[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9396-9400]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        SCAPEGOATING OF ETHANOL

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to rebut the 
scapegoating of ethanol, which is part of the food versus fuel debate.
  I do not do it for a one-way conversation. I hope I can encourage 
conversation on this subject among my colleagues so we can look at this 
from a scientific and economic point of view and avoid scapegoating.
  For almost 30 years, I have been leading an effort with many of my 
colleagues to promote policies to grow a domestic renewable fuels 
industry. We have promoted homegrown renewable fuels as a way to lessen 
our dependance on foreign oil and to improve our air quality.
  For all these years, we have hardly heard anything negative about 
these policies. Now, ethanol and other biofuels are being made a 
scapegoat for a whole variety of problems. Never before in 30 years has 
the virtuous benefits of ethanol and renewable fuels been so questioned 
and so criticized.
  The problem is, none of these criticisms are based on sound science, 
sound economics, or for that matter even common sense. I had the 
opportunity to hear an intelligent discussion of this, maybe it only 
lasted a couple of minutes, on a program on Fox News Saturday night 
called, ``The Beltway Boys.'' And these people are very intelligent 
people.
  I heard Mort Kondracke, a veteran journalist, falling prey to some of 
the same erroneous talking points that I have heard over and over for 
the past couple of weeks.
  Mr. Kondracke is one-half of that intelligent duo on Fox News that I 
referred to as ``The Beltway Boys.'' Maybe Mr. Kondracke has spent too 
much time inside the beltway and could use a little real world 
explanation from a family farmer like me from the Midwest.
  Some of my colleagues in the Senate have also gotten involved in this 
misinformation campaign, and that is why I did not come to the floor to 
speak; I come to the floor to encourage dialogue with my colleagues on 
this subject because it seems there is a ``group-think'' mentality when 
it comes to scapegoating ethanol for everything from high gas prices, 
global food shortages, global warming, and even deforestation.
  But, as was recently reported, this anti-ethanol campaign is not a 
coincidence. It has been well thought out, well programmed, and that 
program is going on. It turns out that a $300,000, 6-month retainer of 
a beltway public relations firm is behind the smear campaign against 
ethanol. And they have been hired by a trade association referred to as 
the Grocery Manufacturers Association. They have outlined their 
strategy of using environmental, hunger, and food aid groups to 
demonstrate their contrived crisis. And it is right here in a 26-page 
document put out by the Glover Park Group, called ``The Food and Fuel 
Campaign.'' They enlist the support of these other nonprofit groups 
that are involved with environment and hunger.
  I think it is important for policymakers and the American people to 
know who is behind this effort. According to reports, downtown DC 
lobbyists, the Glover Park Group, and the Dutko Worldwide are leading 
the effort to undermine and denigrate the patriotic achievements of 
American farmers to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while also 
providing a safe and affordable food environment.
  The principal leaders behind the Glover Park Group's proposal reads 
like a who's who of Democratic operatives. The effort is led by former 
President Clinton's Press Secretary, Joe Lockhart. Another is 8-year 
veteran of the Clinton-Gore White House, Michael Feldman.
  Other leaders in this misinformation campaign include Carter Eskew, 
Mike Donilon, Joel Johnson, and Susan Brophy, all of which proudly 
display their ties to the Clinton-Gore White House and their 
credentials of helping elect Democratic candidates.
  This campaign against ethanol is more sophisticated than anything I 
have seen put on by big oil over the last 30 years, as big oil has been 
a constant fighter. I will show you how this is a well-sophisticated 
political operation and public relations effort. For instance, the 
media relations public affairs responsibility comes under the partners 
in charge, Joe Lockhart and Michael Feldman. The advocacy and image 
advertising comes under the leadership of partners in charge, Carter 
Eskew and Mike Donilon. The legislative affairs part of it is directed 
by partners in charge, Joel Johnson and Susan Brophy.
  Now, these people are outstanding people. They are going to be able 
to deliver what they have said they could do. That is why we have to 
take it very seriously.
  I suggest that Democrats in the Senate who claim to support our 
Nation's drive toward energy independence should be alarmed by this 
group's planned campaign and the tactics being used.
  I happen to be one who fought President Clinton during his 8 years in 
office at every turn when he tried to undermine our renewable fuels 
industry. The outstanding example I remember is when California made 
application to the EPA for a waiver under the Clean Air Act at the very 
time that MTBE was being outlawed because it was poisoning the 
groundwater. The only oxygenate that you could use in gasoline then was 
ethanol. California sought an exemption. We were able to win that by 
the Clinton administration not allowing it. Now, of course, we find 
ourselves fighting President Clinton's former staff and staff who 
worked for the Gore and Kerry Presidential campaigns, leading an effort 
for the grocery manufacturers to smear ethanol, after 30 years of 
developing an industry because people called for more renewable energy. 
They wanted renewable, clean-burning energy. They didn't want to be 
reliant upon dirty-burning petroleum. They didn't want to be relying 
upon importing so much.
  I imagine that they are leading this effort partly because they are 
being paid well for doing so, but they maybe can't stand the fact that 
President Bush has proved to be the best friend the renewable fuels 
industry has had. Because their old boss failed miserably at crafting 
policies to promote ethanol, they are doing everything they can to tear 
down the success President George W. Bush has helped foster.
  There are a lot of intelligent people who have been misled by this 
campaign and are simply wrong. They are using in their speeches a lot 
of the rhetoric that comes out of this effort. The facts don't back up 
the argument. I invite my colleagues to look at the facts, challenge 
me, have a dialog on this subject so we can use science as a basis for 
what we are doing, and economics as well.
  It is time to dispel the myths perpetuated by Mr. Kondracke, one of 
the Beltway boys--he was probably reporting this misinformation because 
he is a smart person--the Glover Park Group, and others.
  The Grocery Manufacturers Association, I have come to the conclusion, 
needs an excuse to gouge consumers of America with higher food prices, 
and an easy scapegoat for increasing food prices is, of course, 
ethanol. One myth that pops up again and again is that ethanol takes 
more energy to produce than it provides. I heard Mr. Kondracke say 
that. Let's look at the facts. In 2005, the Argonne National Laboratory 
study concluded that it takes only seven-tenths of one unit of fossil 
energy to make one unit of ethanol. That is a positive net energy 
balance. In comparison, it takes 1.23 units of fossil energy to make 
one unit of petroleum gasoline. So why aren't the grocery manufacturers 
of America bringing up the point that petroleum processing into 
gasoline is not energy positive? Because gasoline requires

[[Page 9397]]

more than 1 Btu of energy to deliver 1 Btu to your car. That is a 
negative net energy balance.
  A 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture study concluded that ethanol 
yields 67 percent more energy than is used to grow and harvest the 
grain and to process that grain into ethanol. These figures take into 
account the energy required to not just process grain into ethanol, it 
takes into consideration the energy the farmer takes to plant, to grow, 
to harvest the corn, as well as the energy required to manufacture and 
distribute the ethanol.
  Of 15 different peer-review studies we have looked at and that have 
been conducted on this issue, 12 of the 15 found that ethanol has a 
positive net energy balance. Only a single individual from Cornell 
University, who authored the other three studies, disagrees with this 
analysis. The Cornell studies have consistently used old data, some 
from 1979. Remember, in 1979, farmers weren't producing as much corn 
per acre as they do today. Corn yields then were 91 bushels per acre. 
It was at 137 bushels per acre in the year 2000. The average is now up 
to 150 to 160 bushels per acre. The flawed studies also rely on 1979 
figures for energy use to manufacture ethanol. This energy consumption 
was cut in half between the years 1979 and 2000 and continues 
efficiency gains every year. I could quantify that better than just 
using a broad sweep.
  In the early 1980s, we were producing about 2.3 gallons of ethanol 
from a bushel of corn. Today, we are producing 2.8 gallons of ethanol 
per bushel. And pretty soon, the industry believes they might be able 
to produce 3 gallons per bushel.
  So these erroneous Cornell conclusions have been refuted by experts 
from entities as diverse as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the 
Department of Energy, the Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State 
University, and the Colorado School of Mines. The fact is, studies 
using old data overestimate energy use by not taking into account 
efficiencies gained in agriculture, the greater use of fertilizer, and 
ethanol production.
  I don't understand how intelligent people, then, can continue to 
argue that ethanol has a negative net energy balance. But that is what 
I heard on television Saturday night from very intelligent people. That 
is what I hear in this smear campaign. The net energy balance of 
ethanol production continues to improve because ethanol production is 
becoming more efficient. A March 2008 study by Argonne National 
Laboratory found significant gains just since 2001. Ethanol production 
since 2001 has reduced water use by 27 percent, reduced electricity use 
by 16 percent, and reduced total energy use by 22 percent.
  Another myth being perpetuated by opponents of a renewable fuels 
effort and by Mr. Kondracke is that ethanol harms the environment and 
contributes more in greenhouse gases than petroleum. This claim is 
likewise hogwash. Science magazine and Time magazine made wildly 
erroneous claims about corn ethanol that are now being used by these 
detractors. They claim that ethanol production is the driving force 
behind rain forest deforestation and grassland conversion to 
agricultural production. This is an oversimplification to say the 
least. How could intelligent people ignore the effects of a growing 
global population? How can one simply ignore the surging global demands 
for food from growing populations in China and India? Wouldn't urban 
development and sprawl also be a contributor to the increased demand 
for arable land?
  Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer and Energy Secretary Sam Bodman 
stated in a letter to Time magazine, when they ran this outrageous 
story that was based on a Science magazine article, that it was ``one-
sided and scientifically uninformed.'' They further stated that the 
Science magazine article had been ``thoroughly rebutted by leading 
scientists at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory.'' 
In fact, Dr. Wang at the Argonne Laboratory stated:

       There has been no indication that the U.S. corn ethanol 
     production has so far caused indirect land use changes in 
     other countries. No claim can be made that U.S. ethanol 
     production leads to the clearing of rain forests.

  In fact, since 2002, U.S. corn exports increased by 60 percent. Even 
with the growth in the ethanol industry, our corn exports have steadily 
increased, meeting growing global demands. So when it comes to the 
United States and food, we allow exports to other areas where they need 
our overproduction.
  But one of the things that is driving up the price of rice now is a 
lot of prohibition in countries that produce rice to exports. So the 
global trading system is not efficiently distributing rice to where it 
is needed to feed hungry people. Think of that as a detraction, but 
also think that in the whole world, 95 percent of all grain produced is 
consumed and not made into something else.
  While some claim that corn ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions 
because of land use changes around the globe, they need to think again. 
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, today's corn ethanol 
produces about 20 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions on a life-
cycle basis. Ethanol blended fuel emits cleaner tailpipe emissions and, 
unlike petroleum, ethanol doesn't harm the environment or groundwater 
the way the petroleum-based product MTBE did for the 20 years it was 
used in gasoline as an oxygenate, where ethanol can be used as an 
oxygenate and it doesn't do that.
  In recent weeks, a new argument has come forward about the effect of 
corn ethanol on domestic and global food prices. Food prices are going 
up. Of course, we all have to be sympathetic to that, whether it is in 
America or abroad. People are struggling with higher prices for food is 
not something we like to hear. But to put all the blame at the feet of 
the U.S. ethanol industry is outrageous and misplaced, and that is what 
this smear campaign is all about, just so the grocery manufacturers of 
America can have an excuse to increase the price of food here.
  Watching the news and listening to some of my colleagues, there was 
even a hearing on this a couple weeks ago in the Senate. I have even 
heard expressed in this hearing that the price of oranges was going up 
because of ethanol. We have heard that the domestic ethanol industry 
was blamed for shortages not only in oranges but apples, broccoli, 
rice, wheat, lentils, peppers, even bananas.
  Let's stop to think about the people who are saying: You are growing 
more corn, so we are growing less wheat or rice. We don't make ethanol 
out of wheat or rice. But for people to say that fruits are going up or 
bananas are going up because we are growing more corn, well, let me 
assure everybody I do not know of anybody who is plowing up and tearing 
out an apple orchard, an orange orchard or a banana plantation to plant 
corn for ethanol. But that is the ignorance about the people who are 
making those mistakes, trying to make the argument that more land is 
going into corn and less going into wheat, so the price of bread is 
going up.
  With regard to wheat, rice, and lentils, the global demand for food 
from a growing middle class in China and India have the most impact is 
what economists are telling us.
  Weather trends, including a 100-year historic--how to say it--the 
worst drought in 100 years in Australia and poor growing conditions in 
Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe have had a much greater impact on the 
supply of rice and wheat.
  Many of these countries also have government production policies that 
manipulate production, supply, and trading of these commodities. Think 
of some of the dictators in Africa who want a cheap food policy. 
Farmers cannot make enough producing food, so the farmers move to town 
and live in the slums, when they could be producing something back 
home, if the governments had policies that would encourage the 
production. There is so much resource in Africa that there is no reason 
to have anybody starving in Africa.
  The fact is, the global demand and price for all commodities has 
increased. Some of this could even be due to speculation. You read that 
in the business papers in the United States quite regularly.
  One of the biggest culprits behind rising food prices is the cost of 
oil at $125

[[Page 9398]]

a barrel. We had a recent Texas A&M study concluding that the biggest 
driving force behind the higher food costs is higher energy costs. So 
if Texas A&M is saying that, let's look at what the Iowa State 
University Center for Agriculture and Rural Development is saying about 
ethanol's impact upon the price of gasoline and energy to move food 
around. They say, without the ethanol we have, you would be paying 30 
or 40 cents more for a gallon of gasoline. In turn, then, since Texas 
A&M says energy is the biggest reason for the increased costs of food, 
you would have yet higher food prices without having ethanol.
  Joseph Glauber, chief economist at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, recently testified that rising prices for corn and 
soybeans have had little or no effect on the high price for wheat, 
rice, and other food commodities.
  Dr. Glauber cited the worldwide economic growth--that would be China 
and India, as examples of a couple countries--global weather problems--
that would be the drought in Australia--rising marketing costs, and a 
weak U.S. dollar as having a greater role than biofuels in the cost of 
food being higher and even being scarce.
  A U.N. official has recently referred to biofuels as ``a crime 
against humanity.'' Mr. Ziegler, from the country of Switzerland, might 
benefit from a review of European policies that ban or restrict the 
growth and import of genetically modified crops.
  Let me explain that genetically modified crops have had a great deal 
to do with the increased production of corn per acre, from 91 bushels 
per acre in 1979, to 107 bushels per acre in 2000, to 150 to 160 
bushels per acre in 2007.
  While U.S. farmers are taking great strides, through the use of 
genetically modified grains, to feed the world, Europe is taking a step 
backward--the same Europe that Mr. Ziegler lives in, who is saying that 
biofuels is ``a crime against humanity.''
  As a result, you have a ripple effect of the policies in Europe 
because African countries are reluctant to grow genetically modified 
grains, even though their production gains are great, because European 
countries might restrict their imports from those African countries.
  I might suggest Mr. Ziegler focus more of his efforts on 
opportunities lost as to growing more grains in Europe and focus on 
GMOs and their use in Europe than our biofuels policy.
  U.S. farmers responded to these increased demands for grain and 
produced a record corn crop in 2007. Now, we grew more acres of corn in 
2007 than any year since 1944. We produced 2.6 billion more bushels of 
corn in 2007 than 2006. Now, out of that 2.7 billion bushels, ethanol 
only used 600 million of them. So for all the people complaining about 
not having enough corn, are they going to use 2.1 billion bushels more 
that we raised in the greatest acreage since 1944 that was not used for 
ethanol? Are they going to take that into consideration or are they 
going to still complain that there is not enough corn around?
  Exports have grown as well. Our U.S. Department of Agriculture 
estimates that this year's corn exports will be a record 2.5 billion 
bushels--up 18 percent over last year. We are getting that surplus 
production in the United States around the world, where it is needed. 
One of the places it is needed is in China. They do not export corn 
anymore. In the 1980s, the Chinese were eating 44 pounds of meat a 
year; this year--while I guess the figures are for a couple years ago--
111 pounds of meat. They are going from rice to value-added food 
products. They have to have some of our corn to do that, and we are 
glad to sell it to them.
  With these facts, it is hard for critics to argue that the domestic 
ethanol industry is diverting corn from feed or food markets. Yet that 
is what this smear campaign is saying.
  It is also important to keep in mind that a tiny fraction of the cost 
of retail food is the result of farm inputs. Would you think farmers 
are getting rich because the price of food is going up?
  First of all, let's look at all the income from farmers. They only 
get back 19 cents
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, since I do not see any other 
colleagues asking for time, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam President.
  Out of $1 that you, as a consumer, spend for food, the farmer gets 19 
cents. Look at a $5 box of corn flakes. For an interview here, I bought 
a $5 box of corn flakes. I think I had to pay a little bit more because 
I bought it on the Hill. But the family farmer's share of that $5 box 
of corn flakes--and it happened to be a little bigger box than normal--
was about less than 10 cents. I think the real figure is about 8 cents. 
That is what the farmer gets out of a box of corn flakes.
  Yet the farmer is being blamed for the high price of food because we 
grow some corn to make ethanol because the American people, 30 years 
ago, were demanding that we go to a renewable, clean-burning fuel 
instead of depending upon dirty-burning petroleum, putting more 
CO2 into the air. The value of corn in a pound of beef or 
pork is about 20 or 30 cents. Yet some have suggested we should suspend 
our policies that promote the use of renewable fuels to help drive down 
food prices.
  If all the evidence suggests that biofuels have little, if any, 
impact on the rising cost of food, what good can come from lifting our 
biofuels policies? If people look at the facts, how can a public 
relations firm of former Clinton employees get a $300,000 contract from 
a very respectable organization such as the Grocery Manufacturers of 
America, whose Members need an excuse to raise the price of food? How 
do they get away with it? Well, they get away with it because nobody is 
looking at the facts.
  I was pleased to join 15 of my colleagues in signing a letter to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, expressing our opposition to this 
misguided idea. We had about that same number of Senators in this 
body--some of them even voting for ethanol in the past years--sending a 
letter down to the same EPA, saying we have to stop ethanol, probably 
some of the very same people who are complaining about the dirty air we 
have or the global warming.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a copy of that letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 6, 2008.
     Hon. Stephen Johnson,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator Johnson: We're writing to express our 
     strong opposition to any request to partially or completely 
     waive the Renewable Fuels Standard. We strongly disagree with 
     the assumption that the renewable fuels mandate is harming 
     the U.S. economy or that it's primarily responsible for the 
     global escalation of food costs.
       We recognize that global food prices have seen a 
     significant increase in recent years. However, waiving the 
     RFS would not cause an immediate or near term reduction in 
     food prices. Ed Lazear, Chairman of the Council of Economic 
     Advisors, recently estimated that global food prices have 
     increased 43 percent since last year, and domestic food 
     inflation was 4.5 percent. Importantly, Chairman Lazear noted 
     that the increased production of ethanol accounted for only 3 
     percent of the 43 percent global increase and only a quarter 
     of one percent of the 4.5 percent increase in U.S. food 
     prices. This data is evidence that ethanol accounts for less 
     than 3 percent of the increase in global food prices.
       There are many factors behind the rise in food costs. The 
     increased demand in emerging markets, increased cost of 
     energy inputs, weather conditions in Australia, China and 
     Eastern Europe, and export restrictions have all contributed 
     to the rising costs, according to Chairman Lazear.
       Corn production and consumption in the United States has 
     very little or no impact at all on global rice, wheat or 
     lentil markets. Joseph Glauber, Chief Economist at the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture, recently testified before Congress 
     that rising prices for corn and soybeans have had little 
     effect on the high prices for wheat, rice and other food 
     commodities. He indicated that many factors have a greater 
     role than biofuels, including worldwide economic growth, 
     global weather problems affecting wheat production, rising 
     marketing costs, and the weak U.S. dollar.

[[Page 9399]]

       While we're all sympathetic to those struggling to cope 
     with the higher cost of food both domestically and 
     internationally, we must be intellectually honest about the 
     real causes behind the increases. Waiving the renewable fuels 
     mandate will have a negligible impact on corn and food 
     prices. A recent Texas A&M study concluded that relaxing the 
     Renewable Fuels Standard will not result in significantly 
     lower corn prices. 
       At a time when a barrel of crude oil costs nearly $120 and 
     gasoline prices are approaching $4 a gallon, the fuel 
     produced by the U.S. ethanol industry is helping to extend 
     our fuel supply and keep prices lower. A Merrill Lynch 
     analyst recently estimated that oil and gas prices would be 
     15 percent higher if biofuels weren't added to our nation's 
     fuel supply. According to Iowa State University's Center for 
     Agriculture and Rural Development, ethanol use has lowered 
     gas prices by 30 to 40 cents a gallon, while relaxing the 
     mandate would reduce corn prices by only 5 percent. The fact 
     is, reducing the amount of ethanol in our nation's fuel mix 
     will have little if any impact on food prices and will 
     actually increase prices at the pump for American's 
     consumers.
       As world demand for biofuels and food increases in the 
     coming years, we will need to continue to develop 
     technologies and feedstocks that meet that demand in a 
     sustainable manner. We strongly support efforts to develop 
     alternative feedstocks and technologies that can satisfy this 
     global demand in a way that addresses the goals of energy 
     security and food security.
       The U.S. renewable fuels industry has made tremendous 
     strides to produce a home-grown, alternative energy that is 
     improving our environment, reducing our dependence on foreign 
     oil and increasing our national security. America's farmers 
     are continuing to provide an ample supply of safe, affordable 
     food for the U.S. and global markets. Therefore, we strongly 
     urge you to reject any action that would reduce the 
     production and use of domestically produced renewable fuels.
           Sincerely,
         Charles E. Grassley; John Thune; Norm Coleman; Kit Bond; 
           Tim Johnson; E. Benjamin Nelson; Amy Klobuchar; Byron 
           Dorgan; Richard G. Lugar; Ken Salazar; Kent Conrad; Jon 
           Tester; Claire McCaskill; Tom Harkin; Debbie Stabenow; 
           Evan Bayh.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. An investment researcher with UBS recently said that 
lifting the biofuels mandate will not ease corn or food prices because 
energy costs and commodity speculation--speculation--are greater 
factors. Lifting the renewable fuels mandate will not drive down the 
cost of corn or the price of groceries. But it will increase our demand 
for crude oil--dirty-burning crude oil. Big oil wins.
  A Merrill Lynch analyst recently estimated that oil and gas prices 
would be up 15 percent higher without biofuels. I have already spoken 
to the Iowa State University study: 30 or 40 cents higher for gasoline 
without having the ethanol industry.
  Another economist estimated an even higher price, that gas would go 
up $1.40 if we removed 50 percent of the ethanol scheduled to be used 
this year--as these letters from my colleagues suggest that we do away 
with half the mandate.
  It is clear, then, reducing the amount of ethanol in our Nation's 
fuel mix will have little, if any, impact on food prices and will 
actually increase prices at the pump for all Americans.
  So to the critics, let me say loudly and clearly: Ethanol is not the 
cause of all that ails you. While it is easy to blame, it is 
intellectually dishonest to make these claims. It is time for critics 
to take an independent look at the facts. They have a responsibility to 
brush aside this sort of ``herd mentality'' that is being encouraged by 
the Grocery Manufacturers Association. It eventually gets taken over by 
the pundits and talking heads on TV who claim that everything about 
ethanol is bad. And it is getting louder. It is not only bad, but it is 
bad, bad, bad.
  I wish to tell you what is good, good, good about ethanol because the 
truth is, ethanol is reducing our dependence upon foreign oil. Ethanol 
has a significant net energy balance. The same cannot be said for 
gasoline. Ethanol is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol is 
not the culprit behind rising food and feed prices here at home or 
abroad. Ethanol is lowering the price of crude oil and lowering the 
price of gasoline. Ethanol is increasing our national security, helping 
our balance of trade, reducing our dependence upon Middle East oil and 
the whims of big oil.
  It is time we clear the air, look at the facts, and recognize, once 
again, that everything about our domestic renewable fuels is good, 
good, good--good for agriculture; good for the refinery business, 
providing jobs in rural America; good for the environment; good for 
national defense; good for the balance of payments--good, good, good.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that ``Ethanol Myths and 
Facts'' from the U.S. Department of Energy be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Ethanol Myths and Facts

       Myth: Ethanol cannot be produced from corn in large enough 
     quantities to make a real difference without disrupting food 
     and feed supplies.
       Fact: Corn is only one source of ethanol. As we develop 
     new, cost-effective methods for producing biofuels, a 
     significant amount of ethanol will be made from more abundant 
     cellulosic biomass sources.
       Future ethanol will be produced increasingly from cellulose 
     found in crop residues (e.g, stalks, hulls), forestry 
     residues (e.g., from forest thinning), energy crops (e.g., 
     switchgrass, sorghum), and sorted municipal wastes. Some 
     promising energy crops grow on marginal soils not suited for 
     traditional agriculture.
       A high-protein animal feed, known as Distillers Dried 
     Grains with Solubles (DDGS), is produced in the process of 
     making corn ethanol.
       The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 
     requires that U.S. transportation fuels contain at least 36 
     billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. Of that quantity, 
     16 billion gallons must be cellulosic biofuels, while ethanol 
     from corn is capped at 15 billion gallons.
       The U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture's Billion 
     Ton Study found that we can grow adequate biomass feedstocks 
     to displace about 30% of current gasoline use by 2030 on a 
     sustainable basis--with only modest changes in land use. It 
     determined that 1.3 billion tons of U.S. biomass feedstock is 
     potentially available for the production of biofuels-more 
     than enough biomass to meet the new renewable fuel standard 
     mandated by EISA.
       Myth: In terms of emissions, ethanol pollutes the same as 
     gasoline or more.
       Fact: Ethanol results in fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) 
     emissions than gasoline and is fully biodegradable, unlike 
     some fuel additives.
       Today, on a life cycle basis, corn ethanol produces about 
     20% fewer GHG emissions than gasoline. With improved 
     efficiency and use of renewable energy, this reduction could 
     reach 52%.
       In the future, ethanol produced from cellulose has the 
     potential to cut life- cycle GHG emissions by up to 86% 
     relative to gasoline.
       Ethanol-blended fuels currently in the market--whether E10 
     or E85--meet stringent tailpipe emission standards.
       Ethanol readily biodegrades without harm to the environment 
     and is a safe, high-performance replacement for fuel 
     additives such as MTBE.
       Myth: More energy goes into producing ethanol than it 
     delivers as a fuel.
       Fact: In terms of fossil energy, each gallon of ethanol 
     produced from corn today delivers one third or more energy 
     than is used to produce it.
       Ethanol has a positive energy balance that is, the energy 
     content of ethanol is greater than the fossil energy used to 
     produce it--and this balance is constantly improving with new 
     technologies.
       Over the last 20 years, the amount of energy needed to 
     produce ethanol from corn has significantly decreased because 
     of improved farming techniques, more efficient use of 
     fertilizers and pesticides, higher-yielding crops, and more 
     energy-efficient conversion technology.
       Most studies that claim a negative energy balance for 
     ethanol fail to take into account the energy contained in the 
     co-products.
       Myth: Rainforests will be destroyed to create the new 
     croplands required to meet food, feed, and biofuels needs, 
     thus accelerating climate change and destroying valuable 
     ecosystems.
       Fact: Biofuels have the potential to significantly reduce 
     global GHG emissions associated with transportation, but--as 
     with all types of development--controls are needed to protect 
     ecologically important lands.
       In Brazil and elsewhere, laws have already slowed 
     deforestation, and for the past decade China has converted 
     marginal croplands to grasslands and forests to control 
     erosion.
       Links between U.S. ethanol production and land use changes 
     elsewhere are uncertain. We cannot simply assume that 
     increases in U.S. ethanol production will lead to increased 
     crop production abroad. In fact, since 2002, during the 
     greatest period of ethanol growth, U.S. corn exports 
     increased by 60% and exports of Distillers Dried Grains 
     (DDGs) also increased steadily. In part, improvements in U.S. 
     corn yield (about 1.6% annually since 1980) have enabled 
     simultaneous growth in corn and ethanol production.

[[Page 9400]]

       Greenhouse gas emissions will decrease dramatically as 
     biofuels of the future are increasingly made from cellulosic 
     feedstocks and as the associated farming, harvesting, 
     transport, and production processes increasingly use clean, 
     renewable energy sources.
       Myth: Ethanol-gasoline blends can lower, fuel economy and 
     may harm your engine.
       Fact: Most ethanol blends in use today have little impact 
     on fuel economy or vehicle performance.
       While ethanol delivers less energy than gasoline on a 
     gallon-for-gallon basis, today's vehicles are designed to run 
     on gasoline blended with small amounts of ethanol (10% or 
     less) with no perceptible effect on fuel economy.
       Flex-fuel vehicles designed to run on higher ethanol blends 
     (E85 or 85% ethanol) do experience reduced miles per gallon, 
     but show a significant gain in horsepower.
       As a high-octane fuel additive and substitute for MTBE, 
     ethanol enhances engine performance and adds oxygen to meet 
     requirements for reformulated gasoline.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________