The House voted overwhelmingly (285-136) Feb. 19 to approve an amendment by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from proceeding with a program to allow use of E15 ethanol blends to cars and lights trucks beginning with the 2001 model year. Specifically, the Sullivan amendment would block EPA from increasing the amount of ethanol that can be added to gasoline from 10 to 15 percent. Republicans voted overwhelmingly, 206-31, to block the higher ethanol limit in gasoline and were joined by 79 Democrats.
EPA earlier approved the use of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol, or E15, for use in 2001 and newer cars and trucks, but the House bill would stop the agency from spending any money to implement the increase during this budget year, which ends Sept. 30, 2011 .
Another amendment that gained approval of the House would block the government from paying to retrofit service stations to sell gasoline with higher ethanol content. Both amendments were part of an omnibus appropriations bill (HR 1) that would fund the federal government through the remainder of FY 2011.
Many of the cuts included in the House bill are expected to be rejected by the Senate when Congress returns to Washington Feb. 28 from its week-long Presidents' Day recess. And, President Obama has promised to veto the House bill, should it arrive on his desk. So for now, at least, the recent House vote is largely symbolic.
The lopsided vote does demonstrate the significant hurdles the U.S. ethanol industry is likely to face in the future. In addition to two issues mentioned above, Congress later this year also will consider whether to extend current ethanol tax incentives and import tariffs beyond their scheduled expiration at the end of 2011.
Another issue of concern to agricultural producers that appeared headed to the chopping block was an amendment that would have lowered farm program payment caps. That proposal was defeated, but only after House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) convinced his colleagues that farm policy reform and budget cutting should wait until the 2012 farm bill debate gets underway. The fact that the House agreed to this request by Lucas underscores the additional scrutiny that non-farm interests will have in the drafting of the next omnibus farm bill.
