[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5305-S5307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 3427. A bill to permanently extend the employer-provided child 
care credit under section 45F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we know taxes are scheduled to increase for 
all Americans next year, and we know an across-the-board tax increase 
on all Americans would be very bad for our economy. What we disagree on 
is which tax cuts should be continued.
  Unfortunately, this has become a highly partisan debate. Someone 
watching this debate would assume we cannot agree on anything when it 
comes to taxes, but they would be wrong. We do agree on far more than 
we disagree. We agree that middle-class tax rates should not go up. We 
agree that the alternative minimum tax should not affect middle-class 
taxpayers. We agree on a variety of tax breaks that help families raise 
children and invest in their education. Our disagreements elsewhere 
should not stop

[[Page S5306]]

us from acting where we do agree. We should cut through the partisan 
gridlock and pass the policies we all support.
  One policy we can all support is a tax credit for companies that 
provide childcare to their workforce. This is a powerful and proven 
incentive for business--especially small business--to arrange onsite 
childcare for their employees.
  I originally introduced this tax credit after we passed welfare 
reform in 1996. The purpose of welfare reform was to move recipients 
off benefits and into jobs--a path of financial freedom that is too 
often blocked by the lack of quality and affordable childcare. After 
years of work, we finally passed the employer-provided childcare tax 
credit in 2001. Since then, it has offered businesses a tax credit for 
building and maintaining a childcare center. Businesses can also 
receive a smaller tax credit for helping their employees find childcare 
elsewhere in the community.
  Childcare is a good investment for employee and employer alike. 
Businesses get employees who miss less work to deal with family issues 
and stay at their jobs longer. Parents know their children are safe, 
sound, and close by while their mom or dad is at work. They do not have 
to choose between putting food on the table and caring for their 
children.
  Now is not the time to add another stress to overstressed working 
families struggling to survive in a down economy. That is why today I 
am introducing a bill to continue the tax credit for employer-provided 
childcare. We all agree the employer-provided childcare tax credit 
should not expire. It is included in both tax bills we are considering 
this week and we should extend it now.
  But support for childcare isn't the only thing the Republican and 
Democratic tax bills agree on. In fact, these two bills offer the same 
exact tax cut extension for the first $250,000 earned by every American 
family. If a family makes $1 more than that, they still get the same 
tax cut extension on their first $250,000. Even millionaires get the 
same tax cut extension as everyone else. Everybody, including the 
wealthiest Americans, benefits from the tax cuts we all can and do 
support.
  Bipartisan policies, such as a tax credit for employer-provided 
childcare or middle-class tax cuts, should not be held hostage because 
of a partisan debate about other tax cuts. When we all can agree on 
something, we should vote for it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN:
  S. 3428. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to partially waive the 
renewable fuel standard when corn inventories are low; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the 
Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act. I am introducing this bill 
because I have grave concerns about the impacts the Federal mandate for 
corn ethanol production is having on the price of food in this country 
and the cost of domestic food production.
  Corn is a staple of the modern American diet that has become a 
ubiquitous ingredient or additive in most of our food and it is fed as 
feed to nearly all livestock animals. The fact is, most meals Americans 
consume either has corn as an essential ingredient or consist of 
ingredients that required corn to produce. From milk, to eggs, to beef 
to poultry, to bread, to soft drink, and most prepared frozen meals 
corn--is essential to American food.
  The first section of Michael Pollan's 2006 Best Seller The Omnivore's 
Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals is titled ``Industrial Corn'' 
and it explains just how omnipresent corn, in some form or another, is 
in American diets. For better or for worse, the vast majority of the 
food found on American supermarket shelves is made from processed corn. 
When it comes to the animal proteins Americans consume most of these 
animals were raised on corn diets.
  For decades, America's corn growers were out producing demand for 
corn and food producers, and consumers benefited from relatively low 
corn prices that ranged around $2 a bushel. While consumers may have 
benefitted from these prices, American corn and grain growers were 
hurting badly.
  Since 2007, the tides have been turning significantly. National 
demand for corn is at an all-time high and corn futures project corn 
reaching $8 a bushel in the near future. A growing and hungry nation 
combined with new demands for corn that are the result of technological 
innovations have created new uses for corn in the form of ethanol as 
both a motor fuel additive and in plastics. These new uses, combined 
with expanded traditional uses have fueled the upward spike in corn 
prices.
  Corn growers have benefitted tremendously from the increased demand 
and high corn prices. Ethanol producers have enjoyed a variety of 
government supports mandating levels of ethanol production which have 
helped them weather high corn prices paying a high price for corn 
feedstocks is relatively easy when you have enormous production tax 
credits and a federally mandated market for your product.
  Food producers, including livestock and poultry producers, who use 
tremendous amounts of corn to raise their livestock and produce food, 
do not have the luxury of a mandated market for their products.
  In Maryland, our number one agricultural product is poultry. Poultry 
production is far and away the top employer on Maryland's Eastern 
Shore. Maryland poultry is hurting and it is because they are competing 
with big oil, and other non-traditional users, for corn. Corn is 
vitally important to raising chickens. Unlike other livestock, like 
cattle or hogs which are ruminants that can eat a variety of different 
types of feed, chickens' diets are limited to corn. Feed makes up more 
than 73 percent of the cost of raising poultry and when corn reaches 
$6.50 or $7.00 or even $8.00 a bushel that cost goes even higher.
  I understand the important role domestic ethanol production will play 
in helping our nation achieve greater energy security. However, the 
nurturing and growth of our domestic biofuels industry must not come at 
the expense of our domestic food supply. In other words, we cannot 
sacrifice U.S. food security for energy security. That is why I do not 
support the use of food based feedstocks like sugar and corn to be 
commercially produced into ethanol.
  I also believe that as global demand for oil increases, driven by 
increased mobility and affluence spreads in the developing world, 
renewable biofuels will compete well with oil and that the government 
supports we have in place will not be necessary because pure market 
demand for less expensive and cleaner burning fuels like ethanol will 
drive growth in biofuel production, not government mandates.
  Because domestic food production is reaching a state of crisis driven 
by the increasing cost of inputs, like corn, that the food producers 
have to unfairly compete with industries that are operating with under 
government production mandates I am introducing legislation today that 
offers a simple change to the Renewable Fuel Standard that will help 
provide our domestic food producers access to corn.
  This legislation will link the amount of corn ethanol required for 
the RFS to the amount of U.S. corn supplies. This legislation sets up a 
process so that when the USDA reports on U.S. corn supplies towards the 
end of each year, based upon the ratio of corn stocks- to expected use, 
there could be a reduction made to the RFS mandate for corn ethanol. 
This is a common sense solution to make sure that we have enough corn 
supplies to meet all of our corn demands.
  Once a year, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
will review the current corn crop year's ratio of U.S. corn stocks-to-
use ratio in making a determination of the RFS.
  By the end of November the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency will make an official determination of the Renewable 
Fuels Standard, RFS, corn ethanol mandate for the following calendar 
year, based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's November World 
Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate report to determine the U.S. 
corn stocks-to-use ratio. The administrator shall provide for a waiver 
for the RFS for the following calendar year according to the calculated 
stocks to use ratio as directed. Such a waiver, if required, shall be 
included in the Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Register 
notice regarding the RFS for the following calendar year. The required

[[Page S5307]]

waiver, if any, will take effect January 1 of the new calendar year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Waiver to the Renewable
        Stocks-to-Use Ratio Percent            Fuels Standard for Corn
                                                       Ethanol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above 10.00...............................  no adjustment
10.00 to 7.50.............................  10 percent reduction
7.49 to 6.00..............................  15 percent reduction
5.99 to 5.00..............................  25 percent reduction
Below 5.00................................  50 percent reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I believe the future of biofuels must be in the development and 
production of cellulosic and advanced biofuels that are not derived 
from feedstocks that are part of essential food sources. As a supporter 
of bringing cellulosic and advanced biofuels to market, my legislation 
explicitly states that it ``shall not affect the volume of advanced 
biofuels required under'' the Renewable Fuel Standard. This will leave 
intact the advanced biofuels production mandate which I believe is 
critical to growing this still nascent and beneficial fuel product to 
commercial viability.
  Because of corn's many uses it has become a commodity that is in high 
demand. Assuring our domestic food producers' access to this valuable 
and increasingly scarce crop is so important to controlling the cost of 
food in America and maintaining the economic viability of our U.S. food 
companies. I urge my colleagues to support U.S. food producers and 
families working to put food on the table by co-sponsoring the 
Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act.
  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. 3428

       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 ``Renewable Fuel Standard 
     Flexibility Act''.

     SEC. 2. PARTIAL WAIVER OF RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD.

       Section 211(o)(7) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7545(o)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) Consideration of corn inventories.--
       ``(i) Determinations regarding corn stocks-to-use ratio.--
     Not later than November 30 of each year, the Administrator 
     shall determine and publish the estimated United States corn 
     stocks-to-use ratio for the applicable crop year--

       ``(I) in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture; 
     and
       ``(II) based on the most recent publication of the World 
     Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate or other similar 
     authoritative estimate issued or used by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.

       ``(ii) Waiver.--Based on the most recent determination of 
     the Administrator under clause (i), the Administrator shall 
     waive the requirements of paragraph (2) by reducing the 
     national quantity of renewable fuel otherwise required for a 
     period as follows:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ``United States Corn Stocks-to-Use
Ratio for  the Applicable Crop Year   Reduction in national quantity  of
             (percent)                     renewable fuel required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above 10.0                           No adjustment
10.0-7.5                             10 percent reduction
7.49-6.0                             15 percent reduction
5.99-5.0                             25 percent reduction
Below 5.0                            50 percent reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(iii) Duration.--A waiver under clause (ii) that is based 
     on a determination under clause (i) that is made not later 
     than November 30 of a calendar year shall--

       ``(I) take effect on the date that is 30 days after the 
     date on which the determination is published; and
       ``(II) remain in effect for the following calendar year.

       ``(iv) Adjustment of renewable fuel obligation.--On 
     granting a waiver under clause (ii) that reduces the national 
     quantity of renewable fuel required for a period to which 
     paragraph (3) applies, the Administrator shall adjust the 
     renewable fuel obligation determined under paragraph (3) in 
     proportion to the reduction.
       ``(v) No effect on required volume of advanced biofuel.--

       ``(I) In general.--A waiver granted under this subparagraph 
     that reduces the national quantity of renewable fuel required 
     for a period shall not affect the volume of advanced biofuel 
     required under paragraph (2).
       ``(II) Applicability.--The Administrator shall not allow 
     any volume of conventional biofuel to be used to satisfy the 
     requirement for advanced biofuel under paragraph (2).

       ``(vi) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish each 
     waiver under clause (ii) in the Federal Register, including 
     an explanation of the basis for the waiver.''.

                          ____________________