[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 90 (Thursday, May 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3902-S3904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FARM BILL

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come today to provide some real world 
perspective from what I call the real America. I am honored to speak on 
behalf of the tens of thousands of Iowa farmers who, this very day, are 
tending fields across my home State that feed and fuel America.
  I often remind people here in Washington that farmers make up only 2 
percent of our population. That means that the other 98 percent of the 
American people depend on the livelihoods of just 2 percent of the 
people for their next meal.
  Here in the U.S. Senate, I am one of only two grain farmers serving 
among 98 other lawmakers in this body. This puts me in a unique 
position. As a lifelong family farmer and a U.S. Senator, I use my 
platform to speak up on behalf of American farmers, and I know there 
are lots of other colleagues that I have in this body that do the same 
thing for the farmers in their State, but I think I do it with some 
hands-on experience.
  From one generation to the next, the way of life of these family 
farmers upholds our Nation's food security and, in recent decades, has 
strengthened U.S. energy independence.
  The productivity of American agriculture has empowered the family 
farmer to supply the grain for our domestic renewable fuels industry 
and to displace foreign oil in the U.S. transportation fleet.
  America's farmers embrace best conservation practices to strengthen 
soil health and precision agriculture to reduce their carbon footprint 
in food and fuel production.
  Now, it happens that my State is No. 1 producer of corn and ethanol 
and No. 1 in a couple of other areas that I won't go into. Clean-
burning, renewable fuels are better for the environment, lower 
greenhouse gas emissions, and create good jobs in rural America and 
fuels the economic growth of that same rural America. When it comes to 
the hard work and ingenuity of the American farmers, the sky is the 
limit, quite literally.

  Now, to the point of my remarks today to my colleagues: Let's 
consider sustainable aviation fuel and alternate fuel made from 
nonpetroleum feedstocks, something the environmental community in the 
United States is promoting to get greenhouse gas down.
  Scientists say that this next-generation fuel will help lower carbon 
emissions in the environment. That is a pretty big shoe print, 
considering aviation accounts for 2 percent of all carbon dioxide 
emissions and 12 percent for the transportation sector alone.
  Sustainable aviation fuel--that goes by the acronym SAF--has 
tremendous market potential. According to the U.S. Department of 
Energy, more than 360,000 commercial flights have used SAF at 46 
airports, mostly in the United States and Europe. That is really just a 
spit in the ocean, considering there are more than 10 million scheduled 
passenger flights in the United States per year, according to our FAA.
  Displacing conventional jet fuel with sustainable products, such as 
homegrown feedstocks, presents a tremendous market opportunity for 
America's farmers and at the same time reduces greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  I am proud to say that Iowa is a leader in clean energy. Nearly 20 
years ago, I worked to enact the renewable fuel standard and to this 
very day keep my thumbs on both Democrat and Republican administrations 
to faithfully implement the law as Congress intended.
  As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I also created the 
biodiesel tax credit that has helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
by around 74 percent.
  Last year, my home State produced a recordbreaking 4.6 billion 
gallons of ethanol and 350 million gallons of biodiesel.
  Iowa farmers stand ready to help scale up production of this 
sustainable aviation fuel--the next generation of airplane and aviation 
fuel. But it seems that partisan ideology might be standing in the way 
of that effort.
  While we can find unanimous agreement that clean air is good for 
everyone, finding agreement on public policies to help keep our air 
clean is not always so clear-cut. In Washington, it is even harder than 
finding a needle in a haystack.
  Many people in this town would find reason to argue if the sky was 
blue on a cloudless, sunny day. The consensus really clouds over when 
Federal bureaucrats bend policy to fit ideology instead of sound 
silence.
  In December of 2022, I spoke on this very floor to urge the Treasury 
Department not to shortchange America's farmers when it wrote rules for 
the sustainable aviation fuel tax credit.
  Unfortunately, when the Democrats wrote the partisan Inflation 
Reduction Act, they chose to ignore our very own Department of Energy 
and preferred modeling by the International Civil Aviation 
Organization.
  Now, that is pure poppycock. U.S. policymakers need to put America 
first. That is why I pressed USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack at a hearing in 
February this year to champion green feedstocks for the sustainable 
aviation fuel market because he is a big voice in this administration.
  America's farmers are ready to provide low-cost and low-carbon fuel 
to consumers, whether that is on land, air, or sea.
  For years, I have been fighting in the trenches to stop the Obama and 
Biden administrations from misguided regulatory schemes. I am glad that 
the Supreme Court recently kept check on their ridiculous plans, 
commonly known as the waters of the United States rule, that would have 
regulated dry creekbeds and mud puddles on family farms.
  When the government starts meddling and telling farmers how to farm 
and how to raise livestock, you can bet your boots that environmental 
extremists are bending the ears of bureaucrats and pushing 
policies disconnected from reality. Writing Federal regulations not 
backed up by science or common sense is hogwash.

  Two weeks ago, the Biden administration put lipstick on a pig when it 
released guidance to qualify for new Federal incentives for sustainable 
aviation fuel.
  So as the senior Senator from Iowa and a lifelong family farmer, I am 
here to squeal on the Biden administration's stupid regulations. The 
decision-making process clearly got mired in politics and bureaucratic 
nonsense, not the sound science that has governed this process for 
about three decades.
  So let's take a closer look at the guidance issued by the Treasury 
Department 2 weeks ago. The regulations would be used to implement 
section 40B sustainable aviation fuel tax credit. That is the Federal 
subsidy enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act to help this alternative 
fuel lift off and scale up to meet market demand.
  Unfortunately, rather than adopt the science-based GREET--I am going 
to spell that because it is an acronym, G-R-E-E-T. The science-based 
GREET model has been used by EPA and others to measure the carbon 
intensity of

[[Page S3903]]

biofuels, and they have been using that formula for decades.
  Now, the Biden administration guidelines instead played politics by 
adopting an untested and untried modified GREET model to determine 
lifecycle carbon emissions of corn and soybeans for the purpose of 
calculating who can qualify for this sustainable aviation fuel tax 
credit, and therein lies the rub.
  Let me explain. First, everything in Washington goes by an acronym. 
GREET stands for these words that I don't know how you connect the 
title with the acronym, but here is what it says: G-R-E-E-T stands for 
``Greenhouse gases, Regulated emissions, and Energy use in 
Technology.''
  The Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory--a very 
respected laboratory--began developing the GREET analysis 30 years ago, 
back in 1994.
  So that is why I said we have had decades of the use of this. It was 
a science-based agreement that they came to for this formula, and now, 
the politicians step in to reform it or to change it.
  Scientists use the methodology to analyze the environmental impacts 
associated with all stages of the supply chain.
  Now, in a nutshell, the Federal Government three decades ago launched 
a process to measure the energy output and environmental performance 
that could inform policies throughout government of energy efficiency, 
affordability, and sustainability.
  Scientists develop models for particular purposes to evaluate, say, 
greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and air pollutant 
emissions.
  Let me pause here to make an important distinction. Nonpartisan 
scientists develop methodologies to inform policymaking. These 
methodologies should not be used by political scientists to advance a 
political agenda. So you can understand my dismay when I reviewed the 
Biden administration's new formula to qualify for sustainable aviation 
fuel tax credit.
  First, the guidelines, quite, obviously, were written by bureaucrats 
who don't know the first thing about family farming; and, second, the 
formula is flawed from another fundamental standpoint: It is going to 
be easy to violate and nearly impossible to verify and complicate 
decision-making for the family farmer.
  To put it very bluntly, the Biden administration's GREET model update 
is a stupid approach. While the lion's share of Washington can agree 
that more widespread use of sustainable aviation fuel is good for the 
environment, the new GREET model fell victim to a political lion's den.
  The Biden administration caved to extreme environmentalists who 
wouldn't know the difference between a corn planter or a combine, let 
alone what the effects of uneven emergence means on crop yields or how 
soil compaction impacts germination of seed.
  Every spring, farmers try to hit the ``Goldilocks'' sweet spot: not 
too wet, not too dry, with just the right soil temperature when they 
plant to produce the best possible yields.
  Every field on every farm is different. For example, no-till versus 
what we call conservation tillage is tailored to the requirements of 
that farm. And some of those requirements are based upon the soil 
conservancy law that I helped pass in 1986.
  Farmers are stewards of the soil, passing down this heritage from one 
generation to the next. It is obvious that the Biden administration 
either doesn't care or doesn't get that its GREET formula is pigheaded.
  The formula says all or nothing in order for farmers to qualify as a 
sustainable aviation fuel producer and help the aviation industry 
achieve its clear goals.
  America's farmers stand ready to help clean the air, and I am here 
today to clear the air on how the Biden administration is standing in 
their way.
  For those who want to argue that these regulations make sense, let me 
explain why they won't work in the real America. Let's consider the 
practical impact of the Biden administration's proposed rule. In the 
fall, when crops are harvested, the grain is transported from the field 
to the market. From the combine, it goes into a wagon or a truck that 
takes it to the local elevator.
  On my family farm, we go to the local elevator in New Hartford. Tens 
of thousands of farmers are doing the same thing. In fact, in Iowa, it 
is 86,000 family farmers. I say ``doing the same thing.'' That means 
either hauling it straight from the field or, after a period of on-farm 
storage, then taking it to market. Sooner or later, grains are weighed, 
graded, and commingled with hundreds of millions of bushels of grain 
from fields across the State--all coming from those 86,000 different 
family farmers in my State.
  Do you see where I am going here? Let me summarize.
  First, to qualify for the maximum SAF credit and additional carbon 
intensity score reductions, the Biden administration dictates that 
farmers must comply with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Climate 
Smart Agriculture pilot program, and that requires compliance with the 
following mandates on the same acres: You have to practice what we call 
no-till farming. You have to plant cover crops in the fall, after you 
harvest, to protect the ground through the winter and, more 
importantly, not to have soil loss in the spring. Then you have to use 
enhanced-efficiency nitrogen fertilizer.
  Now, when we first heard about this, what direction they might go, it 
said you would only have to apply for one of these three in order to 
get the tax credit. That is when the outrageous opinions of 
environmentalists came in and said: No. We have to have them apply to 
all three.
  I don't think that these bureaucrats think in terms of the fall and 
that if you don't harvest the last of your corn crop until November and 
the ground freezes, you can't plant cover crops at that time. You have 
to plant your cover crops in the early spring so that they grow and get 
some root and can preserve that root through the spring and turn green 
the next spring. But if it is frozen, you can't do that. That is just 
one example that makes me wonder if these bureaucrats in Washington 
know what they are talking about.
  Now, for the soybean farmer, it is a little less in the number of 
requirements. You just have to do no-till farming and plant cover crops 
in the same acres.
  The fact is that not every--let me emphasize this--climate-smart 
practice that the USDA has works on every farm in the same way. In this 
town, one size fits all. The GREET update, then, is unworkable for the 
family farmer. Unrealistic burdens on farming are counterproductive to 
feeding and fueling the world.
  Let me entertain the idea that farmers who want to participate have 
complied with all of these criteria. Now they must pass another dog and 
pony show: The sustainable aviation fuel producers or importers must 
get unrelated third-party verification that their feedstocks have met 
eligibility requirements. Of course, only accredited verifiers can 
grant certification to these individual farmers. This la-la land of 
verification will be paved with endless miles of redtape and loopholes 
as far as the eye can see.
  The Biden administration's changes to the GREET model need a do-over. 
Bureaucrats who know nothing about farming shouldn't be telling farmers 
how to grow their corn and soybeans. This is the kind of policy that 
farmers resent--and rightly so--because it is out of touch with what 
actually goes on on the family farm. President Biden is abandoning Iowa 
farmers with this boneheaded update.
  Now, I think there might be a little bit of good news if rumors 
around this town mean anything. I think there are a lot of people in 
this bureaucracy--and there are four bureaucracies involved in making 
these sustainable aviation fuel rules. It is only the Treasury that 
announces them, but other Departments have a hand in it. I think there 
are people right here in this town who know what I describe that is 
wrong with these rules and are ready to rewrite them. Of course, these 
rules were written for what we call the section 40B tax credit rules. 
That expires at the end of this year. Then there is going to be a new 
rule. Section 45Z will take over. Maybe we will have a whole bunch of 
new faces in town after the first of the year, when those rules are 
read, but I think people even today realize that what I have described 
here isn't workable.
  So as Washington prepares to distribute tens of billions of dollars 
in

[[Page S3904]]

Federal incentives for sustainable aviation fuel, I will continue to 
battle on behalf of the American farmer and taxpayer.
  From the IRS to the EPA and the USDA, the alphabet soup of Federal 
Agencies makes consequential decisions that impact the lives and 
livelihoods of real people, from the taxpayers to small businesses and 
family farmers across America.
  The Biden administration's GREET model needs to stick with sound 
science, not political science.
  Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that newspaper 
articles from the May 8 issue of the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman 
newspaper--a front-page story entitled ``Sustainable Aviation Fuel Tax 
Credit Rules Announced'' and, on page 11 of the same newspaper, a 
section entitled ``Questions Surround Impact of SAF Guidance''--be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Sustainable Aviation Fuel Tax Credit Rules Announced

                             [May 6, 2024]

       The U.S. Treasury Department issued its long-awaited rules 
     for the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) 40B tax credit last 
     week, but biofuel and farm groups say the requirements have 
     created more questions than answers.
       The SAF tax credit, established by the Inflation Reduction 
     Act (IRA) in 2022, aims to incentivize the production of SAF 
     that achieves a lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction of 
     at least 50% when compared to petroleum-based jet fuels. The 
     administration has laid out goals for producing at least 3 
     billion gallons of SAF annually by 2030 and up to 35 billion 
     gallons annually by 2050.
       SAF that meets the 50% GHG reduction qualifies for a tax 
     credit of $1.25 per gallon, with additional incentives up to 
     $1.75 per gallon for greater reductions.
       However, biofuel advocates say the rules authored by the 
     Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service are overly 
     restrictive and prescribe specific farming practices that may 
     not be practical in all areas of the country.
       ``As the top producing state of lower cost and cleaner-
     burning biofuels, sustainable aviation fuel is an emerging 
     market with huge potential for Iowa agriculture,'' said Iowa 
     Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig. ``Unfortunately, the 
     Biden administration is once again telling Iowa farmers that 
     Washington, D.C., knows best. The administration's proposal 
     mandates rigid requirements that ignore the innovation of 
     agriculture and fails to recognize farmers' ability to 
     incorporate the practices that work best for their individual 
     operations.''
       The 40B tax credit rules incorporate an updated version of 
     the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, Energy Use in 
     Technologies (GREET) model to measure the lifecycle emissions 
     from SAF, including updated modeling of feedstocks and 
     processes used in aviation fuel and indirect emissions.
       Corn must be grown with no-till, cover crops and enhanced 
     efficiency fertilizer to be eligible for the tax credit. For 
     SAF produced from soybeans to qualify, farmers must use both 
     cover crops and no-till. There also are rules for certifying 
     that the crops were grown with climate-smart practices and 
     extensive record-keeping requirements.
       ``This administration has continually pursued a one-size-
     fits-all approach that puts domestic energy production, like 
     homegrown ethanol, at a disadvantage to international 
     competitors. Yesterday's guidance is more of the same,'' Naig 
     said. ``While inclusion of the GREET model is a welcome step, 
     the details need to be right, and the administration has more 
     work to do. I know Iowa's congressional delegation will be 
     working to ensure that Iowa's farmers and biofuel producers 
     will be able to realize the full potential that SAF offers.''
       Industry analysts note that very few farmers will be able 
     to take advantage of the 40B credit this year since they 
     likely haven't documented the required practices. Current SAF 
     production levels are also very small.
       In January, LanzaJet opened an SAF production facility in 
     Georgia that will produce 10 million gallons of SAF from 
     ethanol. The company is reportedly using Brazilian sugarcane 
     ethanol as a feedstock due to its lower GHG lifecycle score.
       The Section 40B credit expires at the end of this year and 
     will be replaced by a new, more expansive tax credit, called 
     45Z However, the rules have yet to be written for 45Z and 
     aren't expected until mid to late winter.
                                  ____


               Questions Surround Impact of SAF Guidance

       The Biden administration last week gave guidance on its 
     sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credits that have been 
     long awaited by both corn growers and environmentalists. 
     We've been told since February that an announcement was 
     expected, and it was delayed several times between then and 
     now. Such is the world of politics. While the announcement is 
     a step in the right direction, it may have brought about more 
     questions than answers. Here's what we know so far.
       The bottom line for corn growers is that corn-based ethanol 
     will be allowed to qualify for the tax credit program. This 
     is a win for an industry that has been losing global market 
     share to South America for the past several years.
       According to the policy, there are three stipulations to 
     qualification. These include the use of no-till practices, 
     the use of cover crops and the use of enhanced-efficiency 
     fertilizer that holds carbon in the soil. All three practices 
     must be done on the same field and must be able to be 
     certified for the corn to qualify. For soybeans (as it 
     pertains to bio-diesel), qualification is dependent on the 
     use of just no-till and cover cropping.
       The bottom line for the markets is that this has little to 
     no effect on supply and demand for the current crop year.
       There is currently one singular plant producing SAF online 
     in the United States; therefore, demand is limited to that 
     one plant's needs. There is also uncertainty about whether 
     corn ethanol or soy biodiesel produced from fields using all 
     the climate-smart ag practices will be competitive against 
     other low-carbon feedstocks without carbon sequestration. 
     Carbon sequestration is, more or less, the practice of 
     storing carbon under the ground. Many of you have probably 
     heard talk of carbon pipelines recently; those are what, in 
     theory, would take the carbon from an ethanol plant or 
     biodiesel plant and transport it underground to be stored.
       The last piece we know is that the Section 40B tax credit, 
     the policy's official name, is only in effect through the end 
     of 2024. In 2025, a broader tax incentive known as 45Z will 
     take effect. There wasn't guidance given on 45Z, likely 
     because there is a presidential election between now and 
     then--the results of which likely determine whether the 
     credit is still around in 2025 and whether corn and soybeans 
     will qualify under the new rules.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________