[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1615-S1617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOURCES OF ENERGY IN AMERICA
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, every time a President gives a State of
the Union message, there are a lot of people who praise it, there are a
lot of people who disagree with it. One of the areas where there was
some agreement--but also a lot of disagreement--was on the energy
package the President suggested in his State of the Union message.
Since I come from a State that is No. 1 in almost all of the
alternative energies such as biodiesel, such as wind--we are third in
wind energy, we are first in biodiesel, we are first in ethanol
production--I would like to set the record straight and encourage
people to see that a lot of good has been accomplished over the last
several years and that we ought to forget a lot of disagreeing rhetoric
and move on and even enhance what we have already done. So I am here to
address an issue President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union
message and an issue that those particularly on the other side of the
aisle have been quick to criticize.
In the President's speech to the Nation, he once again highlighted
the need for the United States to reduce our dependence upon foreign
oil. This has been something that Presidents have been stating on a
very regular basis, both Republican and Democratic, going back to 1973,
when President Nixon gave a speech, during the first energy crisis,
speaking about energy independence. Of course, President Nixon was
saying we can do it by 1980. I don't know why he picked that date, but
actually we are much more dependent upon foreign sources now than we
were even in 1980 because of the consumption of the United States and
the standard of living we have. People want to be free to drive their
car wherever they want to drive it as long as they want to. Whether it
is a big car or little car, it is freedom in America to do it, so we
become more dependent. But also along the lines of alternative energy,
we have made tremendous progress.
So President Bush did not do anything that Presidents probably
haven't been doing for the last 34 years, in saying we need to move
toward energy independence, but what they mean is less dependence upon
foreign sources and less dependence upon petroleum. Because I would be
misleading my colleagues, I would be misleading my constituents if I
said we have the capability--at least I don't know that we have the
capability--of being totally independent of foreign sources of energy,
but we surely have the capability
[[Page S1616]]
of being less dependent upon foreign sources of energy, and we have the
capability of being less dependent upon petroleum as a basis of our
energy.
So the critics, though, it seems, have been quick to point out that
the President has mentioned our dangerous dependence on foreign oil in
seven straight addresses to the Congress. That is why I pointed out
that every President since President Nixon has been talking about this
issue. So it is not just President Bush who has been mentioning it and,
presumably and impliedly, not doing anything about it. I wish to remind
my colleagues he has also talked about the value of domestic,
homegrown, renewable sources. But at the same time, there has been
criticism that he has done little to actually support the growth of
alternative energy. I say my colleagues are wrong.
I am going to quote Senators, but I am not going to mention their
names because I am not here to embarrass anybody; I am here to try to
get people to be responsible. I do wish to refer to these as all
Members of the Democratic Party, but I am not going to mention their
names. One Democratic Senator stated after the President's speech last
week:
The President acknowledged the need to develop alternative
energy, but he did not offer a real plan to put us on the
path to energy independence.
Now, I am going to show my colleagues how the President has been very
much involved in this.
Another Democratic Senator stated:
So many of us believe that though the President continues
to refer to the problem--
Meaning the problem of not being energy independent enough--
he has never quite moved us--
Never quite moved us--
as we would like in the direction of a solution. We did
little or nothing in Washington to address the addiction.
Maybe he hasn't addressed the addiction, but because there is an
addiction, he has tried to make us less dependent upon a petroleum
addiction, as opposed to an energy addiction.
Finally--and I could go on and quote many more, but I will stop at
the third one--one more Democratic Senator commented:
We have waited 6 long years for the aggressive new
incentives needed to really get our biofuels industries off
the ground and break America's oil addiction.
Of all the statements I have quoted, it seems to me that is the one
that is flatout intellectually dishonest, as I am going to give some
facts here. The facts would suggest otherwise. The fact is the ethanol
industry is growing at the fastest pace in its history. There are over
110 ethanol facilities operated across the country. These plants have
the capacity to produce 5.3 billion gallons of ethanol annually. I said
110--110 ethanol facilities. We only have 170 petroleum refineries to
make gasoline and fuel oil in this country. So I think we are
developing an industry.
Here my colleagues can see the States that are darker, where the
ethanol industry is being located. Iowa is No. 1, my State is No. 1 in
the production of ethanol, but it is rapidly expanding. I still
remember 3 or 4 years ago, or maybe it has only been 2 years ago now,
when we had Members from this State and Members from this State who
would stand up here and offer amendments against ethanol, and it wasn't
long that once we got into the point where everybody realized they had
to use ethanol, we had Members from this State and we had Members from
this State saying to Senator Harkin and me: Why don't you get us more
ethanol, as an example. So people are becoming more ethanol friendly,
but it seems you have to take them dragging and screaming into the new
world of alternative energy.
So we have a developing industry. Twenty-three States currently have
ethanol plants in operation or under construction. Today, there is some
level of ethanol blended in more than 46 percent of our Nation's fuel.
In my State, that would be about 80 percent. In Minnesota, I will bet
it is more because Minnesota has a State mandate. I have been
embarrassed because when the Republicans controlled the State
legislature and I went to them and said we ought to be doing what
Minnesota is smart enough to do, I had Republican legislators tell me:
Grassley, go back to Washington and stick to your own business. But I
told them how I fought for the ethanol industry and alternative fuel
and for the agricultural industry because that is where the source of
the energy comes from, from the family farmers of America, and I told
them it was embarrassing to me to fight big oil here while they were
kowtowing to big oil back in Des Moines.
Well, anyway, I think things are going to be moving along. We have a
Democratic Governor who wants to do more with the biofuel industry in
my State, and I think we are going to make some progress. We may not
have a mandate, but we may not need a mandate now.
I wish to talk about where we are located. Now, according to the
Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol produced in 2006 resulted in
the reduction of oil imports by 170 million barrels of oil, with a
value of $11.2 billion. Remember, $11.2 billion being spent on ethanol
that is not going to the Middle East to produce a profit for the oil
barons over there who shoot bullets at our soldiers as we are trying to
take on the war on terrorism.
Now, I say to the critics on the other side--the other side chooses,
as evidenced by the earlier statements I quoted of Democratic
Senators--to ignore this data when they discuss the energy track record
of President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress in past years.
I was cynical when there was a Governor Bush running for President
and coming to Iowa to campaign saying he would be for anything but big
oil. So I had the opportunity in January of 2000, when we have our
caucuses in the coldest time of the year, to be in a minivan with
President Bush, as a candidate for the Republican caucuses at that
time, to ride with him for 2 or 3 days. I thought, what a wonderful
opportunity to be in a small car with a Governor who might be President
of the United States, to teach him about the facts of ethanol. It
didn't take me very long because he came back--and you never remember
the exact quotes because I didn't write this stuff down. But I remember
him saying something along the effect of: Well, it is just common
sense. We only have so much petroleum. We have to start relying on
ethanol to a greater extent. I guess I believed him then, but maybe I
had some question marks. So we went on for 2 or 3 days, and there
wasn't anything in those 2 or 3 days to change my mind. But you wonder:
you say one thing as a candidate; you might perform another thing as an
officeholder. But I found back in 2000 that the President was a friend
of ethanol when he told me about it, and he has performed that way in
office. So I am satisfied that this President is coming from where he
started and albeit from a State where oil is big business and where you
wouldn't expect him to be for it, but he has been a friend, as he
indicated to me privately he was going to be. I think this President
has done well for alternative fuel. So I don't think the criticism of
him is legitimate.
The fact is that when President Clinton left office in 2000, our
farmers were only producing 1.6 billions of gallons of ethanol. Now, I
am not saying President Clinton was not friendly to ethanol. He was
friendly to ethanol. But I think there are degrees of friendliness. But
for the people on the other side of the aisle who tend to be
criticizing this President, I want them to see where we have come since
this President took office. During the 8 years of the Clinton
presidency, domestic ethanol production grew 33 percent, as my
colleagues can see here. Now, when we compare that to what it is since
President Bush came to office in January 2001, the domestic ethanol
industry is producing 1.7 billion gallons annually. That grew to 4.9
gallons last year. When President Bush leaves office--this chart is
somewhat of an estimate, but we think it is on target because the
plants are coming online and ethanol is catching on and the need for
ethanol is very real--we think this will grow to 10 billion gallons.
That is a 488-percent increase during this period of time compared to a
33-percent increase.
I am not belittling President Clinton's efforts, but I think people
on the other side of the aisle ought to take into consideration when
they are raising a question about whether we have done enough in recent
years about alternative energy these facts and this growth and not
belittle this growth that seems to me is going on. This growth is no
accident.
[[Page S1617]]
In fact, a key turning point took place in March of 2001 when
President Bush took a courageous step that President Clinton should
have taken but did not take during the last year of his Presidency. In
1999, the big State of California, with a tremendous consumption of
fuel for automobiles and energy--generally, the State of California, at
that time, was deciding to ban the competitor to ethanol as an octane
enhancer that is known by the acronym MTBE. It stands for methyl
tertiary-butyl ether. It was found to contaminate ground water.
Obviously, California had to quit using it, but they did not want to
substitute ethanol. According to the 1990 Clean Air Act, they had to
substitute ethanol without a waiver by the President or Congress. They
were asking for that waiver. It did not happen, so we did not know
where the ethanol industry sat versus the MTBE, so ethanol did not
benefit the way it could have if President Clinton had made a decision.
California Governor Gray Davis did not want his citizens to have to
use ethanol--which the 1990 law required--and he petitioned Clinton for
that waiver. While many of my colleagues and I lobbied President
Clinton to deny the waiver, he took no action. When President Clinton
had the opportunity to demonstrate his confidence in our Nation's
farmers and ranchers to produce this clean renewable alternative
energy, President Clinton was nowhere to be found.
That changed when Governor George Bush was elected President. Less
than 90 days into his term as President, George Bush denied the waiver
which put the ethanol industry firmly on a path to growth because
California uses so much energy.
Along the way, Congress considered and enacted a number of incentives
and supportive policies to foster the development of this important
industry. In August 2005, President Bush signed into law the Energy
Policy Act which included the renewable fuels standard, or RFS, for
short. This provision was a culmination of the work of dozens of
Senators during a period that spanned three Congresses. It has also
been key to the growth of the domestic ethanol industry.
The effort to enact a strong renewable fuels standard was bipartisan,
but it was approved by the majority Republican Congress with the help
of President Bush.
During the consideration of the Energy Policy Act, President Bush
asked Congress for a bill that would help diversify the U.S. away from
crude oil. He put his public support behind the renewable fuels
standard to require the use of ethanol and/or biodiesel. The President
supported our efforts toward a renewable fuels standard because he
recognized that increasing our use of ethanol and biodiesel would
create new markets for farm products and increase our energy security.
During the consideration by the Senate during this period of time--
and I referred to this a little bit before--no fewer than 11 amendments
were offered by Members of the other side of the aisle to delay,
reduce, or render useless the renewable fuels standard which had broad
bipartisan support, particularly from those from the Midwest. It was
not the Republicans offering these amendments to kill the growth of the
domestic renewable fuels market. It was members of the other side, some
of whom are the same ones who may be criticizing the President today
for not doing enough to decrease dependence upon foreign oil.
Perhaps more ironic is that a strong renewable fuels standard could
have been enacted earlier than 2005. In November 2003, an Energy bill
conference report came to the Senate with a renewable fuels standard
but ran into a filibuster in the Senate. Had there not been a
Democratic-led filibuster, what the President signed in August of 2005
would have been signed in November 2003. We would have been 2 years
ahead of the game.
In addition to the renewable fuels standard, other provisions enacted
in the past 6 years have perhaps done even more to spur the growth of
the renewable fuels, particularly ethanol and particularly biodiesel.
In 2004, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act. This
legislation included modification and extension of the ethanol tax
incentive. While improving the incentive, it also extended it through
2010.
In the Energy Policy Act, which the President signed in August of
2005, Congress expanded the incentive for small ethanol producers and
created a new credit for small producers of biodiesel. Most recently,
Congress extended the tariff on imported ethanol through the year 2008.
The tariff ensures that U.S. taxpayers are not subsidizing foreign
ethanol and that we continue to grow our domestic production of
ethanol.
As a result of the tax incentives, the ethanol import tariff and the
renewable fuels standard, the domestic renewable fuels industry, is
growing faster than anyone could have ever imagined. The policies put
in place by the Congress when Republicans controlled it, with the
support and assistance of President Bush, have put this industry on a
path of extraordinary growth. We have recognized that renewable fuels,
such as ethanol and biodiesel, improve air quality, strengthen national
security, reduce the trade deficit, decrease dependence upon the
volatile Middle East for oil, expand markets for agricultural products,
increase income for farmers, and create good-paying jobs in rural
America.
In other words, it is as the Campbell's soup advertisement of 25
years ago: everything about ethanol is good, good, good.
The fact is, President Bush has been the most prorenewable fuels
President our country has ever had. I stated earlier when he was a
candidate for President coming from big oil Texas and being Governor of
that State, would I expect him to be a renewable fuels person in the
future? No, because I have been dealing with big oil and fighting them
versus ethanol for a long period of time. It is only within the last 3
or 4 years that we had the freedom of not having to fight big oil. Who
knows, maybe today we will have to fight big oil again when it comes to
some ethanol products for the future, but there has been a lull. I
thank President Bush for keeping his word to the people when he
promised to be prorenewable fuels.
Getting back to those who claim the renewable fuels industry has
lacked attention from President Bush and previous Republican
Congresses, I leave with one final point. In the year 2000, the final
year of the Clinton administration, we produced 1.6 billion gallons of
ethanol. That is nothing negative about President Clinton. He seemed to
be, for the most part, very ethanol friendly. But you cannot criticize
this President when we have this figure: By the time he leaves office
in 2008, we will be producing 10 billion gallons. The policy supported
by the Republican Congress led to this growth.
I have proven that I don't want to sit by quietly while the other
side tries to say otherwise.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Does the Democratic side seek unanimous consent to address the
Senate?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to
speak as if in morning business for such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________