[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 98 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S7302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Johnson and 
        Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1008. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that the tax incentives for alcohol used as a fuel shall be extended as 
part of any extension of fuel tax rates; to the Committee on Finance.


                         EXCISE TAX LEGISLATION

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would extend the current excise tax incentive for ethanol use. I am 
pleased to be joined by Senators Moseley-Braun, Johnson, and Wellstone 
in this important effort.
  We are moving forward with this extension today for several reasons. 
Last month the Senate included extension language in the reconciliation 
bill. I believe this sends a strong signal that ethanol enjoys wide, 
bipartisan support on this side of the Capitol. Based on that action, 
now is the appropriate time to pursue extension through any and all 
avenues. Reconciliation is one avenue. Reauthorization of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act [ISTEA], the 
vehicle used in this legislation, is another. We would prefer that it 
be done sooner in the reconciliation bill, rather than later in the 
ISTEA reauthorization. But we want to make it clear that, one way or 
another, we will not rest until this extension becomes law.
  I stand in strong support of the Senate's reconciliation language 
that would extend the program through 2007. I commend my colleagues, 
Senators Grassley and Moseley-Braun for their tireless efforts to 
include an extension in the Senate language. And, I urge Senate 
conferees to hold fast to that position.
  Despite strong support in the Senate, the House Ways and Means 
Committee voted last month to cut, cap, and kill this important 
program. Even with a moderation of the Committee language in the House 
and the action by the Senate, the House Committee action has caused 
considerable uncertainty about the future of the ethanol program which 
will no doubt affect the growth of this renewable fuel program.
  The ethanol program has been an excellent example of a program that 
works. At a time when we are laboring to enact a balanced budget, I 
believe that programs, like ethanol, that pay for themselves and 
provide important benefits should be maintained rather than summarily 
eliminated.
  Ethanol's benefits are well documented--it strengthens the economy, 
improves the environment, and decreases our dependence on foreign oil. 
A recent study conducted by the Midwest Governors' Conference concluded 
that the ethanol program produces a net savings to the Federal budget 
of more than $3.6 billion, adds over $450 million to State tax receipts 
each year, increases total U.S. employment by 195,200 jobs, and boosts 
net farm income by more than $4.5 billion annually. The Federal 
Government gains $1.30 for each gallon of ethanol sold in America--more 
than double the 54-cent-per-gallon cost of the incentive.
  The increased use of ethanol helps offset the greenhouse gas 
emissions that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Ethanol-blended 
fuels reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and air 
toxics. Also, ethanol reduces the demand for imported gasoline and 
imported oxygenates by more than 90,000 barrels per day.
  Clearly, ethanol is not a favorite of many of the big oil companies. 
But just as clearly, ethanol use is good for America. Each gallon of 
ethanol production capacity not built due to uncertainty about 
ethanol's tax status represents a loss of revenue to the U.S. Treasury 
as well as to our Nation's farmers. If investors are scared away 
because of legislative attacks on ethanol, the taxpayer loses.
  That is why we are introducing legislation to reaffirm and extend our 
national commitment to this domestic, agriculture-based, renewable fuel 
program. We need to give this important sector of our economy the 
stability that will allow it to keep expanding. We need a solid, long-
term commitment to help ensure that the demand for home-grown ethanol 
continues.
  It is a critical time for ethanol. Instead of debating how to cut, 
cap, and kill the ethanol program as a number of legislators on the 
other side of the Capitol have done, supporters, whether from rural or 
urban areas, should be discussing the most appropriate way to extend 
the program. A program that works.
  Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this 
legislation to send a signal that Congress will keep its commitment to 
renewable alcohol fuels.
                                 ______