Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might just say to my colleague from Minnesota, I appreciate her good work and advocacy on this subject. This is something we have been working on for some time, along with some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for a lot of reasons; one of which, of course, is because, as the Senator from Minnesota mentioned, these are difficult fiscal times.

Obviously, every area in our budget needs to be reviewed and scrutinized and looked at to see where we might be able to achieve some savings. But, as my colleague noted, there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. The way that has been proposed in the amendment that was offered, and on which the cloture vote will occur tomorrow, is the wrong way. We cannot tell an industry in December we are going to give them a set of policies that are going to be in effect for the year, that they are going to be able to make investment decisions, they are going to be able to go to their lenders, they are going to be able to go secure financing based upon this set of policies--we do that around here all the time. We make policy, and we try to do it in a way, hopefully, that gives those who are investing their dollars some certainty about what those policies are going to be. Well, how can we then, in the middle of the year, come back and say we are just going to pull the rug right out from under them? We are sorry, that is just the way it is. This is gone.

Well, frankly, there is a much better way to go about doing this, and what the Senator from Minnesota and I have proposed does just that and, in my view, does this in a responsible, measured, thoughtful, reasonable way. We get to the same ultimate result, which is that for those who are really interested in doing away with the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, it does phase it out, but it does it in a way that does not create disruption and harm and allows people to plan for the future. It also invests some of those resources in areas that are important to the future of that industry; namely, blender pumps, which is the one thing that does not exist out there today, at least not in any great numbers. If those pumps were more available, I believe we would see a lot higher usage of the fuel than we already have seen. But we already know it is 10 percent of our fuel supply.

Whether the opponents of this like it or not--and I know they do not--there are 13 billion gallons of ethanol produced in this country. At least that is what it was in 2010. We assume it will be that number, maybe a little higher, this year. That displaces 445 million barrels of imported crude oil. That is 55 million barrels more than the total crude oil imports from Saudi Arabia last year.

Now, think about that: a fuel that is produced from a kernel of corn now displaces more than the entire imports of Saudi foreign oil into this country. That is what we ought to be looking at. We ought to be looking at more ways to produce domestic energy, home-grown energy, adding that to our fuel supply rather than taking it out.

What the amendment our colleagues are trying to get a vote on tomorrow would do is basically to say to this industry: Yes, we are going to take away this particular tax incentive, and we are going to do it right in the middle of the year. We are going to do it, and we do not like this industry--which is probably what animates a lot of the opposition to this because if people look at the facts, if they look at the contribution that biofuels have made to our fuel supply in this country, it is significant.

Ten percent of our entire fuel now is biofuels. In fact, if we look at the other byproduct of biofuels--once we take the starch out of that kernel of corn and convert it into liquid form, we can get, for every bushel of corn, almost 3 gallons of ethanol. But we also get dry distillers grain, which is something that has been used extensively now for feed for livestock.

So if we take 5 billion bushels of corn, for example, that are used for ethanol production in any given year, the feed product equivalent is about 1.7 billion bushels of corn that is returned to the livestock food chain as this ethanol byproduct called dry distillers grain. So we are adding additional protein that is fed to livestock in addition to the almost 3 gallons of ethanol we get from every single bushel of corn.

So I do believe there is an approach that makes sense. What the Senator from Minnesota and I and many of our colleagues on both sides have come together around is a way in which we can move forward, and do it in a way that not only makes it reasonable for the industry to plan for the future but also in a way that returns dollars to the Treasury of this country because there is $1 billion in here for debt retirement. I think that is something the industry recognizes, we all recognize, and we need to address. It is addressed as part of this bill.

So I appreciate the good work of the Senator from Minnesota in working with me, along with other colleagues of ours, to introduce the bill we introduce today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might add one point.

I think the Senator from Minnesota did point out that there are a significant number of jobs that are associated with this industry--in fact, one-half million jobs. They are American jobs. They are jobs in the heartland of this country. They are jobs that help grow the economy, make it more prosperous. It strikes me, at least, that what we ought to be looking at is more jobs in this country and less investment in foreign regimes, where we get a lot of our energy today.

Mr. President, $1 billion a day is what we send outside the United States because of our addiction to foreign oil. We have a dangerous dependence upon foreign energy, and we have a fuel that, as I said, displaces 445 million barrels of oil every single year--more than we import from Saudi Arabia. That is a pretty remarkable number when you think about it.

We had a debate here a few weeks ago on the floor of the Senate about whether we ought to change tax policy with regard to oil companies. The decision was reached that we should not do that; that it would be punitive, directed at oil companies. We decided, too, that it would raise taxes on gas for people in this country.

I would make the same argument today. We are talking about a tax increase--a large tax increase--which we know is going to get passed on. So we are talking about raising taxes on consumers at a time when they can least afford it.

We have today 3 1/2 to $4-a-gallon gasoline. The last thing consumers in this country need is something that would actually push that gas price higher. In fact, if we did away with biofuels altogether--which some people would like to do--there was a study out last year, in 2010, that said the price per gallon of gasoline would go up by 89 cents a gallon. So we have a proposal here that would have an adverse impact on energy prices, fuel prices for people in this country, which, frankly, again, because of the commitment that was made last December, strikes at the very heart of economic certainty, which so many of us come down here and talk about: the importance of having policies in place that are reliable, that people who are investing in particular areas of our economy can know they are going to be there, at least when Congress makes a commitment.

This completely undermines the commitment Congress made back in December that this particular tax credit would be in place until the end of the year. So what the Senator from Minnesota and I have done is propose a path forward that we believe makes sense and that is a thoughtful, measured, reasonable, responsible way in which to get to the goal that many of the proponents of the amendment that will be voted on tomorrow want to get to; that is, to phase down the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit. But it does it in a way that makes sense for American consumers and those who have investments in the industry today.

So I hope my colleagues will take a look at this legislation. We think we can get it moving this year. It does, as was noted by my colleague from Minnesota, put a significant amount toward reducing the debt, which I think is something all of our colleagues are very interested in doing. So we will present this legislation, obviously, to our colleagues and hope there will be many who will choose to support it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor back to the Senator from Minnesota.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source