[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 74 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3430-S3431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1085. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to define next generation 
biofuel, and to allow States the option of not participating in the 
corn ethanol portions of the renewable fuel standard due to conflicts 
with agricultural, economic, energy, and environmental goals; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have introduced a bill, S. 1085. I have 
some cosponsors, including Senator Snowe from Maine. The bill addresses 
something that has become very controversial. It is certainly not 
partisan in any way. It is more geographical; that is, I have been one 
who has been opposed to the corn ethanol mandates ever since they first 
came out. I opposed the 2007 Energy bill because it doubled the corn-
based ethanol mandates, despite the mounting questions surrounding 
ethanol's compatibility with existing engines, its environmental 
sustainment, as well as transportational infrastructure needs. I can 
remember back when they first did it, all the environmentalists were 
saying corn ethanol will be the answer. They were all for it, but they 
are against it now. They all recognize that corn ethanol is bad for the 
environment.
  Now, the three areas I personally have a problem with are, No. 1, the 
environment; No. 2, you have a compatibility situation. You talk to any 
of the farmers, any of the marine people, they will tell you it is very 
destructive to the small engines. Thirdly, everyone is concerned with 
the high price of fuel, with the fact that corn ethanol is not good for 
your mileage. Kris Kiser of the Outdoor Power Equipment Manufacturers 
testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee on 
ethanol's compatibility or lack of compatibility with more than 200 
million legacy engines across America which are not designed to run on 
certain blends of ethanol. I will quote her testimony before our 
committee. She said:

       In the marine industry, if your machine fails or your 
     engine fails and you are 30 miles offshore, this is a serious 
     problem. If you are in a snow machine and it fails in the 
     wilderness this is a serious problem.

  Consumers complain about the decreasing fuel efficiency around corn 
ethanol, containing 67 percent of the Btu of gasoline. We call it clear 
gas. This is a good time to say we are not talking about biomass. We 
are only talking about corn ethanol. Another problem I have in my State 
of Oklahoma is we are a big cattle State and that has driven up the 
cost of feedstock to a level that is not acceptable. According to the 
EPA, vehicles operating on E85 ethanol experience a 20-percent to 30-
percent drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol's lower energy content. 
Consumer reports found that E85 resulted in a 27-percent drop in fuel.
  As a result, you drive around Oklahoma--first of all, we are in 
Washington. It is my understanding there is no choice in Washington or 
Virginia or in Maryland and those areas. In my State of Oklahoma, we 
still have a choice, and the choice is very clear. The problem is the 
way this is set up, we will run into a barrier where they will no 
longer have clear gas available under the current formulas. For that 
reason, we have people who--at almost every station you see, the 
majority of the stations you see in Oklahoma, you have signs such as 
this: Ethanol free. 100 percent gasoline. This is all over the State of 
Oklahoma.

[[Page S3431]]

  There is a solution to this problem, and it is one I have introduced 
in this bill. Before describing that, I think the most pressing issue 
of this so-called blend wall is that EISA mandated 15 billion gallons 
of corn-based ethanol by 2015, but today it is readily apparent that 
the country cannot physically absorb this much corn ethanol. It is too 
much, too fast. In Oklahoma, ethanol's blend wall has nearly eliminated 
consumer choice. The fuel blenders and gas station owners have little 
option but to sell ethanol-blended gasoline, despite strong consumer 
demand for clear gas. There is the consumer demand all over the State 
of Oklahoma.
  What is the solution? I introduced a very simple, five-page bill. The 
bill would allow individual States to opt out of the mandate. It would 
require their State legislature wants this and they pass a resolution, 
it is signed by the governor, and they would be able to opt out. The 
State would pass a bill. It is signed by the Governor, stating its 
election to exercise this option. The Administrator of the EPA would 
then reduce the amount of the national corn ethanol mandate by the 
percentage amount of the gasoline consumed by this State.
  This option nonparticipation would only apply to the corn portion of 
the RFS and would not affect any of the volumetric requirements of 
advanced biofuels. We are big in advanced biofuels in my State of 
Oklahoma, the various foundations, Oklahoma State University. We have 
switchgrass we are working on, and it is something we are all for. The 
bill actually redefines cellulosic biofuels as next generation biofuel. 
The previously defined cellulosic biofuel carveout is expanded to 
include algae and any nonethanol renewable fuel derived from renewable 
biomass. So this is something that is not going to be incompatible. It 
is going to be very compatible with our interest here. So for those 
people who say: We demand to have corn-based ethanol, you can have it. 
All this is is choice, and if we and the people of my State of Oklahoma 
want a choice of clear gas or corn ethanol, they should be able to do 
it. I honestly don't think there is a legitimate argument against that. 
I plan to try to get some cosponsors. I think my good friend from 
Florida might be interested in cosponsoring something such as this 
because this gives choice to the people of his State as well as my 
State.
                                 ______