[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5041-S5042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Allard, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 3080. A bill to ensure parity between the temporary duty imposed 
on ethanol and tax credits provided on ethanol; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Imported 
Ethanol Parity Act of 2008.
  This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Cantwell, Allard 
and Collins.
  First, let me explain what this bill does. The Imported Ethanol 
Parity Act instructs the President to lower the ethanol import tariff, 
so that it is no higher than the subsidy for blending ethanol into 
gasoline.
  This legislation is necessary because the Farm Bill extended the 
tariff for two more years at $0.54 per gallon, even though the Farm 
Bill reduced the ethanol blending subsidy to $0.45 per gallon.
  In effect, the Farm Bill has turned the tariff from an ``offset'' 
into a true trade barrier of at least $0.09 per gallon.
  The Ethanol tariff poses many problems.
  It increases the cost of Gasoline in the United States by making 
ethanol more expensive.
  It prevents Americans from importing ethanol made from sugarcane. 
Sugar ethanol is the only available transportation fuel that works in 
today's cars and emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than 
gasoline;.
  It taxes imports from our friends in Brazil, India, and Australia, 
while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter the United States tax 
free.
  It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace through 
which countries with a strong biofuel crop could sell fuel to countries 
that suffered drought or other agricultural difficulties in the same 
crop year. Such a global market would permit mutually beneficial trade 
between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices.
  It makes us more dependent on the Middle East for fuel when we should 
be increasing the number of countries from whom we buy fuel. When it 
comes to energy security for the United States, which has less than 3 
percent of proven global oil reserves and 25 percent of demand, we must 
diversify supply.
  Bottom Line: until the tariff is lowered, the United States will tax 
the only fuel it can import that increases energy security, reduces 
greenhouse gas emissions, and lowers gasoline prices.
  In 2006 I introduced legislation to eliminate the ethanol tariff 
entirely, and in 2007 I cosponsored an amendment to the Energy Bill 
which would have eliminated the tariff.
  The Imported Ethanol Parity Act is a different proposal that I 
believe addresses the concerns of tariff defenders.
  The advocates of the $0.54 per gallon tariff on ethanol imports have 
always argued that the tariff is necessary in order to offset the 
blender subsidy that applies to the use of all ethanol, whether 
produced domestically or internationally. They argue that the ethanol 
subsidy exists to support American farmers who produce ethanol at 
higher cost than foreign producers.
  For instance, on May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee stated on the Senate floor that, ``the U.S. tariff on ethanol 
operates as an offset to an excise tax credit that applies to both 
domestically produced and imported ethanol.''
  On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated in a press 
release: ``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax 
incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of ethanol they 
blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.''
  In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the American Coalition 
for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn 
Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the 
National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated 
that the ``(blender) tax credit is available to refiners regardless of 
whether the ethanol blended is imported or domestic. To prevent U.S. 
taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed 
an offset to the tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a 
tariff.''
  Just this month, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive Director 
asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to protect the industry 
but the U.S. taxpayer.''
  Bottom Line: the tariff cannot be justifiably maintained at $0.54 per 
gallon if its intent is to offset a $0.45 per gallon blender subsidy, 
and it should be reduced.
  Ethanol from Brazil or Australia should not have to overcome a trade 
barrier that no drop of OPEC oil must face.
  Tariff defenders either should support this legislation or explain 
how a tariff can justifiably be higher than the subsidy it is designed 
to offset.
  Climate Change is the most significant environmental challenge we 
face, and I believe that lowering the ethanol tariff will make it less 
expensive for the United States to combat global warming.
  The fuel we burn to power our cars is a major source of the 
greenhouse gas emissions warming our planet. To reduce this impact, we 
need to increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and lower the 
lifecycle carbon emissions of the fuel itself.
  For this reason, in March 2007, I introduced the Clean Fuels and 
Vehicles Act with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.
  The legislation proposed a ``Low Carbon Fuels Standard,'' which would 
require each major oil company selling gasoline in the United States to 
reduce the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of 
energy in their gasoline by 3 percent by 2015 and by 3 percent more in 
2020.
  The legislation was modeled on the state of California's Low Carbon 
Fuels Standard, which also requires a reduction in the lifecycle 
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.
  This concept became a major aspect of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007, in which Congress required oil companies to use 
an increasing quantity of ``advanced biofuels'' that produce at least 
50 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline.
  Unfortunately the ethanol tariff puts a trade barrier in front of the 
lowest carbon fuel available, making it considerably more expensive for 
the United States to lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of 
transportation fuel.
  The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary depending on 
production methods and feedstocks, and these differences will impact 
the degree to which ethanol may be used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel 
requirements under California law and the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007.
  For instance, sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks 
as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input compared to 
current corn-to-ethanol processes. By comparison, researchers at the 
University of California concluded that ``only 5 to 26 percent of the 
energy content (in corn ethanol) is renewable. The rest is primarily 
natural gas and coal,'' which are used in the production process.
  The 2007 California Energy Commission Report entitled Full Fuel Cycle 
Assessment: Well-to-Wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts

[[Page S5042]]

concluded that the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of 
imported sugar based ethanol are 68 percent lower than gasoline, while 
the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol 
from the Midwest are 15 to 28 percent lower than gasoline.
  Further research released in 2008 suggests that the lifecycle 
greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol may be higher than 
gasoline, when land use change is factored into the equation.
  The bottom line: biofuels that protect our planet may be produced 
abroad, and we should not put tariffs in front of these fuels, while we 
import crude oil and gasoline tariff free.
  Energy and food prices are both rising at unprecedented rates, and 
there is a great deal of debate about whether the renewable fuels 
standard mandating ethanol use is causing the problem.
  I have always opposed corn ethanol mandates. But I remain concerned 
that the blending subsidy and the ethanol tariff have as much to do 
with rising corn prices as the ethanol mandate.
  Corn ethanol production has considerably exceeded the renewable fuels 
standard every year since its adoption in 2005. With oil prices this 
high, it is profitable to produce ethanol at record corn prices with or 
without the mandate. The low value of renewable fuels standard credits, 
known as RINs, confirms that using ethanol is not a burden for oil 
companies.
  To address the rising cost of corn, we have to address the underlying 
economics of corn ethanol production, and effectively increasing the 
tariff on imports, as the Farm Bill has done, is a step in the wrong 
direction.
  This legislation corrects the Farm Bill's mistaken policy that 
imposed a real trade barrier on clean and climate friendly ethanol 
imports, giving gasoline imports a competitive advantage over cleaner 
fuel that simply should not exist at a time we are trying to combat 
climate change.
  It prevents ethanol producers abroad from receiving American ethanol 
subsidies, which is supposedly the intent of the ethanol tariff.
  I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge Congress to pass 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3080

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Imported Ethanol Parity 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) On May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Finance Committee 
     of the Senate stated on the Senate floor that, ``the United 
     States tariff on ethanol operates as an offset to an excise 
     tax credit that applies to both domestically produced and 
     imported ethanol.''.
       (2) On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated: 
     ``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax 
     incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of 
     ethanol they blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.''. In 
     May 2008, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive 
     Director asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to 
     protect the industry but the United States taxpayer.''.
       (3) In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the 
     American Coalition for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau 
     Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the 
     National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Sorghum 
     Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated that 
     the ``(blender) tax credit is available to refiners 
     regardless of whether the ethanol blended is imported or 
     domestic. To prevent United States taxpayers from subsidizing 
     foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed an offset to the 
     tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a 
     tariff.''.
       (4) The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, as 
     contained in the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2419 in 
     the 110th Congress, proposes to decrease the excise tax 
     credit for blending ethanol from $0.51 to $0.45 per gallon, 
     but extend the $0.54 per gallon temporary duty on imported 
     ethanol, increasing the competitive disadvantage of ethanol 
     imports in the United States marketplace. The legislation 
     would transform a tariff designed to offset a domestic 
     subsidy into a real import barrier of at least $0.09 per 
     gallon.
       (5) The State of California is adopting a Low Carbon Fuels 
     Standard that requires a reduction in the lifecycle 
     greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels, and the 
     Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires the 
     United States to use increasing quantities of ``advanced 
     biofuels'' that have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that 
     are at least 50 percent less than lifecycle greenhouse gas 
     emissions from gasoline.
       (6) The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary 
     depending on production methods and feedstocks. These 
     differences will impact the degree to which ethanol may be 
     used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel requirements under 
     California law and the Energy Independence and Security Act 
     of 2007.
       (7) Sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks 
     as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input 
     compared to current corn-to-ethanol processes.
       (8) The 2007 California Energy Commission Report, entitled 
     ``Full Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well-to-Wheels Energy Inputs, 
     Emissions, and Water Impacts'', concluded that the direct 
     lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of imported sugar based 
     ethanol are 68 percent lower than gasoline, while the direct 
     lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol from 
     the Midwest are 15 to 28 percent lower than gasoline.
       (9) The cost to ship ethanol by sea from foreign production 
     areas to California is competitive with the cost to ship 
     ethanol by rail from the American Midwest, according to 
     ethanol producers and importers.
       (10) Ethanol production will vary from region to region 
     each year based on crop performance, and a global biofuels 
     marketplace would permit mutually beneficial trade between 
     producing regions capable of stabilizing both fuel and food 
     prices.
       (11) In March 2007, the United States and Brazil entered 
     into a strategic alliance to cooperate on advanced research 
     for biofuels, develop biofuel technology, and expand the 
     production and use of biofuels throughout the Western 
     Hemisphere, especially in the Caribbean and Central America.
       (12) On March 9, 2007, President Bush stated ``it's in the 
     interest of the United States that there be a prosperous 
     neighborhood. And one way to help spread prosperity in 
     Central America is for them to become energy producers.''.
       (13) According to a February 2008 study by the 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology, titled ``Biomass to 
     Ethanol: Potential Production and Environmental Impacts'', 
     the current ethanol distribution system in the United States 
     is not capable of efficiently supplying ethanol to the East 
     Coast markets.

     SEC. 3. ETHANOL TAX PARITY.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and semiannually thereafter, the President shall 
     reduce the temporary duty imposed on ethanol under subheading 
     9901.00.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States by an amount equal to the reduction in any Federal 
     income or excise tax credit under section 40(h), 6426(b), or 
     6427(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and take any 
     other action necessary to ensure that the temporary duty 
     imposed on ethanol under such subheading 9901.00.50 is equal 
     to, or lower than, any Federal income or excise tax credit 
     applicable to ethanol under the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
                                 ______