[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11466-11467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               APPROVING THE USE AND SALE OF E15 GASOLINE

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about 
the Federal Government's unnecessary and unacceptable delay in deciding 
to approve the use and sale of E15 gasoline at all the gasoline 
stations in this country.
  Last Friday, we were told by the Environmental Protection Agency and 
the Department of Energy that they will not make a decision on E15, a 
gasoline blend that includes 15 percent ethanol, until sometime this 
fall. Quite frankly, this is an abdication of responsibility, and it 
couldn't come at a worse time.
  To give a little history for those who don't understand this, we have 
for about 30 years now had approval of a blend of 10 percent ethanol 
with gasoline. In the old days, it was called gasohol; now it is called 
E10. When you pull into your gasoline station, you will see E10 pumps 
all over. There used to be big signs. Now it is hardly noticed because 
it is so widely used. I will get into that more later.
  There has been testing done over about the last 15 years or more as 
to how much ethanol you can actually use in a gasoline blend without 
hurting any of the engines or vehicles we use in America. A lot of 
testing has gone on, and the results of those tests have shown there is 
absolutely no problem if you increase from 10 percent to 15 percent. As 
a matter of fact, a lot of the tests that have been done privately show 
that maybe as much as 20 to 25 percent could be added without any 
damage whatsoever.
  This issue of approval of E15 has been at the EPA and the Department 
of Energy for a long time. Increasing the blend rate--that is what we 
call it, the blend rate--from 10 percent to 15 percent is critical to 
reducing our addiction to oil and accelerating the transition to 
biofuels. We all understand how important this is. It will strengthen 
our national security, create jobs, boost our economy, and help the 
environment.
  What makes the dithering at EPA and the Department of Energy all the 
more baffling and outrageous is that it is happening in the midst of 
the appalling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. The blowout at the BP 
Deepwater Horizon well has cast a spotlight on the terrible price we 
pay for our dependency on petroleum. But instead of spurring EPA and 
the Department of Energy into action, they have hit the snooze button 
and given themselves 5 or 6 more months to try to reach a decision. We 
can't wait until the fall. In the face of the BP disaster, we need a 
decision on E15 with the utmost urgency.
  We have decried our dependence on oil for decades. Going back to the 
mid-seventies, we have talked--and we have talked and we have talked--
about the national security risks associated with our ever-increasing 
oil dependency. We have decried the fact that we are dependent on oil 
from nations that are unstable or unfriendly, or both, to the United 
States. We have been embroiled in conflict after conflict, war after 
war, in the Middle East because of oil. As we have talked, our total 
oil usage and our oil imports have risen steadily.
  In recent years, there have been some glimmers of hope. In 2007, we 
passed the Energy Independence and Security Act which mandates an 
increase in the efficiency of our automobiles and light trucks as well 
as increasing levels of biofuels in our transportation sector. These 
two steps--increasing vehicle efficiencies and encouraging the use of 
domestic alternative fuels--are the two fastest and most effective ways 
to reduce our dependency on petroleum-based fuels in transportation.
  In particular, I wish to highlight what we have accomplished with 
biofuels. In just the past decade, we have increased the contribution 
of biofuels for highway transportation from about 2 percent in the year 
2000 to almost 10 percent today. I want to repeat that because I don't 
think most Americans grasp the significance of what our biofuels 
industry has accomplished in just one decade. Current ethanol 
production exceeds 9 percent and is quickly approaching 10 percent of 
total gasoline demand in the United States. To put that in perspective, 
ethanol now contributes more to our transportation fuel demand than all 
of our oil imports from Mexico, Venezuela, or Nigeria. I will repeat 
that. Ethanol contributes more to our transportation fuel than our oil 
imports from Mexico, or Venezuela, or Nigeria. Only imports from Canada 
and Saudi Arabia provide more fuel for transport than our domestic 
ethanol industry. So this is tremendously heartening news.
  Congress recognized the potential of biofuels in the 2007 Energy 
bill. We called for increasing levels of biofuels that roughly match 
what the industry has accomplished to date. In that bill, we called for 
that contribution to rise steadily over the next 12 years, reaching 36 
billion gallons by 2022. That would put us on a trajectory to get about 
25 percent of our transportation fuels from domestic biofuels by 2025. 
We need to stay on that trajectory because biofuels offer one of our 
very best alternatives for reducing dependence on petroleum.
  However, while our biofuels industry has stepped up to the plate, our 
fuel markets are lagging behind. Today, nearly all ethanol is used in 
the form, as I said earlier, of E10, a blend of 10 percent ethanol with 
gasoline, used in almost all of our cars and light trucks. Since 
ethanol production is very close to 10 percent of total gasoline 
demand, we are at what is commonly called the blend wall. In other 
words, our ethanol production is close to the total amount we can use 
at that 10 percent blend rate, so we have this blend wall of 10 
percent.
  So we have to do three things. First and second, we must transition 
to a fleet of cars and light trucks capable of using higher blends, and 
we must make higher blends available through the installation of 
blender pumps. Senator Lugar and I introduced a bill to accomplish both 
of these actions last fall. Our Consumer Fuels and Vehicles Choice Act 
of 2009, which is S. 1627, would mandate the manufacture of an 
increasing number of flex-fuel vehicles as well as installation of 
increasing numbers of blender pumps.
  Again, this is not some pie-in-the-sky thing. I would point out that 
in the nation of Brazil, every single car produced in Brazil--by Ford, 
I might add, or by General Motors, I can also add, or by the Japanese 
manufacturers that are manufacturing cars in Brazil--every single car 
is 100 percent flex-fuel, and the cost of doing that is--well, if you 
did it to every car, it would be almost minuscule. So we need every car 
produced in America to be totally flex-fuel, just as they are in 
Brazil. That is what our bill would mandate.
  Then, we need to increase the number of blender pumps out there. This 
is the old chicken-and-egg argument I have heard for so many years. You 
go to the oil companies--which we have done; Senator Lugar and I both 
have done this--you talk to the oil companies.
  Why don't you put in more blender pumps?
  They say: Well, we can't put in more blender pumps because there are 
not that many flex-fuel cars out there to use the higher blends.
  You go to the automobile manufacturers and say: Why don't you 
manufacture flex-fuel cars?
  They say: Well, we don't have the blender pumps to supply higher 
blends.

[[Page 11467]]

  Back and forth we go. So our bill would do both of those things.
  I also noticed that this flex-fuel vehicle mandate is a part of an 
energy bill Senator Lugar introduced just a few weeks ago here in the 
Senate.
  The third action we need is approval of E15 right now--right now--for 
use in all gasoline-fueled vehicles. The EPA has the responsibility for 
making this decision.
  A trade association called Growth Energy applied to the EPA for 
approval of E15 in March of 2009, more than a year ago. Under the Clean 
Air Act as amended in the 2007 Energy bill, the EPA is required to take 
final action to grant or deny such a request within 270 days. But at 
the end of 270 days, in November of 2009, EPA simply reported that they 
were going to wait for the results of more Department of Energy testing 
of vehicles running on E15 before making the mandated decision. 
However, last November, they also indicated they expected to approve 
E15 for all vehicles of model year 2001 or newer by mid-2010 provided 
that the test results continued to be supportive. But now we are being 
told their decision will be further delayed--further delayed.
  First of all, the bill is clear. They were mandated to make this 
decision within 270 days. That was last November. They said we need a 
little bit more time. The tests were all supportive. The tests all 
looked very good. And they told us they expected to approve E15 for all 
model year cars 2001 and later by June of 2010.
  Now what has happened? They're kicking the ball down the field again. 
They said maybe this fall.
  Again, what we are told--I do not know this is factual--what we are 
told is this is a consequence of testing delays and additional test 
requirements at the Department of Energy.
  I have to ask the question: If this is so, why is the Department of 
Energy dragging its feet? What is Secretary Chu doing about this? I 
think Secretary Chu needs to explain these delays. Is it because there 
is a bias at the Department of Energy against biofuels? There is some 
indication there just might be that kind of a bias. I would like to 
know the answer to that question. I hope, if anybody is watching at the 
Department of Energy, they will tell their boss that Senator Harkin 
intends to ask the Secretary in a more formal setting why they are 
dragging their feet on this in the midst of an oil crisis, the likes of 
which we have never seen.
  If I sound upset, I am. There is absolutely no reason for this foot 
dragging--none whatsoever. This slow walking may be business as usual 
for a bureaucracy in ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times, 
and bureaucratic business as usual is not acceptable. We are in the 
midst of what many consider the worst environmental disaster in 
American history, perhaps even world history.
  The root cause of this situation is our addiction to oil. We have not 
just an environmental and national security imperative in that 
addiction, now we have a profound moral imperative as well. We cannot 
tolerate any further delay in accelerating our transition to clean, 
domestically produced, renewable biofuels produced not in the Middle 
East or in the middle of the fragile Gulf of Mexico but in the middle 
of our country wherever corn or sorghum or sugarcane or sugar beets or 
switchgrass or any other feedstocks for ethanol are grown and renewed 
every single year.
  I have come to the floor of the Senate today not just to urge but to 
demand that the EPA and the Department of Energy give this decision the 
highest and the most urgent priority. We cannot wait until this fall. 
It is time for the EPA and the Department of Energy to get off that 
stump and move ahead aggressively. They had their 270 days last year. 
We have already gone over that. The law is clear. It is unacceptable 
that they are dragging their feet.
  Both the EPA and the Department of Energy owe us, the Congress, a 
better accounting for the current delay and the excuses we have been 
given. Most important, it is time for them to end the delay and the 
dithering around. We need a decision, and we need it now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________