Mikulski, Cardin oppose ethanol proposal
The state's two Democratic senators joined with a majority of their party on Tuesday to block a symbolic effort to end federal ethanol tax subsidies, even though both lawmakers said they ultimately support doing away with the controversial tax credits.
Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin said they opposed the measure on procedural grounds Tuesday but expressed support for the underlying policy. Democratic leaders were upset by the way the proposal, offered by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, was brought to the floor.
The measure failed on a 40-59 vote, falling far short of the 60 votes needed to advance.
But although the Coburn version of the legislation did not pass, the debate Tuesday suggested that there is bipartisan support in the Senate for limiting the ethanol breaks. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate will take up another version of the measure in a matter of days.
“At a time when high gas and corn prices are hurting many people and businesses in Delaware and Maryland, particularly within our agriculture communities, and America is facing a massive federal deficit and debt, ending the subsidy for corn-based ethanol is long overdue," read a joint statement by Mikulski, Cardin and Delaware's Democratic senators, Tom Carper and Chris Coons.
“We voted against the Coburn amendment today because of the manner this issue was brought to the Senate floor," the statement read. "We have been assured by the Democratic leadership that the Senate will vote on this issue later this week, allowing us to consider and debate the substance of this important policy decision."
The subsidies, and the debate over their repeal, have prompted an intense federal lobbying campaign. The credits go to oil companies and others who blend ethanol into gasoline. The credits cost about $6 billion annually.
Coburn raised the ire of his Democratic colleagues by swapping out the text of a placeholder amendment he had pending on the floor, replacing it unexpectedly with the tax credit repeal.
Comments
Voted it against it because of the manner it was brought to the floor? What does that mean?
Posted by: Michelle Brown | June 14, 2011 8:27 PM
Ethanol subsudies line the pockets of the wealthy and drive up the prices of food.
POLL: Should Ethanol subsadies be ended?
Vote: http://www.wepolls.com/r/811335
Posted by: Zadoc Paet | June 14, 2011 8:50 PM
Can there be a better example of the pedantic political pettiness of the professional pols this state continues to support? They agree with the concept of the bill but vote against it because it was brought to the floor by "the other" party?! Seriously? Fire them. Fire them all.
Posted by: Bill Feiss | June 15, 2011 10:32 AM
The ethanol subsidies should be done away with, as the ethanol industry needs to compete with other fuels.
However, the USA has mastered the technology of extracting Ethanol from corn. Why not use tobacco, a crop that was previously abundantly grown in Maryland, Virginia, the other southern states and even Connecticut to replace corn as the raw material. Tobacco farming could make a comeback.
Ethanol would still be made in the US saving existing jobs, possibly creating more jobs, leaving corn for eating or export. The big benefit being this fuel is made here and US dollars don’t go overseas.
Ethanol did not deliver lower air pollution or greater mileage, as promised by environmentalists, but it is here! The ethanol producers need to figure out how to reduce the fuel’s cost and how to use a higher percentage in automobile engines (in conjunction with engine manufactures).
Posted by: Jean | June 15, 2011 2:17 PM
Senators Mikulski and Cardin: Once again, you DID NOT represent your consituents. But I guess it really doesn't matter to either of you since- in this State- having a big "D" after your name is an automatic election win.
Posted by: Mike K | June 15, 2011 2:41 PM
Can you please explain the right way to bring this to the floor? This article is missing some detail. I don't quite understand.I rely on the news to break things down for me because I don't 1. have time to read the bills and 2. even if I did I am not sure I would still understand where many of the politicians come from in their decision making process. Can you please assist? I would like to think that they didn't refuse to vote for this just because a Repub brought it to the floor...
Posted by: Deb G | June 20, 2011 1:20 PM