[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.

                          ____________________