[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8773-S8774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Hagan, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Flake, Mr. Corker, Mr. Burr, Mr. 
        Risch, and Mr. Manchin):
  S. 1807. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate the corn 
ethanol mandate for renewable fuel, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Corn Ethanol 
Mandate Elimination Act of 2013, a bill cosponsored by my distinguished 
colleagues: Senators Tom Coburn, Kay Hagan, Susan Collins, Patrick 
Toomey, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Richard Burr, James Risch, and Joe 
Manchin.
  This legislation would eliminate the Federal corn ethanol mandate 
from the Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, while leaving the requirement 
that oil companies purchase and use low-carbon ``advanced biofuel'' in 
place.
  Let me briefly explain why this legislation is necessary.
  The Renewable Fuel Standard, a statute enacted in 2007, requires oil 
companies to use 16.55 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2013. This 
annual requirement increases to 36 billion gallons in 2022.
  Every year, the law directs that an increasing portion of this 
mandate be met using low-carbon ``advanced biofuel'' that is not 
derived from corn starch and lowers lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 
by at least 50 percent. I strongly support this provision to lower the 
carbon emissions from our fuel supply.
  However, 14.4 billion gallons in 2014, and 15 billion gallons each 
year after, of the RFS mandate established in statute is met using corn 
ethanol, which amounts to a corn ethanol mandate.
  There are two major problems with continuing to mandate the 
consumption of more and more corn ethanol in the United States each 
year.
  First and foremost, the policy has led us to divert 44 percent of the 
U.S. corn crop from food to fuel, about twice the rate in 2006.
  As the Associated Press laid out in a recent detailed investigation, 
the use of corn for ethanol is artificially pushing up food and feed 
prices while damaging the environment. The investigation found 
conservation lands are disappearing.
  Before Congress enacted the corn ethanol mandate, the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program grew every year for nearly 
a decade. But in the first year after the corn ethanol mandate, more 
than 2 million acres were removed. Since Obama took office, 5 million 
more acres have been repurposed.
  The AP also found that farmers have broken ground on virgin land, 
which it described as ``the untouched terrain that represents, from an 
environmental standpoint, the country's most important asset.''
  Using government satellite data, the AP estimates that 1.2 million 
acres of virgin land in Nebraska and the Dakotas alone have been 
converted to fields of corn and soybeans since 2006.
  Since 2005, the AP calculates that corn farmers increased their use 
of nitrogen fertilizer by more than two billion pounds.
  The nitrates from this fertilizer wash into our rivers and flow to 
the Gulf of Mexico, where they feed algae. When the algae die, the 
decomposition consumes oxygen, leaving behind a ``dead zone.''
  This year, the AP reports the dead zone covered 5,800 square miles of 
sea floor, about the size of Connecticut.
  Using more and more corn for ethanol, in drought years as well as 
years with bumper crops, has had economic consequences as well as 
environmental effects.
  Higher feed prices have cost our beef, poultry, restaurant, and dairy 
industries dearly.
  According to recent testimony in the House of Representatives, from 
October 2006 to July 2013, poultry and egg producers have had to bear 
the burden of higher feed costs totaling over $50 billion.
  Joel Brandenberger, the President of the National Turkey Federation, 
estimates that the RFS cost the turkey industry $1.9 billion in 
increased feed expenses last year.
  According to a recent Price-Waterhouse-Coopers study, the federal 
mandate on corn-based ethanol substantially raised prices and costs 
throughout the food supply chain. If the RFS mandate were left 
unchanged, it would increase chain restaurant industry costs by up to 
$3.2 billion a year.
  But the damage has probably been greatest in California, where 
dairymen are drowning under a combination of low milk prices and high 
feed costs.
  The milk producers' group Western United Dairymen reports that more 
than 400 dairies have gone out of business in the past 5 years, 
including 105 in the past year alone.
  ``California's remaining 1,500 dairies are fighting for survival,'' 
the group said in a recent statement.
  The bottom line is increased feed prices associated with corn ethanol 
have bent this industry to its breaking point.
  But the corn ethanol mandate in the Renewable Fuel Standard also 
presents an additional problem.
  As Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Standards required by the 
Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act drive down gasoline consumption, oil 
companies face a ``blend wall'' as the RFS mandate exceeds the limit at 
which ethanol can be blended into the fuel supply--determined to be 10 
percent of total gasoline consumption.
  This blend wall is about 13.4 billion gallons of ethanol--well below 
the 2014 corn ethanol statutory mandate of 14.4 billion gallons.
  According to EPA: ``EPA does not currently foresee a scenario in 
which the market could consume enough ethanol . . . to meet the volumes 
. . . stated in the statute.'' This situation is likely to increase 
gasoline prices.
  While EPA has proposed using a creative statutory interpretation to 
reduce the RFS volumes in 2014, unfortunately EPA's proposal would 
reduce the advanced biofuel side of the RFS mandate by more than 41 
percent, while it proposes to reduce the corn ethanol portion of the 
mandate by only 10 percent.
  The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act would address the blend wall 
directly, thereby allowing EPA to continue increasing volumes of low 
carbon advanced biofuel.
  This legislation would eliminate the corn ethanol mandate, but it's 
important to point out it would by no means eliminate the corn ethanol 
industry. Refiners will continue to blend com ethanol into the fuel 
supply in the absence of a mandate for two reasons.
  First, ethanol is the preferred octane booster used to increase the 
efficiency of gasoline.
  Second, the wholesale price of ethanol is currently 65 cents per 
gallon less than the wholesale price of unblended gasoline, meaning 
blenders lower their costs and increase profits when they add ethanol 
to gasoline.

[[Page S8774]]

  The multi-billion dollar corn ethanol industry will compete directly 
with oil based on price without a mandate, and the economic benefits of 
mixing corn ethanol into gasoline would remain.
  I am aware that the advanced biofuel industry is working to scale and 
commercialize their technologies, and their investors seek regulatory 
and economic certainty during this period.
  I am also fundamentally committed to the vitally important public 
health protections provided by the Clean Air Act.
  That is why I would like to make it crystal clear that this 
legislation is a narrow bill repealing the corn ethanol mandate. 
Senator Coburn and I jointly made this clear when we agreed to the 
following statement:
  ``We are opposed to a mandate on the use of corn ethanol and plan to 
introduce the Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act to repeal this 
unwise policy. The bill's language will explicitly clarify that the 
legislation has no effect on the low-carbon advanced biofuel provisions 
in the Renewable Fuel Standard, and we are both committed to opposing 
any amendment to the bill that would broaden its scope to amend, revise 
or weaken the advanced biofuel provisions or other public health 
protections provided by the Clean Air Act.
  If provisions threatening public health were successfully added to 
the Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act, we would no longer support 
the bill.
  I also understand that some in the advanced biofuel industry argue 
that legislative changes to the corn ethanol portion of the Renewable 
Fuel Standard could reduce certainty for their industry.
  Respectfully, I disagree. The current law is not providing this 
industry with the certainty it needs.
  While EPA has some flexibility under the RFS statute to adjust RFS 
mandated volumes, most of that flexibility rests in EPA's power to 
reduce the amount of ``advanced biofuel'' mandated under the RFS.
  EPA's ability to reduce the corn ethanol mandate under current law 
and current circumstances is far from clear. Its proposal to reduce the 
corn ethanol mandate in its recently released draft rule for 2014 will 
be subject to aggressive legal challenge.
  EPA's lack of discretion has led EPA to propose a rule drastically 
reducing volumes for advanced biofuels, including biodiesel, by 41 
percent, while it proposes only a modest 10 percent reduction in corn 
ethanol volumes.
  Unless The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act is enacted, EPA will 
likely carry forward its proposal to dramatically reduce ``advanced 
biofuel'' volumes in order to address the blend wall. We believe 
eliminating the corn ethanol mandate is a much more responsible 
alternative.
  This legislation has strong support from the prepared food industry, 
dairy, beef, poultry, oil and gas, engine manufacturers, boaters, 
hunger relief organizations and environmental groups. I would like to 
list all the organizations that have expressed support for this bill:
  ActionAid USA; American Bakers Association; American Frozen Food 
Institute; American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Meat 
Institute; American Sportfishing Association; Americans for Prosperity; 
BoatU.S.; California Dairies, Inc.; California Dairy Campaign; 
California Poultry Federation; Clean Air Task Force; Competitive 
Enterprise Institute; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; Dairy Producers of 
Utah; Environmental Working Group; Freedom Action; Georgia Poultry 
Federation; Grocery Manufacturers Association; Idaho Dairymen's 
Association; Indiana State Poultry Association; International 
Snowmobile Manufacturers Association; Iowa Turkey Federation; Marine 
Retailers Association of the Americas; Michigan Allied Poultry 
Industries, Inc.; Milk Producers Council; Minnesota Turkey Growers 
Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Chicken 
Council; National Council of Chain Restaurants; National Marine 
Manufacturers Association; National Restaurant Association; National 
Taxpayers Union; National Turkey Federation; Nevada State Dairy 
Commission; North American Meat Association; North Carolina Poultry 
Federation; Northwest Dairy Association; Oregon Dairy Farmers 
Association; Oxfam; South Carolina Poultry Federation; South East Dairy 
Farmers Association; Southeast Milk Inc.; Specialty Equipment Market 
Association; Taxpayers for Common Sense; Texas Poultry Federation; The 
Poultry Federation; Virginia Poultry Federation; Washington State Dairy 
Federation; Western United Dairymen; and the Wisconsin Poultry & Egg 
Industries Association.
  The Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2013 would fix both of 
the problems with the current Renewable Fuel Standard.
  First, it would eliminate the unnecessary pressure on corn prices and 
corn production, allowing the multi-billion dollar corn ethanol 
industry to compete directly with oil based on price, not mandates.
  Second, it reduces RFS mandated volumes below the blend wall.
  The bill addresses both problems while maintaining the RFS provisions 
that encourage the development, deployment and growth of cellulosic 
ethanol, algae-based fuel, green diesel, and other low carbon advanced 
biofuels, maintaining a market for the innovative, nascent, domestic 
industry that this statute was designed to build up.
  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. 1807

       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 ``Corn Ethanol Mandate 
     Elimination Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CORN ETHANOL MANDATE FOR RENEWABLE 
                   FUEL.

       (a) Removal of Table.--Section 211(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by striking 
     subclause (I).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 211(o)(2)(B) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by redesignating subclauses (II) through (IV) as 
     subclauses (I) through (III), respectively;
       (B) in subclause (I) (as so redesignated), by striking ``of 
     the volume of renewable fuel required under subclause (I),''; 
     and
       (C) in subclauses (II) and (III) (as so redesignated), by 
     striking ``subclause (II)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``subclause (I)''; and
       (2) in clause (v), by striking ``clause (i)(IV)'' and 
     inserting ``clause (i)(III)''.
       (c) Administration.--Nothing in this section or the 
     amendments made by this section affects the volumes of 
     advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, or biomass-based diesel 
     that are required under section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)).
       (d) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall promulgate such regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______