This amendment clearly limits consumer choice, and is yet another attack on our Nation's progress to try and achieve energy security. The technology that he is trying to prohibit basically would allow individuals to have a choice as to whether, what percentage plan they would want, whether E-10, E-30, E-50 or E-85, whatever suits their best needs, their affordability and their performance and gas mileage. It would actually make us much more dependent long term on foreign oil because you are going to limit the choices that are there. And without the blender pumps that he wants to prohibit, most Americans are left with just one option, and that's the E-10. If we continue to limit the amount of U.S.-produced ethanol we can use in our vehicles, we will be continuing to be beholden to foreign sources of energy, and we will be importing more oil every year. I urge my colleagues to vote against this. I reserve the balance of my time.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is opposing an amendment that limits consumer choice in fuel options.
Share
More from Tom Latham
I appreciate very much the gentleman raising the issue. I think we should remember, this is an appropriation bill. It is a funding bill. It is not an authorizing bill. This is an issue that should be dealt with by the committee of…
Reluctantly I must rise in opposition to the amendment. I share the gentleman's concern, and that is why we have included language in our committee report directing HUD to review instances of payments for housing that exceed 120 percent of…
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment…
I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.





