[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8972-8973]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                ETHANOL

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Coburn 
and Feinstein in offering an amendment to repeal the ethanol excise tax 
credit and the ethanol import tariff. These policies are fiscally 
irresponsible, environmentally unwise, and economically indefensible.
  Historically, our government has helped a product compete in one of 
three ways: either we subsidize it, we protect it from competition, or 
we require its use. Right now, ethanol may be the only product 
receiving all three forms of support.
  The ethanol tax break is extraordinarily expensive. The Government 
Accountability Office has found that the tax credit costs American 
taxpayers a staggering $6 billion annually. This is quite a sum to prop 
up a fuel that is causing land conversion for corn production, 
commodity and food prices to rise, and is barely putting a dent in our 
Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
  With our amendment, which has an effective date of July 1, we have 
the opportunity to immediately save American taxpayers nearly $3 
billion in just the 6 months remaining in this year.
  The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act requires the production 
of at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels in 2022, up from the 
original 2005 Energy Policy Act, which required 7.5 billion gallons by 
2012. Collectively, the first generation biofuels industry will receive 
tens of billions in unnecessary subsidies through the year 2022.
  If the current subsidy were allowed to continue for 5 years, the 
Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 
billion gallons of corn-based ethanol that the Federal Renewable Fuels 
Standard already requires them to use. We simply cannot afford to pay 
the oil industry for following the law.
  The data overwhelmingly demonstrates that the costs of the current 
ethanol subsidies and tariffs far outweigh their benefits. The Center 
for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University 
estimated that a 1-year extension of the ethanol subsidy and tariff 
would lead to only 427 additional direct domestic jobs at a cost of 
almost $6 billion. That is roughly $14 million of taxpayer money per 
job.
  While expanding our capacity to generate alternative domestic fuel 
sources is an important step toward becoming less dependent on foreign 
oil, I have serious concerns about the effects of increased ethanol 
use. There are other alternative sources of energy that make far more 
sense.
  The energy, agricultural, and automotive sectors are already 
struggling to adapt to the existing ethanol mandates. I am disappointed 
the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a partial waiver for the 
use of E-15, a blend of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol. Many 
residents in my State have already experienced difficulties using 
gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol, finding that it causes 
problems in older cars, snowmobiles, boats, lawn mowers, and off-the-
road vehicles. The EPA's E-15 waiver fails to adequately protect 
against misfueling and

[[Page 8973]]

will add unnecessary confusion at the gas pump for consumers. We simply 
cannot place so many engines in jeopardy.
  These first-generation biofuel mandates also present environmental 
concerns, as they could result in energy efficiency losses and 
increased emissions of air pollutants because the mechanical failures 
can jeopardize the effectiveness of mission control devices and systems 
installed on engines.
  In addition, over recent years, we have seen food and feed prices 
increase as crops have been diverted to first-generation biofuel 
production. I think of it this way: We should be raising crops for 
food, not for fuel.
  Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Joe Lieberman and I held 
a series of hearings in 2008 that examined the impact of corn-based 
ethanol on food prices, and we found that it certainly had a negative 
impact. For one thing, crops that had been grown to support other 
grains were being converted to produce corn. The land was being 
switched to corn production, and the corn was no longer available for 
the products that used corn for food, but instead was being diverted to 
the production of ethanol.
  The bottom line is that we can no longer ignore the cost of this 
policy to our Nation and its taxpayers, particularly given our current 
fiscal crisis. At a time when we are projecting a deficit, this year 
alone, of $1.5 trillion, why in the world are we spending $6 billion 
subsidizing ethanol? Subsidizing the blending of corn-based ethanol 
into gasoline is simply fiscally indefensible.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Coburn-Feinstein 
amendment to repeal the ethanol excise tax credit and to eliminate the 
ethanol import tariff.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________