment; the additional cost of gasoline to consumers, then, would not be associated with any positive environmental benefits. Instead, Progressives argued, the gasoline price hikes would only serve to benefit ethanol manufacturers. Feinstein's proposed changes to the Frist amendment were voted down by a 34-62 margin.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name