Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, how much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 minutes 37 seconds remaining.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Iowa, who has been a great leader over the years on the issue of biofuels, in trying to transition our country away from the dangerous dependence we have on foreign oil and over the years has worked to put in place policies that have helped build an industry literally from the ground up. The ethanol industry, in its inception many years ago, sort of started with just a few farmers getting together. Today they are producing about 13 billion gallons of ethanol. It represents 10 percent of our entire fuel supply. There is not any other fuel in the country that provides the alternative to traditional gasoline ethanol does.

That is the result of a lot of investment, a lot of hard work by a lot of people over the years. It has also been as a result of a dependance upon what has been fairly stable public policy. Now there is a debate about whether that public policy ought to change. That certainly is a debate we can have. I do not wish to get into the merits of the individual elements of ethanol policy because obviously people are going to disagree about that.

But I am going to point out that we put this policy in place in December of last year. In December of last year, we told this industry, which represents--these are 204 American-owned plants. These are American companies that employ almost 500,000--indirectly or directly--American jobs and American workers in this country. So we told them, in December of last year, 81 Senators--81 Senators, many of whom are now saying, I am going to vote to do away with this particular tax policy--81 Senators voted for it. We had 81 votes in the Senate in December that said these are going to be the rules of the game until December of this year.

So now we have this effort to completely change the rules in the middle of the game. I have not been here all that long. I served three terms in the House of Representatives. I am in my seventh year in the Senate. But I do not recall an occasion where we have ever done anything such as this, where the Congress has put policy in place, made commitments to American businesses--in this case, people who employ American workers--and then tell them 6 months later, I am sorry, we are going to pull the rug out. You are out there on your own now.

It would be one thing if these decisions were made in a vacuum. But most of these businesses made investment decisions based upon public policy that was put in place by this Congress. We cannot, in good faith, now go tell them we are just going to jerk this policy out of the way. Does our word mean anything around here?

To start with, we have an issue with this particular amendment because it is unconstitutional. We cannot originate a tax measure in the Senate. So it will be blue-slipped in the House of Representatives, which makes everything we are doing right now largely symbolic. This bill is not going anywhere.

But there seems to be people who are intent upon making some sort of statement, I guess, or trying to send some sort of a message. But the end result, if what they were trying to accomplish today were to become law, is we would raise gas prices because we are talking about a $2.4 billion increase in taxes on people who inevitably are going to pass it on. So why would we want to start raising gas prices at a time when we have historically high gas prices and people are already being pinched at the pump?

So we single out a specific industry. I have heard people get up today and say: Well, we voted for tax extenders last year, but you know what, they were part of a bigger package. We did not have to agree with all of it. Well, then, do not vote for it and, surely, have the debate then. Why were we not debating the issue last December? If people had issues with this, they should have been brought out then when we put this policy in place.

What, in effect, we are doing is singling out an industry and saying: We are going to punish you by changing the rules in the middle of the game because we do not like your industry or because we do not like this particular tax provision.

Well, we had a similar debate a few weeks ago. There was an effort to do something on oil and gas tax provisions. The argument that was made at the time, myself included, was why would we single out a specific industry? If we are going to do this, let's do this in a comprehensive way when we look at all types of policies, tax expenditures, favorable tax treatment that various industries in this country get, and let's examine them all together. Let's make some changes.

This is selectively singling out a specific industry and changing a tax policy in the middle of the year. There has been a statement made on the floor that people who get the benefit or the blenders credit do not want it. It strikes me at least, if they do not want it, they do not have to take it. They have to file for it. They have to file with the IRS. If they do not want the blenders credit, they do not have to take it. But most of the people who file for the blenders credit, it is assumed, are going to pass it on to the retailer, to the gas station, and ultimately to the consumer so it will result in lower prices.

Most of the refiners anyway are large, integrated oil companies that, frankly, do not want the competition that is represented by the ethanol industry. They do not have to take the blenders credit. They have to do something to get it. They have to file with the IRS in order to receive it.

One other point I wish to make, because there has been some talk as well about ethanol and the environmental benefits, there are certain States in the country that perhaps would like to have even higher standards. But if we compare ethanol to traditional gasoline, according to the EPA, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions--lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions--it is 20 percent lower, corn-based ethanol. When we get to cellulosic ethanol, which is the next generation of biofuels--if we can get there, if we do not completely do away with the platform we have today with corn-based ethanol--it will have a 60-percent lifecycle greenhouse gas emission advantage over traditional gasoline.

So corn-based ethanol, 20 percent cleaner burning than traditional gasoline; cellulosic ethanol, 60 percent cleaner burning than gasoline. That is according to the Environmental Protection Agency, which does not take a particularly favorable view of these fuels because they like to include in their calculation types of elements, such as indirect land use in other countries around the world, which, frankly, we do not think ought to be part of the calculation, but even with that 20-percent cleaner burning than traditional gasoline for corn-based ethanol and 60 percent for cellulosic ethanol.

I wish to read, if I might, from a letter that I received from an organization called ACORE. That is the American Council on Renewable Energy. This organization is about 500 deep, represents about 500 other organizations; in some cases, American companies, universities, members such as Walmart, such as DuPont. This is what they say:

Current domestic ethanol production is also laying the groundwork and infrastructure for the more advanced biofuels of the future including cellulosic ethanol, algae-derived fuels, and drop-in fuels. We have already crossed the threshold of these homegrown biofuels meeting a substantial portion of transportation fuel demand for cars and light duty trucks; but they cannot be further developed without the infrastructure investments that are fostered by current ethanol production today.

They go on to say that:

The Thune-Klobuchar amendment ensures ethanol production will continue, while directing limited government resources to support infrastructure development and the transition to advanced biofuels.

The ethanol tax credit has been critical to increased domestic ethanol production and corresponding economic growth, job creation, enhanced energy security and lower gas prices. We urge you to oppose the Coburn amendment, which would prematurely terminate support for our domestic ethanol industry while failing to invest in critical infrastructure and advanced biofuels. We ask for your support of the Thune-Klobuchar amendment.

The Thune-Klobuchar amendment--we are working with the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, on a solution that would hopefully lead us to a result. It would do what many of the folks in this Chamber want to see done. It would do away completely with the blenders credit, effective July 1, and with the ethanol tariff. It would also put money back into debt reduction.

We think that is a better way to do this. I hope those discussions will lead somewhere. But this vote today is going to be a largely symbolic vote for reasons I just mentioned: It is unconstitutional. It will be blue-slipped in the House of Representatives and, therefore, it makes absolutely no sense for us to be having this vote in the first place. It certainly does not make any sense for us to be sending a message to this industry that we want to do away with it.

I understand my time has expired.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to speak for a couple of minutes, until another speaker arrives on the other side. If I might, I want to elaborate on where these discussions are that we have been having with regard to getting a result and a solution that I think actually could get enacted and become law.

Since we first had this vote a couple days ago, I have been in conversations, along with Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, Senator Coburn, and Senator Feinstein, the sponsors of this amendment, to see if there isn't some way we can find something we could actually do that would accomplish what probably many of them would like to see accomplished but doing it in a way that is not disruptive, that is a thoughtful approach to the future of the biofuels industry, and that actually does something meaningful in terms of dealing with the debt and deficit.

Those discussions continue. I think we continue to get closer and closer to an agreement. I hope my colleagues will continue to talk and discuss this matter. We will continue those discussions after the vote at 2 o'clock. I say that to let my colleagues know that even though this particular vote is going to amend a piece of legislation that perhaps isn't going to go anywhere--and certainly this amendment, because it is a blue slip and has a constitutional issue, isn't going to go anywhere--there are earnest discussions going on that I hope will yield a result.

Again, in my view, there is a better way to do this. Obviously, there are people who feel strongly and deeply, and we have heard the emotion of this debate over the last few days about this subject. But there is, in my view, a right way and wrong way to do this. The right way is to do it so that we are not pulling the rug out from under an industry after we already put in place policy that they have relied on in terms of their investment issues.

I hope we can get that agreement, and I certainly hope my colleagues will bear that in mind. There are a number of Members here who obviously are very supportive of the legislation that Senator Klobuchar and I introduced earlier this week, and we heard Senator Grassley speak to that point and others who are cosponsors.

We continue to work with the sponsors of the Coburn-Feinstein amendment to see if there isn't a path forward that will enable us to pass something through the Senate. I wanted to let my colleagues know that and apprise them of the status of those discussions. I hope we can come to a conclusion that will get a result and not simply have a vote that ends up being largely symbolic. We will continue to have discussions, and I will continue to keep my colleagues apprised of the discussions.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source