[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8980-8981]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            COBURN AMENDMENT

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma which 
we will be voting on tomorrow. Before I talk about the substance of the 
amendment, I wish to comment on the procedure through which it was 
offered. There was no warning to Senate leadership or to any of our 
colleagues. And while technically it wasn't in violation of Senate 
rules, it undermines the basic comity that makes this body work. It is 
a disservice to do business this way--to our colleagues, to 
bipartisanship, and to the American people who sent us in Washington to 
get work done by working together. So I am disappointed in the way this 
was handled.
  Now let me talk about the amendment itself. Today, families in 
Minnesota and around the country are paying painfully high prices at 
the pump as oil still hovers around $100 a barrel. What this amendment 
does is cut the legs out from under the most viable alternative to 
foreign oil we have. Despite decade after decade of rhetoric about 
weaning our country off foreign oil, we are still dependent on it. And 
while about a third of our oil imports comes from Canada and Mexico, 
close to half come from the Persian Gulf, Africa, or Venezuela.
  Last year at this time we were dealing with the gulf oilspill, the 
worst environmental catastrophe we have ever had. That was maybe the 
most jarring reminder of what has been clear for decades--that we have 
to kick our addiction to oil. While that is not something we can do 
overnight, we need to do everything in our power to transition to 
alternatives.
  There is no more viable alternative than biofuels. Today, the 
industry that has been most successful in displacing oil is under 
attack. We are talking about an industry using homegrown American 
resources, an industry that has created thousands of jobs and catalyzed 
economic development across rural America. The first generation of 
biofuels has paved the way for the next generation of advanced 
biofuels. The first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant is being 
built this year in Emmetsburg, IA, where it will be making ethanol from 
corncobs.
  According to a recent study done by the researchers at Iowa State 
University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the growth in 
ethanol production reduced wholesale gas prices by an average of 89 
cents per gallon in 2010. In the Midwest, that number was higher: $1.37 
per gallon. Let me repeat that. At a time when so many American 
families are struggling to pay their bills and make ends meet, they 
would have paid an average of 89 cents more per gallon of gas last year 
had we not had ethanol.
  But instead of giving this industry the tools it needs to grow and 
reduce our oil dependence even more, this amendment hangs the ethanol 
industry out to dry. It makes no sense.
  I share the concern of my colleague from Oklahoma about the deficit 
and our national debt. To cut our deficit, everyone in America will 
have to make some sacrifices, and that includes the ethanol industry. 
The easy part here is that the ethanol industry agrees. Ethanol 
producers stand ready to phase out the ethanol blenders credit. But we 
need to be consistent. If the ethanol industry is being asked to make 
some sacrifices, other fuel industries need to be willing to do the 
same. Yet, just a month ago, many of my colleagues, including my 
colleague from Oklahoma, voted against repealing billions of dollars in 
subsidies we pay every year to the biggest five oil companies. We are 
talking about companies that have made almost $1 trillion in profit 
over the last decade. My colleagues chose to leave those tax breaks in 
place, amounting to 21 billion in taxpayer dollars to oil companies 
over the next 10 years. Expert after expert has basically concluded 
these subsidies are not lowering the cost of gas and would not cause it 
to increase if they were eliminated. But we do not need experts to tell 
us that. Subsidies for oil and gas are on the books right now, and some 
have been on the books since as far back as 1916, but they have done 
nothing to stem the skyrocketing gas prices that are squeezing the 
budgets of American families. Yet when we are talking about ethanol--a 
homegrown alternative to foreign oil that lowers prices at the pump--my 
colleagues seem to think it is absolutely imperative to repeal this tax 
credit now.
  When it is repealing subsidies for oil and gas companies operating in 
oil-producing States such as Oklahoma, that somehow is a tax hike. But 
cutting a tax credit that supports an American renewable fuel, that is 
``fiscal responsibility.'' The hypocrisy here is stunning.
  Regardless, America's ethanol producers are ready and willing to 
phase out this credit. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do 
it. The Coburn amendment, which abruptly ends the credit at the end of 
this month, is the wrong way. The right way is to responsibly phase out 
the tax credit in a manner that allows the industry to build out the 
infrastructure it needs to bring advanced biofuels into the U.S. 
market.
  Today my colleagues and I are introducing legislation that does it 
the right way, and I urge every Member of this body to support it. 
Right now, our biofuels industry is hitting a wall because of the 
national 10-percent ethanol blend limit we have had on the books. It 
also is hamstrung by the inability of most cars and gas pumps to use 
blends higher than 10 percent ethanol. That means cellulosic ethanol 
and other advanced biofuels have no market access or market to grow 
into. This isn't an industry problem, it is a public policy problem.
  The EPA's E15 waiver was a step in the right direction to address 
this very problem. But without pumps that can deliver higher ethanol 
blends, American consumers have no way to access additional ethanol 
that would and should be on the market. What our legislation does is 
reform our ethanol tax

[[Page 8981]]

policy by ending the ethanol tax credit in its current form at the end 
of the month. It then invests part of the savings into biofuels 
infrastructure, part toward extending the cellulosic ethanol credit, 
and puts $1 billion toward reducing our deficit.
  Reducing America's dependence on oil is going to require a national 
strategy, and biofuels are just one part of that strategy. We also need 
to do things such as deploy more electric vehicles and make our entire 
economy more energy efficient. We have to recognize that if we don't 
fix our national policies to allow the biofuels industry to grow, we 
are actively choosing foreign oil and dirty fossil fuels over domestic, 
homegrown, renewable fuels.
  Let me tell my colleagues something: We are never going to see a 
massive ethanol spill in the Gulf of Mexico that kills 11 workers, 
destroys thousands and thousands of livelihoods, and does irreparable 
harm to vital ecosystems. We are never going to see foreign countries 
collude to restrict the supply of ethanol and drive up gas prices for 
American families. As we transition to advanced biofuels and expand 
this industry, we are not going to see these jobs go overseas. This is 
an American industry, it is American jobs, and it is American energy 
independence. I urge my colleagues to make the responsible choice--one 
that will keep this industry moving forward.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Ms. Klobuchar and Mr. Thune pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1185 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________