U.S. Senate
CSPAN2 (CSPAN2) National Programming, DMA: 0
12:53PM EDT May 15 2008
Programming Type: Public affairs News Politics

have the votes to override. a team effort. cooperation. conciliation. bipartisanship. those are the keys to successful legislation. and i'm just thankful that i could be a part of getting this bill through. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we have 30 minutes on the republican side and i'd like to proceed to use probably most of that, may not use all of it. the presiding officer: there is a unanimous consent agreement i believe that speakers are limited to ten minutes each. mr. grass: i would ask unanimous consent to proceed -- mr. grassley: i would ask unanimous consent to proceed for a longer period of time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president, i come to the floor to rebutt the scapegoating of ethanol which is part of the food vs. fuel debate. for almost -- and i don't do it just for a one-way conversation. i hope that i can encourage conversation on this subject among my colleagues so that we can look at this from a scientific and economic point of view and avoid scapegoating. for almost 30 years, i've been leading an effort with many of my colleagues to promote policies to grow a domestic renewable fuels industry. we've proceed home grown renewable fuel as a way to lessen our dependence upon foreign oil and to improve our air quality. for all these years, we've hardly heard anything negative about these policies. now ethanol and other biofuels are being made a scapegoat for a whole variety of problems. never before in 30 years have the virtuous benefits of ethanol and renewable fuels been so questioned and so criticized. the problem is: none of these criticisms are based on sound science, sound economics, or, for that matter, even common sense. hi the opportunity to hear an intelligent discussion of this this -- maybe it only lasted a couple of minutes -- on a program on fox news saturday night called "the beltway boys." and these people are very intelligent people. i heard mort kondrake, a veteran journalist, falling prey to some of the same erroneous talking points that we've heard over and over for the past couple of weeks. mr. kondrake is at one-half of that intelligent duo on fox news that i referred to as "the beltway boys." maybe mr. kondrake has just spent too much time inside the beltway and could use a little real-world explanation from a family farmer like me from the midwest. some of my colleagues in the senate have also gotten involved in this misinformation campaign, and that's why i don't come to the floor to just speak, i come to the floor to encourage dialogue with my colleagues on this subject. because it seems there is a group-think mentality when it comes to scapegoating ethanol for everything from high gas prices, global food shortages, global warming and even deforestation. but as was recently reported, this antiethanol campaign is not just a coincidence. it's been well thought out, well-programmed and that program is going on. it turns out that a $300,000, six-month retainer of a beltway public relations firm is behind the smear campaign against ethanol and they've been hired by a trade association referred to as the grocery manufacturers association. they've outlined their strategy of using environmental, hunger, and food aid groups to demonstrate their contrived cris. and it's right here in a 20 -- i think it's a 26-page document put out by the glover park browp called "the food and fuel campaign." and they elicit the support of these other nonprofit groups that are involved with the environment and hunger. i think it's important for policy-makers and the american people to know who's behind this effort. according to reports, downtown d.c. lobbyists, the glover park group, and the dutco worldwide are leading the effort to undermine and den grade the -- denigrate the patriotic achievements of american farmers to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil while also providing a safe and food -- affordable food environment. the principal leaders behind the glover park group's 21-page proposal reads like a who's who of democratic operatives. the effort is led by former president clinton's press secretary, joel lockhart. another is the eight-year veteran of the clinton-gore white house, michael feldman. other leaders in this misinforming campaign include carter eskew, mike donnelyn, joel johnson, susan brofey, all of which proudly display their ties to the clinton-gore white house and their credentials of helping elect democratic candidates. this campaign against ethanol is more sophisticated than anything i have seen put on by big oil over the last 30 years, as big oil has been a constant fighter. but just to show you how this is well -- how this is a well-sophisticated political operative and public relations effort. for instance, the media relations public affairs responsibility comes charge, joel

U.S. Senate
CSPAN2 (CSPAN2) National Programming, DMA: 0
01:00PM EDT May 15 2008
Programming Type: Public affairs News Politics

lockhart, michael feldman. the advocacy and image advertising comes under the leadership of partners in charge carter eskew and mike donelyn. the legislative affairs part of it is directed by partners in charge joel johnson, susan brofey. now, these people are outstanding people. they're going to be able to deliver what they have said they could do.% that's that's why we have to take it seriously. i suggest that democrats in the senate who claim to support our nation's crime toward energy -- nation's drive toward energy independence should be alarmed by this group's campaign and the tactics being used. i happen to be one who fought president clinton during his eight years in office at every turn when he tried to undermine our renewable fuels industry and the outstanding example i remember is when california made application to e.p.a. for a waiver under the clean air act at the very time that mtbe was being outlawed because it was poisoning the groundwater and the only oxygenate you could use in gasoline, then, was ethanol. california sought an exemption and we were able to win that by the clinton administration not allowing it. now, of course, we find ourselves fighting president clinton's former staff and staff that worked for the gore-kerry president am campaigns leading an effort for the grocery manufacturers to smear ethanol after 30 years of developing an industry because people called for more renewable energy. they wanted renewable, clean-burning energy. they didn't want to be relying upon dirty burning petroleum. they didn't want to be relying upon importing so much. i imagine they're leading this effort partly because they're being paid well if for doing it but maybe they cannot stand the fact president bush has proved to be the best friend the renewable fuels industry has had bows their old -- because their old boss, president clinton did not help policies with ethanol they are tearing down the success that president george w. bush has helped foster. a lot of intelligent people have been misled by the campaign and are simply wrong. they're using, in their speeches, a lot of the rhetoric that comes out of this effort. the facts don't back up the argument. i invite my colleagues to look at the facts, to challenge me, to have dialogue on this subject so we can use science as a basis for what we're doing -- and economics for the basis of what we're doing. so it's time to dispell the myths perpetuated by one of the beltway boys. he was probably reporting this misinformation because he is a smart person. the glover park group and others -- the grocery manufacturing association, i've come to the conclusion, needs an excuse to gouge the consumers of america with higher fad prices and an easy scapegoat is, of course,th not. one myth that pops up, again and again, is that ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides. i heard the columnist say that. let's look at the facts, what in twiewf twief the argonne national laboratory study concluded that it takes only 0.7 unit ofs fossil energy to make one unit of ethanol. that is a positive net energy balance. in comparison, it takes 1.23 units of fossil energy to make one unit of petroleum gasoline. so why isn't the grocery manufacturers of america bringing up the point that petroleum processing into gasoline is not energy positive? because gasoline requires more than one b.t.u. of energy to deliver one b.t.u. to your car. that's a negative net energy balance. a 2004 u.s. department of agriculture study concluded that ethanol yields 67% more energy than is used to grow and harvest the grain and to process that grain into ethanol. these figures, i want you to know, take into account the energy required to not just process grain into ethanol, it takes into consideration the energy that the farmer takes to plant, to grow, do harvest the corn, as well as the energy required to manufacture and distribute the ethanol. of 15 different peer review studies we've looked at and that have been conducted on this issue, 12 of the 15 found that ethanol has a positive net energy balance. only a single individual if from cornell university disagrees with this analysis. cornell studies have consistently used old data -- some from 1979. remember, in 1979, farmers weren't producing as much corn per acre as they do today. corn yields in 1979 were 91 bushels per acre. it was at 137 bushels per acre in the year 2000. the average now is up to 150 to 160 bushels per acre. the flawed studies rely on 1979 figures for energy used to manufacture ethanol. this energy consumed -- this energy consumption was cut in half between the years 1979 and 2000 and continued efficiency gains every year. i think i could quantify that

U.S. Senate
CSPAN2 (CSPAN2) National Programming, DMA: 0
01:07PM EDT May 15 2008
Programming Type: Public affairs News Politics

better than just using a broad sweep. i think in the early 1980's we were producing about 2.3 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn. today we're producing 2.8 gallons of corn per bushel. pretty soon the industry feels they might be able to produce three bushels per gallon. so these erroneous cornell conclusions have been refuted by experts from entities as diverse as the u.s. department of agriculture, the department of figure, the argonne national laboratory, michigan state university, and the colorado school of mines. the fact is, studies using old data overestimate energy use by not taking into account efficiencies gain, the greater use of fertilizer and ethanol production. i don't understand how intelligent people, then, can continue to argue that ethanol has a negative net energy balance but that's what i heard on televison saturday night from very intelligent people. that's what i hear in this smear campaign. the net energy balance of ethanol production continues to improve because ethanol production is becoming more efficient. a march 2008 study by argue by argue again national laboratory found significant gains just since 2001. ethanol production since 2001 has reduced water use by 27%, reducedreduced electricity use by 22%. another myth being perpetuated by opponents of renewable fuels effort and by mr. kondracke is that ethanol harms the environment and contributes more in greenhouse gases than petroleum does. this claim is, likewise, hogwash hogwash. "science" magazine and times magazine made claims about cornth not that are now being used by the detractors claimingat ethan produion is the driving force behind rain forest deforestation and grassland diversion to agriculture production. this is an oversim oversimplification, to say the least. how can intelligent people ignore the effect of a growing global population if how can one simply ignore the surging global demands for food from growing populations in china and india? and wouldn't urban development and sprawl also be a contributor to the increased demand for arable land? secretary of agriculture and energy secretary of stated in a letter to the "time" magazine when they ran this outrageous story that was based on "science" magazine article, they said if their in their letter to the magazines, -- and i quote -- "it was unsided and scientifically uninformed." they further stated that the "science" magazine article was -- quote -- "thoroughly rebutted by leading scientists at the department of energy's argonne national laboratory." in fact, dr. wang at that argonne laboratory stated -- quote -- "there has been no indication that the u.s. corn ethanol production has so far caused indirect land-use changes in other countries. no claim can be made that u.s. ethanol production leads to the clearing of rain forests." in fact, since 2002, u.s. corn exports increased by 60% even with the growth in ethanol industry and our corn exports have steadily increased meeting growing global demands. when it comes to the united states and food, we allow exports to other areas where they need our overproduction but one of the things that's driving up the price of rice now is a lot of prohibition in countries that produce rice to exports so that the global trading system is not efficiently distributing rice to where it's needed to feed hungry people. think of that as a detraction but also think that in the whole world 95% of all grain produced is consumed and not made into something else. while some claim that corn ethanol officers greenhouse gas emissions because the land-use changes and the globe, they need to think again. according to the u.s. department of energy, today's corn the not produces about 20% fewer greenhouse gas emissions on a life-cycle basis. ethanol blended fuel emits cleaner tail pipe emissions and unlike petroleum the not doesn't harm the environment or ground water like the petroleum-based product mtbe did for the 20 years it was used in gasoline as an oxygenated chemical. and there is new report about the effect of food prices andth not. food prices going up and we are all sympathetic to that whether it is america or abroad. people are struggling with high are prices for food is not something we like to hear but to put all the blame at at the feet of the u.s.th not industry is outrageous and misplaced. that's what this smear campaign is all about.

U.S. Senate
CSPAN2 (CSPAN2) National Programming, DMA: 0
01:14PM EDT May 15 2008
Programming Type: Public affairs News Politics

just so the grocery manufacturers of america request have an excuse to increase the price of food. watching the news and listening to some of my colleagues this was even a hearing on this a couple of ago in the u.s. senate. i've heard even expressed in this hearing, that the price of orange juice was going up because of ethanol. we've heard that domestic ethanol industry was blamed for shortages in oranges, apple, broccoli, rice, wheat, peppers, even banas. think about the people who are saying you are growing more corn so we are growing less wheat or rice. we don't make ethanol out of wheat or rice but for people to say that fruits are going up in price or banas are going up because we're growing more corn, i assure everyone i don't know of anybody plowing up or tearing out an apple orchard or orange orchard or bana plantation to plant corn to raise ethanol. but that's the ignorance about the people that are making those mistakes trying to make the argument that more land is going into corn and less going into wheat so the price of bread is going up.ñ with regard to wheat, rice, lentils, the growing demand for food with a growing middle class in china and india has the most impact is what economists are telling us. weather trends, including a 100-year history -- historic -- how to say it? the worst drought in 100 years in australia. and poor growing conditions in southeast asia and eastern europe have had a much greater impact on the supply of rice and wheat. many of these countries also have government production policies that manipulate production, supply, and trading of these commodities. just think of some of the dictators in africa that want a cheap food policy. so farmers can't make enough producing food so the farmers move to town and live in the -- in the slums when they could be producing something back home if the governments had policies that would encourage the production. there is so much resource in africa that there's no reason to have anybody starving in africa. the fact is that -- the fact is that global demand and the price for all commodities has increased. some of this could even be due to speculation. you read that in the business papers in the united states quite regularly. and one of the biggest culprits behind rising food prices is the cost of oil at $125 a barrel. we had a recent texas a&m study concluding that the biggest driving force behind the higher food costs is higher energy costs. so if texas a&m is saying that, let's look at what the iowa state university center for agriculture and rural development is saying about ethanol's impact upon the price of gasoline and energy to move food around. they say without the ethanol that we have that you would be paying 30 cents or 40 cents more for gasoline and, in turn then, since texas a&m say that's energy is the biggest reason for the increased cost of food, you have yet higher food prices without having ethanol. joseph gloafer, the chief economist at the u.s. department of agriculture, recently testified that rising prices of soy high school little effect on wheat, rice, and other food commodities. dr. glove cited the worldwide economic growth, that would be china and india as examples of a couple of countries. a global weather problems that would be the drought in australia. rising marketing costs and a weak u.s. dollar as having a greater role than biofuels in the cost of food being higher and even being scrace. a u.n. official has recently referred to biofuels as -- quote -- "a crime against humanity." mr. zigler, from the country of switzerland. might benefit from a view of european policies that banned or redirect the genetic modified crops. genetically modified crops have had a great deal to do with corn from 91-bushels per acre in 1979 to 107-bushels per acre in 2000 to 160-bushels per acre in 2007. while u.s. farmers are taking great strides through the u.s. of genetically modified grains to feed the world, europe is taking a step backwards. the same europe that mr. zeigler lives in that is saying that biofuels is a crime against humanity. as a result, you have a ripple effect of policies in europe. because african countries are reluctant to grow genetically modified grains even though the production gains are great because european countries might restrict their imports from those african countries. i might suggest that mr. zeigler focus more of his efforts on opportunities lost on growing more grains in europe and -- and focus on g.m.o.'s and their use in europe than our biofuel policies. u.s. farmers responded to these increased demands for grain and produced a record corn crop in 2007. now, we grew more acres of corn in 2007 than any year since 1944. and we produced 6/10 -- no, 2.006 more bushels of corn in

U.S. Senate
CSPAN2 (CSPAN2) National Programming, DMA: 0
01:21PM EDT May 15 2008
Programming Type: Public affairs News Politics

2007 than 2006. out of that 2.7 billion-bushels, ethanol only used 600 million of it. so for all of the people complaing about not having enough corn, are they going to use a 2.1-bushel more that we -- 2.1 billion-bushel that we raised in the greatest that we had since 1944 that wasn't used for ethanol, are they going to take that into consideration or are they going to still complain that there is not enough corn around? and exports have grown as well. the u.s. department of -- the u.s. department of agriculture estimates that this year's corn exports will be a record 2.5 billion-bushels, up 18% over last year. we're getting that surplus production in the united states around the world where it is need. one of the places that it is need is choin. they don't ex -- china. they don't export corn anymore. in the 1980's chinese were eating 44 pounds of meat a year. this year -- well, i guess it was a couple of years ago the figures are, this year 111 pounds of meat. they're going from rice to value-added food products. and they have to -- they have to have some of our corn to do that and we're glad to sell it to them. with these facts it's hard for critics to argue that the domestic ethanol industry is diverting corn from feed or food this smear campaign is saying. it is also important to keep in mind that a tiny fraction of the cost of rail food is the -- retail food is the result of inputs. do you think that farmers are getting rich because the price of food is going up? let's look -- first of all, let's look at all of the income from farmers. they only get back 19 cents -- the presiding officer: senator's time has expired. mr. grassley: since i don't see any other colleagues asking for time, i would ask for an additional 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: and thank you, madam president. out of $1 of food that you, as a assumer spend, the farmer gets 19 cents. look at a $5 box of corn flakes and for an interview here i bought a $5 box of cornflakes, i think that i had to pay more because i bought it on the hill here. but the family farmer's share of that $5 box of corn flakes and it happened to be a little bigger box than normal, it was less than 10 cents. i think the real figure is about eight cents. that's what a farmer gets out of a box of corn flakes. yet the farmer is being blamed for the high price of food because we grow some corn to make ethanol because the american people 30 years ago were demanding that we go to renewable clean-burning fuel instead of depending upon dirty, burning petroleum, putting more co2 into the air. the value of the corn in a pound of beef or pork is about 20 cents or 30 cents. yet some have sthawghtd we should suspend our polls -- suggested that we should suspend our policies for the use of renewable fuels to help bring down the prices. if all of the evidence suggests that biofuels have little, if any impact on the rising cost of food, what good can come from lifting our biofuel policies? and if people look at the facts, how can a public relations firm of former clinton employees get a $300,000 contract from a very respectable organization like the grocery manufacturers of america whose members need an excuse to raise the price of food, how do they get away with it? well, they get away with it because nobody's looking at the facts. i was pleased to join 15 of my colleagues in signing a letter to the environmental protection agency expressing our opposition to this misguided idea. and we had about that same number of senators in this body. some of them even voting for ethanol. in the past years signing a -- sending a letter dow to the e.p.a. saying that we've got to stop ethanol. we've got to stop ethanol. probably some of the very same people that are complaining about the dirty air we have or the global warming. i would ask unanimous consent, madam president, if i could put that copy -- a copy of that letter in the record hat this point. -- at this point. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: an investment researcher for u.b.s. said that lifting the -- commodity speculation, speculation are greater factors. lifting the renewable fuels mandate won't drive down the cost of corn or the price of groceries. but it will increase our demand for crude oil. dirty-burning crude oil. big oil wins. a merrill lynch analyst recently estimated that oil and gas prices would be up 15% higher without biofuels. i have already spoken to the iowa state university study, 30 cents or 40 cents higher for gasoline without having the ethanol industry. another economist estimated even higher -- an even higher price that gas would go up $1.40 if we removed the 50% of the ethanol scheduled to be used this year. that means that mandate as these letters from my colleagues suggested that we do away with half of the mandate. it's clear, then, that refusing the amount of ethanol in our nation's fuel mix will have little, if any impact, on food prices and will actually increase prices at the pump for all americans.

U.S. Senate
CSPAN2 (CSPAN2) National Programming, DMA: 0
01:28PM EDT May 15 2008
Programming Type: Public affairs News Politics

so to the critics, let me say loud and clear ethanol is not the cause of all of us that ails you. while it's easy to blame, it's intellectually dishonest to make these claims. it's time for critics to take an independent look at the facts. they have a responsibility to rush aside this sort of herd mentality that's being encouraged by the grocery behalfers association -- manufacturers association and gets taken over by the pundits and talking heads on tv who claim that everything about ethanol is bad. and it's getting louder. it's not only louder, but it's bad, bad, bad. i want toll you what is -- to tell what you is good, good, good about ethanol. ethanol is refuse og our dependence on foreign oil. ethanol has significant net energy balance, the same cannot be said for gasoline. ethanol is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. ethanol is not the culprit behind rising food and feed prices here at home or abroad. ethanol is lowering the price of crude oil, lowering the price of gasoline. ethanol is increasing our national security, helping our balance of trade, reducing our dependence upon middle east oil. and the whims of big oil. it's time that we cleared the air, looked at the facts and recognized once again that everything about our domestic renewable fuels is good, good, good. good for agriculture, good from the refinery business of jobs in rural america, good for the environment, good for national defense, good for balance of payments, good, good, good. i yield the floor. suggest the be absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.