GRASSLEY: Today I'm filing a couple of amendments to the Interior appropriation bill. The idea is to push the EPA on ethanol regulation.
First, I'm working with Senator Nelson of Nebraska on an amendment that would require EPA to approve an increase in ethanol blend levels from 10 percent to 15 percent.
I still believe that the best way for this matter to be resolved is for the EPA to review the science and approve the higher blend. But the EPA needs to know that we're watching the all-too-lengthy deliberating process that they seem to be going through, and of course their lack of action in this area. And it's time for them, I think, to move forward.
I'm also working on a second amendment, with Senator Nelson and Senator Harkin, to prohibit the EPA from using funds to calculate and include in the rulemaking for the new renewable fuel standard -- that RFS2, that's what many call it -- indirect emissions from international land use changes.
Calculating the international indirect effects is controversial and lacks any scientific consensus. EPA's analysis for its rulemaking on RFS2 contain calculations for international land use changes. However, nowhere in the statute is the EPA required to calculate international effects.
Biofuels are a very important part of our process of weaning the United States from foreign sources of oil.
So my amendments that I'm co-sponsoring are an effort to ensure that we continue moving in a positive direction.
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
What sense do you have as to -- for the support for both of these amendments? How many sponsors do you have?
GRASSLEY: Oh, well, I'm co-sponsoring with Senator Nelson in both cases. So I don't know how many they have.
QUESTION: OK.
Are you confident these amendments will pass?
GRASSLEY: Well, you can't be confident in the last couple years the same way we have been confident about ethanol issues. But you want to remember that in regard to some of this, there's got to be some credit given to the House of Representatives because Peterson in cap-and-trade got a five-year withholding of any consideration of indirect land use.
But you just can't take votes on ethanol for granted anymore in the Senate like you used to be able to. But I still think we're in a strong position.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you.
QUESTION: Hi, Senator. The -- what would you anticipate to be the net effect of the -- of the -- of the amendments that you've proposed?
GRASSLEY: Well, they're very simple.
It's -- they just simply state as, like so many what we call riders on appropriations bills do, they're only effective for one year, but you say something like this: No funds in this bill can be used to enforce rule such-and-such. Now, that could be in any department of government.
In this particular place, it's saying EPA can't use indirect land use in -- in figuring the amendment. And, if they do, then that rule would have no force and effect for that year.
OK.
QUESTION: Good morning, Senator.
I want to stay on that point for a moment and clarify that. The effect of the amendment, if passed, would be to withhold funding on that indirect land use change rule for one year. And based on your earlier comments, that would give the EPA time to come up with a way to measure that. Is that what you're suggesting there?
GRASSLEY: Well, I'm suggesting that if they can't come up with a rule not using indirect land use, then any rule they came up that did use land -- indirect land use would not be effective until -- for that entire year.
And, listen, the only magic about a year is that you only pass an appropriation bill for a year. So that law is only in effect for that year, so you can't go beyond that year. Otherwise, of course, that's what our -- we'd be inclined to do.
QUESTION: And, if I might ask a question about your first amendment, the ethanol blend from 10 to 15 percent, would that in effect mandate EPA then to approve that higher blend?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
OK. I've gone through the entire list. Anybody want to jump in?
QUESTION: Senator, when will the vote on this amendment take place? Do you know?
GRASSLEY: We don't know, but I think the Interior appropriation bill, the idea is to get it done this week.
QUESTION: OK. And this -- it's not in committee, it's on the full floor of the Senate?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: Yes.
Anybody else?
QUESTION: Senator, this is Dan in Spencer, again.
GRASSLEY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I received an e-mail from the National Corn Growers (ph) Association. And that second amendment, they suggest, is sponsored by Senator Harkin. You mentioned Senator Nelson. Can you clarify who is the (inaudible) main sponsor?
GRASSLEY: I think it is Harkin, number one. And so he should be given credit for that.
And so then -- but I -- I think Senator Nelson deserves more than just to be considered a co-sponsor, as I am, because he's worked very closely with Senator Harkin on that.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
GRASSLEY: Yes. And the fact that they're both on the appropriation bill -- or Appropriation Committee helps.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up. Is Senator Harkin sponsoring both amendments or...
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSLEY: I only know about the -- the last one.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: On indirect land use?
GRASSLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: OK.
GRASSLEY: Anybody else want to jump in? OK.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
GRASSLEY: Yes. We're done then. Thank you all very much.