[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 84 (Monday, June 13, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3719-S3721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ETHANOL
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow afternoon we will vote on
Senator Coburn's amendment dealing with ethanol.
I come to the floor at this time to express my strong opposition to
that amendment. Senator Coburn's amendment would raise the tax on
domestic energy production. It would do this by repealing an incentive
for the use of a home-grown renewable fuel called ethanol.
With conflicts in the Middle East and crude oil priced at $100 a
barrel or more, we should be on the same side. Let me make that clear.
We have Middle East problems. We have crude oil priced at over $100 a
barrel. Oil interests and biofuels interests, if both are domestically
produced, should be on the same side of the energy issue.
Why would anyone prefer less domestic energy production? In other
words, why would anyone prefer importing more oil over domestically
produced energy, whether it is fossil fuel or renewable? We should all
be on the same side of more domestically produced energy.
The tremendous cost of America's dependence upon foreign oil has
never been more clear. I support drilling here and drilling now. I
support renewable energy. I support conservation. I support nuclear
energy. The reason I support different forms of energy and why we have
to support more energy is that if we are going to have an expanding
economy and create more jobs, we are obviously going to use more
energy.
Remember, I included conservation in my energy program. So the
attacks on domestic energy are quite a remarkable thing happening right
now, when gasoline is $4 a gallon. We are spending $835 million a day
imported oil. So whether it is oil or renewable energy, we should not
be fighting each other over any source of domestic energy. We should be
fighting together against OPEC and these foreign dictators and oil
sheiks--some of them hate the United States--from holding our economy
hostage.
The author of the amendment has argued that the production of clean,
home-grown ethanol is fiscally irresponsible. It is important to
remember that the incentive exists to help producers of ethanol to
compete with the oil industry--in other words, to have a level playing
field for all forms of energy.
Remember, the oil industry has been well supported by the Federal
Treasury for more than a century. The Senator from Oklahoma, the
sponsor of the amendment, has touted with much fanfare a letter from
oil companies that says they don't need or want the credit. It is my
understanding that many of the oil refineries are no longer in the
business of downstream ethanol blending and, subsequently, do not pay
the excise tax on gasoline and do not benefit from the credit.
Now, isn't it easy to be advocating repeal of something when you
don't benefit from it? It is even easier to advocate for repeal when
doing so would undercut your competition.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the oil refiners and Big Oil are
advocating a position that would reduce the competitiveness of
renewable ethanol. Refineries enjoy a cozy monopoly on our Nation's
transportation fuel. They opposed the Renewable Fuels Standard because
it cuts into their monopoly.
Alternatively, if the members of the National Petrochemical and
Refiners Association say they don't want or don't need the credit, then
it is pretty simple: Don't take it. It is a tax credit which they must
apply for to the Internal Revenue Service. If they don't want it and
they don't need it, they shouldn't file for that credit with the
Internal Revenue Service. I would be glad to work with the Senator from
Oklahoma in getting the members of the National Petrochemical and
Refiners Association to return the credit to the Federal Treasury. No
one is forcing them to take the credit. Since they seem eager to return
it, perhaps Senator Coburn and I can work together to get them to
return it.
If you like tight gasoline supplies and if you like $4 gasoline, join
the campaign led by Big Oil and the National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association. If you want less dependence on foreign oil and more use of
homegrown, renewable fuels, support ethanol producers.
The fact is, the portion of the industry that blends ethanol and
sells it to the consumers supports maintaining this credit. The Society
for Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, or SIGMA, recently wrote
to the Senate majority leader and minority leader opposing efforts to
prematurely and abruptly eliminate the blender's credit:
On behalf of our client, the Society of Independent
Gasoline Marketers of America, I write to you to oppose
efforts in Congress to prematurely and abruptly eliminate the
VEETC--that is the ethanol blenders credit.
Increasing the tax paid on ethanol-blended gasoline makes
no sense at a time when consumer fuel prices are already high
and the need to maximize domestic energy sources is so very
critical.
Very true at the time when gasoline is $4 a gallon.
SIGMA's members account for 37 percent of the petroleum retail
market. SIGMA works to promote competition in the marketplace to help
keep consumer fuel costs down. This is contrary to the position of oil
refiners who prefer no competition.
I have further words from that letter.
This incentive has been an extremely useful tool in helping
the Nation's fuel marketers and chain retailers deliver fuels
to the market at a competitive price.
By providing long-term price competitiveness for ethanol-
blended fuels, VEETC also helps provide assurances to
marketers and retailers that important infrastructure
investments necessary to deliver these fuels will continue to
provide returns, and not result in wasted improvements.
Simply put, SIGMA opposes recent moves to prematurely or
abruptly end the subsidies without any consideration for
future fuel and fuel-delivery costs.
To end this incentive immediately would no doubt result in
an immediate spike in consumers' fuel costs.
SIGMA believes that a policy that provides an effective
transition for the industry from the current tax structure is
a better alternative to the slash and cut budget strategy
being promoted by some Members of Congress.
I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at
the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Oklahoma also mentioned the total cost
of the blender's credit as a reason for supporting repeal of VEETC. He
claimed the American people will have spent $32 billion on this credit
over the past 30 years. That may be the case.
Again, I don't believe we should be debating ethanol incentives by
themselves or in a vacuum. For comparison's sake, I wish to inform my
colleagues of the cost and duration of a few oil subsidies.
The Senator from Oklahoma has derided the 30-year-old ethanol
blender's credit, arguing that the industry is mature. Well, what about
our century-old oil industry? Don't forget, oil was discovered in
Pennsylvania in 1859. We haven't had the incentives for that long, but
according to the Government Accountability Office, the tax break
allowing for the expensing of intangible drilling costs began in 1916,
more than 95 years ago, and continues today. The percentage depletion
allowance was enacted in 1926, 85 years ago, and it still exists today.
After 95 years, is the domestic oil industry not mature?
I know my colleagues will be interested in how much these two
subsidies
[[Page S3720]]
have cost the American people. A report issued by the General
Accounting Office in the year 2000 looked at the subsidies for oil
production. It reviewed the 32-year period between 1968 to 2000. During
that timeframe, the intangible drilling subsidy cost the American
people as much as $52 billion. The percentage depletion subsidy cost
the American people $82 billion. So these two provisions, enacted
nearly a century ago, cost the American people as much as $114 billion
from 1968 through 2000. And this doesn't even include the subsidies
during the past 11 years.
Last month, we had a vote here in the Senate to repeal a number of
these oil and gas tax provisions. Opponents of repealing oil and gas
subsidies argued then, and I presume would argue today, that doing so
would reduce domestic energy production and drive up our dependence on
foreign oil. Opponents at that time also argued it would cost U.S.
jobs, and increase prices at the pump for consumers.
I happen to agree with those arguments. But if those arguments are
good for oil, then they are good not just for ethanol but they are good
for all sorts of green energy as well.
Prices at the pump are nearly $4 a gallon. All of our constituents
are crying out for action to lower these prices, so it makes sense that
Congress would consider steps to address the rising energy costs and
work to drive down the cost to consumers at the pump.
That is not what the Coburn amendment would do. It would not drive
down the cost at the pump at all. It would very likely lead to higher
prices for consumers. It won't lead to the production of anymore
energy. It won't create anymore jobs. It very well could lead to less
domestic energy production and less employment in the U.S. energy
sector; in other words, more unemployment and more dependence on
foreign sources of energy.
At a time of $4 gas and 9.1 percent unemployment, why would we in
this body consider an amendment that will increase the cost of energy
production, reduce domestic energy supply, and lead to job losses?
Ethanol is reducing prices at the pump. A recent study by the Center
for Agriculture and Rural Development found that ethanol is reducing
the price at the pump by an average of 89 cents a gallon.
The fact is, this amendment is not about reducing prices at the pump.
The amendment before us is not about reducing our dependence on foreign
oil. This amendment is about raising taxes. And one thing is for
certain: If you raise taxes on any activity, you get less of it. That
is a common economic principle.
A taxpayer watchdog group considers a repeal of this tax incentive to
be what it is, a tax hike. Americans for Tax Reform said, ``Repealing
the ethanol credit is a corporate income tax increase.'' I agree.
Now is not the time to impose a gas tax hike on the American people.
Now is not the time to send pink slips to ethanol-related jobs.
I know we all agree that we cannot and should not allow job-killing
tax hikes during this time of economic uncertainty. What this Congress
should be doing is increasing the domestic production of energy as a
way to increase jobs, increase domestic investment, and lower prices at
the pump. This amendment does none of those things, and actually it
does exactly the opposite. A repeal of the ethanol tax incentive is a
tax increase that will surely be passed on to the American consumers.
Repealing incentives for ethanol would have the same exact result as a
repeal of the oil and gas subsidies. We will get less domestically
produced energy. It will cost U.S. jobs. It will increase our
dependence upon foreign oil. It will increase prices at the pump for
the American consumer.
So why do my colleagues want to increase our foreign energy
independence when we can produce it right here at home? I wish to ask
my colleagues who voted against repealing the oil and gas subsidies but
support repealing incentives on renewable fuels, why the inconsistency?
Interestingly, the same oil and gas association that is lobbying for
repeal of the ethanol incentive led the charge against raising taxes on
the oil and gas industry. The president of the National Petrochemical
and Refiners Association stated:
Targeting a specific industry or even a segment of that
industry is what we would consider punitive and unfair tax
policy, and it is not going to get us increased energy
security, increased employment and certainly not going to
lower the price of gasoline.
That is the end of the quote from the president of the National
Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
The fact is, it is intellectually inconsistent to say that increasing
taxes on ethanol is justified but that it is irresponsible to do so on
oil and gas production. If tax incentives lead to more domestic energy
production and to good-paying jobs, why are only incentives for oil and
gas important? It is even more ridiculous to claim that the 30-year-old
ethanol industry is mature but the oil and gas industry, now over 100
years old, is not. Regardless, I don't think we should be raising taxes
on any type of energy production or on any individual, particularly
when we have a very weak economy. This amendment is a tax increase.
The Senator from Oklahoma also insists that because the renewable
fuel is required to be used, it does not need an incentive. But with
oil prices at $100 a barrel, oil companies are doing everything they
can to extract more oil from the ground. There is not a mandate to use
oil but oil already has a 100-year-old monopoly on our transportation
infrastructure. They want to maintain as much of that 100-year-old
monopoly as they can right now. Right now, because 10 percent of the
energy used in cars is ethanol, they may only have a 90-percent
monopoly, but they sure have a lot to say about what goes into your gas
tank without competition.
When there is little competition to oil and it is enormously
profitable, wouldn't that industry argue that the necessary incentives
exist to produce it without additional taxpayer support? Oil
essentially has a mandate today, and the economics of oil production
are clearly in favor of producers.
It is still unclear to me why we are having this debate on this bill.
This is not an energy bill. It is not a tax bill. Its prospects in the
Senate are uncertain. Maybe most important, if this amendment were
attached to this bill, the entire bill would be blue-slipped by the
House because revenue bills under our Constitution must originate in
the House of Representatives, and this is not a House revenue bill we
are working on.
If we send it to the other body with this amendment, they will send
it right back to us. It will be dead on arrival in the other body. So
why are we having this debate on this bill? We should be debating this
amendment in the context of a comprehensive energy plan. This debate
should include a review of the subsidies for all energy production, not
just for one of many renewable resources.
I could ask: Why are we talking about this subsidy on ethanol when we
are not talking about the subsidies on oil? Why should we be talking
about this subsidy on one alternative energy, which is ethanol, but not
talking about the subsidies for wind and solar and biomass and
geothermal and I suppose a dozen other alternative energy sources that
we have? It boils down to the fact that we should not be singling out
ethanol. Nearly every type of energy gets some sort of market-
distorting subsidy from the Federal Government. I have indicated that
at least for 95 years on one oil subsidy.
An honest energy debate should include ethanol, oil, natural gas,
nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, and probably a lot of others
that do not come to my mind at this particular time. In December, 2010,
Congress enacted a 1-year extension of the volumetric ethanol excise
tax credit--that, for short, goes by the acronym VEETC--but this is
also known as the blenders' credit.
This 1-year extension has allowed Congress and the domestic biofuels
industry to determine the best path forward for Federal support of
biofuels.
As a result of these discussions, Senator Conrad and I introduced
bipartisan legislation on May 4 that is a serious, responsible first
step to reducing and redirecting Federal tax incentives for ethanol.
Our bill will reduce VEETC to a fixed rate of 20 cents in 2012, and 15
cents in 2013. It will then convert to a variable tax incentive for the
remaining 3 years based upon the price of crude oil. When crude oil is
more than $90 a barrel, there will be no blenders credit. When crude
oil is $50 a barrel or
[[Page S3721]]
less, the blenders credit would be 30 cents. The rate will vary when
the price of crude is between $50 and $90 a barrel.
When oil prices are high, a natural incentive should exist in the
market to drive ethanol use. The bill also would extend through the
year 2016 the alternative fuel refueling property credit, the
cellulosic producers tax credit, and the special depreciation allowance
for cellulosic biofuel plant property.
Today, Senator Thune and Senator Klobuchar are introducing another
bipartisan bill to immediately reduce and reform the ethanol tax
incentive. It includes many of the same features as the bill I
introduced last month, but it enacts the reforms this year. The
approach of Senator Thune also leads to significant deficit reduction.
The legislation we have introduced is a responsible approach that
will reduce the existing blenders credit and put those valuable
resources into investing in alternative fuel infrastructure, including
alternative fuel pumps.
It would responsibly and predictably reduce the existing tax
incentive and help get alternative fuel infrastructure in place so
consumers can decide at the pump which fuel they would prefer. I know
that when the American consumers have their choice, they will choose
domestic, clean, affordable renewable fuel. They will choose fuel from
America's farmers and ranchers rather than from oil sheiks and foreign
dictators. Both of the ethanol reform bills I mentioned are supported
by the ethanol advocacy groups. In an almost unprecedented move, the
ethanol industry is advocating for a reduction in their Federal
incentives. No other energy industry, whether it is fossil fuels or
renewables, has come to the table to reduce their subsidies. No other
energy advocate has come to me with a plan to reduce their Federal
support.
In conclusion, I would like to address two points that ethanol
opponents continue to make, despite facts to the contrary. First,
ethanol and ethanol incentives are not a major factor in rising food
and corn prices. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack,
recently stated:
During the great run-up in food and commodity prices in
2007 and 2008, biofuel production played only a minor role,
accounting for about 10 percent of the total increase in
global prices.
But going back to that time or even more recently, listening to the
big food manufacturers that are part of this coalition attacking
ethanol, you would think the entire blame for the increase in the price
of food is because of ethanol, even though ethanol consumes only 3
percent of the coarse grain produced in the entire world. A recent
report by the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development concluded
that only 8 percent of the increase in corn prices from 2006 to 2009
was due to ethanol subsidies. Further, they concluded that because of
this small impact, it
``. . . necessarily implies that the contribution of ethanol subsidies
to food inflation is largely imperceptible in the United States.''
Second, ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions significantly
compared to gasoline. The fact is, under the renewable fuels standard
created in 2007, corn ethanol was required to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions compared to gasoline by at least 20 percent. The fact is,
corn ethanol exceeded that threshold. If you remove EPA's use of the
murky science surrounding emissions from indirect land use changes,
ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 48 percent compared to
gasoline.
A recent peer-review study published in the Yale Journal of
Industrial Ecology found that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions
by up to 59 percent compared to gasoline. Ethanol currently accounts
for 10 percent of our gasoline fuel pool. A study found that the
ethanol industry contributed $8.4 billion to the Federal Treasury in
2009. That happens to be $3.4 billion more than the ethanol incentive.
Today, the industry supports 400,000 U.S. jobs. That is why I support
homegrown, renewable, reliable biofuels.
I would rather our Nation be dependent upon renewable fuel producers
across this country rather than relying on Middle Eastern oil sheiks or
Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. None of those people like us, and some of
them are using our own money to train terrorists to kill us. Instead, I
would prefer we support our renewable fuel producers based right here
in the continental United States. I would prefer we decrease our
dependence on Hugo Chavez and not increase it. I certainly don't
support raising the tax on gasoline during a weak economy.
I encourage my colleagues to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture
on the Coburn amendment.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Steptoe & Johnson LLP,
Washington, DC, April 1, 2011.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Leaders Reid and McConnell: On behalf of our client,
the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America,
SIGMA, I write to urge you to oppose efforts in Congress to
prematurely or abruptly eliminate the Volumetric Ethanol
Excise Tax Credit or VEETC. Increasing the tax paid on
ethanol blended gasoline makes no sense at a time when
consumer fuel prices are already high and the need to
maximize domestic energy sources is so critical.
As the national trade association representing America's
independent fuel marketers and chain retailers, SIGMA
represents an important and innovative part of the America's
fuel marketing industry. SIGMA's approximately 270 corporate
members command some 37 percent of the petroleum retail
market, selling 64 billion gallons of motor fuel each year.
For more than 50 years, SIGMA has supported the nation's fuel
marketers by encouraging policies that promote growth,
innovation, and fairness in the industry, and competition in
the marketplace to help keep consumer fuel costs down.
As the leading marketers of ethanol-blended fuel at the
retail level, SIGMA's members and customers are the
beneficiaries of VEETC. This incentive has been an extremely
useful tool in helping the nation's fuel marketers and chain
retailers deliver fuels to the market at a competitive price.
By providing long term price competitiveness for ethanol
blended fuels, VEETC also helps provide assurances to
marketers and retailers that important infrastructure
investments necessary to deliver these fuels will continue to
provide returns, and not result in wasted improvements.
Simply put, SIGMA opposes recent moves to prematurely or
abruptly end the subsidies without any consideration for
future fuel and fuel-delivery costs. To end this incentive
immediately would no doubt result in an immediate spike in
consumers' fuel costs. SIGMA believes that a policy that
provides an effective transition for the industry from the
current tax structure, is a better alternative to the slash
and cut budget strategy being promoted by some Members of
Congress.
I thank you in advance for your support in this regard. If
you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter
further, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
R. Timothy Columbus,
General Counsel to the Society of Independent Gasoline
Marketers of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
____________________