[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17452-17453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ATTACKING BIOFUELS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I wish to address another round of 
attacks that have been spearheaded by Big Oil against America's 
biofuels producers.
  As its market share for Big Oil dips, Big Oil is doubling down to 
swat down its perennial pinata. This time around, petroleum producers 
and food conglomerates are using environmental groups as political 
cover to gain traction on efforts to pull the plug on the renewable 
fuel standard that we often refer to as RFS.
  This is a ridiculously transparent and very much self-serving assault 
by these special-interest groups. Their relentless campaign to 
discredit ethanol undermines America's longstanding efforts to 
diversify its energy landscape, fuel the economy, and, most 
importantly, strengthen our national security.
  The predictable efforts to smear ethanol's reputation ignore the 
renewable fuel's valuable contribution to clean energy, rural 
development, job creation, and U.S. energy independence. The latest 
round of misguided untruths disregards the plain truth. The plain truth 
is ethanol is renewable, it is sustainable, it is a clean-burning fuel, 
and all this helps run the Nation's transportation fleet with less 
pollution and less imported oil.
  Let me remind my colleagues, most of that imported oil comes from 
countries that hate us and use our money to potentially kill Americans. 
Yet critics continue to hide behind distortions that claim ethanol is 
bad for the environment, and those distortions I wish to discuss.
  I wish to separate fact from fiction regarding ethanol's impact on 
the environment. Critics say farmers are putting fragile land into 
production to cash in on higher corn prices at the expense of soil 
erosion and clean water.
  That argument is not good under any respects. It may have been better 
last year and the year before when corn was $7, but corn is about $4 a 
bushel now--hardly making ends meet. They point out that 5 million 
Conservation Reserve Program acres are no longer enrolled in the 
conservation program since 2008. They want to pin the blame on ethanol. 
But the facts are, first of all, fewer acres enrolled in CRP has more 
to do with Federal belt-tightening, meaning spending less money here in 
Congress, than land stewardship decisions made by corn farmers.
  The 2008 farm bill had a lot to do with it. That farm bill built upon 
other stewardship incentives for American farmers and ranchers 
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, wetland restoration, and 
wildlife habitat programs. So land put into these programs under the 
2008 farm bill takes land out of crop production, but it is not the 
ethanol industry that has done it. It is Federal policy.
  For instance, a Wetlands Reserve Program in 2012 had a record-
breaking enrollment of 2.65 million acres. The Wetlands Reserve Program 
lands cannot be farmed for 30 years, so they aren't going to be raising 
corn on that land to produce ethanol.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, no new grassland 
has been converted to cropland since 2005. Farmers must make marketing, 
planting, and stewardship decisions that keep their operations 
financially sound and productive from crop year to crop year.
  Even more importantly, these decisions must be environmentally 
sustainable for the long haul, both from the standpoint of the farmer's 
economic well-being as well as meeting certain laws that require that.
  So let me be clear: Farmers simply can't afford to not take 
scrupulous care of the land that sustains their livelihoods.
  Fertilizer use is on the decline. Compare application per bushel in 
1980

[[Page 17453]]

versus 2010: Nitrogen is down 43 percent, phosphate is down 58 percent, 
and potash is down 64 percent.
  Ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline. According to the Oregon National 
Laboratory, corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent 
compared to gasoline. If the oil industry wants to talk about the 
environment, we should not forget--and I will remind them and the 
people behind this move--about the 1989 Exxon Valdez oilspill or the 
2010 Deepwater Horizon oilspills in the Mexican gulf. Critics also say 
that the renewable fuel standard is driving more acres into corn 
production. Well, the fact is, if facts mean anything, the RFS is 
driving significant investment in higher yielding, drought-resistant 
seed technology that very much enhances production per acre. This is a 
win-win scenario, to cultivate good-paying jobs, mostly in rural 
America, and to harvest better yields on less land.
  The total cropland planted to corn in the United States is 
decreasing. Let's compare this year's crop year when U.S. farmers 
planted 97 million acres of corn--97 million corn acres. In the 1930s, 
farmers planted 103 million acres of corn. Farmers have increased corn 
harvests through higher yields, not more acres.
  Critics contend the Nation's corn crop is diverted for fuel use at 
the expense of feed for livestock and higher prices at the grocery 
store. But what are the facts? In reality, one-third of the corn 
processed to make ethanol reenters the marketplace as high-value animal 
feed called dried distillers grain. Livestock feed remains the largest 
end user of corn.
  I get so darn tired of hearing people from Big Oil or these 
environmental groups or these big supermarket conglomerates say that 40 
percent of the corn produced goes into ethanol when they don't give 
credit for the 18 pounds of every 56-pound bushel of corn, 18 pounds, 
or one-third of it, is used for animal feed. So when coproducts such as 
the dried distillers grain are factored in, then ethanol consumes only 
about 27 percent of the whole corn grain by volume. Livestock feed uses 
50 percent.
  Critics have also pursued the false accusation that the increased 
production of biofuels increases grocery prices. Again, nothing could 
be further from the truth. The facts are that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Secretary has said farmers receive about 14 cents of every 
food dollar spent in the grocery stores, and the farmers share of a $4 
box of corn flakes is only 10 cents.
  So what is at stake when a coalition of special interests tag-teams 
to pull the rug out from underneath the Nation's ethanol policy? Well, 
there is a lot at stake. Unfortunately, these flawed attacks on ethanol 
and next-generation biofuels undermine America's effort to move forward 
with an aggressive, diversified energy policy that takes into account 
global demand, geopolitics, and U.S. economic growth.
  It has resulted in an EPA that has wholeheartedly adopted this false 
narrative promoted by Big Oil and Big Oil allies. On Friday, then, the 
EPA released its proposed rule for the required volumes under the 
renewable fuel standard for next year. The EPA in this proposal chose 
to reduce the overall biofuels mandate. Rather than increase the amount 
of biofuel to be blended as the law requires, the EPA has chosen to 
waive the mandate and suggest that we use less homegrown renewable 
biofuel in our fuel supply; hence, more dependence upon foreign sources 
of energy.
  It is terribly disappointing that the U.S. biofuels industry is now 
under attack from President Obama's EPA. This action, which was 
vigorously pursued by Big Oil, is a slap in the face of our domestic 
energy producers. Who would have believed that Big Oil found an ally in 
President Obama's EPA since he has been such a defender of biofuels and 
all green energy.
  Who would have expected the Obama EPA to be more harmful to our 
domestic biofuels effort than President Bush ever was? President Bush 
was demagoged as an oil man from Texas. But he never undermined 
biofuels to the extent that this proposal from this EPA would.
  In making this announcement, the EPA said the challenges to supplying 
more ethanol to the market are too great because of the so-called blend 
wall. The fact is the blend wall is a creation of Big Oil. The primary 
reason ethanol is not blended at levels higher than 10 percent today is 
because Big Oil has stood in the way.
  Congress knew in 2007 that the RFS, renewable fuel standard, would 
require biofuels to be blended at levels higher than 10 percent. But 
the petroleum companies fought that every step of the way, going back 4 
or 5 years, and finally last Friday they were successful.
  Friday's announcement, by the way, by EPA rewarded them for their 
temper tantrums. The EPA's proposal puts Big Oil in charge of how we 
implement the renewable fuel standard. It has rewarded Big Oil for its 
intransigence.
  While EPA says its intention is to put the RFS Program on a 
manageable trajectory that will support continued growth, I want to 
tell you the exact opposite is true. This proposal is a step back, not 
a step forward. It undercuts all segments of biofuel--including 
biodiesel, ethanol, and the advanced biofuels that go by the name of 
cellulosic ethanol.
  While this administration claims to have an energy strategy of ``all 
of the above,'' this decision by EPA proves it is in favor of ``none of 
the above.'' Ironically, biofuel producers now know what it is like for 
traditional energy producers with a bureaucracy that impedes domestic 
energy production at every turn.
  I find this decision baffling. I hope President Obama will see the 
harmful impacts of the EPA proposal and fix this mistake during the 60-
day period EPA must take to consider opinions on this issue.
  So there are 60 days to turn this around. I hope we can do that.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________