What: All Issues : Corporate Subsidies : Agriculture : S. 14. Energy Policy/Vote to Provide Federal Subsidy to Ethanol Manufacturers. (2003 senate Roll Call 209)
 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 Provide Federal Subsidy to Ethanol Manufacturers.
senate Roll Call 209     Jun 05, 2003
Progressive Position:
Nay
Progressive Result:
Loss

Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Boxer (D-CA) proposed several changes to an amendment offered by Senator Frist (R-TN) during Senate debate on legislation to overhaul the nation's energy policies. Their proposed changes, however, were rejected by the Senate which left the Frist amendment intact in its original form. The Frist amendment would require gasoline refineries to use five billion gallons of the gasoline additive ethanol annually by the year 2012. Progressives opposed the mandated use of ethanol contained in the Frist amendment because, in their view, the ethanol mandate would provide a corporate subsidy to ethanol manufacturers such as agricultural-giant Archer Daniels Midland; that company produces forty-six percent of the nation's ethanol. More importantly, in the view of Progressives, ethanol use would have a minimal positive impact on the environment but would increase gasoline prices to consumers because ethanol cannot be inexpensively transported through pipelines. The gasoline price increase caused by ethanol use, Progressives noted, would not be associated with any positive environmental benefits. Despite opposition from Progressives, the Frist amendment was adopted on a 68-28 vote.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name